See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371103944

Translanguaging in Pragmatics

Article · May 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 207

1 author:

Khaled Al Masaeed
Carnegie Mellon University
18 PUBLICATIONS 196 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaled Al Masaeed on 27 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the accepted version of the manuscript in Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Pragmatics
volume. Wiley. To appear in 2024.

Translanguaging in Pragmatics

Khaled Al Masaeed
Carnegie Mellon University
masaeed@cmu.edu
Word count: 2000 (excluding title, abstract, keywords, and contributor bio)

Abstract
Pragmatics is concerned with situated language behavior and how meaning is communicated and
interpreted in social interaction. Translanguaging takes into consideration the speaker, the context, and the
whole linguistic repertoire. It focuses on how multidialectal and multilingual practices reflect the
speaker’s agency to purposefully deploy all of her/his linguistic repertories to construct knowledge,
communicate ideas, and project identities in social interaction. In so doing, it acknowledges the internal
perspective of the speakers and underscores their agency to draw on their whole language repertoire to
make meaning and express their identities. Consequently, adopting a translanguaging perspective in
pragmatics is indispensable as it (1) rejects monolingual ideologies that see language hierarchies as the
norm, and (2) empowers pragmatics research methods to measure pragmatic development. This entry is
meant to discuss the relationship between translanguaging and pragmatics through providing an overview
of translanguaging, and underscoring the need for adopting a translanguaging perspective in pragmatic
research and assessment.

Keywords
Translanguaging; Pragmatics; Sociopragmatics; Pragmalinguistics; Pragmatic Development; L2
Pragmatics

[A] Introduction
Pragmatics is concerned with situated language behavior and how meaning is communicated and
interpreted in social interaction. Pragmatic competence is crucial in communication since it underscores
not only knowing grammar and lexicon, but also understanding what to say, how and when to say it, and
to whom. Pragmatic competence is widely recognized through two types of knowledge: pragmalinguistics
(knowledge of particular linguistic resources needed to convey particular illocution) and sociopragmatics
(knowledge of how social and contextual factors influence our choice of linguistic resources). These two

1
types of knowledge need to be considered together with speakers’ agency as they attempt to project and
protect their identities in social interactions.
Current scholarship in applied linguistics has challenged monolingual language ideologies that see
languages as discrete and separate entities, and brought translanguaging practices to the forefront.
Translanguaging advocates acknowledging speakers’ whole linguistic repertoire (multilingual and
multidialectal) as a valuable resource that they can draw on to enhance meaning-making, enact certain
identities and engage in knowledge construction (Canagarajah, 2011; Li Wei, 2018). Since there is a great
interest in everyday language practices of multilingual and multidialectal language users in our modern
world, the time is ripe for the field to overcome monolingual language ideologies and instead position
multidialectal and multilingual translanguaging practices as a fundamental aspect of pragmatic
competence.
Building on this trend, the goal of this entry is to discuss the relationship between translanguaging
and pragmatics. To this end, I first provide a brief overview of translanguaging and its implications for
challenging monolingual language ideologies. Then, I discuss how adopting a translanguaging
perspective is a necessity for L2 pragmatics research and assessment.

[A] Translanguaging
The term itself was coined in Welsh as trawsieithu in 1990s, but Baker (2001) is the one who translated it
into English as translanguaging. The term was initially coined to describe pedagogical practices that were
observed in bilingual classrooms where the instructor and students would use both English and Welsh
while doing classwork (e.g., discussing and evaluating an assigned reading). These practices enhance
communication by supporting problem solving and knowledge construction through empowering learners
to deploy their linguistic repertoire in their learning process. Since then, the term has been expanded to
underscore the ways in which multidialectal and multilingual practices can be used for the purpose of
meaning-making and for challenging monolingual ideologies that see languages as discrete and separate
entities (e.g., Al Masaeed, 2020; Li Wei, 2018). While the term translanguaging is multifaceted and has
been used in various ways and contexts, the common theme has been the notion of linguistic repertoire,
which includes “every bit of language we accumulate” throughout life (Blommaert & Backus, 2013, p.
28).
A recent line of research (e.g., García & Li Wei, 2014; Li Wei, 2018; Otheguy, Garcia, & Reid,
2015) has started theorizing translanguaging as the practice and process of taking advantage of the
speaker’s entire linguistic repertoire regardless of socially and politically defined language and language
variety names and labels. As Li Wei (2018) lucidly argues that a translanguaging perspective compels us
to “think beyond the boundaries of named languages and language varieties including the geography-,

