939222

research-article2020
REL0010.1177/0033688220939222RELC JournalLiu and Fang

Thematic Review

RELC Journal

Translanguaging Theory and

1­–9
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Practice: How Stakeholders sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033688220939222
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220939222
Perceive Translanguaging as a journals.sagepub.com/home/rel

Practical Theory of Language

Yang Liu and Fan Fang

Shantou University, China

Abstract
This article explores the recent development of translanguaging from the perspective of
multilingualism. This is in light of the multilingual turn in the field of foreign language teaching,
particularly English language teaching (ELT), which challenges the fixed and traditional monolingual
framework for foreign language education. In particular, this article reviews stakeholders’
attitudes towards the implementation of translanguaging in foreign language classroom settings.
It is found that stakeholders generally hold positive attitudes towards translanguaging practices
in various ELT contexts. This review highlights the importance of re-examining the significance
of translanguaging in ELT practices, for example, by challenging the monolingual English-only
language policy and recognizing students’ first language as a linguistic resource to facilitate
language learning in both English language and content learning. The article concludes by offering
some practical pedagogical implications for both policy makers and language practitioners.

Keywords
Attitude, English as a Medium of Instruction, English Language Teaching, multilingualism,
translanguaging

Introduction
The monolingual language ideology has long prevailed in English as a second/foreign
language (ESL/EFL) classrooms with a traditional belief that native English should be
regarded as the ultimate goal of English language teaching (ELT). Such monolingual
ideology has embedded in many people’s minds, including policy makers, language
practitioners, and even teacher educators. Monolingualism has the assumptions
of exclusive target language use without permission of translation in the teaching of

Corresponding author:
Fan Fang, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, College of Liberal Arts, Shantou University, 243
Daxue Road, Shantou, Guangdong 515063, China.
Email: ffang@stu.edu.cn
2 RELC Journal 00(0)

language or literacy (Cummins, 2007). From a traditional perspective, students’ first

language (L1) has been viewed as detrimental to language learning and sealed off from
language learning classrooms (Lin, 2015).
However, the current linguistic landscape of English is far more complicated. From a
sociolinguistic perspective, language is viewed as a social practice, through which peo-
ple use language to construct, express and negotiate their social and cultural identities
(Liu and Fang, 2017; Norton and Toohey, 2011), with the phenomenon of transidentity-
ing with speakers’ multidimensional competence (Richards and Wilson, 2019). This
leads to the question of how English should be taught and learnt from the perspective of
English as a global language, and that how multilingual practices, such as translanguag-
ing, should be further understood and interpreted to facilitate ELT. Recent scholarship
has questioned this strict separation of languages in classrooms (Cummins, 2007; García
and Li, 2014). Indeed, students’ multilingual practices to maximize their learning and
balance between language learning and content understanding have been increasingly
recognized (Cenoz and Gorter, 2013). Studies on L1 use in bi/multilingual classrooms
present its advantages, such as improving students’ content learning, providing clear
classroom management and establishing a close relationship between teachers and stu-
dents (Ferguson, 2003; Lin, 2015). One of the gaps related to ELT from a multilingual
perspective lies in the extent and the effectiveness of using translanguaging in ELT to
challenge the traditional monolingual perspective. The resistance of applying such a
notion from English language practitioners is also salient because stakeholders may still
regard native English as the only norm; they might be reluctant to accept translanguaging
(and transidentitying) in ELT if the monolingual ideology is embedded (Richards and
Wilson, 2019). This article therefore reviews translanguaging and its development and
summarizes previous research on stakeholders’ attitudes towards translanguaging before
offering some pedagogical implications for ELT.

Understanding Translanguaging
As bi/multilingualism is transforming towards becoming a more dynamic process
(García, 2009), translanguaging has been adopted to describe bi/multilingual speakers’
complex language practices. Originating from planned pedagogical strategies in Welsh
bilingual education (Jones, 2017), translanguaging goes beyond classroom language
practices to bi/multilingual everyday practices (García and Li, 2014; Lin, 2019). García
(2009: 45) defined translanguaging as ‘multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals
engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds’. This definition portrays bi/
multilingual practices from the perspective of users rather than language itself (García,
2009) and also questions the boundaries around languages (Creese and Blackledge,
2010; Creese and Blackledge, 2011).
Canagarajah regarded translanguaging as ‘the ability of multilingual speakers to shut-
tle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an
integrated system’ (2011: 40). This definition, although reflecting language boundaries
to some extent (García and Li, 2014), regards language resource as an integrated reper-
toire possessed by multilingual speakers. A translanguaging perspective accentuates bi/
Liu and Fang 3

