Content uploaded by Tuba Yilmaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tuba Yilmaz on Mar 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmjm20
International Journal of Multilingualism
ISSN: 1479-0718 (Print) 1747-7530 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmjm20
Translanguaging as a pedagogy for equity of
language minoritized students
Tuba Yilmaz
To cite this article: Tuba Yilmaz (2019): Translanguaging as a pedagogy for equity
of language minoritized students, International Journal of Multilingualism, DOI:
10.1080/14790718.2019.1640705
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1640705
Published online: 16 Jul 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 637
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Translanguaging as a pedagogy for equity of language
minoritized students
Tuba Yilmaz
School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
ABSTRACT
For years, bilingual programmes have allocated the languages of
bilinguals to separate teachers, lessons, or even days or hours of
the week to avoid damaging the ‘purity’of languages, confusing
language-minoritized students and hindering their achievement
(Creese & Blackledge, 2011. Separate and flexible bilingualism in
complementary schools: Multiple language practices in
interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics,43, 1196–1208.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006; García, 2014. Countering the
dual: Transglossia, dynamic bilingualism and translanguaging in
education. In R. Rubdy & L. Alsagoff(Eds.), The global-local
interface, language choice and hybridity (pp. 100–118). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters). The authenticity and the effectiveness of
these practices have recently been questioned, and alternative
pedagogical approaches, which view bilingualism as a unitary
linguistic system and a resource for content and language
learning, have been proposed. Translanguaging is one of these
pedagogical approaches that has emerged to counteract the strict
separation of language policies in schools and advocates that an
effective pedagogy should mirror the fluid languaging practices of
bilinguals (Sánchez, García, & Solorza, 2017. Reframing language
allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual
Research Journal,1–15). This paper aims to explain the
development of translanguaging as a teaching method in schools
and the intersections between translanguaging as a pedagogical
tool and the tenets of critical teaching. First, monoglossic and
heteroglossic language ideologies and how they perceive
bilingualism are discussed. Next, translanguaging is defined and
differentiated from code-switching. Finally, translanguaging is
discussed as a transformative pedagogy used to promote equity
in the classrooms that include language-minoritized students.
Although translanguaging has international relevance, this study
draws only from the U.S. context.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 4 September 2017
Accepted 3 July 2019
KEYWORDS
Bilingualism; code-switching;
translanguaging; equity;
social justice
1. Introduction
For years, bilingual programmes have allocated the languages of bilinguals to separate
teachers, lessons, or even days or hours of the week to avoid damaging the purity of
languages, confusing English language learners, and hindering their achievement
(Creese & Blackledge, 2011; García, 2014; García, Flores, & Chu, 2011; Palmer, Martínez,
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Tuba Yilmaz tubaylmz@ufl.edu
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1640705
Mateus, & Henderson, 2014). Similarly, language minoritized-students’linguistic resources
in their home languages have often been undervalued in mainstream classrooms, and the
acquisition of the ‘standard’language is prioritised to accelerate their transitions to mono-
lingual mainstream programmes (García, 2013; García & Kleifgen, 2011). The authenticity
and the effectiveness of these practices have recently been questioned by several
researchers, and alternative pedagogical approaches, which view bilingualism as a
flexible and integrated system and a scaffolding tool to learn content and language,
have been proposed. Translanguaging is one of these pedagogical approaches that has
emerged to counteract the strict separation of language policies in schools and advocates
that an effective pedagogy should mirror the fluid languaging practices of bilinguals in the
twenty-first century (Sánchez, García, & Solorza, 2017).
Translanguaging was coined by Welsh educator Cen Williams (1980) as ‘a pedagogical
practice in which students [are] asked to alternate languages for receptive or productive
use’(cited in García, 2014, p. 111). Williams proposed translanguaging as a teaching
method that can be used in bilingual programmes to promote students’bilingualism
and enhance their academic attainment. García (2009a) extended the concept and used
it to refer to ‘the complex discursive practices of all bilinguals, and the pedagogies
which build on these discursive practices to release ways of speaking, being and
knowing of bilingual subaltern communities’(Cited in García, Flores, & Woodley, 2012,
p. 51). Moreover, she suggested that translanguaging can be used not only to scaffold
bilinguals’content and language learning but also to give them a voice in schools, domi-
nated by monolingual language policies and monoglossic ideologies, by incorporating
their complex unitary linguistic repertoire and identities (Flores & García, 2017).
The purpose of this paper is to explain the development of translanguaging as a teach-
ing and learning method and the intersections between translanguaging as a transforma-
tive pedagogical tool and the tenets of critical teaching. For this purpose, I will first discuss
two common language ideologies, monoglossic language ideology and heteroglossic
language ideology, and how they view bilingualism. Next, I will define translanguaging
and differentiate it from code-switching. Finally, I will discuss translanguaging as a trans-
formative pedagogy used to promote equity and excellence in the classrooms that include
language-minoritized students. Although translanguaging has international relevance, this
study draws only from the U.S. context.
2. Bilingualism
The definition of bilingualism can vary based on the language ideology that one adopts. In
this section, I will discuss bilingualism from both a monoglossic ideological perspective
and a heteroglossic ideological perspective.
2.1. Bilingualism from a monoglossic ideological perspective
According to a monoglossic language ideological perspective (also called monolingual
ideology or the fractional view by Grosjean, 1989), bilingualism is defined as ‘the
mastery over two separate and distinct languages’(Flores & García, 2013, p. 245), that
is, double monolingualism (Blommaert, 2005). This ideology often takes balanced bilingu-
alism –native-like proficiency in two named languages –as the norm and evaluates a
2T. YILMAZ
person’s full linguistic repertoire based on monolingual standards (Blommaert, 2010). It
advocates for the separation or compartmentalisation of linguistic resources since any
instance of code-mixing (i.e. intra-clausal/sentential alternation; Lin, 2013) and code-
switching (i.e. alternation at the inter-clausal/sentential level; Lin, 2013) might impair
the purity of language (Jacobson & Faltis, 1990).
The monoglossic ideology promotes the notion of diglossia (Ferguson, 1959; Fishman,
1967). Diglossia refers to social arrangements in which ‘one variety of language is associ-
ated with high prestige while the other is used for low functions’(García, 2013, p. 156).
Diglossia has been a foundational principle for managing diversity in education
domains for years in the U.S. Most educational programmes, including some bilingual edu-
cation programmes such as transitional bilingual education programmes, are designed
with a diglossic framework which designates the ‘standard’language as the language of
power and prestige in schools (García, 2013; Lippi-Green, 2012).
