A translanguaging view of the linguistic system of bilinguals

Abstract

Two conceptions of the linguistic system of bilinguals are in contention. The translanguaging approach supports what we call a unitary view, arguing that bilingualism and multilingualism, despite their importance as sociocultural concepts, have no correspondence in a dual or multiple linguistic system. In our view, the myriad lexical and structural features mastered by bilinguals occupy a cognitive terrain that is not fenced off into anything like the two areas suggested by the two socially named languages. But a strong critique of this view by Jeff MacSwan adopts the familiar position that, while allowing for some overlap, the competence of bilinguals involves language specific internal differentiation. According to this view, which we have called the dual correspondence theory, bilinguals possess two separate linguistic systems whose boundaries coincide with those of the two named languages. Several interdisciplinary considerations point to the lack of initial plausibility of the dual correspondence theory. And the main argument offered by MacSwan in defense of the theory, namely restrictions on code switching, lacks descriptive adequacy and theoretical coherence. The dual correspondence theory has had pernicious effects in educational practices. A much healthier educational climate is created by teachers who adopt the unitary view sponsored by translanguaging.

Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning: lessons from a multilingual karate club in London

“…From its early days as a descriptive label for the pedagogical practice of alternating between different input and output languages in minority language classrooms (Williams 1994) to a theoretical and analytical approach to the sociolinguistic realities of the twenty-first century where biand multilingual language users engage in dynamic discursive practices to make sense of their social worlds (for a review, see Garcia and Li 2014;Li 2018;Garcia and Otheguy, this volume), the concept of translanguaging has opened up new ways of understanding human communication and social action including language teaching and learning and beyond. Translanguaging not only transcends the boundaries between named languages as socially constructed entities, or in Otheguy et al's words, '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' (Otheguy, García, and Reid 2015, 283; see also Otheguy, García, and Reid 2018), but also sees the traditional divides between the linguistic, the paralinguistic, and the extralinguistic dimensions of human communication as nonsensical and foregrounds what Li Wei (2018, 17) calls the 'orchestration' of diverse and multiple skills and resources in sense-and meaning-making (see also Li 2016;Zhu, Li, and Jankowicz-Pytel, forthcoming). Whilst there is much emphasis on the fluid languages practices of multilingual language users in the current and fast expanding translanguaging research literature, relatively little attention has been paid to the other aspects of the translanguaging approach, i.e.…”

Reconceptualizing “Home” and “School” Language: Taking a Critical Translingual Approach in the English Classroom

“…Instead, it adds to the growing body of literature that calls for shifts in teachers’ and researchers’ stance and practice toward a re‐seeing and re‐hearing of students for their linguistic assets and expertise. In taking up the theory of translanguaging (García, ; García & Li Wei, ) to understand students’ language practices—rather than an external, named language perspective (Otheguy, García, & Reid, , ) that reifies dichotomies like “home” and “school” language—I trouble those labels and terms assigned to language—minoritized students. To do this, I draw on data collected during a yearlong ethnographic study of an 11th‐grade English language arts classroom that took up what I have termed a critical translingual approach (Seltzer, ), engaging language‐minoritized students in metalinguistic conversations, literacy activities, and writing about the role language plays in their identities and lived experiences.…”

Translanguaging and Latinx Bilingual Readers

“…Yes, English and Spanish are important sociopolitical linguistic constructs that have important impacts on the lives of people who culturally and historically identify with those languages. However, bilinguals do language with a unitary linguistic repertoire that does not reflect dual, separate linguistic systems or have a dual psycholinguistic correspondence (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, 2018; that is, bilinguals engage in translanguaging (García & Li, 2014).…”