Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Minority languages and sustainable

translanguaging: threat or opportunity?

Jasone Cenoz & Durk Gorter

To cite this article: Jasone Cenoz & Durk Gorter (2017) Minority languages and sustainable
translanguaging: threat or opportunity?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
38:10, 901-912, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 10 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8112

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 56 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2017
VOL. 38, NO. 10, 901–912
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855

Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: threat or

opportunity?
a b,c
Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter
a
Department of Research Methods in Education, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Donostia-San
Sebastian, Spain; bDepartment of Theory and History of Education, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU,
Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain; cIkerbasque Basque foundation for Science, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Traditionally, languages have been separated from each other in the Received 27 September 2016
school curriculum and there has been little consideration for resources Accepted 13 January 2017
that learners possess as emergent multilinguals. This policy is aimed at
KEYWORDS
the protection of minority languages and has sought to avoid cross- Translanguaging; minority
linguistic influence and codeswitching. However, these ideas have been languages; multilingualism;
challenged by current multilingual ideologies in a society that is multilingual education;
becoming more globalised. Within the field of multilingual education Basque; bilingualism
studies, there is a strong trend towards replacing the idea of isolated
linguistic systems with approaches that take multilingual speakers and
their linguistic repertoire as a reference.
This article focuses on translanguaging, a concept that was developed
in bilingual schools in Wales and refers both to pedagogically oriented
strategies and to spontaneous language practices. In this article,
translanguaging will be analysed as related to the protection and
promotion of minority languages. Examples from multilingual education
involving minority languages will be shown in order to see how
translanguaging can be at the same time a threat for the survival of
minority languages and an opportunity for their development. A set of
principles that can contribute to sustainable translanguaging in a
context of regional minority language use will be discussed.

Introduction
La kilo de azúcar, la real canela, pa Tiburtzio las esparzines del número ventilau.
Spanish translation: Un kilo de azúcar, un real de canela, zapatillas para Tiburcio del número veinticuatro
English translation: A kilo of sugar, one penny of cinnamon, and slippers for Tiburtzio, number twenty four.

This utterance is an often retold anecdote produced in the 1950s in which a Basque farmer is
depicted trying to use Spanish when shopping in a small village in the North of Navarre. He lived
in a Basque-speaking village and had to do his shopping in a neighbouring village where Spanish
was more widely used. The speaker employed features from his whole linguistic repertoire. The
basic structure of the sentence is Spanish but it has the word ‘esparzines’ which is Basque with a
Spanish ending and ‘lau’ which is the number four in Basque. There are some problems with the
use of articles ‘la kilo’ ‘la real’, and with the use of the prepositions ‘de’ and ‘para’. The example is
a jocular way to imitate Basque speakers from rural areas who could not speak ‘proper’ Spanish
and Basque was looked down upon.

CONTACT Jasone Cenoz jasone.cenoz@ehu.eus

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
902 J. CENOZ AND D. GORTER

The example shows how monolingual majority speakers make fun of speakers of the minority
language who try to use the majority language. Hélot and De Mejía (2008, 1) contrast bilingualism
involving internationally prestigious languages which is visible and socially accepted with bilingual-
ism in minority languages which ‘leads, in many cases, to an “invisible” form of bilingualism in
which the native language is undervalued and associated with underdevelopment, poverty and back-
wardness!’. Since the 1950s, the Basque language has risen in status in some areas of the Basque
Country as the result of changes in political and social power but Basque remains a minority
language. The example in the popular anecdote not only shows Basque as a less powerful language
but also shows that while it is natural for bilingual speakers or emergent bilinguals to use resources
from their linguistic repertoire in communication, combining elements of different languages is not
easily accepted by society. This situation may be changing, as there has been an important develop-
ment in the study of translanguaging and translingual practices in different contexts (see, for
example, Canagarajah 2013; García and Li 2014).
In this article, we discuss minority languages as related to translanguaging. We focus on the situ-
ation of Basque but the discussion can also be extended to other minority languages and particularly
to multilingual contexts involving languages such as Breton, Frisian, Irish, Māori or Welsh. We
emphasise the way language isolating policies and/or translanguaging can have an effect on the sur-
vival of minority languages.