2
social class-, age-, or gendered-based varieties” (p. 19). This internal perspective to linguistic fluidity
does not disregard multilingual speakers’ awareness of linguistic and ideological boundaries, but rather
acknowledges their ability to strategically and creatively select and deploy the linguistic resources they
have in their language repertoire to engage in productive and meaningful interactions. In so doing, it
resists monolingual ideologies that uphold language hierarchies, leading to the marginalization and
stigmatization of non-standard/non-official languages and language varieties (and their speakers) in
societies.
A translanguaging perspective also draws our attention to the fact that named (and standardized)
languages are a social construct rather than mental or psychological. Therefore, it disrupts long-held
notions about multilingual and multidialectal practices as an indication of linguistic interference or
incompetence where a speaker deviates from the norms of sticking to one language in social interaction. It
is in this sense that translanguaging is different from code-switching. The latter takes an external
perspective that identifies multilingual and multidialectal practices as alternating between named
languages and language varieties within a sentence or between sentences. Conceptualizing multilingual
and multidialectal practices in such manner opens the gate for political and hierarchical language
ideologies to flourish at the expense of the linguistic repertoire of those who might be, for example,
socioeconomically and/or politically underprivileged.
Consequently, a translanguaging pedagogy considers both (a) named language(s) and language
varieties that happen to be the medium of instruction (or the desired target language), and (b) the learners’
linguistic repertoire as essential factors in early stages of education and additional/foreign/second
language (L2) learning contexts. Instructors should make sure that learners feel empowered to use their
whole linguistic repertoire to optimize their learning experience during classroom activities. Hence,
translanguaging pedagogy helps us overcome long-held monolingual classroom ideologies such as
privileging the standard language or requiring target-language-only. Though such monolingual ideologies
are counterproductive and at odds with the sociolinguistic reality of the current globalized world, they are
still widely embraced by most language educators and language policy makers. They influence the ways
we conceptualize teaching and learning languages and language varieties (and their speakers), and also
how we conduct research and assess learning outcomes in various L2 contexts.

[A] Translanguaging in Pragmatics

A translanguaging perspective is relevant to the study of pragmatics because it takes into consideration
the speaker, the context, and the whole linguistic repertoire. It focuses on how multidialectal and
multilingual practices reflect speakers’ agency to strategically and purposefully deploy all their linguistic
repertories (regardless of named languages) to construct knowledge, communicate ideas, and project

3
identities in social interactions. Such practices can reflect speakers’ ability to map between their linguistic
resources and social contexts (i.e., using a linguistic resource that is most effective and appropriate in
communicating meaning in a given moment). Thus, translanguaging should be a central factor in
pragmatics research and assessment as it encompasses both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
knowledge.
Over the last several decades, the process of measuring and evaluating pragmatic competence has
been based almost exclusively on native-speaker standards (e.g., which speech act strategies are used by
native speakers), which heavily draws on the monolingual language ideology that considers the
monolingual speaker of a certain language/language variety as the model. Since this ideology ignores the
sociolinguistic reality of the current multilingual world, there has been a call to shift learner focus to
becoming a multicompetent user who can deploy their whole linguistic repertoire to do things with words.
An early claim supporting this shift was made by Cook (1992) who called for adopting a
multicompetence perspective that takes into consideration the unique competence that multilingual (and
multidialectal) speakers possess. When it comes to L2 learning, there is a need to support learners’ ability
to use their multiple language repertoires to achieve a communicative effect.
Following this trend, recent research in pragmatics has started to show that in some contexts,
pragmatic competence is indeed realized through the ability to engage in translanguaging practices (e.g.,
Al Masaeed, 2022a, 2022b; Al Masaeed, Taguchi, & Tamimi, 2020; Nightnigale & Safont, 2019). For
example, Arabic speakers engage in multilingual/multidialectal practices throughout their daily
interactions, and L2 Arabic learners’ ability to utilize translanguaging practices in their pragmatic
strategies led to more appropriate production of apologies, refusals, and requests (e.g., Al Masaeed,
2022a, 2022b; Al Masaeed et al., 2020). Al Masaeed et al. (2020), in particular, clearly demonstrate that
as learners’ proficiency level increase, they utilize more dialect alongside Modern Standard Arabic
(MSA) in their refusals, showing that more advanced-level learners draw on multiple linguistic resources
in their speech act realizations. In other words, this ability to move along a continuum between MSA and
local varieties, depending on various contextual factors, is a proof of pragmatic competence since it
highlights the speaker’s pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence.
As these studies demonstrate, the translanguaging perspective is critical to understand L2
learners’ pragmatic competence. Therefore, as L2 pragmatics research continues to provide insights into
L2 learners’ pragmatic development, it needs to creatively design and implement research methods that
account for translanguaging practices in data collection and analysis. L2 pragmatics research would do
well to take a bottom-up approach to describe what L2 pragmatics entails both linguistically and
culturally, and how they can be applied to the analysis of pragmatic competence in a particular L2
context. The focus on the strategic employment of one’s linguistic repertoire to map between linguistic