A monoglossic ideology often views linguistic resources in each named language
1
as
entities that can be added or subtracted in the brain (Beres, 2015; García & Kleifgen,
2011; Makoni & Pennycook, 2005). Based on this perspective, bilingualism can be defined
in two ways: additive or subtractive. Lambert (1974) called the gradual displacement of
the linguistic codes in one named language with the linguistic codes in another named
language as subtractive bilingualism. Subtractive bilingualism is also associated with a loss
of identity or the development of a sense of self where the learners begin to perceive
their languages and cultures as inferior and subordinate under the hegemony (i.e. the dom-
ination of a legitimised language among speakers of other languages or language varieties)
of the standard language (Cummins, 2005; de Jong, 2011; Gramsci, 1971). On the other
hand, Lambert (1974)defined the addition of new linguistic codes in the standard language
to the linguistic codes of home language(s) as additive bilingualism. de Jong (2011) posited
that social value and respect to home language practices can support the attainment of
language proficiency and additive bilingualism and can foster positive attitudes towards
language minoritized students’sense of self and home cultures.
Cummins (1979) analysed the interactions of languages in bilingual minds and extended
the theories of bilingualism proposed from a monoglossic ideology perspecti ve. He asserted
that cognitive academic language proficiency can be transferred across solitudes thanks to
the common underlying proficiency (CUP) if adequate linguistic input in both named
languages is provided. He named this phenomenon linguistic interdependence or the
iceberg hypothesis. He has also recently proposed the term active bilingualism as a replace-
ment to additive bilingualism to highlight the dynamic nature of interactions between lin-
guistic codes in a bilingual mind (Cummins, 2017). Cummins’theories have sparked an
interest in researching positive interference of home languages on English language acqui-
sition and motivated several researchers to question the comprehensiveness of the contem-
porary pedagogies implemented in bilingual education programmes and mainstream
classrooms (Cook, 1995; García & Kleifgen, 2010; Jessner, 2006; Pontier & Gort, 2016).
2.2. Bilingualism from a heteroglossic ideological perspective
In contrast to a monoglossic perspective of language, a heteroglossic language ideology
(also called holistic view by Grosjean, 1989 or unitary view by Otheguy, García, & Reid,
2015) treats language as a contested space or a single, undifferentiated cognitive terrain
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 3
containing complex and dynamic linguistic resources which are appropriated by language
users based on sociocultural and sociopolitical context (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Otheguy,
García, & Reid, 2018; Pennycook, 2010). Heteroglossic ideology originates from the term het-
eroglossia, proposed to explain the presence of two or more voices or expressed viewpoints
in a discourse, text or other artistic work (Bakhtin, 1986). Grosjean (1989), who also adopted
a heteroglossic language ideology, challenged the monoglossic language detailed above
and proposed that ‘bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one’(p. 3). He took a holistic
view to bilingualism and argued that bilinguals’linguistic resources in different named
languages are parts of a whole, and they are dynamically used to fulfil bilinguals’commu-
nicative needs. In other words, the fluid use of linguistic resources, which Grosjean (1989)
termed as code-mixing in his work, does not demonstrate a deficiency; rather, it can indi-
cate the presence of a high level of metalinguistic and metacognitive processing. The
researchers who adopted a heteroglossic language ideological perspective questioned
the use of monolingual standards to evaluate bilinguals’language proficiency since bilin-
guals’cognitive processing can differ from monolinguals (Grosjean, 1989) and claimed
that balanced bilingualism as a norm is unfeasible and impractical (García, 2014).
The heteroglossic ideology encouraged several researchers to examine how bilinguals
make sense of their worlds. In order to explain mobile and complex discursive language
practices of bilinguals, García (2009a) posited dynamic bilingualism (also called the
Dynamic Model of Multilingualism by Herdina & Jessner, 2002), which is defined as the devel-
opment of fluid language practices to varying degrees in order to achieve communicative
goals and make meaning by transcending the socially, historically and politically defined
boundaries between named languages, language varieties, and language and other semio-
tic systems (Canagarajah, 2011a; Wei, 2018). A dynamic bilingualism perspective views
language a unitary linguistic system rather than autonomous systems (García & Kleifgen,
2011; Otheguy et al., 2018). It considers the fluid language practices of language-minori-
tized students both as the norm and the overall objective in achieving interaction in an
increasingly multilingual world in the twenty-first century (García, 2009a; García et al.,
2011). According to dynamic bilingualism, bilinguals dynamically and fluidly shuttle
between interconnected linguistic and multimodal resources to make meaning, deepen
understanding, convey messages and more broadly meet the global and social needs of
a multilingual world (Celic & Seltzer, 2011;García & Leiva, 2014; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012).
3. Translanguaging as a theoretical lens
The emergence of dynamic bilingualism influenced researchers to examine bilinguals’
complex discursive language practices in an effort to understand how they make
meaning and achieve communication. Several researchers investigated bilinguals’
meaning making strategies and posited their own conceptions to define the fluid and pur-
poseful use of bilinguals’linguistic features. Some of these conceptions have been referred
to as codemeshing (Canagarajah, 2011b), metrolingualism (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010), tran-
sidiomatic practices (Jacquemet, 2005), polylanguaging (Jorgensen, Karrebaek, Madsen, &
Moller, 2011) and plurilingualism (The Council of Europe, 2000). This paper builds on
García’s(2009a) conception of translanguaging, which she defined as ‘the flexible use of
linguistic resources by bilinguals in order to make sense of their worlds’(García, 2014,
p. 3). She proposed that bilinguals translanguage to engage in complex discursive
4T. YILMAZ
practices (García & Sylvan, 2011), to develop new languaging strategies and realities, to
build and demonstrate bilingual identities (Creese & Blackledge, 2015), to construct
meaning and acquire deep understandings (Otheguy et al., 2015) and to give voice to
new sociopolitical realities by questioning linguistic inequality and disrupting linguistic
hierarchies (García, 2014). Translanguaging is often confused with another widely
known conception: code-switching. It is important for teachers and educators to differen-
tiate these two concepts to better understand the philosophy grounding translanguaging
as a transformative pedagogy and to implement translanguaging to create an equitable
learning environment which challenges the coercive relations of power in the classrooms
that involve language-minoritized students (see also Cummins, 2017 and earlier work).
Translanguaging and code-switching differ epistemologically as they position language
and bilingualism differently (Otheguy et al., 2015; Wei, 2018) and they are used in different
disciplines to refer to similar linguistic practices. Code-switching, a commonly used term in
linguistics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics, is described as the ‘juxtaposition within
the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical
systems or subsystems’(Gumperz, 1982, p. 59). It analyses the language practices of bilin-
guals from an external viewpoint and centres languages as the focus of research. Code-
switching positions languages as two (socially constructed) autonomous, bifurcated and
discrete systems that bilinguals alternate between to achieve communication (García &
Kleyn, 2016; Hymes, 1972; Otheguy et al., 2015) and labels each language differently.
From the code-switching viewpoint, as represented in Figure 1 below, bilinguals have
two separate linguistic systems which consist of multiple codes, and they move back
and forth between these codes that belong to different named languages when they
code-switch. This external view considers discrete languages as socio-historical construc-
tions which have been used to marginalise fluid bilingual language practices that do not
align neatly with monolingual practices.
