Content uploaded by Angel Lin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Angel Lin on May 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Translanguaging in Bilingual Education
Ofelia García, The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Angel M. Y. Lin, University of Hong Kong
To cite: García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O.
García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education
(Encyclopedia of Language and Education) (pp. 117-130). Switzerland: Springer.
Introduction
Since Cen Williams first used the Welsh term trawsieithu in 1994 to refer to a
pedagogical practice where students in bilingual Welsh/English classrooms are
asked to alternate languages for the purposes of receptive or productive use, the
term translanguaging has been increasingly used in the scholarly literature to refer
to both the complex and fluid language practices of bilinguals, as well as the
pedagogical approaches that leverage those practices. This chapter reviews the
growing scholarly literature that takes up the term translanguaging, and discusses
the ways in which the term is contested. We focus here on the potential and the
challenges that a translanguaging theory provides for bilingual education. After a
review of the scholarship we discuss two of the problems that the scholarship on
translanguaging and bilingual education makes evident –– 1) that there are two
competing theories of translanguaging, one which upholds national languages and
calls for a softening of those boundaries in bilingual education, a second “strong”
version which posits a single linguistic repertoire for bilingual speakers and thus an
essential feature of bilingual education; 2) the fear that translanguaging in bilingual
education would threaten the minority language. In this light, we consider how
translanguaging theory impacts issues of language allocation and pedagogy in
bilingual education.
Early developments
Although different epistemologically, translanguaging is linked to the study
of code-switching in education in that it also disrupts the traditional isolation of
languages in language teaching and learning. Throughout the world, code-switching,
understood as the going back and forth from one language to another, has been used
by teachers to scaffold the teaching of additional languages. Although this practice
has not been generally legitimized in language teaching scholarship, teachers
engage in code-switching on a day-to-day basis. It is, however, when this linguistic
behavior is used to teach language minoritized students, that this practice becomes
extremely contested. The fear, of course, is that the state or national language would
be “contaminated” by the other language. And yet, scholars have documented how
teachers regularly code-switch to make meaning comprehensible to students when
they are taught through a colonial or dominant language (see, for example, Lin &
Martin, 2005). Arthur and Martin (2006) speak of the ‘pedagogic validity of
codeswitching’ in situations in which students do not understand the lessons.
Despite the documentation of code-switching as a prevalent pragmatic
practice, code-switching, is ‘rarely institutionally endorsed or pedagogically
underpinned’ (Creese and Blackledge, 2010, p .105). In the late 1980s Rodolfo
Jacobson developed what he called the “concurrent approach,” although it was
never fully legitimized (Jacobson, 1990). Jacobson’s approach relied on having
teachers code-switch strategically, although only inter-sententially. Whether code-
switching is done pragmatically by the teacher or as in the Jacobson approach with
pedagogical intent, code-switching in the education literature, valuable as it may be,
focuses not in sustaining bilingualism per se, but in teaching in, or simply teaching,
an additional language. In this respect, the concept of translanguaging makes a very
different contribution and it is, as we will discuss, an epistemologically different
concept because it questions the proposition that what bilinguals are doing is going
from one language to another.
In its Welsh origins, translanguaging or trawsieithu as it was originally
coined in Welsh (Williams, 1994), referred to a pedagogical practice in bilingual
education that deliberately changed the language of input and the language of
output. Up to the time that Welsh scholars raised a voice of concern and questioned
the long-held belief in language separation for language development, language
scholars, with some exceptions, continued to view bilingualism, and bilingual
education, as simply the addition of two separate languages. Armed, however, with a
strong bilingual identity, the Welsh scholars understood that bilingualism was
precisely an important instrument in the learning and development of their
integrated bilingualism, as well as in the cognitive involvement that was required to
be educated bilingually. Lewis, Jones and Baker (2012b) clarify that translanguaging
refers to using one language to reinforce the other in order to increase
understanding and augment the pupil’s activity in both languages.
