Translanguaging, learning and teaching in deaf education

Abstract

This paper critiques the role of translanguaging in deaf education by examining how, and under what conditions, translanguaging practices can enhance learning and teaching. The paper explores the premise that translanguaging represents an additive view of bilingualism and multilingualism for deaf learners and offers an innovative departure from, and not a repacking of, traditional teaching methods in deaf education. In this context the additive aspects of translanguaging are conceptualized as ways of seeing and responding to the language resources of deaf learners and ways of teaching that recognise and promote bilingual and multilingual (sign and spoken/written) language skills. The innovative aspects of translanguaging are explained in terms of the focus on language as a social phenomenon, the emphasis on individual repertoires, and attention to the mindful use of languages in the classroom. Examples of learner and teacher translanguaging are given that illustrate what translanguaging offers to deaf education in terms of understanding and supporting the language repertoires of deaf learners and for the development of pedagogy. The paper concludes by suggesting the conditions under which these benefits can be realised.

On the quest to “go beyond” a bounded view of language. Research in the intersections of the Educational Sciences, Language Studies and Deaf Studies domains 1997–2018

“…Having said that, even when scholars explicitly take such an agenda onboard, the analysis of studies presented here suggests that what gets accomplished is in fact the use concepts and ideas from different research traditions (e.g. Pennycook, 2017;Swain, 2013;Swanwick, 2017). The dichotomised states are, we argue, not resolved by mixing the tenets or assumptions of two or more different analytical traditions, "rather hybridity […] is the 'Third Space', which enables other positions to emerge" (Rutherford, 1990, p. 211; see also Bagga-Gupta, 2017c, 2017d).…”

“…Three studies from this group are particularly interesting: Murray (2018); Kusters, Spotti, Swanwick, and Tapio (2017) and Swanwick (2017). The latter two are included in the International Journal of Multilingualism (IJoM) special issue "Translanguaging and repertoires across signed and spoken languages: Insights from linguistic ethnographies in semiotically diverse contexts".…”

“…Translanguaging, as it has developed, in terms of the totality and complexity of peoples' linguistic repertoires (see for instance García, 2009) is, as Swanwick (2017) argues, particularly interesting in relation to deaf education: "a typical bilingual activity […] involves sign, spoken and written languages, [with which] deaf learners continually engage in a number of different translingual practices" (p. 239). 7 In spite of the use of concepts like translanguaging and translingual practices, the use of terminology 5 Besides Kusters et al (2017) and Swanwick (2017) included in Table 4, Blackledge and Creese (2017), Kusters (2017), Kusters et al (2017); Pennycook (2017) and Snoddon (2017) have contributed to the special issue. 6 See the book of abstract of the symposium at: http://www.mmg.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Flyer_Events/ 2016/2016-06-20_Translanguaging_Programme-book.pdf [accessed June 5 2018].…”

Translanguaging and the No Voice Policy in L2 Sign Language Contexts

“…Historically, ASL has been strongly and systematically suppressed, particularly within the realm of deaf education (Lane et al, 1996). Recent translanguaging projects have sought to reclaim ASL for deaf communities, and to show how the use of multiple modes of meaning making (signed, spoken, and written) allows deaf students to contribute more fully to classroom dialogue (Swanwick, 2017). Canagarajah (2011) described this as the valorization of a supressed community practice.…”

Práticas translíngues na educação linguística de surdos mediada por tecnologias digitais

“…A educação linguística de surdos no cenário brasileiro vem sendo tradicionalmente pensada e organizada a partir de uma perspectiva bilíngue, fundamentada, muitas vezes, em uma visão monolítica de língua e com ações de ensino que se distanciam das práticas comunicativas cotidianas de pessoas surdas, cujo caráter translíngue (cf. Allard & Pichler 2018;Kusters 2017;Nogueira 2015;Swanwick 2017) tem sido pouco visibilizado nas salas de ensino de línguas. As expectativas em relação ao comportamento linguístico do aluno surdo nesses espaços evidenciam um hiato entre as práticas de língua(gem) correntes desses alunos, crescentemente mediadas pelas tecnologias digitais, e o modo como se organizam as atividades de leitura e produção.…”