On the other hand, translanguaging, a popular term in education discipline, is in
general a broader term than code-switching and covers a larger array of situations and
phenomena; it also extends to pedagogy and planned use whereas code-switching is
viewed as a spontaneous phenomenon. Translanguaging takes an internal view, centres
Figure 1. Bilinguals fluid linguistic practices from a code-switching and a translanguaging framework.
Source: (García & Kleyn, 2016,Figure 1.1).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 5
bilinguals as agents in languaging, ‘a process of using language to gain knowledge, to
make sense, to articulate one’s thought and to communicate about using language’
and considers bilinguals’linguistic and multimodal resources as a single, or unitary, linguis-
tic repertoire, also called bilinguals’idiolect (individual’s full language repertoire). Each
bilingual’s idiolect is unique and involves not only multiple linguistic features but also
signs and modes or channels of expression, and each of these linguistic resources is rep-
resented with Fn in Figure 1 below (García & Kleifgen, 2011; García & Kleyn, 2016; Wei,
2011, p. 1224; Otheguy et al., 2015). According to translanguaging, bilinguals deploy
their full linguistic resources fluidly and strategically to adapt and function flexibly in
different social and communicative situations (García & Wei, 2014), to give the best hint
possible and also to demonstrate and express their bilingual and bicultural identities
(Flores & García, 2013; Palmer et al., 2014). Although translanguaging starts with an
internal view and considers fluid discursive practices as the norm, it encompasses the
external view, too, since named languages have real and material effects. Translanguaging
lens recognises the real or imagined effects of the external view and studies bilinguals’
languaging practices that transcend the boundaries of predetermined codes and modes
and reflect a new way of being, acting and languaging in different social, cultural and pol-
itical contexts. It also considers these practices as natural, common, unavoidable and valu-
able bilingual practices to maintain and improve minoritized students’bilingual and
bicultural identities (Ferguson, 2003; García & Kano, 2014; Lin, 2013; Martínez, Hikida, &
Durán, 2015; Otheguy et al., 2015).
In conclusion, code-switching and translanguaging differ based on the positionality one
takes to languages and languaging practices and the discipline they are commonly used.
While code-switching considers languages as discrete systems and names each system
differently, translanguaging views them as a unitary system composed of various linguistic
features that bilinguals select to achieve communication. Translanguaging has been a
popular theoretical lens and an effective pedagogy that scaffolds language-minoritized stu-
dents’content and language learning and empowers their authentic languaging practices.
4. Translanguaging as a pedagogy for educational equity
Translanguaging is proposed as a transformative pedagogy and a political act as it gives a
voice to language-minoritized students (Flores & García, 2017; Sensoy & Di Angelo, 2012)
and creates a third space in which students can discuss and counteract linguistic inequities
(García, 2014; García & Leiva, 2014; Palmer, 2008), equalises the status of all languages in
the classroom by challenging the hegemony of English (Byeon, 2015; Creese et al., 2008;
García, 2014; Showstack, 2012), acknowledges and draws on bilingual students’linguistic
and cultural funds of knowledge (Gort & Sembiante, 2015; Martin-Beltrán, 2014; Sayer,
2013), and allows bilinguals to display their unique identities in the classrooms (Canagar-
ajah, 2011a; Flores & García, 2013; García & Leiva, 2014; Sayer, 2013).
According to Flores and García (2013), translanguaging can be used by all teachers
(regardless of whether they are bilingual or monolingual) in any programme to effectively
teach language-minoritized students who are in different stages of bilingualism in their
classrooms. Any teacher willing to equalise power relations in the classroom and to act
as an equal participant in educational enterprise can use translanguaging as a pedagogy
by leveraging emergent bilinguals’linguistic repertoires. Drawing on de Jong’s(2011)
6T. YILMAZ
educational equity framework, in this part, I discuss the use of translanguaging as a peda-
gogy for three equity purposes: (a) translanguaging to promote bi/multilingualism, (b)
translanguaging to affirm student identities, and (c) translanguaging to combat structural
inequalities.
4.1. Translanguaging to promote bi/multilingualism
Language-minoritized students continue to fall behind their native-born English-speaking
peers at schools due to unequal access to resources, such as limited instructional materials,
ineffective academic programmes, and inadequately trained teachers (Fry, 2007; Kewal-
Ramani, Fox, & Aud, 2010; Lopez, 2009). This growing achievement gap, also called the
opportunity gap (Gorski, 2013), can be closed by promoting bi/multilingualism. According
to de Jong (2011) and Ruiz (1984), teachers targeting to promote bi/multilingualism view
language-minoritized students’home language practices as resources for teaching and
learning rather than deficiencies or barriers to learning. By creating opportunities to
use, develop, display and engage with both students’home language practices and
school language practices, teachers can not only challenge the hegemony of a standard
language, but also use students’home language practices as resources or scaffolding
tools to support content learning.
Translanguaging aims to promote bi/multilingualism to establish equity for language-
minoritized students. Translanguaging as a high quality teaching strategy can integrate
content and language teaching, challenge students with high expectations by removing
the language ‘barrier’(Gorski, 2013). It values the use of diverse and multimodal instruc-
tional resources in what is considered ‘two languages’, and the use of appropriate assess-
ment tools that comply with students’learning strategies. It also aims to increase students’
creative thinking skills and critical consciousness, which are two significant skills among
twenty-first century students, by involving them in critical discussions (Haneda & Wells,
2012). Moreover, translanguaging as a pedagogy targets to not only promote language-
minoritized students’bilingualism but also increase academic achievement. In this part,
I discuss how teachers can apply the principle of promoting bi/multilingualism for edu-
cational equity by using translanguaging as a pedagogy under three subheadings: (1)
translanguaging for content- and language integrated learning, (2) translanguaging for
adequate access to resources and fair assessment and (3) translanguaging to develop crea-
tivity and criticality.
4.1.1. Translanguaging for content- and language integrated learning
Today, it is widely accepted that language is inextricably bound to the context in which it
exists (Bakhtin cited in García & Wei, 2014). When it is separated from its context where it
takes its meaning, it can lose its conceptual and communicative substance. For that
reason, the interdependence between language learning and academic development is
regarded as the basic framework in the design of bilingual education programmes, includ-
ing CLIL programmes, such as Content and Language Integrated Learning implemented in
several European schools. These programmes aim to promote students’plurilingualism, i.e.
repertoire of varieties of language which many individuals use, and pluriliteracies (García &
Kleifgen, 2011,2018) by using students’full linguistic resources to scaffold content learn-
ing. For example, Creese and Blackledge (2010) investigated teachers’pedagogies in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 7
several different heritage language schools, and found that by building on students’full
linguistic resources, teachers aimed to promote students’plurilingualism not only in
different named languages but also in different varieties of a named language. Trans-
languaging is proposed to serve the same purpose for emergent bilinguals, also called
English language learners, in the U.S. Incorporating students’linguistic funds of knowledge
as a scaffolding tool to achieve content learning, translanguaging aims to deepen stu-
dents’understanding, develop their metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness,
develop pluriliteracies and expand their cognitive and linguistic experiences (Canagarajah,
2011a; Daniel & Pacheco, 2015; Kano, 2013; Langman, 2014; Martin-Beltrán, 2014; Mazak &
Herbas-Donoso, 2015). Moreover, it can create multiple opportunities for language learn-
ing that represent authentic situations which reflect the multilingual communities outside
of the classroom (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Levine, 2003; Martin-Beltrán, 2014; Pacheco &
Miller, 2016).
