The Significance and Practicality of Translanguaging

While reading The First Five Thousand Years, I encountered the concept of “Translanguaging”, which presents a revolutionary approach to language classification by breaking down the boundaries between languages. Having come across this concept several times last semester, I decided to delve deeper into this pedagogical strategy. This article will analyze its significance and limitations from both conceptual and applied perspectives.

We can get the core concept of Translanguaging from its origin and the explanation of similar concepts. Welsh educator Cen Williams initially introduced with the aim of “build a bilingual Welsh identity that did not conceive of the child as two monolinguals, but rather as one integrated bilingual（García & Kleyn, 2016, p.12）”， which suggests that Translanguaging is based on the notion that languages should not be tied to specific nations or states, but rather, an individual's language knowledge should be considered as a unified whole. Furthermore, in the explanations provided by Translanguaging for similar concepts, one can also discern its stance on language classification. Code-switching is often compared to Translanguaging. Code-switching refers to the practice of inserting one language into another during communication（Lang Focus, 2017）. Supporters of Translanguaging, such as García, believe that code-switching still relies on the underlying concept that different languages have boundaries， which fundamentally distinguishes code-switching from Translanguaging（García & Kleyn, 2016, p.14）. This further confirms the core stance of Translanguaging: language systems transcend bilinguals or multilinguals as they possess a single linguistic system from an internal perspective（García & Kleyn, 2016, p.10）.

“Translanguaging refers to the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire, which does not in any way correspond to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages. （García & Kleyn, 2016, p.14） ” Based on this concept of Translanguaging, I believe that its value lies more in the construction of identity and social equity than in teaching. There are two reasons. Firstly, Translanguaging justified the existence of bilingual and multilingual communities by rejecting the notion of languages being externally named by societies or authorities, such as being labelled Chinese, English, or Spanish. In other words, traditional distinctions like L1, L2, or L3 are subsumed within individual's linguistic repertoire, allowing bilingual and plurilingual communities to be acknowledged and to establish their unique language categorizations. This is analogous to transgender individuals, where societal recognition of multilingual or bilingual individuals parallels the recognition of transgender identities, which is beneficial for the individuals themselves as well as for the broader society. Secondly, Translanguaging can create a more equitable educational and learning environment for bilingual and multilingual learners. As García mentioned in her speech, during the learning process, native English speakers can use their entire knowledge base to achieve their learning objectives. However, bilingual and multilingual learners, if limited to using only one language, can only utilize a portion of their knowledge, which is unfair (MudiLe 2017, 2017). An educational environment created under the guidance of Translanguaging educational strategies can mobilize all the knowledge reserves of bilingual or multilingual learners for learning, which will undoubtedly lead to better learning outcomes.

When I was first introduced to the educational approach of Translanguaging last semester, I was completely convinced that it was the latest and most innovative approach to learning and teaching. I believed that it has been developed based on previous experiences and research and was undoubtedly more scientifically effective than previous educational approaches. Now, as I reconsider this approach, I have doubts about its feasibility in actual educational environments. First, Translanguaging's perspective on language classification is inconsistent with the current mainstream. It removes the boundaries of L1, L2, and L3, retaining the language features, and categorizes all the language features a person possesses as one repertoire. This concept is at odds with the views of most educators or learners, which means that if educators and learners want to use the Translanguaging approach, they need to change their own beliefs first. Educational beliefs are relatively fixed factors, making it difficult to establish the premise for the practice of Translanguaging. Secondly, the implementation of Translanguaging classrooms is costly. Translanguaging encourages the presence of different languages in the classroom. Consider a scenario where there is a class with learners whose mother tongues differ, such as our cohort IMTE，and students speak various languages during class. What capabilities should a teacher possess in this context? What language should the materials be used? In the book Translanguaging with Multilingual Students, I found a similar case: a fifth-grade class comprising eight languages, twenty-seven students, and a bilingual teacher. They used translation technology to maintain classroom operations, including multilingual interactive whiteboards and multilingual learning texts (García & Kleyn, 2016, pp. 89-99). It's not hard to imagine that maintaining such a multilingual environment is costly. The link between education and economics is tight. When the ratio of educational outcomes to economic expenditure is not ideal, it becomes challenging to widely promote this educational approach.

In summary, while I recognize the pedagogical merits of Translanguaging, its practical applicability in educational settings remains a significant challenge that warrants further exploration. Additionally, in the process of rethinking Translanguaging, I have also truly grasped the essence of critical thinking, which, when applied in teaching, echoes Bartolome's view that teachers should refuse to use teaching methods without thoughtful consideration （Curtis, 2017, p. 17).

References

Curtis, A. (2017). Methods and methodologies for language teaching: The centrality of context. Bloomsbury Publishing.

García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. Routledge.

Language on the Move.(2023).Translanguaging: Professor Ofelia García in interview with Dr Loy Lising[Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ljr4C9velU

LangFocus. (2017). CODE-SWITCHING: Jumping between 2 different languages [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Na4UvRIhu4

MudiLe 2017. (2017). Ofelia García - Translanguaging [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1CcrRrck0

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.