multilingual speakers’ full linguistic repertoire in which they ‘select features strategi-
cally’ (García and Li, 2014: 22) for better communication.
More recently, translanguaging has been emphasized to include multimodality and
multimodal semiotics as resources, including gestures, objects, visual cues, touch, tone,
sounds and words (García and Li, 2014). García and Li (2014: 28), for instance, viewed
translanguaging as ‘the different ways multilingual speakers employ, create and interpret
different kinds of linguistic signs to communicate across contexts and participants and
perform their different subjectivities’. From this perspective, the focus moves away from
shifting between two fixed languages as modes to the creativity of the individual agent in
communication. That is, whilst code-switching implies the boundaries between lan-
guages, translanguaging softens language boundaries (Cenoz, 2017) and sees multilin-
gual users’ linguistic practices as original and creative processes.
In particular, English has been increasingly used amongst non-native users, and trans-
languaging has emerged as a new paradigm to describe the complex multilingual learn-
ing and multimodal practices in the communication process. For example, Li argued that
translanguaging is a practical theory of language, particularly for English language class-
room contexts where multilingual language learners use ‘dynamic and creative linguistic
practices that involve flexible use of named languages and language varieties as well as
other semiotic resources’ (2018: 14) in their linguistic performance. Translanguaging
also embraces code-switching, L1 use, and further trans-semiotic practices (Li, 2018;
Lin, 2019). Lin (2019) further adopted the term ‘trans-semiotising’ to argue for the
importance of the shared semiotic repertoires of participants’ co-contributions in the
dynamic flow of the meaning-making process in communication.

Functions of Translanguaging in ELT

Translanguaging accentuates bilingual or multilingual users’ holistic linguistic repertoire
as their linguistic resource and echoes other previous notions, such as code-switching; it
entails using native languages as a pedagogical strategy (Li, 2018). Previous research has
investigated the substantial use of translanguaging in bilingual classrooms.
For instance, in Ferguson’s (2003) review of existing research on the functions of
code-switching, he condensed these functions into three main categories: 1) curriculum
access, 2) classroom management discourse and 3) interpersonal relations. Likewise, Lin
(2015) offered a critical review of L1 use in content and language integrated learning
lessons. She summarized the functions of L1 use into a three-dimension framework con-
sisting of ideational functions, textual functions and interpersonal functions. It should be
noted that Lin’s (2015) taxonomy is, in essence, similar to Ferguson’s (2003) version, but
it uses different labels. This implies the reliability of this three-dimension functional
structure but also the lack of new insights into the role of L1 use during the past decade.
Ideational functions refer to the strategies of using students’ L1 to enhance their content
learning through translation, explanation and exemplification; textual functions concern
the use of L1 to signify the shifts in different topics, teaching stages or focus; and inter-
personal functions concern teachers’ and students’ L1 use to negotiate their identity and
create a less-distanced and warm classroom atmosphere (Lin, 2015).
4 RELC Journal 00(0)