Teachers who adopt a monoglossic language ideology may consider students’home
language practices a barrier to performing well in challenging tasks due to their precon-
ceived notions and low expectations for language-minoritized students. However, Horn-
berger (2005) pointed out that ‘bi/multilinguals’learning is maximized when bilinguals
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). Hornberger’s suggestion supports
Cummins’interdependence hypothesis, which notes that practicing in one named
language contributes to the development of other languages since languages are inter-
connected to one another in a linguistic repertoire (Cummins, 1979). Similarly, Baker
(2006) indicated that ‘[language-minoritized] students may avoid challenging major
tasks in their weaker language, and depend more on their stronger language’(Kano,
2013, p. 170). By opening third spaces in which students can access resources in their
full linguistic repertoire, translanguaging can scaffold achievement in challenging tasks
(Martin-Beltrán, 2014). This way, translanguaging can eliminate the language ‘barrier’for
achievement and encourage teachers to hold expectations for language-minoritized stu-
dents as high as those for native-born English speaking students (Celic & Seltzer, 2011).
Thus, translanguaging can increase not only students’comprehension, but also their par-
ticipation and performance in classroom discussions.
Despite strict language separation policies in bilingual education programmes and heri-
tage language schools and English-only language policies in general education schools,
teachers often translanguage to pace teaching, maximise learning, and enable lessons
to be completed. Gort and Pontier (2013) analysed the instructional strategies that four
Spanish/English dual language (DL) preschool teachers used in their classrooms during
two interactive activities: read-aloud and show-and-tell. Through translanguaging prac-
tices such as translating cross-language paraphrasing, cross-language elaborations and
bilingual clarifications of pedagogical tasks, the teachers facilitated and enhanced com-
munication, contextualised key words and concepts, made relevant connections
between the academic content and students’experiences, revealed and elucidated
errors, and oriented students towards learning strategies.
Moreover, teachers can use translanguaging in ‘one language only’classrooms to
increase bilingual students’metalinguistic awareness and to create a comfortable learning
environment which builds on students’funds of linguistic and cultural knowledge.
8T. YILMAZ
Pacheco and Miller (2016) observed three elementary school teachers in linguistically and
culturally diverse classrooms in a mainstream school and revealed that by using their full
linguistic resources and encouraging the students to use their full linguistic repertoire to
complete tasks, the teachers aimed to improve students’multiliteracy skills, clarify miscon-
ceptions in texts, increase cross-linguistic awareness, tap into their background knowl-
edge, and deepen their understandings. Moreover, Showstack (2015) analysed the
translanguaging practices of one community language teacher who navigated between
linguistic features that belong to what some would name Spanish and vernacular
Spanish in an intermediate level Spanish language classroom and revealed that teachers
translanguaged to ensure students’professional success and to legitimize their home
language practices.
As a result, through translanguaging, teachers can increase students’comprehension
and participation by creating rich zones of development in which all students learn by
jointly participating in activities. Through these activities, teachers can encourage students
to share their sociocultural, linguistic, and cognitive resources with others, hold all stu-
dents accountable for higher performance by setting high expectations, maintain aca-
demic rigour and thus provide students high-quality instruction (García, 2009b,2014;
Gorski, 2013).
4.1.2. Translanguaging for adequate access to resources and fair assessment
Access to adequate instructional resources is identified as an important factor that influ-
ences students’academic achievement. Gorski (2013) suggests that access to adequate
instructional materials can play a mitigating role and shrink a portion of the opportunity
gap between minoritized students and mainstream students. Translanguaging can extend
the repertoire of instructional materials that students and teachers can use for academic
purposes (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013). Through translanguaging, students can conduct research
both in English and in their home languages and increase the number of media resources
they can utilise to access new knowledge. Several studies have illustrated the multimodal
uses of materials in different languages in bi/multilingual classrooms. In Makalela’s(2015)
study, a science professor required undergraduate students to do research and collect
data in Sotho cluster of languages in Southern Africa but write their project papers in
English. In Mazak and Herbas-Donoso (2015) study, the professor frequently English termi-
nology in Spanish discussions so that students could access academic papers written both
in Spanish and in English. In Pacheco and Miller’s(2016) study, the teacher used newspa-
pers written in different named languages to increase literacy awareness of the linguisti-
cally diverse students at the elementary level. As a result, translanguaging can increase
multiplicities of academic materials and influence academic achievement positively
(García, 2009b; Sayer, 2013).
As language-minoritized students could not perform as well in standardised tests in
relation to mainstream students (Fry, 2007; National Assessment of Educational Progress,
2017), they tend to experience ‘more remedial instruction, greater probability of assign-
ment to lower curriculum tracks, poorer graduation rates, higher drop-out rates, and dis-
proportionate referrals to special education classes’(García & Kleifgen, 2011, p. 178). Since
standardised tests entangle academic language proficiency with content proficiency and
often fail to present items without cultural and language bias, certain language-minori-
tized students may not perform at their true potentials in these tests. Translanguaging
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 9
dissuades the utilisation of summative assessments prepared through a monoglossic per-
spective which may set native-born English speakers as the norm and instead offers for-
mative assessments as an alternative to measure emergent bilinguals’learning in more
authentic ways. It advocates that to measure students’learning effectively, dynamic
assessment practices should be prepared based on the students’classroom practices
and differentiated based on individualised needs of students (García et al., 2012). Canagar-
ajah (2011b) and Velasco and García (2014) encouraged bilingual students to write essays
by allowing them to employ linguistic resources at their disposal to assess their writing
skills, and they revealed that strategic use of linguistic resources demonstrated their
complex thinking skills and made their essays more creative. In these cases, translangua-
ging gave these teachers an opportunity to assess full competence about writing literacy
skill and made this type of assessment more equitable.
4.1.3. Translanguaging for creativity and criticality
Creative and critical thinking skills are vital cognitive skills in the twenty-first century, and
translanguaging is viewed as an authentic communication strategy to develop and
demonstrate creativity and criticality in language-minoritized students (Cenoz & Gorter,
2011b; Wei, 2011). García and Wei (2014) asserted that creativity and criticality were intrin-
sically linked: ‘One cannot push or break boundaries without being critical; and the best
expression of one’s criticality is one’s creativity’(p. 67). In the paragraphs below, I will
discuss how teachers scaffolded the development of language-minoritized students’crea-
tivity and criticality by incorporating their home language practices into learning strategi-
cally –that is, using translanguaging.