The dynamics of minority languages

The development of different languages cannot be separated from socio-economic and sociopolitical
factors (May, 2000; Edwards, 2012). This can certainly be seen in the case of minority languages that
have often been associated with shame and backwardness but that can also acquire a higher social
status as a consequence of these factors. A good example of the dynamics of minority languages
at work is the case of the Basque language. The opening sentence of this article shows how Basque
was associated with shame and backwardness. In fact, Basque was excluded from the public domain
for many decades in the twentieth century during Franco’s dictatorship in Spain. Basque was main-
tained predominantly in rural areas but was forbidden to be taught at school. In our example, the
people from a nearby village that was predominantly Spanish-speaking, because it was closer located
to a main road and whose teachers and priest spoke Spanish, ridiculed a Basque speaker who tried to
use his bilingual resources to communicate in Spanish. After important socio-economic and socio-
political changes in the last quarter of the twentieth century, the Basque language is now more wide-
spread. The Basque Country consists of three administrative parts, two in Spain and one in France. A
comparison of survey data from 1991 and 2011 indicates that the percentage of Basque speakers in
the Basque Autonomous Community has increased from 24% to 32% and in Navarre from 9.5% to
11.7% (Basque Government 2012) due to policies designed to support the language. However, a lack
of such policies in the French part of the Basque Country resulted in a decline in the number of
speakers (from 33% to 21.4%) during the same period.
In the Basque Autonomous Community, Basque, Spanish and a foreign language (in most cases
English) are compulsory school subjects and parents can choose either Basque, Spanish or both as the
languages of instruction for their children. In the early twenty-first century, Basque has become the
main language of instruction in primary and secondary school. Basque is a minority language spoken
by about one-third of the population in the Basque Autonomous Community; yet, many parents
who do not speak Basque choose to have their children educated through the medium of Basque
not only for identity reasons but also because Basque can be useful for their children in the job market
(Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Gorter et al. 2014). Supported by a strong language policy, Basque is also
used in sectors such as the health service, government, administration and higher education.
The Basque case shows the dynamics of minority languages and how Basque has moved from
shame and backwardness to being promoted and accepted all over the Basque Autonomous Commu-
nity. This change is obviously associated with socio-economic and sociopolitical factors. The Basque
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 903

case at the same time shows the vulnerability of minority languages. Nowadays, the policies promoting
Basque can be considered as a success regarding the increase in the number of speakers in the Basque
Autonomous Community and the use of Basque as the language of instruction in schools. However,
the Basque language still faces many challenges. Minority language speakers are bilingual and multi-
lingual because they need to speak the majority language and often a third language as well. Minority
languages such as Basque are always in contact with other languages that are spoken by the majority of
the population. In the past, Basque was isolated in some areas in what we can describe as comfort
zones, but today, Spanish is the first language of many Basque speakers and often Basque is only
used at school. In fact, data about the use of the Basque language show that in spite of all the efforts
to promote the language over the past 35 years, its use remains quite limited (Gorter et al. 2014).
Notwithstanding the strong policy to protect and promote the use of Basque, the language is still
vulnerable and, like many other minority languages, it can easily be damaged or attacked. Nowadays,
it is possible to publish legal documents in Basque or to submit a doctoral thesis in the disciplines of
Neurology or Physics in Basque because the language has moved from local, rural, almost monolin-
gual contexts to global, urban, multilingual ones. Basque is one of the languages in the multilingual
speaker’s repertoire of citizens of the Basque Autonomous Community in the twenty-first century,
next to Spanish, increasingly English and sometimes other languages. In the following sections, we
discuss the implications of these new circumstances as related to translanguaging.

New trends in multilingualism

It may sound contradictory, but traditionally monolingualism has been the reference for bilingual-
ism and second language acquisition. Bilingual speakers have been compared to two monolingual
speakers and second language learners’ development has been measured by taking the native speaker
of the target language as a reference. This has also been the case when more than two languages are
involved in multilingualism and the acquisition of third or additional languages. These ideologies of
language separation have been criticised (Grosjean 1985; Cook 1999; Cummins 2007; Creese and
Blackledge 2010; Li 2011) and a new emergent paradigm is taking shape. This paradigm, which is
more in accordance with globalisation, digital communication and the mobility of the population,
is based on a series of proposals that focus on the way multilinguals communicate and go against
monolingual ideologies (see, for example, Cenoz and Gorter 2015; Conteh and Meier 2014; May
2014; Paquet-Gauthier and Beaulieu 2016).
Translanguaging is one of the more widely used concepts associated with the new trends in the
study of multilingualism. The concept of translanguaging was first used in the context of bilingual
education in English and a minority language, Welsh. As Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012a) explain,
it refers to a bilingual pedagogy based on alternating the languages used for input and output in a
systematic way. An example of translanguaging would be to read a text in English and then prepare
an oral presentation based on the text in Welsh. The aim of this pedagogic strategy is to reinforce
both languages and to increase understanding. According to Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012b), trans-
languaging provides scaffolding and support that can be removed when children are more advanced
in their language competence.
Translanguaging is also used to increase comprehension in the context of other minority
languages. For example, Lowman et al. (2007) reported that Māori literacy levels increased when stu-
dents were allowed to use their first language, English, to process and analyse texts that were in
Māori. Llurda, Cots, and Armengol (2013), in the context of a Catalan university, also reported
the use of English and Catalan to support students’ comprehension in an English-medium class.
The term translanguaging is nowadays used in different ways. It can keep its original meaning as a
pedagogical strategy referring to the planned alternation of input and output as developed in the
Welsh context. However, as Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012a) point out, translanguaging has become
generalised from the school to the street to refer to different contexts. Therefore, we can distinguish
the pedagogical use of translanguaging from spontaneous translanguaging which refers to the
904 J. CENOZ AND D. GORTER

