Journal Pre-proof

Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction

Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter

PII: S0346-251X(20)30281-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102269
Reference: SYS 102269

To appear in: System

Received Date: 27 March 2020

Accepted Date: 27 April 2020

Please cite this article as: Cenoz, J., Gorter, D., Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction, System
(2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102269.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Title page of Special issue of System: “Pedagogical translanguaging: navigating

between languages at school and university”

Issue editors: Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

Article 1.

Title: Pedagogical translanguaging: an introduction

Author names and affiliations:

Jasone Cenoz, University of the Basque Country

Durk Gorter, 1University of the Basque Country, 2 Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for

Science

Corresponding author:

Jasone Cenoz

Department of Research Methods in Education

University of the Basque Country

Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology

70 Avenida Tolosa

20018 Donostia – San Sebastián

Gipuzkoa

Spain

Jasone.Cenoz@ehu.eus

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Basque Government under Grant
DREAM IT-1225-19.
Article 1.

Pedagogical translanguaging an introduction

1. Introduction

There is a strong tradition of teaching second and foreign languages in isolation even

when programs aim at the development of bilingual or multilingual competences. This

monolingualism is what Cummins (2007) calls “two solitudes” when referring to the

rigid separation of French and English in immersion programs in Canada. The isolation

of the target language is a key idea in several second language teaching methods and

approaches such as the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method or the Communicative

Approach. As Cook (2001:404) explains, the use of the L1 can be seen as failure and

the ideal classroom should have “as little of the L1 as possible”. Ortega (2019: 24)

points out that this view of language isolation looks at second language acquisition

using “monolingual first language acquisition as the main point of reference”. Ignoring

and avoiding the use of the L1 somehow poses a paradox because the focus is on

monolingualism when the goal is to develop multilingual competences. Traditionally,

the term “Second Language Acquisition” has been used not only to refer to the

acquisition of a second language but also when the target language is a third or

additional language. Some students have rich multilingual trajectories which include

very useful resources for the acquisition of additional languages, but these resources are

often ignored. Students are seen as empty vessels, learning from scratch and with the

monolingual speaker of the target language as a model. Moreover, if teachers can speak

the students’ first language, they are supposed to hide it and try to avoid its use. In fact,

there are good reasons to say that this “focus on monolingualism” is problematic. It is

obvious that extended exposure to the target language(s) is necessary, but it is a real

1
problem not to build on what students already know. Another problem is that by

ignoring and avoiding the use of the L1 or other languages previously learned, we are

ignoring the way multilingual speakers use languages outside the classroom.

2. Towards a focus on multilingualism and translanguaging

The monolingual focus on multilingualism and language learning, which in many

contexts is still widely accepted, was already contested some years ago (Grosjean, 1985;

Cook, 2001). In the last few years there have been many proposals that consider the

need to focus on multilingualism, acknowledging that the boundaries between

languages are softer and that the reference to the monolingual native speaker is

problematic (see for example Canagarajah, 2013; Cenoz & Gorter, 2014).

The concept of translanguaging, which is representative of the new approaches that

soften the boundaries between languages, has gained currency in recent years (García &

Li, 2014). Because it is extensively used in different contexts where the realities of

multilingualism take various shapes, translanguaging is nowadays an umbrella term that

embraces a wide variety of theoretical and practical proposals.

Leung and Valdés (2019: 359) distinguish two analytical perspectives when examining

translanguaging. The first is that “languages are distinct and separate semiotic entities”

and the second that “languages are configurations of temporal lexical and syntactic

features expressing human meaning”. They consider that the first view, which is the

mainstream perspective, implies that languages are different entities even if they can be

related to each other. The second view suggests that there are “lexical, syntactic,

2
phonological, and orthographic features in use in specific places and times”. These

features do not have to be permanent in a named language. The first view would be

associated with the original concept of translanguaging developed in Wales because

Welsh and English are considered separate languages even if there is alternation of both

languages for pedagogical purposes. The second view can be associated with the

concept of translanguaging proposed by Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015: 283) as ”the

deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful

adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually

national and state) languages”. As García and Otheguy (2019: 9) explain,

“translanguaging sees multilinguals as possessing a unitary linguistic system that they

build through social interactions of different types, and that is not compartmentalized

into boundaries corresponding to those of the named languages”.