By adopting translanguaging as a pedagogy, teachers can engage students in border
thinking, the construction of knowledge by transgressing the ‘exterior borders of the
modern/colonial world system’(Mignolo, 2000, p. 11), challenging the banking model of
teaching (Freire, 1973) and regarding all students as critical and creative thinkers rather
than passive learners (hooks, 1994). García and Leiva (2014) observed a high school
teacher in Queens and how she used translanguaging to encourage border thinking.
The teacher started the lesson with a bilingual music video about deportation of undocu-
mented immigrants and the separation of citizen children from their undocumented
parents. After the video, the teacher and the students were engaged in a critical discussion
in Spanish in which they questioned the rights of documented immigrant children in the
U.S. By integrating English terminology, using words such as ‘discrimination’, into her
Spanish-oriented higher order thinking questions, she modelled translanguaging practices
of bilinguals in the twenty-first century. Thus, in this lesson, she not only liberated the
voices of language-minoritized students, who would otherwise be silenced by English-
only practices, but also engaged all students in a critical discussion that required students
to transcend the borders of colonial thinking (García & Kleifgen, 2011).
Educators implementing translanguaging as a pedagogy can also engage language-
minoritized students in critical inquiries to enhance their critical consciousness (Freire,
1973) about raciolinguistic ideologies. According to raciolinguistic ideologies, language-
minoritized students are marginalised due to not only their linguistic limitations but
also racial classifications (Flores & Rosa, 2015). In these discussions, students bring their
funds of knowledge to the forefront, share their linguistic, cultural and life experiences
with others, raise questions, and express opinions through languaging practices that
10 T. YILMAZ
represent their way of being and acting. Several studies observed teachers and students
during critical discussions and identified translanguaging practices. García et al. (2012)
observed one progressive high school teacher’s‘transformative actions’(hooks, 1994;
Valenzuela, 2016) in a newcomer programme, and analysed how students responded
using their flexible bilingualism. The teacher gave students an English text about interra-
cial marriages and asked them to discuss the text in Spanish. In the discussion, students
collaboratively expressed their opinions by referring to their own experiences and
raised questions using Spanish. Through critical discussions, the students had an opportu-
nity to reflect on who they were and benefitted from the knowledge and experiences of
others (Wei, 2011). Next, she asked them to write positionality papers using their full lin-
guistic repertoire. The researchers revealed that students not only used their linguistic
resources fluidly and strategically to express and elaborate on their ideas, but also demon-
strated a high level of critical consciousness which challenged the socially constructed
racial categories and the subordination of people of colour. In conclusion, these obser-
vations lend evidence to the notion that translanguaging can be an effective pedagogy
to activate and improve bilingual students’creativity and criticality.
4.2. Translanguaging to affirm identities
Languages are often inextricably linked to ethnic, national, cultural and linguistic identities
(Balam, 2016; Byeon, 2015; Leeman, 2015; Showstack, 2012; Tatar, 2015) and can be used
as a tool to create otherness and enact cultural racism, i.e. marginalising minority groups for
their dysfunctional cultural and family values and practices,(Bonilla-Silva, 2014) in multi-
cultural societies. For example, in her book ‘Subtractive Schooling: US-Mexican Youth
and The Politics of Caring’, Valenzuela (1999) revealed that many immigrant Mexican stu-
dents rejected US-born students’(Chicanas) Mexican identities due to Chicana’s lack of
proficiency in (standard) Spanish. Similarly, in Helmer’s(2013) study conducted in a
charter high school, students speaking Spanish with an ‘English-inflected’accent were
ridiculed for ‘speaking White’(p. 144). Lastly, in Showstack’s(2012) study, undergraduate
students taking a Spanish language course positioned themselves in essentialized cat-
egories based on their standard Spanish proficiency and otherized people who fit into
the less desirable categories, such as ‘half Hispanic’(p. 17). These studies demonstrated
the power of raciolinguistic ideologies as a tool to degrade one’s complex linguistic and
cultural identity.
According to de Jong (2011), equity in education of language-minoritized students
requires teachers to affirm students’bilingual identities by validating their diverse cultural
and linguistic experiences and creating a space where they can voice these experiences.
She suggests that affirming students’identities can increase students’academic success as
they’d be more likely to feel valued. Translanguaging as a pedagogy aims to affirm
language minoritized students’identities by creating third spaces where language minor-
itized students can voice their realities, perform their ways of being, demonstrate their
expertise and create new realities (Creese & Blackledge, 2015; Durán & Palmer, 2014;
García, 2014; Lee, Hill-Bonnet, & Raley, 2011; Palmer et al., 2014; Sayer, 2013). Moreover,
it gives teachers an opportunity to know their students (Gort & Sembiante, 2015).
Several language-minoritized students reject the identity categories ascribed by others
and define their identities as a combination of two ‘languages’and cultures (Leeman,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 11
2015; Otcu, 2010; Wei, 2014). The discourses of some emergent bilinguals indicate that
there are no clear-cut boundaries between bilinguals’identities. Fifth grader Antonio
described his fluid identity as such: ‘Even though Spanish runs through my heart,
English rules my veins’(García, 2014). Another bilingual emphasised the fluidity and flexi-
bility of his identity by stating ‘[My identity] depends on who I’m talking to …and what my
agenda with that person is’(National Heritage Language Resource Center, 2013 cited in
Leeman, 2015, p. 106). These students’enactments imply that teachers should dignify
who language-minoritized students are as bilingual beings (Reyes & Vallone, 2007) and
build a toolkit of techniques to support their identity construction (Palmer, 2008).
Translanguaging has evolved as an integration of languaging and transculturation, ‘a
process in which a new reality emerges, compounded and complex; a reality that is not
a mechanical agglomeration of characters, not even a mosaic, but a new phenomenon,
original and independent’(Ortiz, 2002 cited in García & Leiva, 2014, p. 203). Teachers
implementing translanguaging as a pedagogy draw on singularities of students that
refer to individual linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge and everyday languaging
practices (García & Sylvan, 2011). In this sense, translanguaging intersects with some
other transformative pedagogies, such as culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010)
and plurilingual approaches (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013) which propose that teachers must
affirm students’cultures, lived experiences and strengths. Translanguaging incorporates
students’cultures and linguistic funds of knowledge into learning process and also trans-
form their static cultural and linguistic images and identities into new integrated ones
(García et al., 2012).
Translanguaging as a pedagogy also opens up third spaces where bilinguals can carry
out their ways of being and construct their unique identities collaboratively (Corcoll,
2013; Lee et al., 2011; Martin-Beltrán, 2014; Pacheco & Miller, 2016; Palmer, 2008).