complex discourse practices of bilinguals (see García 2009). Translanguaging thus goes beyond the
concept of scaffolding for comprehension inside the classroom and has been defined as ‘the ability of
multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their
repertoire as an integrated system’ (Canagarajah 2011, 401). The idea of the whole linguistic reper-
toire as an integrated system has also been highlighted by other authors (see, for example, Cenoz and
Gorter 2011, 2015; García 2009; García and Li 2014).
Pedagogical translanguaging can also be referred to as intentional translanguaging or classroom
translanguaging because it embraces instructional strategies that integrate two or more languages. In
its origin, it was a planned alternation of the languages for input and output, but it has expanded to
include other pedagogical strategies that go across languages. Spontaneous translanguaging is con-
sidered the more universal form of translanguaging because it can take place inside and outside the
classroom. It refers to the reality of bi/multilingual usage in naturally occurring contexts where
boundaries between languages are fluid and constantly shifting. García and Li (2014, 20) argue
that translanguaging goes beyond the concept of two languages and is not a mixture of languages
but refers to new language practices. They also propose that spontaneous translanguaging should
be accepted as a legitimate practice. García (2009) views languages as fluid codes framed within social
practices and is convinced that bilingual students can participate in more situations if they are
allowed to translanguage. In the next section, we will focus on spontaneous translanguaging and
its possible effect on the survival of minority languages.

Is translanguaging a threat for minority languages?

Studies of spontaneous translanguaging have mainly focused on cases of bilingual speakers who
speak an additional language in English-speaking countries (García 2009; Creese and Blackledge
2010; Martin-Beltrán 2014; Martinez-Roldán 2015; Gort and Sembiante 2015). The languages
they speak (Spanish, Punjabi and Mandarin) are minority languages in the US or the UK, but
these languages are relatively strong demographically and have a high status in other countries. In
this article, we discuss translanguaging as related to regional minority languages with a minority sta-
tus in one or more states. This is an important difference because these languages are vulnerable and
their future is not always secured.
Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015, 283) consider that translanguaging can be beneficial for min-
oritised communities and their languages:
Translanguaging, then, as we shall see, provides a smoother conceptual path than previous approaches to the
goal of protecting minoritized communities, their languages, and their learners and schools.

According to Otheguy, García and Reid (2015, 299), who also discuss minority languages such as
Basque, Māori or Hawaiian, the struggle is not to preserve a collection of lexical and structural fea-
tures but ‘a cultural-linguistic complex of multiple idiolects and translanguaging practices that the
community finds valuable’. It is not a question of isolating but of allowing learners to speak freely.
Otheguy, García, and Reid clearly advocate the legitimisation of translanguaging practices that in the
context of the US have sometimes been referred to as Spanglish (Spanish + English) and in the con-
text of Basque–Spanish bilingualism as Euskañol, from euskara (Basque) + español (Spanish). In the
case of Basque, the idea would be to protect the language without isolating it from others, as García
explained when interviewed by a Basque local newspaper (Diario Vasco 21 May 2015). The idea of
legitimising translanguaging practices meets some strong reactions in the Basque Country, as can be
seen in the following comments about the newspaper interview with Ofelia García:
-Translanguaging delako horrekin diglosiaren konponbiderik ez bada planteatzen euskañola insttuzionalizatu
eta euskara galtzaile dakusat. (Zabala 2015)

The so-called translanguaging, rather than solving diglossia, will institutionalize euskañol and I see Basque as
the loser
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 905

-Ez dut uste ona denik gurenean aplikatzeko, inolaz ere, oraingo euskararekiko egoera izanda den bezalakoa
(Azurmendi, personal communication)

I don’t think it is good for us to apply it [translanguaging], taking into account the current situation of Basque