Another way to look at different approaches to translanguaging can be found in Cenoz

& Gorter (2017), who distinguish between pedagogical and spontaneous

translanguaging. Pedagogical translanguaging is a pedagogic theory and practice that

refers to instructional strategies which integrate two or more languages. Spontaneous

translanguaging refers to the reality of bilingual usage in naturally occurring contexts

where boundaries between languages are fluid and constantly shifting. These two types

of translanguaging can be best presented as a continuum (Figure 1). In fact, a continuum

can represent these two types of translanguaging situations because pedagogical

translanguaging is designed by the teacher but can occur next to the spontaneous use of

multilingual resources that has not been planned. There can also be situations of

spontaneous translanguaging that are used by the teacher or the students to highlight

specific points related to the curriculum. It is not a dichotomy with two possibilities but

3
a continuum with pedagogical translanguaging at one end and spontaneous

translanguaging at the other.

<<INSERT ABOUT HERE Figure 1: Pedagogical and spontaneous translanguaging

continuum>>

Taking into account the perspective of Leung and Valdés (2019), we can view

languages as distinct even if their boundaries are soft and fluid. Speakers can use

resources from their whole linguistic repertoire and there may be situations in which it

is difficult to say whether the speaker is using one language or another. However

speakers identify different languages at the conscious level (Ortega, 2019) and

languages have a social reality which is reflected in education policies (see also

Cummins, 2017). The focus of this article and the whole volume is towards the side of

pedagogical translanguaging in the continuum, which is closely related to the original

use of the term in Wales, as will be seen in the next section.

3. Translanguaging: the original use of the term

The origin of translanguaging can be found in Welsh-English bilingual education in the

1980’s. Bilingual education in Wales aims at bilingualism and biliteracy in both

languages. Translanguaging is the translation into English of the original Welsh term

‘‘trawsieithu’’, which was developed by Cen Williams “to help English speakers use

more Welsh” (Baker, 2019: 180). The idea is that the stronger language, English in the

context of Wales, contributes to the development of the weaker language, Welsh. In this

way, students develop both languages.

4
Lewis, Jones and Baker (2012) summarize Cen Williams’ ideas about translanguaging

in the Welsh context. Translanguaging is a pedagogical theory that is reflected in the

practice of switching the language used in the input and the output in bilingual

classrooms. Welsh and English “are used in a dynamic and functionally integrated

manner to organise and mediate mental processes” (Lewis, Jones & Baker, 2012: 12).

These mental processes include “the assimilation and accommodation of information,

choosing and selecting from the brain storage to communicate in speaking and writing”

because translanguaging moves “from finding parallel words to processing and relaying

meaning and understanding” (Lewis, Jones & Baker, 2012: 4). Students have to

internalize the input in one language and immediately use the concepts they have

understood in the other language, so the processing is dual.

Translanguaging is planned and systematic, and translanguaging practices are designed

by the teacher. The input (reading or listening) is given in one language and students

have to use that information in the other language when speaking or writing (Lewis,

Jones & Baker, 2012). Translanguaging often uses the stronger language to develop the

weaker language, thus contributing towards what could potentially be a relatively

balanced development of a child’s two languages.

According to Lewis, Jones and Baker (2013: 110), Williams (1994) considered

translanguaging “as a way of developing two languages to competency, but also

resulting in effective content learning”. This is related to the deeper understanding of

what students can achieve when the two languages are used. Baker and Wright (2017:

280-281) explain that translanguaging “may promote a deeper and fuller understanding

5
of the subject matter. Given that a) pre-existing knowledge is a foundation for further

learning and b) there is ease of cross-linguistic transfer as two languages are

interdependent (Cummins 2017) then translanguaging builds understanding in a most

efficient way”. There are several ideas about the potential advantages of

translanguaging that are closely linked to new approaches in multilingual education.

The first is that translanguaging is aimed not only at language development but also at

content development and this refers mainly to students with English as a first language

for whom Welsh is one of the languages of instruction. The idea is that if the input is in

Welsh, these students may not process the meaning even if they manage to complete

some tasks. By using both languages, the content can be better processed. This is

relevant for CLIL programs with one or more subjects taught through the medium of

English or other languages. The two points made by Baker and Wright are crucial for

pedagogical translanguaging because translanguaging is based on using what the

students already know and on the potential of using resources from the whole linguistic

repertoire cross-linguistically when learning languages and academic content.