Palmer (2008) observed linguistically diverse classrooms and the distinct practices of
two teachers, Ms. Melanie and a substitute teacher, teaching fourth and fifth graders in
a two-way immersion programme. She found that Ms. Melanie created a third space by
valuing students’alternative discourse patterns in Spanish as much as in English and by
encouraging all students to express their bilingual identities in post-reading discussions.
On the other hand, the substitute teacher spoke only English with the students, thus
empowering the hegemony of English in the classroom, and frequently failed to answer
Spanish speaking students’clarification questions effectively, which resulted in a withdra-
wal of students from classroom discussions. In this study, while students broke with main-
stream discourse expectations to try ‘alternative’discourse patterns and to construct their
identities in unexpected, empowering and more equitable ways in Ms. Melanie’s class-
room, they converted their discourse into more conventional and inequitable patterns
and withdrew when they failed to meet the conventional expectations in the substitute
teacher’s classroom.
Teachers can practice translanguaging as a pedagogy not only to open up transglossic
spaces (García et al., 2012) where students can portray their multifaceted bilingual identi-
ties, but also to better understand students’identities (Creese & Blackledge, 2011; Palmer
et al., 2014). By engaging students in critical discussions where they can reflect on their
own identities, languages and cultures (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Lytra, 2015; Showstack,
2012) and encouraging them to create identity texts (Cummins, 2008), identity projects (Rey-
nolds & Orellana, 2014) and to construct heteroglossic terms (Creese & Blackledge, 2010),
12 T. YILMAZ
well-meaning educators (Flores & García, 2013) can open up spaces where bilinguals can
convey their identities using the linguistic signs at their disposals and boost bilingual iden-
tity development among students in response to the monolingual realities and linguistic
hierarchies dominant in multicultural societies. As a result, they can increase the students’
investment and construction of transcultural identities and provide them a safe space
within their spheres of influences (García & Leiva, 2014; Gorski, 2013; Sayer, 2013).
In conclusion, translanguaging affirms students’identities by creating spaces in which
the incorporation of language repertoire is seen as a natural process. Moreover, it
encourages students to create new realities that represent their identities in these
spaces and value these realities as parts of students’ways of being. Finally, it provides tea-
chers with opportunities to get to know their students better.
4.3. Translanguaging to combat structural inequities
Translanguaging as a pedagogy pursues combatting for structural inequities principle by
challenging the hegemony and linguistic imperialism of standard languages, empowering
the role of language-minoritized students in the classroom or group discussions and
encouraging language-minoritized students’parents to be a part of their children’s edu-
cation (Creese et al., 2008; García, 2014; Hebblethwaite, 2006; Shannon, 1995). According
to this principle, tranlanguaging as a pedagogy provides voices to minoritized children
who are often silenced by language policies designed based on monoglossic language
ideologies by legitimising their fluid use of full linguistic repertoire.
A monoglossic language ideology can be favoured when nation-states consider linguis-
tic diversity as be a threat to national unity and linguistic homogeneity (Ayers, Quinn, &
Stovall, 2009; Blommaert, 2005; Hebblethwaite, 2006,2012; Leeman, Rabin, & Roman-
Mendoza, 2011; Shohamy, 2006). This type of ideology is reflected through mechanisms
such as stringent language policies and language tests that potentially turn into practices
(Shohamy, 2006). The mechanisms are usually constituted by those in authority in a
specific way which legitimises the dominant social groups’ways of using language. Also
called the ‘standard’language, the legitimised language or language variety is defined
as the norm while the other languages or language varieties are placed at an inferior pos-
ition through diglossic social arrangements. This superiority of the legitimised language
over other languages and language varieties has been referred to as linguistic imperialism
(Phillipson, 1997).
Several studies posited that English-only schooling systems and policies advocating
language separation often fail to establish participatory justice (Ayers et al., 2009) for
language-minoritized students since they oppress students’voices by not allowing them
to apply their full linguistic repertoire to their learning (Beres, 2015; Brooks, Adams, &
Morita-Mullaney, 2010; García & Leiva, 2014). The system often silences these students’
voices by limiting their potential and subordinates them by viewing their linguistic and cul-
tural competencies as a deficit and a problem to be fixed (García, 2002; Pontier & Gort, 2016;
Ruiz, 1984; Valenzuela, 1999). Under the pressure of these monoglossic ideologies, language-
minoritized students may internalise this oppression (Sensoy & Di Angelo, 2012) and begin to
view their linguistic and cultural resources as inferior, as it happened with Mexican-origin
high school students in Helmer’s study (2013). Translanguaging, as a transformative peda-
gogy, critiques these assimilationist practices and views bilingualism as an asset, strength
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 13
and resource to be drawn upon to maximise students’learning and investment (Martin-
Beltrán, 2014). Through translanguaging, teachers allow students to act as language
experts in the class and celebrate their bilingual and bicultural identities (García et al.,
2012; García & Kleyn, 2016; Palmer et al., 2014). Through this, students will feel valued and
respected and perform at their true potentials by raising more questions and expressing
opinions with pride for their complex linguistic resources (Leeman et al., 2011).
Translanguaging offers teachers an opportunity to challenge the hegemony and the lin-
guistic imperialism of standard varieties of languages by equalising the status of all
languages and language varieties present in classrooms and altering power relations to
establish social justice for marginalised students. Palmer et al. (2014) and Sayer (2013)
observed the teaching practices of Spanish-English bilingual teachers in two different
bilingual programmes (TWI and TBE). They revealed that teachers used both ‘standard’
Spanish and vernacular Spanish in their instructions in order to legitimise the use of
both language varieties in the classrooms. As such, they challenged the inferior status
of so-called Spanglish and the hegemony of standard Spanish in the classrooms.
Family and community involvement have a positive effect on language-minoritized stu-
dents’achievement. However, it can be a challenge to build rapport with parents and com-
munities when schools and the teachers implement a monoglossic ideology. Several
studies revealed that teachers perceived the parents of the language-minoritized students,
especially English language learners, as not caring about their children’s education,
whereas the parents had opposing views compared to teachers. Through translanguaging,
teachers can display their bilingual and bicultural identities and act like ‘insiders’of the
communities. Creese and Blackledge (2010) analysed the language practices of teachers
in two (Chinese and Gujarati) complementary schools in the UK to explore how teachers
manifest their flexible bilingualism to break down the boundaries between languages in
performing routine activities in complementary schools. They analysed a head teacher’s
language practices in an assembly and found that the head teacher used both languages
(Gujarati and English) simultaneously to convey full messages to parents and to engage
with them. These researchers argued that the meaning of the message from the head
teacher could only be completely understood by parents when all their linguistic resources
were involved in processing the message (Lee et al., 2011). Moreover, by expressing their
bilingual identity, the teacher aimed to connect with the parents as an insider of the com-
munity and encourage them to engage in school activities.
