8.1 Translanguaging Pedagogies
Translanguaging
Emma Trentman
INITIAL REFLECTIONS
- How do you feel about using non-target languages in the classroom? Why do you feel this way?
- What linguistic choices do you make in the classroom? What ones do your students make? To what extent are these choices intentional?
- How do you engage with linguistic and cultural diversity in your classroom?
Language Ideologies
The first step toward understanding translanguaging pedagogies is to gain an awareness of language ideologies and their roles in language classrooms. Language ideologies are “representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world” (Woolard, 1998, p. 20). These representations are socially, historically, and culturally constructed, such that they are frequently shared across societies or social groups (Irvine & Gal, 2009). Language ideologies inform our answers to questions such as “What is language?”, “What is correct language?”, and “How do we learn language?”. In everyday U.S. English, the word ideology often has a negative connotation. For this reason, it may seem reasonable to try to find a “neutral” rather than “ideological” perspective. However, it is not possible to have a completely neutral perspective because our views about language are always informed by our cultural backgrounds and lived experiences (including academic work) (Irvine & Gal, 2009). For example, when we describe a speaker as “having an accent,” this reflects our judgement about what types of speech are “accented” or “unaccented.” These choices are typically made based on what is familiar to us (U.S. English will seem “unaccented” to an American and “accented” to someone from the United Kingdom). Rather than seeking to remove language ideologies from the language classroom, our goal as language teachers is to understand their role in shaping expectations and practices in the classroom. This includes an awareness of dominant language ideologies as well as alternatives.
Monolingual Language Ideologies
The prevailing language ideologies in language education today are monolingual, or nation-state, language ideologies. Despite their dominance, these ideologies have relatively recent origins in European nationalist movements, where national, linguistic, and ethnic borders were created as distinct and mutually reinforcing (Anderson, 2006; Beacco & Byram, 2007; Blommaert, 2006; Kramsch & Huffmeister, 2015). These ideologies are responsible for linking political borders and ethnic belonging with language, establishing the idea that within a specific country (e.g., France), people speak a specific language (e.g., French). At the same time, monolingual ideologies understand languages as distinct objects that can be analyzed separately from the people who use them. This, in turn, leads to the standard language ideology, or the belief that there is a “correct” or “standard” version of the language (Leeman, 2014). Separating language from its users obscures the fact that the standardized language is often simply the variety of the socially dominant group (e.g., “standard” U.S. English is very close to the variety used by White, middle-class speakers). Monolingual language ideologies were exported worldwide through colonialism, particularly in educational settings (Irvine & Gal, 2009; Makalela, 2017; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005). These ideologies remain dominant today in research and practice in the fields of Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, and “foreign” language teaching.
Monolingual language ideologies can be used to support monolingualism, for example, in educational settings that focus on teaching immigrant children the dominant language (e.g., English in the United States), including forbidding the use of other languages. However, monolingual language ideologies can also inform efforts to promote multilingualism and language learning (Anya, 2017; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Trentman, 2021). When languages are perceived as distinct, separate objects, it makes sense to assume that a monolingual environment is best for learning, as other languages will interfere with acquisition. In the classroom, this leads to a focus on which language is being used, with the assumption that the best choice is always a “standard” form of the target language. The association of language with political and ethnic boundaries creates the expectation that certain environments, such as the second language classroom or study abroad program, will be sites for monolingual immersion, and thus provide ideal circumstances for language learning. The standardized language is the clear choice for teaching, and learners’ performance is measured against that of monolingual native speakers of the standardized variety. Thus, the expectation is that becoming multilingual will result in “multiple monolingualism” (Heller, 2007, p. 546).
Translingual Language Ideologies
Translingual language ideologies represent an alternative to monolingual language ideologies by shifting the focus to the linguistic repertoires of individuals and the ways they draw upon the resources within these repertoires in specific situations (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; García & Li Wei, 2014; May, 2014). An individual’s linguistic repertoire consists of the linguistic resources they have acquired over their lifetime. Linguistic repertoires are not static; they change over time in response to lived experiences, including those in the classroom. Rather than seeing language as something to be “acquired” after a certain number of years—a common assumption in language learning— language acquisition is an ongoing process throughout the lifetime. Translingual language ideologies also emphasize the fluid and socially constructed nature of language boundaries, referring to “named languages and linguistic varieties” (Li Wei, 2018, p. 14) to emphasize the human agency present in creating, naming, and upholding our views of what constitutes a particular language or dialect. While certain vocabulary items or grammatical features may be associated with a specific language or dialect, individual speakers may not necessarily conform to language boundaries when using language in a specific context. From a monolingual perspective, the lack of conforming to language boundaries could be seen as either something to be overcome (monolingualism as a goal) or analyzed with a focus on which language is being used (multiple monolingualism). From a translingual perspective, the emphasis would be on how the individuals are using the linguistic resources at their disposal to achieve a social goal, rather than which language or languages they are using. For example, Otheguy et al. (2015) define translanguaging 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” (p. 283).