Lewis, Jones and Baker (2013) observed 100 lessons in primary and secondary Welsh

schools and they reported that translanguaging was mainly found in the last years of

primary school. This follows Cen Williams’ recommendation to use translanguaging

when children are not in the early stages of language learning. They also reported that

translanguaging could be mainly found in arts and humanities and that it was less

widespread than they had expected. Lewis, Jones and Baker (2013) consider that

translanguaging could be used in science and mathematics as well. They explain that the

limited use of translanguaging can be associated with the need to safeguard the Welsh

6
language. The perception of translanguaging as a risk for minority languages is

discussed by Cenoz and Gorter (2017) who propose to use pedagogical translanguaging

but also to keep “breathing spaces” for students to use the minority language.

4. The characteristics of pedagogical translanguaging

Following the original use of the term translanguaging in Wales, pedagogical

translanguaging is “planned by the teacher inside the classroom and can refer to the use

of different languages for input and output or to other planned strategies based on the

use of students’ resources from the whole linguistic repertoire” (Cenoz, 2017:194).

Pedagogical translanguaging uses the multilingual speaker’s whole linguistic repertoire,

as prior knowledge can support comprehension and the development of language and

content (Escamilla et al., 2013; Flores & García, 2013; Lin, 2016). As was proposed by

Cen Williams in Wales, the idea is that students need full comprehension and their prior

linguistic knowledge needs to be activated. In many cases, students already have a rich

multilingual repertoire, but it needs to be activated in order to benefit from

multilingualism.

Pedagogical translanguaging is closely related to the principles and practices of the

original way translanguaging was used in Wales and includes the alternation of

languages in the input and the output, but it also goes beyond that by including many

other practices that use elements from the whole linguistic repertoire. Pedagogical

translanguaging is part of the lesson plan and has a pedagogical purpose. It can be

designed at the phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic, pragmatic and discourse levels and it

can be implemented in language classes and content classes including oral and written

7
activities (see Leonet, Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Cenoz & Santos, this volume). An

example of pedagogical translanguaging in a CLIL class could be to identify cognates in

different languages after reading a text. An example at the discourse level could be to

analyze the structure of a narrative text in one language and to write texts that follow the

same structure in the other language(s) in the curriculum. Pedagogical translanguaging

includes multilingual instructional strategies based on cross-linguistic comparison even

if the term translanguaging is not used in all cases (see for example Arteagoitia and

Howard, 2015; Dault & Collins, 2017; Lyster, Quiroga and Ballinger, 2013; Woll,

2018;).

Pedagogical translanguaging can take many shapes but it also shares some core

characteristics, as can be seen in Table 1.

<INSERT ABOUT HERE: Table 1. Core characteristics of pedagogical

translanguaging>

Following the aims of translanguaging in the Welsh context, the goal of pedagogical

translanguaging is to develop multilingualism and multiliteracy. The terms

multilingualism and multiliteracy have replaced bilingualism and biliteracy to allow for

more than two languages in the curriculum. The key idea is that there is no replacement

of one language by another and translanguaging can focus not only on two languages,

such as in Welsh (Welsh-English) or Canadian (French-English) immersion programs

but also on three or more, as can be seen in multilingual programs in the Basque

Country (Basque-Spanish-English). Pedagogical translanguaging aims at the

development of school languages and academic content. It supports the learning of

8
weaker languages, which can be minority languages or languages not widely used in

society, by using the multilingual speaker’s resources. As has already been said,

pedagogical translanguaging activities are designed by the teacher as part of his/her

lesson plan and have specific aims. The general approach of pedagogical

translanguaging implies that the boundaries between languages are soft. Soft boundaries

mean that elements from several languages can be used in the same session and that

there is a dynamic process of using resources in the multilingual repertoire. Pedagogical

translanguaging has core characteristics but it can take many shapes because there are

contextual factors that have to be taken into consideration.

Pedagogical translanguaging can take many forms due to the differences in the students,

the curriculum and the teachers (Table 2). Student background and proficiency levels

are important for teachers to design pedagogical translanguaging but the most important

source of diversity is related to what can be labeled as the curriculum in a broad sense.

The curriculum includes the number and status of the languages, school subjects, school

grade and intensity as well as teaching strategies regarding language level, skills,

participant organization and materials. The teacher’s background regarding his/her own

multilingualism and specific training can also influence pedagogical translanguaging.

Another factor related to the teacher is his/her ideologies regarding the use of

spontaneous translanguaging along with practices that have been planned and designed.

The list shown in Table 2 has 13 sources of variation but it is not a closed list and there

could be more factors affecting pedagogical translanguaging in different contexts. In

any case, by going beyond the alternation of input and output in the Welsh context, the

diversity of forms pedagogical translanguaging can take on increases substantially.