There is a strong fear that Basque may just disappear if it is mixed with Spanish because Spanish is a
very strong language compared to Basque. These fears are to a certain extent justified if we look at the
use of minority languages not only in the Basque Country but in other contexts as well. Hickey (2001)
conducted a study in Irish-medium pre-schools and reported the results of observing the utterances pro-
duced by children with Irish as a first or second language. For children with Irish as their first language,
the programme was a language maintenance programme with Irish as the language of instruction. The
same programme can be considered an immersion programme for children with English as a first
language. The data reported by Hickey indicate that Irish first language children in an Irish-medium
pre-school produced about half of the utterances in English. Children with English as the first language
produced about two-thirds of the utterances in English. This study shows the vulnerability of the min-
ority language and how there is a clear trend for all children to switch to the majority language.
A study on the use of Basque confirms the vulnerability of the minority language and can help to
understand why some Basque speakers see translanguaging as a threat. Participants in the so-called
Arrue project consisted of the whole population of students in the fourth year of primary education
(N = 18,636) and in the second year of secondary education (N = 17,184) in the Basque Autonomous
Community (Basque Government 2013). Basque was the main language of instruction for 11,936
students in the fourth of primary (64% of the total number of students in the fourth year of primary)
and 10,112 students in the second year of secondary education (58.8% of the total number of stu-
dents in the second year of secondary). These students have Basque as the language of instruction
for all their school subjects, except Spanish and English language arts. If we look at the percentages
of Basque language use as reported by these students with Basque as the main language of instruction
(see Figure 1), we observe a substantial difference between primary and secondary schools. By far,
most students in primary school (79%) use ‘Basque only’ or ‘more Basque than Spanish’ inside
the classroom, but in secondary school, only a minority (44%) report using mainly Basque.
The vulnerability of Basque in the situation where it is the main language of instruction is even
more visible when students report their use of Basque in the schoolyard. As we can see in Figure 2, in
primary school, a minority (41%) of the students report using ‘only Basque’ or ‘more Basque than
Spanish’ and in secondary school, the percentage goes down to 29%.
In many cases, minority languages are stronger in areas that have been more protected from the
influence of majority languages because of their relative geographical isolation until the latter part of

Figure 1. Students’ use of Basque and Spanish in class (percentages).

906 J. CENOZ AND D. GORTER

Figure 2. Students’ use of Basque in the schoolyard (percentages).

the twentieth century. Some examples are the Gaeltacht area in the West of Ireland, the North West
of Wales and the Province of Friesland in the North West of the Netherlands. This is also the case in
the Basque Country, and the areas with a higher concentration of Basque speakers today are those
that traditionally had less contact with Spanish or French. Nowadays, speakers of minority languages
are in a different situation and are no longer isolated. In fact, there are many occasions when direct
contact with speakers of other languages is possible because of, among other reasons, the increased
mobility of the Basque and non-Basque population. More recently, the internet and social media
have also contributed to increasing opportunities of contact among speakers of different languages.
Traditionally, schools have followed a policy of strict language separation so as to protect and
develop proficiency in minority languages. In Basque-medium schools, the policy most often
adopted is to correct students every time they use Spanish in order to learn better Basque and use
it as much as possible. In some schools, there is the figure of Argitxo, a magic gnome who becomes
sad when Basque is not spoken. Argitxo can be a puppet, a drawing or even a person dressed up as a
gnome, who has a disciplinary effect on mainly the younger children. In the Basque Autonomous
Community, students with Basque as the language of instruction also study Spanish and English,
but the idea is to establish hard boundaries between languages and to keep them separate at all
times. As far as possible, there are different teachers for different languages. The syllabuses for
each language are in most cases completely independent. Following Cummins’ (2007) ‘two solitudes’,
we could say that there are ‘three solitudes’ when looking at the way languages are separated in Bas-
que schools. Using resources from other languages in spontaneous translanguaging does happen, but
it is generally frowned upon. Attitudes towards translanguaging are as negative as in the example of
the Basque-speaking farmer trying to speak Spanish in the opening sentence, but now the target
language is Basque, not Spanish. Nowadays, schoolchildren are not ridiculed for the way they
speak, but there is concern about the quality of the language they use. It should be mentioned
that these same learners who translanguage when speaking Basque do not usually translanguage
when they speak Spanish. Musk (2010) reports a similar state of affairs for Welsh bilingual education
and he adds that the monolingual norm is enforced not only by teachers but also by the peer group,
while at the same time the default medium of language use is a mixture of Welsh as a base language
and with English language insertions.
In the Basque Country, there is concern about the quality of Basque when it is intermixed with Spanish.
The worry comes from a fear that the language will disappear and may become a pidgin language (Zarraga
2014). This concern for purism is quite common in other contexts, as Jørgensen (2005, 393) points out:
Even teachers and parents who favor bilingualism often think that children should speak both languages
‘purely’, without traces of the other language they know, simply because languages should be pure.

Some educators consider that the only way to save Basque is to make the oral use of the language
compulsory so that schoolchildren in Basque-medium schools are obliged to use Basque. Their belief
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 907

is that using Spanish in a Basque-medium school is a disruption. According to this perspective, the oral
use of Basque should go from being desirable to being an obligation that is regulated by the school after
it has been demanded and approved by parents (Hidalgo 2014). This seems to be a very strict approach,
particularly because the whole school would need to adopt it in unison, but it is similar to monolingual
policies in which the first language is avoided when teaching a foreign language.
Even though ideologies based on purism, the isolation of the minority language and the avoidance
of translanguaging are widespread, they can also have a negative influence on language use. The fol-
lowing comment on an online discussion forum about the way young people translanguage shows
how it can have a negative effect on the use of Basque.
Oraingo euskaldun gaztetxoak, euskaraz egitera ausartzen ez direnak, txiki-txikitatik gehiegizko zentsura jaso
dutelako, euskañolez hitz egiteaz akusatu ditugulako etengabe, edo hizkuntzak eman behar zien freskotasun
eta askatasuna ukatu diegulako, beharbada. (Alkaterri 2010)