Within the field of applied linguistics, there are multiple theoretical approaches that take a translingual perspective, including translanguaging (e.g., Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; García & Li Wei, 2014; Otheguy et al., 2015), plurilingualism (e.g., Piccardo, 2017), and the multilingual turn (e.g., Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014; Ortega, 2013; Diao & Trentman, 2021). These approaches developed in different geographic locations and areas of research but share a common alternative perspective to monolingual language ideologies. Crucially, it needs to be recognized that while these alternative ideologies may be newly prominent in the field of Applied Linguistics, they are not new perspectives on language. There is evidence of these ways of thinking in pre-colonial times, prior to the development and subsequent dominance of monolingual language ideologies during the colonial period (Makoni & Pennycook, 2005). As such, current translingual approaches can help us understand the consequences of the dominance of monolingual language ideologies and provide alternative approaches for the future. In the next sections, I discuss the implications of translingual approaches for theory, practice, and pedagogy.
Translanguaging Theory
Translanguaging theory was developed as a theory and practice primarily in bilingual and heritage educational settings (García & Li Wei, 2014; Otheguy et al., 2015). Many students in these settings belong to minoritized communities and face discrimination in educational (and other) settings, including challenges in gaining access to educational opportunities and services. For this reason, Translanguaging theory has a strong social justice orientation. This includes an emphasis on recognizing and valuing the linguistic resources of marginalized populations, rather than taking a deficit perspective because their linguistic performances do not conform to a standardized monolingual norm. Translanguaging approaches in world language classrooms are less common, but existing research also demonstrates their benefits, such as increased awareness of language and social connections, and connecting language practices to students’ various social identities (Trentman, 2021; Seltzer & Wassell, 2022).
Translanguaging Practices
Translanguaging practices are simply when individuals draw from their full linguistic repertoires to achieve social goals. Due to the prevalence of monolingual language ideologies, the practices we are most likely to notice are where language boundaries are crossed, so an utterance contains words associated with two languages (e.g., English and Arabic). However, it is worth noting that monolingual utterances can also be instances of translanguaging practices, where individuals are deliberately choosing the parts of their repertoire that overlap with their interlocutors’. For example, speakers may simplify their language to make it more accessible to language learners or children or strategically draw on the use of cognates between languages.
A common question is whether translanguaging is a newer word for code-switching, or the practice of mixing languages together in an utterance. The key point is that translanguaging theory represents an alternative perspective on these types of utterances (Otheguy et al., 2015). An approach informed by monolingual language ideologies would take the unit of analysis as the code and examine which parts of the utterance belong to which language and why. In contrast, a translanguaging approach takes the perspective of the speaker and analyzes how they are drawing from their full linguistic repertoire to achieve their social goals in this particular situation. This includes recasting language learners as (emerging) speakers of the language, rather than simply learners of it.
As a result of the interest in translingual ideologies by researchers from a variety of backgrounds and contexts, there are ongoing academic debates about translanguaging theory and practices, including the value of focusing on the social construction of languages to the point of claiming that languages do not exist, and to what extent concepts such as additive bilingualism and code-switching are rooted in monolingual language ideologies (Cummins, 2021). While these discussions are valuable for academic theory building, I believe it is more valuable for world language teachers, whose pedagogical goals explicitly include developing skills in specific named languages, to focus on understanding and untangling the monolingual ideologies and multilingual practices found in our classrooms rather than the finer details of these debates.
Translanguaging Pedagogies
Translanguaging pedagogies are approaches to teaching informed by a translingual perspective. They emphasize recognizing, valuing, and using students’ full linguistic repertoires to learn both content and language. For example, when a student uses languages other than the target language in class, a monolingual perspective would view this as a shortcoming or failure. A translanguaging perspective, however, would encourage the intentional and strategic use of these resources to learn more of the target language.
A common critique of translanguaging pedagogies is that allowing students to use all their resources will simply result in them using their dominant language all the time, inhibiting their learning. It is crucial to realize that, once more, this focus on using the L1 versus the L2 stems from monolingual perspectives. Translanguaging perspectives do not claim that “anything goes” with regard to language use. After all, a goal of a language classroom is to expand the linguistic repertoire to include resources associated with a particular socially-constructed language. This cannot happen without using those resources. Therefore, the key question is to shift the focus from which language is being used (with use of the target language being good, and non-target languages being bad) to how to build upon students’ existing linguistic repertoires in order to expand them.