Colin Baker, one of the most influential scholars in the field of bilingual
education, observed how the practice of what he first translated from the Welsh
trawsieithu as translanguaging helped students make meaning and gain
understandings and knowledge. He explained: “To read and discuss a topic in one
language, and then to write about it in another language, means that the subject
matter has to be processed and “digested” (2011, p. 289). Baker (2001) pointed out
four potential educational advantages to translanguaging:
1. It may promote a deeper and fuller understanding of the subject matter.
2. It may help the development of the weaker language.
3. It may facilitate home-school links and cooperation.
4. It may help the integration of fluent speakers with early learners.
A five-year research project in Wales has determined that translanguaging was
used as the only or dominant approach in approximately one third of the 100
lessons observed (Lewis, Jones and Baker, 2013). Lewis, Jones and Baker (2013)
found pedagogically effective examples of translanguaging in Welsh classrooms,
although it was predominantly found in the latter years of primary education, and in
the arts and humanities. The same Welsh researchers have concluded that in
translanguaging, “both languages are used in a dynamic and functionally integrated
manner to organise and mediate mental processes in understanding, speaking,
literacy, and, not least, learning” (2012a, p. 1, our italics).
Translanguaging should also be seen differently from code-switching. Code-
switching, even to those scholars who see it as linguistic mastery (see, for example,
Auer, 2005; Gumperz 1982; Myers-Scotton 2005), is based on the monoglossic view
that bilinguals have two separate linguistic systems. Translanguaging, however,
posits the linguistic behavior of bilinguals as being always heteroglossic (see
Bakhtin, 1981; Bailey, 2007), always dynamic, responding not to two
monolingualisms in one, but to one integrated linguistic system. It is precisely
because translanguaging takes up this heteroglossic and dynamic perspective
centered on the linguistic use of bilingual speakers themselves, rather than starting
from the perspective of named languages (usually national or state languages), that
it is a much more useful theory for bilingual education than code-switching. It is
precisely because of its potential in building on the dynamic bilingualism of learners
(García, 2009) that translanguaging has been taken up by many bilingual educators
and scholars in the 21st century.
Major developments
Throughout history, bilingual programs had usually encouraged additive
bilingualism for language majorities where an additional second language was
simply separately added to a first. However, for language minoritized people,
schools had tended to pursue subtractive bilingualism, taking away the child’s home
language. But as a result of the ethnic revival and the demands of minority groups
for their civil rights in the second half of the 20th century, bilingual education
became a way of developing the bilingualism of language minoritized people,
especially of those groups that had experienced language shift and language loss as
a result of monolingual schooling. In opening up the door of developmental bilingual
education for all, a different type of bilingualism came into view, one that not always
respected the sociopolitical boundaries that had been established among languages.
It is this type of bilingualism that García (2009) has labeled dynamic bilingualism,
and that is enacted in what we call translanguaging.
At the end of the first decade of the 21st century then, three publications
extended the concept of translanguaging beyond the Welsh context, and in so doing
transformed it. One was Bilingual Education in the 21st century: A global approach
(2009) by Ofelia García. The other two were by Blackledge and Creese –– one an
article in The Modern Language Journal (Creese & Blackledge, 2010), and the second
a book titled Multilingualism: A critical perspective (Blackledge & Creese, 2010).
Other work on translanguaging soon followed. Canagarajah (2011a, 2011b), Li Wei
(2011) and Hornberger and Link (2012) were among the first to join the dialogue
and deepen the work. And Lewis, Jones and Baker (2012a, b) responded with more
translanguaging understandings from the Welsh perspective, also updating and
extending Williams’ original definition.
From the beginning there has been differences in the way in which scholars
have taken up translanguaging, and as the dialogue continues, the concept itself has
undergone some changes. In 2009, and speaking specifically about bilingual
education, García posited translanguaging as “an approach to bilingualism that is
centered not on languages as has been often the case, but on the practices of
bilinguals that are readily observable” (p. 44). These practices, in which bilinguals
“intermingle linguistic features that have hereto been administratively or
linguistically assigned to a particular language or language variety” (p. 51), are “the
normal mode of communication that, with some exceptions in some monolingual
enclaves, characterizes communities throughout the world (p. 44). Translanguaging,
García (2009) continues, are “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals
engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” (p. 45, emphasis in original).
In education, García says, translanguaging goes beyond code-switching and
translation because it refers to the process by which bilingual students perform
bilingually in the myriad multimodal ways of classrooms. García’s 2009 text begins
to extend the Welsh translanguaging concept as it questions, based on Makoni and
Pennycook’s influential 2007 book, the concept of language that had been the
foundation of all bilingual education enterprise. In Part III of the 2009 book, García
also begins to shape a translanguaging pedagogy for bilingual classrooms.