9
<INSERT ABOUT HERE: Table 2. Diversity of pedagogical translanguaging >

Translanguaging strategies and practices that have not been previously planned by the

teacher can also take place in classes where pedagogical translanguaging is being used.

For example, if the teacher helps a student by translating a word from the L1 to the L2

when the student has to complete a task, we can say that it is not pedagogical

translanguaging in a strict sense because this translation is not part of the lesson plan

and has not been previously designed by the teacher. However, this practice can

obviously have a pedagogical value.

5. This volume

This volume focuses on pedagogical translanguaging and takes into account the

multilingual speaker’s linguistic resources from the whole linguistic repertoire when

learning languages. By doing this, pedagogical translanguaging goes against traditions

of isolating the target language to avoid influence from other languages. This volume

aims at identifying the main challenges teachers and students face when implementing

pedagogical translanguaging. These challenges are discussed as related to teachers’

beliefs, pedagogical practices, student feedback, and assessment in different

sociolinguistic contexts at schools and universities.

The diversity of contexts in this volume shows that pedagogical translanguaging can

be implemented in a variety of ways, taking into account the languages involved and

the context in which these languages are used. The studies in this Special Issue clearly

show the potential of pedagogical translanguaging to learn more effectively but also

10
identify the challenges teachers and students face in their implementation. The

innovative designs and methods used show the achievements in language and content

teaching but also the tensions that some teachers may feel between the ideologies of

language separation in their own training and practice, and the implementation of

translanguaging.

In all the contributions to this special issue, the authors conceive of

multilingualism as a positive resource for teachers and students alike and for the

authors the benefits of translanguaging are a point of departure for investigating

different education contexts. All articles include a focus on beliefs and language

practices of teachers. A brief summary of each contribution can be given.

In their paper on ´Translanguaging pedagogy and practice: A question of professional

readiness?´ Tracey Costley and Constant Leung observe that teachers experience

tensions “between monolingual educational policies and multilingual classroom

realities”. Their article is based on an analysis of policy documents about publicly

funded schools in England and interview data with experienced language education

specialists. Their aim is to understand multilingualism through a translanguaging

perspective. The policy documents show some celebration of multilingualism, but at the

same time the school curricula maintain their monolingual English character. Also

favourable attitudes towards multilingualism were found during the interviews, but

these views do not transfer to practices in the classroom. Costley and Leung´s findings

do not show any evidence of translanguaging activities in policy documents or in

classrooms in England.

11
In her article ´Opening minds to translanguaging pedagogies´ Claudine Kirsch focuses

on early childhood education in Luxembourg. In this context more than two languages

are used and almost two thirds of these young children do not speak Luxembourgish as

their home language. The data come from a longitudinal research project which

included professional development about multilingual pedagogies. The article focuses

on the challenges faced by preschool teachers when they implement a translanguaging

pedagogy and how they solve the problems. Her findings show that even when the

teachers develop positive attitudes about multilingual education, the implementation of

a translanguaging pedagogy is very complex and there remains a need for continued

professional development.

In their contribution on ´Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in a course on

translanguaging´ Durk Gorter and Elizabet Arocena report on a study of in-service

teachers´ beliefs about multilingualism. Teachers play a key role in educational change,

but it is usually hard to alter deep-seated monolingual beliefs. Groups of in-service

teachers in the Basque Country who all teach in an educational system that aims for

multilingualism in three languages (Basque, Spanish and English) received professional

development training on pedagogical translanguaging and multilingual practices.

Questionnaire data were collected on their beliefs about multilingualism and

translanguaging before, during and after the course. The results show that teachers´

beliefs do change in the direction of becoming more favorable to multilingual practices

and pedagogical translanguaging. These changes seem to persist over time, which can

have consequences for classroom practices.

In their article “Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools”,

12
Jasone Cenoz and Alaitz Santos discuss how in-service teachers apply pedagogical

translanguaging in their lessons in trilingual primary and secondary schools in the

Basque Country where Basque, Spanish and English are included in the curriculum. In

this study, in-service teachers were first provided with theoretical and practical

information about translanguaging. Teachers were provided a guideline for the

implementation and were asked to prepare a lesson plan including activities that

involved the use of two or more languages for pedagogical purposes. Thereafter the

teachers implemented pedagogical translanguaging in their own class. The feedback

from their students and their own reflections on the implementation make clear that

these teachers could create opportunities for language learning and increasing language

awareness through pedagogical translanguaging.