Translanguaging pedagogies also draw attention to the intersections of linguistic resources and power. This includes a recognition that our judgments about particular linguistic varieties, such as dialects, are rooted in judgements about the social groups associated with these varieties. This can lead to classroom discussions of colonialism, racism, sexism, ableism, and other social inequities, and how language and language ideologies reproduce these inequities. For example, dialect features of minoritized groups in a particular language are generally described as “non-standard” or even “incorrect,” and something for students to avoid. Focusing instead on the connections between these linguistic features and social judgments can help students understand the socio-historical forces that create and maintain these social judgements, as well as their own linguistic choices. From a monolingual perspective, where language is separated from its speakers, these discussions may be perceived as outside the scope of the language classroom, and there will be concerns that teaching linguistic variation will confuse students. A translanguaging perspective would argue that understanding the connections between social and linguistic judgments is an essential part of language. Furthermore, attention to linguistic variation can help students gain the meta-linguistic awareness necessary to further their language skills (Seltzer and Wassell, 2022).
Translingual Classroom Practices
When examining what translanguaging pedagogies look like in the classroom, it is helpful to think in terms of reframing existing practices and creating transformative spaces.
Reframing existing practices
In reality, most students and teachers already draw from their full communicative repertoires (including linguistic and nonlinguistic resources) in the classroom but may evaluate these behaviors from a monolingual position. For example, most teachers have a goal of speaking in the target language (because their linguistic repertoire allows this), but they use strategies like drawing upon cognates to make their speech more comprehensible to their students. From a translanguaging perspective, we can reframe this as drawing upon overlaps in the teacher and students’ linguistic repertoires to expand the latter. Similarly, students frequently use other languages in addition to the target language in small group work when preparing a skit or presentation that will be fully in the target language. Rather than feeling frustrated that they are not solely using the target language, we can focus on how the use of other languages and modes of communication may be helping them engage in the planning and processing necessary to create a monolingual product.
In examining these practices, it is key to realize that these are strategic, rather than random, decisions, and it is the awareness of this intentional use that we want to emphasize in the classroom. A common concern is that if students are permitted to use non-target languages, they will simply use these all the time. This is where we need to emphasize the strategic nature of choosing our linguistic resources to support our language learning goals. For example, a student in an elementary language class may be able to say, “I am majoring in,” but not yet know the word for their specific major, as there are many options. Allowing them to say their major in the L1 can provide the teacher with the opportunity to provide target language vocabulary relevant to the specific class. In a group work context, we can recognize that students may not yet have the skills to negotiate the planning process of a skit in the target language (e.g., “I think you should pretend to be a student from Egypt”), but we can encourage them to be sure to say the lines of the skit in the target language (e.g., “I am from Egypt”). This is a subtle, yet important, shift from focusing on which language is being used, or simply stating that the target language should be used unconditionally.
Creating Transformative Spaces
Translanguaging pedagogies also seek to create transformative spaces that value all students. This includes recognizing and validating students’ existing linguistic competencies, even in cases where these do not correspond to standardized varieties. Teachers can also draw explicit connections between pragmatic or sociolinguistic elements of students’ existing linguistic repertoires, and how these are represented in the target language. For example, students may already be familiar with informal and formal address forms in other languages or switching between a dialect and a standardized version of a language.
In terms of selecting materials, teachers can use texts and videos that represent a diverse array of target language speakers. Rather than creating the expectation that students need to be able to perform like all of these speakers, the emphasis can be on the need to understand speakers from diverse backgrounds, and on using their developing meta-linguistic awareness to make choices about the linguistic features they wish to use. In response to concerns that this will confuse students, we can state that this is the sociolinguistic reality in the languages we teach. After all, we would not avoid teaching a central grammatical concept simply because students find it confusing.
Translanguaging approaches also recognize the inherently multilingual nature of many language-learning situations, including study abroad, language classrooms, virtual exchange, and engagement with local communities. Rather than assuming that these situations will create a monolingual ideal and having students feel disappointed or frustrated when this ideal is not met, we can focus on strategies for helping students engage in multilingual settings in ways that expand their linguistic repertoires, such as using translanguaging practices to develop relationships with multilingual speakers (Diao & Trentman, 2021; Mori & Sanuth, 2018).
Finally, we can engage in transformative practices through explicit and critical reflections on language ideologies, including the differences between monolingual and translingual perspectives. This includes helping students identify, describe, and understand language ideologies and how these connect to social identities and impact language learning, including in the classroom. This gives students the opportunity to make strategic choices about their own language practices for their own goals.
Overall, translanguaging pedagogies are an outcome of shifting from monolingual to translingual language ideologies. This results in new perspectives on existing linguistic practices as well as the intentional use of the full linguistic repertoire to learn.
Pedagogical approaches based in translanguaging theory and translingual language ideologies.
A socio-historically constructed perspective on language.
Perspectives that view languages as discrete and separate objects, with clear boundaries linked to political borders and ethnic boundaries.
Perspectives on language that focus on the individual linguistic repertoires and how they are deployed in specific contexts.
A term used in translanguaging theories to emphasize the agency in “naming” these languages and linguistic varieties, and thus the ability to name what is and is not “Spanish” or “English” or another named linguistic variety.
An approach developed in bilingual and heritage language educational settings that is rooted in translingual language ideologies and emphasizes valuing the full linguistic repertoires of language users, particularly those from socially marginalized backgrounds.