Like García, Blackledge and Creese (2010) speak about flexible bilingualism
“without clear boundaries, which places the speaker at the heart of the interaction”
(p. 109). Drawing on their ethnographic research in ethnic community
complementary schools in the United Kingdom, Creese and Blackledge (2010)
describe how the students’ flexible bilingualism, their translanguaging, is used by
teachers to convey ideas and to promote “cross-linguistic transfer.” In examining the
translanguaging pedagogies used in complementary schools, Creese and Blackledge
(2010) state:
Both languages are needed simultaneously to convey the information, . . .
each language is used to convey a different informational message, but it is in
the bilingualism of the text that the full message is conveyed. (p. 108)
And in analyzing the pair work students do, they comment: ‘It is the combination of
both languages that keeps the task moving forward’ (p. 110). In the complementary
school classrooms they were studying, Creese and Blackledge (2010) witnessed the
use of bilingual label quests, repetition and translation across languages, and the use
of simultaneous literacies to engage students, establish students’ identity positions,
keep the pedagogic task moving, and negotiate meanings. For Creese and Blackledge
the translanguaging pedagogical approach of these complementary schools is used
both for identity performance and for language learning and teaching. Language is
just a social resource without clear boundaries of nation, territory and social group.
Involved in the research on complimentary schools in the UK led by
Blackledge and Creese, Li Wei (2011) developed the concept of a translanguaging
space where the interaction of multilingual individuals ‘breaks down the artificial
dichotomies between the macro and the micro, the societal and the individual, and
the social and the psycho in studies of bilingualism and multilingualism’ (p. 1234). A
translanguaging space allows multilingual individuals to integrate social spaces that
have been formerly practiced separately in different places. For Li Wei (2011),
translanguaging is going both between different linguistic structures, systems and
modalities, and going beyond them. He says:
The act of translanguaging then is transformative in nature; it creates a social
space for the multilingual user by bringing together different dimensions of
their personal history, experience and environment, their attitude, belief and
ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity into one coordinated and
meaningful performance. (p. 1223)
Translanguaging, according to Li Wei, embraces both creativity; that is, following or
flouting norms of language use, as well as criticality; that is, using evidence to
question, problematize or express views (Li Wei, 2011).
In his work on writing, Canagarajah had used the term “codemeshing” to
refer to a “communicative device used for specific rhetorical and ideological
purposes in which a multilingual speaker intentionally integrates local and
academic discourse as a form of resistance, reappropriation and/or transformation
of the academic discourse’” (Michael-Luna and Canagarajah, 2007, p. 56). For
Canagarajah, codemeshing differs from codeswitching in that it refers to one single
integrated system in which there is a mixing of communicative modes and diverse
symbol systems other than language per se. Michael-Luna and Canagarajah (2007)
identified codemeshing strategies, which include selecting multilingual and
multimodal texts, and modeling oral and written codemeshing so as to encourage
student agency in language choice.
In 2011 Canagarajah takes up the term translanguaging as “the ability of
multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages
that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (p 401, our italics). And yet,
Canagarajah (2011a) points out that we have not developed a taxonomy of
translanguaging strategies or theorized those practices. In his 2013 book he coins
the term translingual practice as an umbrella for the many terms that are presently
being used to reflect the fluidity of language practices today ––, polylingualism,
metrolingualism, codemeshing, and translanguaging, and says:
The term translingual conceives of language relationships in more dynamic
terms. The semiotic resources in one’s repertoire or in society interact more
closely, become part of an integrated resource, and enhance each other. The
languages mesh in transformative ways, generating new meanings and
grammars. (p. 8)
Canagarajah prefers the term translingual practices because he maintains that
unlike translanguaging, transligual practices focus on the social practices of mixing
modes and symbol systems as a creative improvisation to adapt to the needs of the
context and the local situations (Canagarajah, 2011b). We, however, insist that
translanguaging is not solely a social practice, but, also a linguistic theory that poses
a mental grammar shaped, of course, through social interaction and negotiation (see
Otheguy, García & Reid, forthcoming).
Hornberger’s Continua of biliteracy (2003) had addresses the complex
relationship between the languages of bilinguals. Hornberger (2005) explains:
Bi/multilinguals’ learning is maximized when they are allowed and enabled
to draw from across all their existing language skills (in two+ languages),
rather than being constrained and inhibited from doing so by monolingual
instructional assumptions and practices.’ (p. 607)
Translanguaging, Hornberger and Link (2012) claim, builds on Hornberger’s
continua of biliteracy. By doing away with the distinctions between the ‘languages’
of bilinguals, translanguaging offers a way for students to draw on the diverse
aspects of the Hornberger continua.