Stakeholders’ Attitudes towards Translanguaging Practices

Current literature has shed light on the use of translanguaging and positions it in different
contexts and research sites. Understanding stakeholders’ attitudes towards translanguag-
ing and how they negotiate with official language policies remains important to offer
some pedagogical implications for ELT and further research on translanguaging.
Previous research has explored multilingual practices and stakeholders’ attitudes
towards translanguaging in diverse contexts and research sites, including complemen-
tary schools in the UK (Creese and Blackledge, 2010; Creese and Blackledge, 2011),
two-way dual language programmes in the US (García-Mateus and Palmer, 2017), and
Chinese as a foreign language classrooms in China (Wang, 2019a; Wang, 2019b). Some
studies have investigated classroom translanguaging practices by recognizing their use-
fulness in developing students’ biliteracy (Hornberger and Link, 2012), encouraging the
expression of ideas (Lin and Wu, 2014), promoting a bilingual identity (García-Mateus
and Palmer, 2017) and accessing content and increasing participation (Daniel et al.,
2019). Nevertheless, it should also be noted that these findings were mostly generated
from teacher participants’ actual practices rather than a systematic and in-depth enquiry
into their beliefs.
Studies also found a diversity of teachers’ positions. For instance, Creese and
Blackledge (2011: 1196) studied UK complementary schools ‘(also known as ‘heritage
language’, ‘community language’, ‘supplementary’ schools)’ and found that whilst some
teachers adopted flexible bilingual pedagogy, others insisted on separate bilingualism.
Similarly, Wang (2019a; Wang, 2019b) found that whilst some teachers supported trans-
languaging strategies, others saw no utility or felt guilty about using them and thus stuck
to a monolingual approach. The constraints experienced by teachers regarding the adop-
tion of a translanguaging stance included 1) an institutional language policy, 2) a lack of
guidance on implementation, 3) personal linguistic purism ideology and 4) assumptions
and perceived dangers, such as overuse of L1 by students or loss of community language
and identity (Wang and Kirkpatrick, 2012; Wang, 2019a; Deroo and Ponzio, 2019;
Creese and Blackledge, 2011).
Studies have also investigated students’ attitudes. For instance, Carstens (2016) found
that most university students in South Africa believed that translanguaging strategies
help them scaffold their concept learning, bring better affective experiences, improve
confidence and vocabulary and increase cohesion. However, some also reported that
translanguaging did not assist to understand terminologies in their major due to the com-
plexity of L1, and some preferred to use English because they assumed that English is the
universal language. The work of Moody, Chowdhury and Eslami (2019) suggested that
graduate students generally regard translanguaging as a natural practice that is beneficial
to language learning. Similarly, Wang’s (2019b) research involving international learners
of Chinese in China revealed that students have positive perceptions of English use in
terms of content understanding, efficiency improvement and anxiety relief. From a dif-
ferent stance, Wang (2019a) found that students’ attitudes towards monolingual and mul-
tilingual approaches are nearly equally divided. A study conducted by Ticheloven, Blom,
Leseman and McMonagle (2019) reported that students have mixed positions on the use
of translanguaging, although its utility for emotion expression is widely recognized.
Liu and Fang 5

Some challenges reported included linguistic isolation, confusion and lower motivation
to learn the language.
Other research has investigated the attitudes of parents. For instance, Wilson (2020)
found that although the monolingual approach still lingered in some parents’ ideology, a
large proportion of parents perceive translanguaging as a natural practice for bilinguals.
They explained that some concepts could not be concisely conveyed by translation and
that language use is pertinent to contexts in which it is acquired. We argue the importance
of further exploring parents’ attitudes to further understand whether such stakeholders
would embrace the adoption of translanguaging practices in their children’s language
learning process.
In sum, the studies reviewed suggest that different stakeholders, especially students,
hold generally positive attitudes towards translanguaging practices. However, whilst the
stakeholders recognized some pedagogical functions of translanguaging, constraints
including monolingual policy and ideology, lack of institution guidance, uncertainty of
L1 as resources for subject learning, frequency of L1 use, have prevented translanguag-
ing practices.

Promoting Translanguaging Practices and Multilingualism

in ELT
Recent research on translanguaging has found that despite the monolingual policy, the
need to use translanguaging for scaffolding was recognized and put into practice
(Hornberger and Link, 2012; Lin and Wu, 2014). Students’ full language resources are
closely related to their previous experiences. Using their L1 properly in some situations
could scaffold their prior knowledge and experience, and thus enhances their content
learning. Furthermore, translanguaging was adopted to promote a bilingual identity
(García-Mateus and Palmer, 2017), increase participation (Daniel et al., 2019) and create
rapport in the classroom (Wang, 2019a; Wang, 2019b). Studies have also suggested some
factors or principles for the contextualization of translanguaging pedagogy. For instance,
Garcia and Sylvan (2011) indicated seven principles that support translanguaging prac-
tices, including ‘heterogeneity, collaboration, learner-centeredness, language and con-
tent integration, language use from students up, experiential learning, and local autonomy
and responsibility’. Lin (2015) also agreed that language-and-content-integration ena-
bles more flexible language practices in class and suggested taking into consideration
students’ age and cognitive maturity as important factors.
We should also recognize some hindrances when implementing translanguaging in
ELT classrooms. The most significant hindrance is the influence of a monolingual
policy and the lack of official support (Deroo and Ponzio, 2019; Wang and Kirkpatrick,
2012). For language teachers, the explicitly stipulated language policy becomes a pow-
erful force, preventing them from adopting more flexible multilingual approaches.
Because of the absence of official support, students’ translanguaging practices would
be difficult to evaluate in existing assessment systems. Another constraint is the
immersion approach ideology (Deroo and Ponzio, 2019; Wang and Kirkpatrick, 2012)
with the belief that immersing in a monolingual environment is important for learning
6 RELC Journal 00(0)