Angelica Galante contributes to this special issue by presenting the outcomes of a study

on ´Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in Canada:

Student and teacher perspectives of challenges´. She describes the implementation of

translanguaging tasks for academic listening and speaking for international students at a

university in Toronto and its incorporation into the language curriculum.

Seven teachers and their students (n = 79) took part and field notes, classroom

observations, student diaries, and teacher interviews were collected as data. The

teachers wonder if classroom activities that allow students to draw on all of their

multilingual resources might not disadvantage them later in assessments English

only. From the students’ perspective, the need perform the task of the

explanation of an idiom across languages, thus to engage in a translanguaging

activity, showed that also in the classroom this approach needs to be flexible in

its application.

13
In her article “Towards crosslinguistic pedagogy: Demystifying pre-service teachers’

beliefs regarding the target-language-only rule” Nina Woll discusses the outcomes of a

pilot study among pre-service teachers in Quebec. She investigates beliefs of

Francophone future teachers of English as a Second Language who hold onto strong

ideas about monolingual use of the target language. As part of a pedagogical

intervention, these student teachers took part in a German language course for

beginners, involving cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. The results of this

study show that the students agreed theoretically that making links with other languages

are useful and during the German course they took, their experiences with such cross-

linguistic activities were positive. However, at the same time, their convictions about

monolingualism and maximum exposure to the target language turned out hard to

change. Their experiences with translanguaging as part of the German language learning

course was not enough to challenge their monolingual bias about teaching English as a

Second Language (ESL).

Jiajia Liu, Yuen Yi Lo and Angel Lin in their article “Translanguaging Pedagogy in

Teaching English for Academic Purposes: Researcher-Teacher Collaboration as a Professional

Development Model” look into advantages and challenges of a translanguaging pedagogy

in a master course of teaching English for academic purposes (EAP) in a Chinese

university. As researchers, they collaborate intensively with the teacher. Their

translanguaging approach included strategies such as scaffolding from L1, reading

multilingual texts and translingual writing practices based on the Multimodalities-

Entextualization Cycle (MEC) framework (Lin 2016). Their findings showed

developments in perceptions of the teacher, her use of translanguaging pedagogy but

also persistent challenges, such as monolingual convictions or controlling the extent of

14
translanguaging. According to the authors, this type of researcher-teacher collaboration

could be a model of professional development to support teachers in adopting a

translanguaging pedagogy.

In their article “Translanguaging in Conjunction with Language Revitalisation” Corrinne

Seals and Vini Olsen-Reeder start from a diagnosis of how and when spontaneous

translanguaging occurs in two early childhood centers in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The

minority language te reo Māori is used in one center and Samoan in another. Their

diagnosis helps to create translingual teaching materials based on the principles of

sustainable translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter 2017). These materials include a number

of rules that build on vocabulary across languages, and there is repetition of ideas,

moving between languages and across speakers. Those resources aim to support a

socially responsive translanguaging pedagogy. The teachers tried out the materials in

the two centers. The authors conclude that translanguaging leads to more active

classroom involvement. But also, that the minority language can be used by the teacher

even if other children are using English and that they do not miss out on information in

stories. In other words, accommodation to English does not have to be predominant.

Overall, the study demonstrated that sustainable translanguaging is feasible. Even if

translanguaging and immersion seemed like opposites, they need not be.

Heidi Byrnes wraps up the Special Issue by a structural discussion of several issues that

come back in the different contributions. She departs from a complex systems

perspective for analysis of the studies included in the special issue to gain insight into

the translanguaging pedagogies used. She observes that the articles in the special issue

explore from various vantage points and in various settings the kind of teacher

15
education and programs needed to initiate the implementation of pedagogical

translanguaging.

This Special Issue will certainly contribute to soften the boundaries between languages

and to develop pedagogical translanguaging in multilingual contexts. We would like to

thank the following reviewers for their time and valuable comments:

Tracey Costley, University of Essex, UK

Hildegunn Dirdal, University of Oslo, Norway

Danuta Gabrys, University of Silesia, Poland

Angelica Galante, Angelica Galante, McGill University, Canada

Natalia Ganuza, Uppsala University, Sweden

Rhian Hodges, Bangor University, UK

Tamara Kirson, the New School, US

Anna Krulatz, Trodheim University, Norway

Constant Leung, King College London, UK

Angel Lin, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Jorge Pinto, University of Lisbon, Portugal

Laura Portolés, University Jaume I, Spain

Alaitz Santos, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU

Corinne Seals, Victoria University of Wellington

Eivind Torgersen, Trodheim University, Norway

Nina Woll, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada

Kutlay Yagmur, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

16
References

Arteagoitia, I., and Howard, L. (2015). The role of the native language in the literacy

development of Latino students in the U.S. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (Eds.)