Scholars working on translanguaging have increasingly questioned the
concept of language. Busch (2013) summarizes this trend saying: “There is consent
among the authors who deal with translanguaging that the focus of interest is
shifting from languages to speech and repertoire and that individual languages
should not be seen unquestioningly as set categories” (p. 506).
It is this position that was taken up by García and Li Wei in their 2014 book,
Translanguaging: Languages, Bilingualism and Education. That book is divided into
two sections. The first section addresses a theory of translanguaging, building on the
the concept of languaging and of dynamic bilingualism. The second section gives
examples of translanguaging in classrooms.
From a linguistic theory perspective, García and Reid (forthecoming)
explicitly differentiate translanguaging from code-switching, defining
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” (n.p). This has deep social justice
implications for the education of bilingual students. Whereas monolingual students
are usually allowed the full use of their linguistic repertoire in assessment and in
learning, bilinguals are seldom permitted to do so, thus keeping them silent and
unengaged in teaching and assessment activities. We will return to what this means
for bilingual education in the section on Problems and Difficulties.
More developments and work in progress
The take-up of the term translanguaging in the literature has been swift (see
also, Li Wei and García, Volume on Research). We focus here on how
translanguaging has been used specifically in bilingual education. As more scholars
take up translanguaging, it sometimes has drifted in meaning. Flores (2014) warns
us that translanguaging is not simply a research methodology, or code-switching, or
additive bilingualism or a plain response to globalization, as many claim.
Translanguaging, Flores tells is “a political act.” Although many are using the term,
not all scholars see it in this vein.
In the United States, translanguaging has been taken up by scholars
especially to push back against the “two solitudes” (to quote Jim Cummins (2007)
that characterizes dual language bilingual programs. In those programs, sometimes
called “two-way immersion,” the languages are strictly separated. Many of the dual
language bilingual programs are said to be two-way, attempting to include language
majority and language minority students in balanced numbers. Although popular in
the social imagination and among educators for whom this is the only way in the
United States to develop bilingualism, there is controversy about whether these
programs do serve language minoritized children (see Valdés, 1997; Palmer et al.,
2014). Scholars have begun to use the concept of translanguaging to both describe
the actual language practices in those classrooms, as well as to carve a space for
different language use in order to meaningfully educate language minoritized
children.
Palmer, Martínez and their colleagues (2014) explore the instruction of two
experienced bilingual teachers in dual language classrooms, and give evidence of the
translanguaging practices used by the students, as well as some translanguaging
instructional strategies used by the teachers. Gort and Sembiante (2015) explore
how translanguaging pedagogies support young emergent bilingual children in a
preschool Spanish-English dual language bilingual program. All of these scholars
document how despite the policy of linguistic compartmentalization in the
classroom, teachers cross these artificial boundaries to ensure that children are
educated bilingually. The recent issue of the International Multilingual Research
Journal, edited by Mileidis Gort (2015), gives evidence of the growing appeal of
translanguaging for purposes of making the structures and practices in dual
language bilingual education classrooms more flexible.
Language practices in transitional bilingual education programs have also
been explained using the concept of translanguaging. Sayer (2013), for example,
describes how in a second grade transitional bilingual education classroom in San
Antonio, Texas, Latino students and their bilingual teacher use features of what is
named Spanish, English, and TexMex, to mediate not only academic content, but also
the standard languages used in the classroom.
A translanguaging theoretical framework has also been increasingly used to
study bilingual practices in early childhood bilingual education. In an Arabic-
Hebrew bilingual kindergarten in Israel, Schwartz and Asli (2013) describe how
both the children and their teachers use translanguaging. Garrity et al (2015) have
shown how infants aged 6 to 15 months in what is supposedly a dual language
bilingual classroom use Spanish, English and Baby Sign Languages in what they
called “simultaneous translanguaging practice.”