(Translation: Young Basque speakers don’t dare to use Basque because they have suffered censorship from an
early age, they have been accused of using euskañol all the time; perhaps we have denied them the freshness and
freedom they needed to find in a language)

Osterkorn and Vetter (2015) observed that students used different strategies to translanguage in
spite of the language separation practices that were established in Breton-medium schools. These
authors believe that the language separation perspective brings ‘emotional disempowerment of the
young speakers’ (Osterkorn and Vetter 2015, 136). They then go on to quote Hélot and Young
(2006) because they consider it advantageous to have a multilingual school where children can
use their home language and where all the languages in the plurilingual repertoire are valued.
Even though both Osterkorn and Vetter (2015) and Hélot and Young (2006) refer to education
in France, the two contexts are completely different and it is difficult to maintain the comparison.
Hélot and Young are referring to the Didenheim School Project in the Alsace where the aim is to
develop language awareness in the classroom among students from a wide range of different
home languages. The idea is that children become aware of language and cultural diversity in classes
with children who speak up to 18 different home languages and only 5 of them are taught at school.
In contrast, the students in Breton-medium schools are either learning through their first language if
this is Breton or through the medium of the second language when their first language is French. In
the latter case, opting for Breton as the language of instruction is a choice made by their parents who
could have chosen French instead. Moreover, all students have plenty of opportunities to use French
both at school and outside school. Obviously, this is not the case for Turkish, Arabic or other foreign
students in the Alsace where Turkish, Arabic or other languages are not valued as much as French in
France (including Brittany). It seems rather unlikely that French first language speakers in a Breton
medium school are emotionally disempowered when French is the majority language. French L1 stu-
dents in Breton schools are certainly in a completely different situation as compared to students with
different language backgrounds at the multilingual schools discussed by Hélot and Young (2006).
However, the proposal made by Hélot and Young (2006) to recognise the plurilingual repertoire
of the children and to use it as a resource can also be applicable to regional minority languages.
Regional minority languages today face different challenges compared to some years ago. Spon-
taneous translanguaging is natural for speakers who are bilingual but the question is how trans-
languaging can be compatible with the efforts to maintain and promote these weaker languages.
The wider social context is an extremely important consideration. As we have seen, the situation
of immigrant children in a language awareness project in Alsace is completely different from that
of children with French as a first language in Breton-medium schools in Brittany. In a similar
vein, the situation of translanguaging in the case of English-Spanish bilinguals in the US is also
different from that of speakers of regional minority languages. Translanguaging can be a tool for
empowering language minority students in the US because it accepts the way bilinguals communi-
cate. The direction is then ‘from the minority to the majority’ because it legitimises the features that
bilinguals have in their whole linguistic repertoire and takes them to spaces where English (and in
908 J. CENOZ AND D. GORTER

some cases Spanish) is the main language. In this context, both languages, English and Spanish, are
strong.
When referring to regional minority languages, however, translanguaging goes in the opposite
direction, ‘from the majority to the minority’ and this is related to the differences in status and demo-
graphy of the languages involved. Even if a few features associated with the minority language (pho-
netic, lexical, syntactic and pragmatic) can be identified when the majority language is spoken in
bilingual regions, those features are minimal as compared to the mixed default medium used by
bilingual speakers (Musk 2010). Lewis, Jones and Baker (2012a, 649) show their concern ‘the pro-
motion of flexible language arrangements such as translanguaging [that] could easily encourage
pupils to focus more on the majority languages’.
This is an idea shared by a Basque teacher:
The weakness of Basque in comparison to the Spanish language is clear. Despite the fact that translanguaging
can be positive, I think that its implementation in our schools needs deep reflection and a singular approach.
(personal communication)

The potential problems associated with translanguaging in situations with regional minority
languages come from the imbalance in status and power between the languages. The majority
languages will be there even if some minor features from the minority languages are inserted. It is
not clear though whether (if) languages such as Basque, Welsh or Breton will have a future if
there is a massive insertion of features from majority languages. It would be ironic that, at least
in the case of Basque, the increase in spontaneous translanguaging is in part a consequence of the
success of language policies to promote the Basque language. As we saw before, Basque is presently
the main language of instruction for most students in the Basque Autonomous Community. How-
ever, many of these students feel more comfortable using Spanish because it is their home language,
so when they speak or write in Basque, they incorporate features from Spanish.
The worry about translanguaging in the context of regional minority languages extends to ped-
agogical translanguaging in Wales. Jones and Lewis (2014, 168) explain that in predominantly Eng-
lish-speaking areas, translanguaging has to be controlled because ‘there is a growing concern that
allowing the use of English texts for translanguaging purposes might be a stepping-stone for intro-
ducing more of the majority language (English)’.