As a result, translanguaging as a pedagogy aims to establish social justice for language-
minoritized students by challenging the higher status of the dominant language and
equalising the power of the languages and language speakers in the classrooms. More-
over, it can help involve students in the decision-making process and aims to value and
respect their diversity. Finally, it can create a connection between teachers and parents
and increase parental involvement.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, I have discussed two ideologies which highly frame the education of
today’s language-minoritized students. I explained how bilingualism was viewed accord-
ing to these ideologies and which language ideology translanguaging as a pedagogy
draws upon. I differentiated the concept of translanguaging as a bilingual practice
14 T. YILMAZ
from code-switching to clarify that translanguaging is not simply alternation of language
codes that external views highlight, but strategic selection of linguistic and multimo-
dal resources to achieve communication in a specific context (Otheguy et al., 2015,
2018). Finally, I described the intersections between translanguaging as a pedagogy
and the tenets of critical pedagogy by using de Jong’s(2011) educational equity
framework.
Translanguaging can be regarded as a transformative pedagogy considering its goals
addressing the equity of language-minoritized students in education. It promotes
language-minoritized students’bilingualism and values their full linguistic repertoire
rather than undervaluing their flexible languaging practices. It also aims to increase stu-
dents’academic achievement by using students’linguistic resources as a scaffolding
tool for content learning. It affirms students’bilingual identities and creates ‘third
spaces’in which they can promote their bilingual identities by creating new realities.
Finally, it structures the classrooms to give voices to students. To achieve this, it equalises
the status of languages spoken in the classroom and intends to increase participation of
both students and parents into the decision-making processes. For these reasons, trans-
languaging can be regarded a transformative pedagogy that empowers language-minor-
itized students in the classrooms in any programme.
Note
1. Named languages refer to the terms ‘English’,‘Spanish’,‘Arabic’,‘Chinese’,‘Swahili’,‘Russian’,
‘Haitian Creole’, etc. to highlight that they are socially invented categories (Makoni & Penny-
cook, 2005). That is, they are regarded as languages by the societies, but stay limited to
describe bilinguals’linguistic resources.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2009). Handbook of social justice in education. New York: Routledge.
Baker, C. (2006). The measurement of bilingualism. In Foundations of bilingual education and bilingu-
alism (pp. 17–41). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Chapter 2.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (Eds.),
Vern W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Balam, O. E. (2016). Language use, language change and innovation in Northern Belize contact Spanish.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
Beres, A. M. (2015). An overview of translanguaging: 20 years of ‘giving voice to those who do not
speak’.Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts,1(1), 103–118.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brooks, K., Adams, S., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive learning communities for ELL
students: Transforming school principals’perspectives. Theory into Practice,49, 145–151.
Byeon, S. (2015). The language ideologies and practices of four Korean heritage language teachers:
Constructing what it means to teach Korean to diverse students in a community based Korean heri-
tage language school. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 15
Canagarajah, S. (2011a). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and peda-
gogy. Applied Linguistics Review,2011,1–27.
Canagarajah, S. (2011b). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of trans-
languaging. The Modern Language Journal,95(3), 401–417.
Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2011). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York: CUNY-
NYSIEB.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011a). A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction. The
Modern Language Journal,95(3), 339–343.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011b). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern
Language Journal,95, 356–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching:
Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly,47(3), 591–599. Retrieved from
http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&A
N=edsjsr.43268035&site=eds-live
Cook, V. J. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language, Culture and
Curriculum,8(2), 93–98.
Corcoll, C. (2013). Developing children’s language awareness: Switching codes in the language class-
room. International Journal of Multilingualism,10(1), 27–45. doi:10.1080/14790718.2011.628023
Council of Europe. (2000). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teach-
ing, assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/
linguistic/Source/FrameworkEN.pdf
Creese, A., Barac, T., Bhatt, A., Blackledge, A., Hamid, S., Wei, L., et al. (2008). Investigating multilingu-
alism in complementary schools in four communities (Final Report to ESRC RES-000-23-1180).
Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learn-
ing and teaching? The Modern Language Journal,94(1), 103–115.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools:
Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics,43, 1196–1208. doi:10.
1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics,35,20–35. doi:10.1017/S0267190514000233
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism,19, 121–129.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as
a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal,89, 585–592.
Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual edu-
cation. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education:
Vol. 5. Bilingual education (2nd ed., pp. 65–75). Boston: Springer Science+Business Media.
Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching minoritized students: Are additive approaches legitimate? Harvard
Educational Review,87(3), 404–425.
Daniel, S. M., & Pacheco, M. B. (2015). Translanguaging practices and perspectives of four multilingual
teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,20(10), 1–11.
de Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations of multilingualism in education: From policies to practice.
Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
Durán, L., & Palmer, D. (2014). Pluralist discourses of bilingualism and translanguaging talk in class-
rooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,14(3), 367–388.
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word,15, 325–340.
Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and
policies. AILA Review,16,38–51.
Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia: Diglossia with and without bilingual-
ism. Journal of Social Issues,23(2), 29–38.
Flores, N., & García, O. (2013). Linguistic third spaces in education: Teachers’translanguaging across
the bilingual continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in edu-
cation: Key issues and some responses (pp. 243–256). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
16 T. YILMAZ
Flores, N., & García, O. (2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From base-
ments and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,37,14–29.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diver-
sity in education. Harvard Educational Review,85, 149–171.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washington, DC: Pew
Hispanic Center.
García, O., Flores, N., & Chu, H. (2011). Extending bilingualism in U.S. secondary education: New vari-
ations. International Multilingual Research Journal,5(1), 1–18.
García, O., Flores, N., & Woodley, H. (2012). Transgressing monolingualism and bilingual dualities:
Translanguaging pedagogies. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve edu-
cation (pp. 45–75). Bern: Peter Lang.
García, O., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English
writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in
languages education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 258–277). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals. Policies, programs and practices for
English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2011). Bilingualism for equity and excellence in minority education: The
United States. In K. Van den Branden, P. Van Avermaet, & M. Van Houtte (Eds.), Equity and excel-
lence in education (pp. 166–189). New York: Routledge.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices for
English learners (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom
moments. New York: Routledge.
García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A.
Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). Dordrecht:
Springer.
García, O. (2002). Teaching language minorities in the United States: From bilingualism as a deficit to
bilingualism as a liability. Comments to Eugene García, bilingualism and schooling in the United
States. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,155/156, 125–130.
García, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.
García, O. (2009b). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A.
Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social
justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan (former Orient Longman).
García, O. (2013). From diglossia to transglossia: Bilingual and multilingual classrooms in the 21st
century. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.),
Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience (pp. 155–175).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García, O. (2014). Countering the dual: Transglossia, dynamic bilingualism and translanguaging in
education. In R. Rubdy & L. Alsagoff(Eds.), The global-local interface, language choice and hybridity
(pp. 100–118). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in
pluralities. The Modern Language Journal,95(3), 385–400.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gorski, P. C. (2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gort, M., & Pontier, R. W. (2013). Exploring bilingual pedagogies in dual language preschool class-
rooms. Language and Education,27(3), 223–245.