In the Basque Country, where trilingual education in Basque, Spanish and
English is becoming commonplace, Cenoz and Gorter are conducting research on
how a translanguaging pedagogy can support the students’ trilingualism. In a school
with a progressive orientation of the Sistema Amara Berri, students go to three
different classrooms daily where they work through one of three languages. Each
classroom is organized into four tasks and four different groups that work
collaboratively. Cenoz, Gorter and their research team have developed
translanguaging instructional material to be used with two of the four groups, as
they work in the different language classrooms. For example, in the Basque material
for the Basque classroom, the experimental translanguaging material asks students
to compare certain structures or vocabulary or discourse in Basque to those in
Spanish or English. The team is assessing student progress in each language when
translanguaging tasks are introduced. Cenoz and Gorter’s recent book titled
Multilingual Education: Between language learning and translanguaging (2015)
contains contributions that support a translanguaging approach, arguing for the
inclusion of the child’s full and unique language repertoire in instruction.
It may be deaf bilingual education where the concept of translanguaging has
proven more useful. Swanwick (2015) has been doing work on the bimodal
bilingual translanguaging of deaf children and has found it to be a useful means of
conceptualizing their language practices and the ways in which they use their
language repertoires in the different spaces through which they move.
Although translanguaging is evident in bilingual and multilingual programs
described by scholars, it is difficult for teachers, steeped in monoglossic language
ideologies, to accept translanguaging. Martínez, Hikida and Durán (2014) explore
how teachers in two Spanish-English bilingual elementary classrooms fluidly use
their entire language repertoire, while expressing ideologies of linguistic purism
that emphasize language separation and showing concern about protecting the
minoritized language.
It is precisely because even bilingual teachers suffer from monoglossic
ideologies on language and bilingual instruction that developing translanguaging
pedagogical strategies is so important. The project CUNY-NYSIEB, has developed a
number of pedagogical resources accessible under the Publication tab on the
project’s website (www.cuny-nysieb.org). García, Ibarra-Johnson and Seltzer
(forthcoming) also offer guidance on curricular design, pedagogy and assessment
using translanguaging..
In assessment, López, Guzman-Orth and Turkan (forthcoming) are
developing a way of assessing bilingual students’ knowledge of subject matter
content through translanguaging. Using a computer-based platform (CBT), students
have the opportunity to see or hear an item in both English and Spanish, and to then
write or say responses using their full language repertoire. To create the space for
translanguaging and encouraging student-to-student interactions, students are
asked to select a virtual friend or assistant. The translanguaged multimodal
assessment creates a space for translanguaging by stimulating student-to-student
interactions and promoting what López and his colleagues call “bilingual
autonomy.”
Clearly translanguaging has made its mark in the bilingual education
scholarship, although its entrance has not been without controversy. In the next
section we discuss some of the problems and difficulties involved with
translanguaging and bilingual education.
Problems and Difficulties
One of the problems that plagues translanguaging work in education has to
do with the tension between two theoretical positions on translanguaging. On the
one hand, there is the strong version of translanguaging, a theory that poses that
bilingual people do not speak languageS, but rather use their repertoire of linguistic
features selectively. On the other hand, there is a weak version of translanguaging,
the one that supports national and state language boundaries, and yet calls for
softening these boundaries.
The weak version of translanguaging has been, in some ways, with us for a
long time, ever since the pioneer and premier scholar of bilingual education, Jim
Cummins, taught us about linguistic interdependence and transfer (see Cummins,
this volume). Originally, Cummins hypothesis didn’t say anything about language
separation in instruction; it simply alleged that instructional time spent through one
language impacted the development of the other. But with time, Cummins (2007)
started rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in bilingual education and
challenging what he called “the two solitudes” especially in immersion bilingual
education programs. Many scholars today follow Cummins in calling for flexible
instructional strategies in bilingual education (see, for example, Lin, 2013), but
some use the term “translanguaging” to describe both the children’s language use, as
well as the flexible strategies used in classrooms.
Although we support the strong version of translanguaging as a linguistic
theory (see Otheguy, García & Reid, forthcoming), bilingual education responds to
the conception of languages as defined by states and nations. After all, languages as
names of enumerable things have been socially constructed and maintained and
regulated especially through schools. It is important then to understand that named
national and state languages have had real and material consequences, and continue
to have them. But to advocate for fairer and more just assessments and a more
appropriate bilingual education that gives voice to all children, no matter what their
language practices, requires that we understand that named languages, imposed
and regulated by schools, have nothing to do with individuals and the linguistic
repertoire they use. From the bilingual child’s perspective, the language they have
belongs to them, and not to the nation or the state.