Towards sustainable translanguaging for minority languages

Schools that promote regional minority languages not only aim to teach languages but also to
develop the proficiency and use of the minority language. This aim has some implications when
compared to other educational contexts. In schools with a minority language as the language of
instruction, there is an extra task to fulfil. Schoolchildren not only have to develop literacy skills
in at least two languages (the majority and the minority) but they also need to develop basic com-
municative skills for informal interaction in the minority language. This is necessary to compensate
for the socio-linguistic situation because in many cases, informal skills cannot be developed naturally
through social interaction as the majority language has a very strong presence.
As we have already seen, regional minority languages are vulnerable and their situation is
dynamic. Most minority languages do not acquire the same legal status or receive the same funding
as the majority language does. In the educational context, an extra effort has to be made to find
enough teachers who are fluent in the language, and teaching materials are usually more limited.
Many minority languages are still in the process of standardisation and there is a weak tradition
of them being used in academic contexts.
In the past, regional minority languages survived by being relatively isolated but nowadays, in a
globalised world, isolation would be neither realistic nor desirable. These days, minority languages
face new challenges derived from globalisation and the mobility of the population. Ideologies that
have been useful to promote minority languages in the past need to be adapted to respond to
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 909

Table 1. Guiding principles for sustainable translanguaging for regional minority languages.
1. Design functional breathing spaces for using the minority language
2. Develop the need to use the minority languages through translanguaging
3. Use emergent multilinguals’ resources to reinforce all languages by developing metalinguistic awareness
4. Enhance language awareness
5. Link spontaneous translanguaging to pedagogical activities

these new challenges. Translanguaging has been always a characteristic of bilingual and multilingual
speakers, but it was not as widespread in the past when there were still monolingual speakers of
regional minority languages with little contact with majority language speakers. Languages such
as Basque or Welsh were in comfort areas and they are now facing intense contact with other
languages.
With this in mind, new strategies for protecting and developing regional minority languages have
to be designed. Could translanguaging be seen as an opportunity instead of a threat? We argue that
this is a possibility worth exploring if certain factors are taken into account, such as the specific con-
text of the regional minority language and the aims of schools in the regions where these languages
are spoken. We argue that translanguaging could be sustainable for regional minority languages if
some principles are applied (Table 1).
The first principle underlies the design of breathing spaces for using the minority language at
school. The concept of breathing space was mentioned by Fishman (1991, 59) and the idea is that
the minority language can be used freely and without the threat of the majority language; it can
‘breathe’, in a space where only the minority is spoken. Such a space could be a village, an area, a
classroom or a school. Regarding sustainable translanguaging in the context of bilingual and multi-
lingual education, this principle underlies the need to create spaces where only the minority language
is spoken. Without using the term ‘breathing spaces’, the need for separate spaces has also been high-
lighted by García (2009, 301) when discussing minority languages and she says that ‘it is important to
preserve a space, although not a rigid or static place, in which the minority language does not com-
pete with the majority language’. Cummins (2007, 229), who criticises the isolation of languages in
immersion education in Canada, also sees the need for these spaces arguing that ‘it does seem reason-
able to create largely separate spaces for each language within a bilingual or immersion program’.
Even though this principle can be seen as linked to traditional practices of language isolation, it dif-
fers from these practices because schoolchildren will have breathing spaces along with pedagogical
practices based on translanguaging as can be seen in the rest of the guiding principles.
The second principle underpins the need to use the minority languages through translanguaging.
The idea is that minority languages will not be used if they are not necessary. A discourse strategy
that is becoming quite common in the Basque Country is to translanguage in official speeches with-
out providing translation. For example, the rector of the University of the Basque Country alternates
Basque and Spanish several times in an official speech, giving different content in each of the
languages. This means that a Basque–Spanish bilingual speaker can follow the whole speech but a
monolingual Spanish speaker will have gaps because s/he does not understand the parts of the speech
that are in Basque. This planned and almost pedagogical translanguaging strategy creates the need to
understand both the majority and the minority language in order to follow the whole speech.
The third principle underlies the use of emergent multilinguals’ resources to reinforce all
languages by developing metalinguistic awareness. It includes pedagogical translanguaging as pro-
posed in Welsh bilingual education to promote a deeper understanding of language and content
(Cummins 2007; Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012a) but it expands on the original idea of translangua-
ging by adding other strategies to develop morphological, lexical and textual awareness in order to
activate students’ prior knowledge. The idea is that students use the resources in their whole linguis-
tic repertoire, in other words, (that) they behave like multilinguals when learning languages and
when learning through the medium of different languages (Cenoz and Gorter 2013, 2015). Activat-
ing learners’ pre-existing knowledge and building on it can improve learning and gives students the
910 J. CENOZ AND D. GORTER

opportunity to see similarities and differences between languages (Escamilla et al. 2013; Cummins
2014). It creates enhanced metalinguistic awareness among multilingual speakers.
Below are some strategies to activate the multilingual learners’ whole repertoire:

- To develop connections between cognates in different languages so as to develop vocabulary in the

different languages (Cummins 2014; Arteagoitia and Howard 2015); This can work better for
languages that are closely related, but as Otwinowska (2015) shows, it also works for languages
that are distant such as Polish and English.
- To develop morphological awareness by comparing compounds and derivation in different
languages (see, for example, Lyster, Quiroga, and Ballinger 2013).
- To develop writing skills across languages (Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Escamilla et al. 2013).
- To use translation and bilingual readers (Cummins 2007).