4
resources and social contexts is key to examining L2 pragmatic competence. The absence of such a
perspective will continue to encourage top-down research approaches that tend to be counterproductive
due to their disconnect from the complex sociolinguistic reality on the ground.
Accordingly, research on multilingual pragmatics is in order, and a translanguaging perspective
plays a crucial role in teaching and assessing pragmatic competence. Without a translanguaging
perspective, we are likely to ignore multilingual and multidialectal practices that are in the heart of
pragmatic competence. For example, when assessing L2 speech acts, if researchers focus only on rating
appropriateness or counting pragmatic strategies without evaluating multilingual and multidialectal
practices, they cannot reveal a comprehensive account of learners’ pragmatic competence.
Translanguaging is necessary in pragmatics research because it helps us overcome the language hierarchy
bias, which manifests itself in the belief that some languages and language verities are more worthy than
others and, therefore, only those that are considered superior are pragmatically appropriate.
Sociolinguistic research has repeatedly shown that speakers do engage in multidialectal and multilingual
practices throughout their daily interactions; the assumption that only one language/variety is most
pragmatic regardless of speakers’ linguistic background and contexts does not mirror the sociolinguistic
reality on the ground.

[A] Conclusion
Translanguaging reflects the sociolinguistic reality of our globalized world and enables us to explore the
human mind as a holistic multi-competent (Cook 1992). Adopting a translanguaging perspective in L2
pragmatics is indispensable as it acknowledges the internal perspective of the speakers and underscores
their agency to strategically and purposefully draw on their multidialectal and multilingual repertoire to
make meaning and express their identities. It empowers L2 pragmatics scholars to engage in disrupting
monolingual/top-down ideologies that see language hierarchies as the norm in L2 pragmatics research;
and it compels pragmatics to prioritize improving L2 pragmatics research methods to examine and
measure pragmatic competence.

See Also: Multilingual pragmatics; Pragmatics of Lingua Franca Interaction; Pragmatics and Discourse
Analysis; Second Language Pragmatic Development; Overview; Pragmatics Research Methods

References
Al Masaeed, K. (2020). Translanguaging practices in L2 Arabic study abroad: Beyond monolingual
ideologies in institutional talk. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 250-266.
Al Masaeed, K. (2022a). Bidialectal practices and L2 Arabic pragmatic development in a short-term study

5
 abroad. Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 88-114.
Al Masaeed, K. (2022b). Sociolinguistic research vs. language ideology in L2 Arabic. In K. Geeslin (Ed.),
The Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 359-370). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Al Masaeed, K, Taguchi, N., & Tamimi, M. (2020). Proficiency effects on L2 Arabic refusals:
Appropriateness, linguistic strategies, and multidialectal practices. Applied Pragmatics, 2(1), 26-
53.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Bristol, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2013). Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In I. Saint–Georges, &
J. J. Weber (Eds.), Multilingualism and multimodality (pp. 11–32). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy.
Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-27.
Cook, V.J. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 2(4), 557-591.
García, O., & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Li Wei. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing
named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.
Nightingale, R. & Safnot, P. (2019). Pragmatic translanguaging: Multilingual practice in adolescent
online discourse. In Salazar-Campillo, P. & Codina-Espurz, V. (Eds.), Investigating the
learning of pragmatics across ages and contexts (pp. 167-195). Leiden, The Netherland: Brill
Rodopi.

Further Readings
Al Masaeed, K. (2022). Researching and measuring L2 pragmatic development in study
abroad: Insights from Arabic. In J. McGregor & J. Plews (Eds.), Designing second language
study abroad research: Critical reflections on methods and data (pp. 155-170). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practices: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York:
Routledge.
Leung, C., & Valdés, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for
language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 103(2),

6
 348–370.
Li Wei. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by
multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43,1222–1235.

Contributor Bio:
Khaled Al Masaeed is Associate Professor of Second Language Acquisition and Arabic Studies
at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). His scholarship focuses on underscoring the relationship between
language ideologies and everyday sociolinguistic practices in societal and individual language use
contexts. He has published widely on second language pragmatics and translanguaging, and his work has
appeared in peer-reviewed venues such as Applied Linguistics and The Modern Language Journal. At
CMU, he mentors graduate students in SLA and teaches courses in Applied Multilingual Studies, Arabic
Studies, and Second Language Acquisition. Khaled serves as the general editor for Routledge's book
series Topics in Arabic Applied Linguistics.

View publication stats