True, bilingual education must develop bilingual students’ ability to use
language according to the rules and regulations that have been socially constructed
for that particular named language. For some national groups, and especially groups
that have been marginalized and have undergone language loss and shift, bilingual
education is a way of revitalizing their language practices. But to get students to use
features of the “named languages,” to get them to appropriate those features as part
of their linguistic repertoire, educators must first concede that the lexical and
structural features that make up a bilingual student’s repertoire are valid and need
to be leveraged and used. This is, of course, where translanguaging pedagogical
strategies come in, for besides providing students with opportunities to learn to
select the appropriate features of their repertoire to meet the communicative
exigencies of the social situation at hand (and to suppress other features of their
repertoire), bilingual education must also provide students with opportunities to
fully use their entire language repertoire, without regard to the socially and
politically defined boundaries of named languages and the ideologies of language
purity that accompany them.
Minoritized languages must be protected and developed if that is the wish of
people. But it is important to understand that the linguistic features that make up
that minoritized language cannot be totally isolated from others because they are
generally part of the linguistic competence of bilinguals. Bilingual education cannot
maintain minoritized languages as if they were autonomous museum pieces; instead
it can only help sustain and develop them in functional interrelationship within the
communicative context in which they are used by bilingual speakers.
For bilingual education programs to both offer a fairer and more just
education to bilingual children, as well as sustain minority language practices, it is
important that they combine the weak and strong version of translanguaging
theory. On the one hand, educators must continue to allocate separate spaces for
the named languages, although softening the boundaries between them. On the
other hand, they must provide an instructional space where translanguaging is
nurtured and used critically and creatively without speakers having to select and
suppress different linguistic features of their own repertoire. Only by using all the
features in their linguistic repertoire will bilingual students become virtuoso
language users, rather than just careful and restrained language choosers. Only by
assessing bilingual students on the full use of their linguistic repertoire –– their
ability to express complex thoughts effectively, to explain things, to persuade, to
argue, to give directions, to recount events, etc. –– and not simply on a set of lexical
and structural features, will be understand their capacity for meaning and for
achieving.
The future
As always, translanguaging practices will continue to be present in bilingual
classrooms, sometimes surreptitiously, other times out in the open.
Translanguaging offers many advantages for a multilingual future, for by taking the
perspective of the individual speaker, and not that of the state, bilingual users are
freed from the strictures that keep us from understanding each other, and from
discovering the common features in our language repertoire and those held by
others. The linguistic flexibility posed by a translanguaging perspective means that
individuals will be able to more openly appropriate linguistic features and make
them their own, rather than linking them to a particular language or state.
But translanguaging in education sometimes contradicts the regulatory role
of schools. Bilingual educators must decide whether to always accept the
regulations imposed upon bilingual students that restrict them as two monolinguals,
or to find spaces to liberate their tongues and minds. Only then will bilingual
education be truly able to assist bilingual students to choose intelligently when to
select or suppress certain features of their repertoire and when to their tongues,
their full language repertoire, along with their minds and imagination.
Cross-references
See Also:
Kate Menken: Language Policy in Classrooms and Schools (Volume 1); Judith Green:
Classroom interaction and situated learning (Volume 3); Feliciano Chimbutane:
Multilingual Resources in Classroom Interaction: Portuguese and African Languages in
Bilingual Education Programs (Volume 3). Angel Lin: Code-switching in the Classroom:
Research Paradigms and Approaches (Volume 10).
References
Auer, P. (2005) ‘A Postscript: Code-Switching and Social Identity’, Journal of
Pragmatics, 37(3), 403-410.
Arthur, J. and Martin, P. (2006) ‘Accomplishing Lessons in Postcolonial Classrooms:
Comparative Perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam’.
Comparative Education, 42, 177-202.
Bailey, B. (2007) ‘Heteroglossia and Boundaries’ in M. Heller (ed.) Bilingualism: A
Social Approach (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave), pp. 257-276.
Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3rd edn
(Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters).
Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5th edn
(Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters).
Bakhtin, M. (1981) Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press).
Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2010) Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective (London:
Continuum).
Busch, B. (2013) The Linguistic Repertoire Revisited. Applied Linguistics (2012) 33
(5): 503-523.
Canagarajah, S. (2011a) Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable
strategies of translanguaging. The Modern language Journal 95: 401-417.
Canagarajah, S. (2011b) ‘Translanguaging in the Classroom: Emerging Issues for
Research and Pedagogy’ in Li Wei (ed.) Applied Linguistics Review, Volume 2
(Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton), pp. 1-27.
Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2015) Multilingual Education: Between language learning
and translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) ‘Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A
Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(i), 103-
115.