The fourth principle relates to language awareness by exploring the knowledge students have
about the social status, functioning, language practices and the use of different languages in society.
Being aware of the different languages can contribute to understanding the role of minority
languages and their situation. Language awareness is also crucial because it can contribute to the
development of multilingual identities in classes with an increasing number of students from differ-
ent linguistic backgrounds.
The fifth principle underlies the need to make the link between spontaneous and pedagogical
translanguaging. This is particularly important in the case of regional minority languages because
the school has to contribute to the development of basic communicative skills for informal inter-
action. Schools will not be successful in this task if they do not take as a point of departure the
way students communicate with each other. Translingual practices are situationally constructed
and learners use features from the different languages in their repertoire when they spontaneously
translanguage and develop their identities through these practices (see also Canagarajah 2015). Sus-
tainable translanguaging cannot ignore spontaneous translanguaging, but it can raise students’
awareness about the different contexts and uses of the minority languages.

Final remarks
Translanguaging is a recent and extremely successful concept in the area of bilingual and multilin-
gual education that has gained wide acceptance in the literature in a short period of time. It is, how-
ever, understood in different ways and used for different approaches in educational contexts (Lewis,
Jones, and Baker 2012a; García and Li 2014). This is positive because it opens new ways of looking at
multilingual speakers and emergent multilinguals using a multilingual lens instead of traditional
monolingual perspective. However, there is also a risk. The celebration of translanguaging without
taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the socio-linguistic context can have a nega-
tive effect on regional minority languages.
It is necessary to soften the boundaries between languages in bilingual and multilingual schools
involving regional minority languages, but this has to be done in a sustainable way. Educational pol-
icies to promote minority languages cannot ignore the new trends in multilingualism because these
are closely linked to learning theories, the way bilinguals and multilinguals communicate and the
characteristics of the world today. At the same time, translanguaging in these contexts will only
be sustainable if it is rooted in the reality of minority languages and allows for breathing spaces
that create the need to use these languages. Sustainable translanguaging implies a difficult balance
between using resources from the multilingual learner’s whole repertoire and shaping contexts to
use the minority languages on its own, along with contexts where two or more languages are
used. We argue that sustainable translanguaging is firmly linked to both language awareness and
metalinguistic awareness.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 911

While sustainable translanguaging is unlikely to remedy the vulnerable situation of regional min-
ority languages, it can provide the basis for new discussions on the challenges faced by regional min-
ority languages in twenty-first century in the light of the new trends in the study of multilingualism.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the MINECO/FEDER [Grant number EDU2015-63967-R] and the Basque Government
[Grant number DREAM IT-714-13; UFI 11/54].

ORCID
Jasone Cenoz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-7510
Durk Gorter http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8379-558X

References
Alkaterri, R. 2010. “Tradizioak hala dio, eta zer?” http://www.erabili.eus/zer_berri/muinetik/1266837499/1266914606/.
Arteagoitia, I., and E. R. Howard. 2015. “The Role of the Native Language in the Literacy Development of Latino
Students in the U.S.” In Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging, edited by J.
Cenoz and D. Gorter, 89–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Basque Government. 2012. Fifth Sociolinguistic Survey: Basque Autonomous Community, Navarre and Iparralde.
Donostia-San Sebastián: Basque Government.
Basque Government. 2013. Taking Pupils. The Arrue Project 2011. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Basque Government.
Canagarajah, S. 2011. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging.”
Modern Language Journal 95: 401–417.
Canagarajah, A. S. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. 2015. “Clarifying the Relationship Between Translingual Practice and L2 Writing: Addressing Learner
Identities.” Applied Linguistics Review 6: 415–440.
Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2011. “Focus on Multilingualism: A Study of Trilingual Writing.” Modern Language Journal
95: 356–369.
Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2013. “Towards a Plurilingual Approach in English Language Teaching: Softening the
Boundaries between Languages.” TESOL Quarterly 47: 591–599.
Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter, eds. 2015. Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conteh, J., and G. Meier. 2014. The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education: Opportunities and Challenges. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. 1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 33: 185–209.
Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2010. “Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and
Teaching.” Modern Language Journal 94: 103–115.
Cummins, J. 2007. “Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual Classrooms.” Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics 10: 221–240.
Cummins, J. 2014. “Rethinking Pedagogical Assumptions in Canadian French Immersion Programs.” Journal of
Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 2: 3–22.
Edwards, J. 2012. Multilingualism: Understanding Linguistic Diversity. London: Continuum.
Escamilla, K., S. Hopewell, S. Butvilofsky, W. Sparrow, L. Soltero-González, O. Ruiz-Figueroa, and M. Escamilla. 2013.
Biliteracy from the Start: Literacy Squared in Action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened
Languages. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gort, M., and S. F. Sembiante. 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: 7–25.
912 J. CENOZ AND D. GORTER