Gort, M., & Sembiante, S. F. (2015). Navigating hybridized language learning spaces through trans-
languaging pedagogy: Dual language preschool teachers’languaging practices in support of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 17
emergent bilingual children’s performance of academic discourse. International Multilingual
Research Journal,9(1), 7–25.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International
Publishers.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person.
Brain and Language,36,3–15.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2012). Some key pedagogic principles for helping ELLs to succeed in school.
Theory into Practice,51, 297–304.
Hebblethwaite, B. (2006). Sociolinguistic aspects of Haitian Creole in South Florida: The causes of the
failure to develop the natural asset of biliteracy. Florida Foreign Language Journal,3(1), 52–59.
Hebblethwaite, B. (2012). French and underdevelopment, Haitian Creole and development:
Educational language policy problems and solutions in Haiti. Journal of Pidgin and Creole
Languages,27(2), 255–302.
Helmer, K. A. (2013). A Twice-Told tale: Voices of resistance in a borderlands Spanish heritage
language class. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,44(3), 269–285. doi:10.1111/aeq.12025
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycho-
linguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Heritage/community language education: US and Australian perspectives.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,8(2&3), 101–108. Ed.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp.
269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jacobson, R., & Faltis, C. (1990). Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Jacquemet, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization.
Language and Communication,25, 257–277.
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Jorgensen, J. N., Karrebaek, M. S., Madsen, L. M., & Moller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiver-
sity. Diversities,13(2), 22–37.
Kano, N. (2013). Translanguaging as a process and a pedagogical tool for Japanese students in an
English writing course in New York. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences 74(10-A(E)). ProQuest Information & Learning.
Kewal-Ramani, A., Fox, M., & Aud, S. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic
groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. E. Aboud & R.
D. Mead (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education (pp. 91–122). Bellingham, WA: Fifth
Western Washington Symposium on Learning.
Langman, J. (2014). Translanguaging, identity, and learning: Science teachers as engaged language
planners. Language Policy,13(2), 183–200.
Lee, J. S., Hill-Bonnet, L., & Raley, J. (2011). Examining the effects of language brokering on student
identities and learning opportunities in dual immersion classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity &
Education,10(5), 306–326. doi:10.1080/15348458.2011.614544
Leeman, J. (2015). Heritage language learning and identity in the United States. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics,35, 100–119.
Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Roman-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language edu-
cation. The Modern Language Journal,95(4), 481–495. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01237.x
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first
language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal,87,
343–364.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to
street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation,18(7), 641–654.
18 T. YILMAZ
Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review,4(1),
195–218. doi:10.1515/applirev-2013-0009
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United
States. New York: Routledge.
Lopez, M. (2009). Latinos and education: Explaining the attainment gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic
Center.
Lytra, V. (2015). Language and language ideologies among Turkish-speaking young people in Athens
and London. In J. Nortier & B. A. Svendsen (Eds.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century:
Linguistic practices across urban spaces (pp. 183–204). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for multi-
lingual classrooms. Language and Education,29(3), 200–217. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.994524
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2005). Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies,2(3), 137–156. doi:10.1207/s15427595cils0203_1
Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). “What do you want to say?”How adolescents use translanguaging to
expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Journal,8(3), 208–230.
Martínez, R. A., Hikida, M., & Durán, L. (2015). Unpacking ideas of linguistic purism: How dual
language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research
Journal,9(1), 26–42. doi:10.1080/ 19313152.2014.977712
Mazak, C. M., & Herbas-Donoso, C. (2015). Translanguaging practices at a bilingual university: A case
study of a science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,18(6),
698–714. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.939138
Mignolo, W. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border think-
ing. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NAEP). (2017). National student group scores and score
gaps. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#?grade=4.
National Heritage Language Resource Center. (2013). Heritage Language Survey report. Retrieved
from http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc/surveyreport/home.
Ortiz, F. (2002). Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y el azúcar. (Tobacco and sugar: A cuban counter
point). Madrid: Cátedra.
Otcu, B. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and cultural identity formation: The case of a Turkish
Saturday school in New York City. Heritage Language Journal,7(2), 112–137.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named
languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review,6(3), 281–307.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2018). A translanguaging view of the linguistic system of bilin-
guals. Applied Linguistic Review,1–27. doi:10.1515/applirev-2018-0020
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International
Journal of Multilingualism,7(3), 240–254. doi:10.1080/14790710903414331
Pacheco, M., & Miller, M. (2016). Making meaning through translanguaging in the literacy classroom.
The Reading Teacher,69(5), 533–537.
Palmer, D. K. (2008). Building and destroying students’‘academic identities’: The power of discourse
in a two-way immersion classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,21(6),
647–667.
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.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1997). Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development,18(3), 238–248. doi:10.1080/01434639708666317
Pontier, R., & Gort, M. (2016). Coordinated translanguaging pedagogy as distributed cognition: A case
study of two dual language bilingual education preschool co-teachers’languaging practices
during shared book readings. International Multilingual Research Journal,10(2), 89–106. doi:10.
1080/19313152.2016.1150732
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUALISM 19
Reyes, S. A., & Vallone, T. L. (2007). Toward an expanded understanding of two-way bilingual immer-
sion education: Constructing identity through a critical additive/bicultural pedagogy. Multicultural
Perspectives,9,3–11.
Reynolds, J. F., & Orellana, F. M. (2014). Translanguaging within enactments of quotidian interpreter-
mediated interactions. Journal Of Linguistic Anthropology,24(3), 315–338.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual
Education,8(2), 1–14.
Sánchez, M. T., García, O., & Solorza, C. (2017). Reframing language allocation policy in dual language
bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal,41(1), 37–51.
Sayer, P. (2013). Translanguaging, Tex-Mex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning
through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly,47(1), 63–88.
Sensoy, O., & Di Angelo, R. (2012). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social
justice education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of
resistance. Linguistics and Education,7, 175–200.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy. New York: Routledge.
Showstack, R. E. (2012). Symbolic power in the heritage language classroom: How Spanish heritage
speakers sustain and resist hegemonic discourses on language and cultural diversity. Spanish in
Context,9(1), 1–26.
Showstack, R. E. (2015). Institutional representations of ‘Spanish’and ‘Spanglish’: Managing compet-
ing discourses in heritage language instruction. Language and Intercultural Communication.doi:10.
1080/14708477.2015.1015350
Tatar, R. (2015). Parents’role in their children‘s development and maintenance of the heritage language: A
case study of a Turkish-American immigrant family. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1681661000): http://search.proquest.com/docview/1681661000?accountid=10920
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Valenzuela, A. (2016). Growing critically conscious teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual
Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education,1(37), 6–23.
Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by
multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Multilingual Structures and Agencies,43(5), 1222–1235.
Wei, L. (2014). Negotiating funds of knowledge and symbolic competence in the complementary
school classrooms. Language and Education,28(2), 161–180. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.800549
20 T. YILMAZ