Cummins, J. (2007) ‘Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual
Classrooms’, The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.
Flores, N. (2014) Let’s not forget that Translanguaging is a political act.
https://educational linguist. Wordpress.com/2014/07/19/lets-not-forget-
that-translanguaging-is-a-political-act/
García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective
(Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell).
García, O., Ibarra-Johnson, S. & Seltzer, K. (forthcoming). The Translanguaging
classroom. Philadelphia: Caslon.
García, O. & Li Wei (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Garrity, S., Aquino-Sterling, C. & Day, A. Translanguaging in an infant classroom:
Using multiple languages to make meaning. International Multilingual
Research Journal DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2015.1048542
Gort, M. (2015) Transforming Literacy Learning and Teaching Through
Translanguaging and Other Typical Practices Associated With “Doing Being
Bilingual”, International Multilingual Research Journal, 9:1, 1-6, DOI:
10.1080/19313152.2014.988030
Gort, M. & Sembiante, S. F. (2015) Navigating Hybridized Language Learning Spaces
Through Translanguaging Pedagogy: Dual Language Preschool Teachers’
Languaging Practices in Support of Emergent Bilingual Children’s
Performance of Academic Discourse, International Multilingual Research
Journal, 9:1, 7-25, DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2014.981775
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York, NY: Cambridge University.
Hornberger, N. H. (2003) ‘Continua of Biliteracy’ in N. H. Hornberger (ed.) Continua
of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and
Practice in Multilingual Settings (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters), pp. 3-
34.
Hornberger, N. H. and Link, H. (2012) ‘Translanguaging and Transnational Literacies
in Multilingual Classrooms: A Bilingual Lens’, International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261-278.
Jacobson, R. (1990) ‘Allocating Two Languages as a Key Feature of a Bilingual
Methodology’ in R. Jacobson and C. Faltis (eds) Language Distribution Issues
in Bilingual Schooling (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters), pp. 3-17.
Lewis, G., Jones, B. and Baker, C. (2012a) ‘Translanguaging: Developing its
Conceptualisation and Contextualisation’, Educational Research and
Evaluation, 18(7), 655-670.
Lewis, G., Jones, B. and Baker, C. (2012b) ‘Translanguaging: Origins and
Development from School to Street and Beyond’, Educational Research and
Evaluation, 18(7), 641-654.
Li Wei (2011) ‘Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive
Construction of Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain’, Journal of
Pragmatics, 43, 1222-1235.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2013) ‘Towards Paradigmatic Change in TESOL Methodologies:
Building Plurilingual Pedagogies from the Ground Up’, TESOL Quarterly,
47(3), 521-545.
Lin, A. M. Y. and Martin, P. W. (eds) (2005) Decolonisation, Globalization. Language-
in-Education Policy and Practice (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters).
López, A., Guzmán-Orth, D. & Turkan, S. Forthcoming. Conceptualizing the use of
translanguaging in content assessments for emergent bilingual students.
Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2007) Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages
(Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters).
Martínez, R., Hikida, M. & Durán, L. Unpacking Ideologies of Linguistic Purism : How
Dual Language Teachers Make Sense of Everyday Translanguaging.
International Multilingual Research Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 02.01.2015, p. 26-
42.
Michael-Luna, S. and Canagarajah, A. S. (2007) ‘Multilingual Academic Literacies:
Pedagogical Foundations for Code Meshing in Primary and Higher
Education’, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 55-77.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2005) Multiple Voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Wiley.
Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. (forthcoming). Clarifying translanguaging and
deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied
Linguistics Review.
Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the
debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging
pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,
98(3), 757–772. doi:10.1111/modl.12121
Sayer, P. (2013) ‘Translanguaging, TexMex, and Bilingual Pedagogy: Emergent
Bilinguals Learning through the Vernacular’, TESOL Quarterly 47(1), 63-88.
Schwartz, M. and Asli, A. (2014) Bilingual teachers’ language strategies: The case of
an Arabic-Hebrew Kindergarten in Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education
38: 22-32.
Swanwick, R (Oct 6th 2015 in press) Scaffolding learning through classroom talk:
The role of translanguaging’ in P, Spencer & M, Marschark (Eds) The Oxford
handbook of deaf studies: Language and language development chpt 28. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Valdés, G. (1997) Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note
concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard
Educational Review 67, 391-429.
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 Doctoral Thesis
(University of Wales, Bangor).