Gorter, D., V. Zenotz, X. Etxague, and J. Cenoz. 2014. “Multilingualism and European Minority Languages: The Case
of Basque.” In Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, edited by
D. Gorter, V. Zenotz, and J. Cenoz, 278–301. Berlin: Springer.
Grosjean, F. 1985. “The Bilingual as a Competent but Specific Speaker-Hearer.” Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 6: 467–477.
Hélot, C., and A. M. De Mejía. 2008. “Introduction: Different Spaces-Different Languages Integrated Perspectives on
Bilingual Education in Majority and Minority Settings.” In Forging Multilingual Spaces: Integrated Perspectives on
Majority and Minority Bilingual Education, edited by C. Hélot and A. M. De Mejía, 1–30. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Hélot, C., and A. Young. 2006. “Imagining Multilingual Education in France: A Language and Cultural Awareness
Project at Primary Level.” In Imagining Multilingual Schools, edited by O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.
E. Torres Guzman, 69–90. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hickey, T. 2001. “Mixing Beginners and Native Speakers in Minority Language Immersion: Who is Immersing
Whom?” The Canadian Modern Language Review 57: 443–474.
Hidalgo, B. 2014. “D ereduan espainolez? Ez, ez?” Berria October, 29.
Jones, B., and W. G. Lewis. 2014. “Language Arrangements Within Bilingual Education in Wales.” In Advances in the
Study of Bilingualism, edited by E. M. Thomas and I. Mennen, 141–170. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Jørgensen, J. N. 2005. “Plurilingual Conversations among Bilingual Adolescents.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 391–402.
Lewis, G., B. Jones, and C. Baker. 2012a. “Translanguaging: Origins and Development from School to Street and
Beyond.” Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 18: 641–654.
Lewis, G., B. Jones, and C. Baker. 2012b. “Translanguaging: Developing its Conceptualisation and Contextualization.”
Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 18: 655–670.
Li, W. 2011. “Multilinguality, Multimodality and Multicompetence: Code- and Mode-Switching by Minority Ethnic
Children in Complementary Schools.” Modern Language Journal 95: 370–384.
Llurda, E., J. M. Cots, and L. Armengol. 2013. “Expanding Language Borders in a Bilingual Institution Aiming at
Trilingualism.” In Language Alternation, Language Choice, and Language Encounter in International Tertiary
Education, edited by H. Haberland, D. Lonsman, and B. Preisler, 203–222. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lowman, C., T. Fitzgerald, P. Rapira, and R. Clark. 2007. “First Language Literacy Skill Transfer in a Second Language
Learning Environment: Strategies for Biliteracy.” SET 2: 24–28.
Lyster, R., J. Quiroga, and S. Ballinger. 2013. “The Effects of Biliteracy Instruction on Morphological Awareness.”
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1: 169–197.
Martin-Beltrán, M. 2014. ““What do you Want to say? How Adolescents use Translanguaging to Expand Learning
Opportunities.” International Multilingual Research Journal 8: 208–230.
Martínez-Roldán, C. M. 2015. “Translanguaging Practices as Mobilization of Linguistic Resources in a Spanish/English
Bilingual After-School Program: An Analysis of Contradictions.” International Multilingual Research Journal
9: 43–58.
May, S. 2000. “Uncommon Languages: The Challenges and Possibilities of Minority Language Rights.” Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21: 366–385.
May, S. ed. 2014. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge.
Musk, N. 2010. “Code-switching and Code-Mixing in Welsh Bilinguals” Talk: Confirming or Refuting the
Maintenance of Language Boundaries?” Language, Culture and Curriculum 23: 179–197.
Osterkorn, P., and E. Vetter. 2015. “Le Multilinguisme en Question? The Case of Minority Language Education in
Brittany (France).” In The Multilingual Challenge: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, edited by C. Kramsch and U.
Jessner, 115–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Otheguy, R., O. García, and W. Reid. 2015. “Clarifying Translanguaging and Deconstructing Named Languages: A
Perspective from Linguistics.” Applied Linguistics Review 6: 281–307.
Otwinowska, A. 2015. Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use: Attitudes, Awareness, Activation. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Paquet-Gauthier, M., and S. Beaulieu. 2016. “Can Language Classrooms Take the Multilingual Turn?” Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37: 167–183.
Zabala, J. 2015. https://twitter.com/sarean/status/598465893992103936.
Zarraga, A. 2014. “Hizkuntza-ukipenaren ondorioak.” http://www.erabili.eus/zer_berri/muinetik/1410777403/1410864140%
202014-09-16/12:42/.