Multilingual education: between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 61-

83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, C. (2019). A tribute to Ofelia García. Journal of Multilingual Education

Research 9: 175-181.

Baker, C., and Wright, W.E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and

bilingualism (6th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan

relations. New York: Routledge.

Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school context. International Perspectives: an

introduction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 16: 193-198.

Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2014) Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational

contexts. In A. Creese and A. Blackledge (Eds.) Heteroglossia as Practice and

Pedagogy. Berlin: Springer.239-254.

Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2017). Sustainable translanguaging and minority languages:

threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 38:

901-912.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern

Language Review, 57, pp. 402–423.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual

classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 221-240.

17
Cummins, J. (2017) Teaching for transfer in multilingual schools. O. Garcia, A. Lin, S.

May (eds.) Bilingual and Multilingual Education, Encyclopedia of Language and

Education, Vol. 5, 3rd edition. Springer.

Dault, C., and Collins, L. (2017). Comparer pour mieux comprendre : perception

d’étudiants et d’enseignants d’une approche interlangagière en langue seconde.

Language Awareness, 26(3), 191–210.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1389949

Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., Ruiz-

Figueroa, O. and Escamilla, M. (2013) Biliteracy from the Start: Literacy

Squared in Action (Philadelphia, PA: Caslon).

Flores, N. and Garcia, O. (2013). Linguistic third spaces in education: Teachers’

translanguaging across the bilingual continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, and P. Van

Avermaet (eds.), Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies,

Pedagogies. (pp.243-256). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

García, O., and Li, W (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal

of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477.

Leonet, O.; Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2017). Challenging minority language isolation:

Translanguaging in a trilingual school in the Basque Country. Journal of

Language, Identity and Education 16: 216-227.

Leung, C. and Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework

for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. The Modern

Language Journal 103: 348-370.

18
Lewis, G., Jones, B., and Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: origins and development

from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation 18: 641-

654.

Lewis, G. and Jones, B. and Baker, C. (2013). 100 Bilingual Lessons: Distributing two

languages in classrooms. Bilingualism and Multilingualism in School Settings.

In C. Abello-Contesse and R. Chacón Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual

Education in the 21st Century. (107-135). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Lin A.M.Y. (2016). Language Across the Curriculum and CLIL in English as an

Additional Language (EAL) Contexts: Theory and Practice. Singapore: Springer,

Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., and Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on

morphological awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language

Education 1: 169-197.

Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. Modern Language

Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 23–38

Otheguy, R., García, O. and Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and

deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied

Linguistics Review 6: 281-307.

Otheguy, R. and García, O. (2019): Plurilingualism and translanguaging: commonalities

and divergences, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,

DOI:10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932

Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg

uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the

context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of

Wales, Bangor, UK.

19
Woll, N. (2018). Investigating dimensions of metalinguistic awareness: What think-

aloud protocols revealed about the cognitive process. Language Awareness,

27(1/2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1432057

20
 Pedagogical Spontaneous

Figure 1: Pedagogical and spontaneous translanguaging continuum

21
Table 1. Core characteristics of pedagogical translanguaging

Type of program Multilingual education program

Aims Aims at linguistic and academic development

Organization Translanguaging activities are specifically designed

Approach Soft boundaries between languages

22
Table 2. Diversity of pedagogical translanguaging

Students

Student background Majority, regional minority, immigrant minority

Proficiency level Different possible levels in each of the languages involved

Curriculum

Number of languages At least two languages but there can be three or more

Status of languages International, national and local status of each of the

languages

School subject Any school subject, both language and content classes

School grade Any level of primary, secondary or tertiary education

Intensity Different degrees from one class to more intense forms

Language level Phonetics, lexicon, morphosyntax, pragmatics, discourse

Skills Reading, writing listening, speaking

Participant organization Whole class, groups, pairs

Materials Multimodal or not, online or not

Teachers

Teacher background Multilingual or not, specific training for multilingualism

Spontaneous Encouraged by the teacher or not

translanguaging

23