a foreign language. However, as Fang (2018: 36) argued for ELT as an example, ‘the
implementation of EMI should acknowledge the linguistic diversity from the multilin-
gual paradigm’. Some previous findings also recognize the extensive use of students’
L1 when implementing translanguaging (Wang and Kirkpatrick, 2012). However,
Wang’s (2019b) study indicated that such concerns might be overcome by students’
high motivation, although the extent to which translanguaging can be implemented
amongst young learners still needs further research. In terms of how to provide support
for teachers to adopt translanguaging pedagogy, for instance, Stille, Bethke, Bradley-
Brown, Giberson and Hall (2016) suggested that through collaborative inquiry into
students’ learning needs, teachers shifted their monolingual ideology to a more multi-
lingual one.

Pedagogical Implications
It is important for language practitioners, teacher and action researchers to evaluate the
effectiveness of how translanguaging practices could be incorporated in ELT. Therefore,
several pedagogical implications can be derived from the discussion in terms of translan-
guaging practices. First, both teachers and students should raise their multilingual aware-
ness to keep up with a multilingual world. English learning should be approached from
a more flexible and multilingual perspective, as teachers should incorporate bilingual or
multilingual education into their classroom use of language to embrace a multilingual
turn (May, 2013). For instance, teachers should communicate with students in terms of
learning difficulties to further negotiate classroom language choice, thus involving trans-
languaging practices. Instead of teaching English as a language per se, teachers should
be encouraged to teach communication skills, including negotiation and accommodation
skills. In such cases, students’ multilingual resources can be further evaluated for the
effectiveness and intelligibility of communication purposes. The importance of multilin-
gualism in relation to students’ L1 as a resource and trans-semiotizing practice should be
introduced in language learning lessons (Lin, 2019).
Second, developing systematic and contextualized translanguaging pedagogical strat-
egies is necessary. As monolingual teaching is not a practical choice, both students and
teachers should recognize the significant role of students’ L1 (or shared L1 between
students and teachers). Therefore, it is important for institutions and teachers to have in-
depth discussions regarding the language policy. If EMI (English as a medium of instruc-
tion) should still be complemented in an English-only manner, students should be given
adequate language support (Baker and Hüttner, 2019). This can be achieved by recruiting
multilingual language teachers, for example, to co-teach with content teachers, offering
both written and spoken language support. Again, it is necessary to encourage teacher-
student communication to further understand the effectiveness of translanguaging use in
the classroom. It is possible that the adoption of translanguaging may be more suitable
for programmes aiming at both language and content learning and for students lacking
adequate proficiency to take English-only courses. Teachers and institutions should bear
these factors in mind before designing and planning language use in classrooms. To
implement translanguaging strategies, teachers and students could reach an agreement
about language use at the beginning of the course, such as the percentage of L1 use.
Liu and Fang 7

Finally, collaboration between teachers and students and amongst teachers should
also be promoted (Liu et al., 2020). Teachers may, for example, enquire about students’
learning needs and invite feedback from students. For instance, teachers can send out
pre-class questionnaires to students, asking them to self-evaluate their own language
problems. Students can then also state their specific learning needs and goals. In this
sense, teachers will be aware of to what extent and in what circumstances translanguag-
ing practices can be involved in the process of language teaching and learning. Knowing
students’ actual needs helps in the development of more suitable pedagogical strategies.
This will also help students transfer their identity in the transidentitying process ‘within
a given social interaction, adjusting or transitioning between different identity-markers,
features or processes to reflect changes in roles, social relationships, affinities, stances,
meanings and intentions’ (Richards and Wilson, 2019: 182). Furthermore, it is important
for teachers to discuss language policy and language use with their colleagues. Teachers
are encouraged to communicate their perceptions and understanding of language use in
classrooms (Cenoz and Gorter, 2013; Lin, 2019). In this way, they can find some models
to follow on how to implement translanguaging pedagogy.

Conclusion
This article has presented the development of translanguaging with its application in
language teaching. Stakeholders’ positive attitudes towards the implementation of trans-
languaging, in general, have led to the further investigation of how such a notion could
be applied more effectively to facilitate language teaching and learning. We argue that
the implementation of translanguaging in foreign language classroom settings should be
further explored in various contexts. We also call for more research to investigate par-
ents’ attitudes towards translanguaging, as parents also play a key role in participating in
learners’ foreign language learning process. Further research can likewise investigate
when and in what circumstances translanguaging can be better implemented to enhance
learning performance and outcomes.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Projects of the 13th Five-Year Plan
Education and Science Research on Philosophy and Social Science of Higher Education,
Department of Education of Guangdong Province (2019) – ‘Effectiveness of the Implementation
of English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education of Guangdong Province’ (Grant No.:
2019GXJK194), Guangdong, China.

ORCID iD
Fan Fang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4210-9042

References
Baker W, Hüttner J (2019) ‘We are not the language police’: comparing multilingual EMI pro-
grammes in Europe and Asia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 29(1): 78–94.
8 RELC Journal 00(0)

Canagarajah S (2011) Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strategies of trans-

languaging. The Modern Language Journal 95(3): 401–17.
Carstens A (2016) Translanguaging as a vehicle for L2 acquisition and L1 development: students’
perceptions. Language Matters 47(2): 203–22.
Cenoz J (2017) Translanguaging in school contexts: international perspectives. Journal of
Language, Identity and Education 16(4): 193–8.
Cenoz J (2019) Translanguaging pedagogies and English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching
52(1): 71–85.
Cenoz J, Gorter D (2013) Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: softening
the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly 47(3): 591–99.
Creese A, Blackledge A (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learn-
ing and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94(1): 103–15.
Creese A, Blackledge A (2011) Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools:
multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1196–208.
Cummins J (2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2): 221–40.
Daniel SM, Jiménez RT, Pray L, and Pacheco MB (2019) Scaffolding to make translanguaging a
classroom norm. TESOL Journal 10(1): e00361.
Deroo MR, Ponzio C (2019) Confronting ideologies: a discourse analysis of in-service teach-
ers’ translanguaging stance through an ecological lens. Bilingual Research Journal 42(2):
214–31.
Fang F (2018) Review of English as a medium of instruction in Chinese universities today: current
trends and future directions. English Today 34(1): 32–7.
Ferguson G (2003) Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: functions, attitudes and
policies: AILA Review 16(1): 38–51.
García O (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: Global Perspectives. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
García O, Li W (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
García O, Sylvan CE (2011) Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: singularities in
pluralities. Modern Language Journal 95(3): 385–400.
García-Mateus S, Palmer D (2017) Translanguaging pedagogies for positive identities in two-
way dual language bilingual education. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 16(4):
245–55.
Hornberger NH, Link H (2012) Translanguaging in today’s classrooms: a biliteracy lens. Theory
into Practice 51(4): 239–47.
Jones B (2017) Translanguaging in bilingual schools in Wales. Journal of Language, Identity and
Education 16(4): 199–215.
Li W (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1): 9–30.
Lin AMY (2015) Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and
Curriculum 28(1): 74–89.
Lin AMY (2019) Theories of trans/languaging and trans-semiotizing: implications for content-
based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
22(1): 5–16.
Lin A, Wu Y (2014) ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ – Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL
junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 18(3): 289–305.
Liu J, Fang F (2017) Perceptions, awareness and perceived effects of home culture on intercultural
communication: perspectives of university students in China. System 67: 25–37.
Liu and Fang 9

Liu JE, Lo YY, and Lin AMY (2020) Translanguaging pedagogy in teaching English for academic
purposes: researcher-teacher collaboration as a professional development model. System 92:
102276 .
May S (ed.) (2013) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Moody S, Chowdhury M, and Eslami Z (2019) Graduate students’ perceptions of translanguaging.
English Teaching and Learning 43: 85–103.
Norton B, Toohey K (2011) Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching
44(4): 412–46.
Richards JC, Wilson O (2019) On transidentitying. RELC Journal 50(1): 179–87.
Stille SVV, Bethke R, Bradley-Brown J, Giberson J, and Hall G (2016) Broadening educational
practice to include translanguaging: an outcome of educator inquiry into multilingual stu-
dents’ learning needs. The Canadian Modern Language Review 72(4): 48–503.
Ticheloven A, Blom E, Leseman P, and McMonagle S (2019) Translanguaging challenges in
multilingual classrooms: scholar, teacher and student perspectives. International Journal of
Multilingualism. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2019.1686002
Wang D (2019a) Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: students and teachers’
attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(2):
138–49.
Wang D (2019b) Multilingualism and Translanguaging in Chinese Language Classrooms.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wang D, Kirkpatrick A (2012) Code choice in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom.
Multilingual Education 2: 3.
Wilson S (2020) To mix or not to mix: parental attitudes towards translanguaging and language
management choices. International Journal of Bilingualism. doi: 10.1177/1367006920909902