Bilingual Research Journal

The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education

ISSN: 1523-5882 (Print) 1523-5890 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj20

Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and

Education

Suzanne García Mateus

To cite this article: Suzanne García Mateus (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism,
and Education, Bilingual Research Journal, 37:3, 366-369, DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2014.965361

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.965361

Published online: 11 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 233

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ubrj20

Download by: [University of Texas Libraries] Date: 22 October 2015, At: 06:56
 Bilingual Research Journal, 37: 366–369, 2014
Copyright © the National Association for Bilingual Education
ISSN: 1523-5882 print / 1523-5890 online
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2014.965361

BOOK REVIEW
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 06:56 22 October 2015

Ofelia García and Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education.
New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 162 pp.

Reviewed by Suzanne García Mateus

The University of Texas at Austin
E-mail: suzannemateus@utexas.edu

Ofelia García’s and Li Wei’s comprehensive, yet succinct, book, Translanguaging: Language,
Bilingualism, and Education, could not have arrived at a better time for scholars and practi-
tioners with an interest in bilingual education. Across the U.S. context and beyond there have
been changes in the program models used to teach children who speak more than one language
(Lindholm-Leary, 2005). A common characteristic of these program models includes a strict pol-
icy of separating the language of instruction between different content areas. Recent work by
academics has taken an interest in exploring ways practitioners can create a space in multilingual
classrooms where all students’ language practices are valued (Creese & Blackledge, 2010).
The layout of this book includes two parts that describe a fluid and comprehensive account of
how translanguaging contributes to a growing tension about language use in the classroom and the
education of minoritized communities around the world. The first part of the book includes two
chapters that focus on how scholars have historically described terms such as bilingualism, multi-
lingualism, and plurilingualism, which are needed to understand how the use of translanguaging
has evolved over time. According to García and Wei, scholars with an interest in bilingualism and
society in general have viewed bilingualism as “. . . the know[ing] and using [of] two autonomous
languages” (p. 11). Whereas multilingualism “is often used to mean knowing and using more than
two languages” (p. 11), and plurilingualism refers to an individual’s skill in drawing from their
linguistic repertoire and in varying degrees, according to the context at hand. García and Wei
point out that the common characteristic among the three terms includes the notion that lan-
guages are autonomous to one another. To extend the historical perspective, the authors propose
and describe a dynamic form of bilingualism where “the language practices of bilinguals [which
are] complex and interrelated; . . . do not emerge in a linear way or function separately since there
is only one linguistic system” (p. 14). It is worth noting that at the end of chapter 1, García and
Wei describe how their positionality as “transnational scholars” has shaped their perspectives on
translanguaging. They point out that García was born in Cuba and has lived in New York City
from the age of 11 and Li Wei was born in Beijing, China, of Manchu-Chinese parentage and has
lived in the United Kingdom since his mid-twenties.
 BOOK REVIEW 367

In chapter 2, “The Translanguaging Turn and Its Impact,” the authors provide a historical
account of how the term translanguaging has evolved, with a definition rooted in a Welsh con-
text (coined by Cen Williams, 1994) to the transformational and social justice underpinnings the
term now employs in the context of the U.S. and in international settings. The authors theorize
translanguaging as an inclusive, yet “complex discursive practice” where all students’ language
practices work toward sustaining ways of communicating, while giving “voice to new sociopolit-
ical realities by interrogating linguistic inequality” (p. 121). The chapter describes two features,
which are reiterated throughout the text, that distinguish a translanguaging pedagogy and theoret-
ical framework from the ways scholars have framed language practices used by bilinguals such
as code-switching. The distinct features include (a) purposefully drawing from students’ diverse
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 06:56 22 October 2015

discursive practices in the classroom to learn and (b) addressing social inequalities experienced
by minoritized communities. That is to say, a translanguaging pedagogy and framework includes
practitioners’ and researchers’ purposeful intent of transforming social and linguistic inequalities.
The second part of the book includes the remaining five chapters and a conclusion. The
authors’ main emphasis in the latter half of the book is the need for bilingual education to change
and include a dynamic form of bilingualism in regard to learning and teaching. Initially, this part
explains the development of a translanguaging theory in scholarly work. For example, García
and Wei urge the readers to view the education of language-minoritized communities using a
“features approach” (p. 49), rather than an umbrella term like bilingual education, which perpet-
uates the idea that languages are dichotomous and autonomous by nature. A “features approach”
describes programs as including four continua: subject taught, language of instruction, teacher,
and school context. These continua can include a more accurate description of programs because
they consider the local social and linguistic context.
The authors offer several examples from around the world that speak to the fluid ways bilingual
students use their linguistic repertoire. One example they offer is the Martínez (2010) study that
found bilingual students in an English Language Arts classroom in East Los Angeles using their
home language practices to complete and bring meaning to a task, even though the program
design called for the primary use of English. Another study the authors cited is Martin’s work
(2005), which demonstrated the way one teacher code-switched between Malay and English to
facilitate comprehension during instruction despite the language policy to exclude the use of
students’ home language in school settings. These examples demonstrated the ways students and
teachers who speak more than one language communicate in ways that go against a “parallel
monolingualism” like many of the instructional strategies traditional bilingual education models
(e.g., transitional bilingual education, dual language education) employ.
The authors also describe what a translanguaging pedagogy and research lens can look like
in multilingual classroom contexts. For example, chapter 4 illustrates in greater detail how a
translanguaging pedagogy and research framework includes the notion of developing sociocul-
tural identities and the two essential elements needed, which are creativity and criticality. The
authors echo the importance of validating all the linguistic practices of all students because it
“enables [them] to construct and constantly modify their sociocultural identities and values, as
they respond to their historical and present conditions critically and creatively” (p. 67). Creativity
refers to “the ability to choose between following and flouting the rules and norms of behavior,
including the use of language,” and criticality “refers to the ability to use available evidence . . .
to inform considered views of cultural, social, political, and linguistic phenomena, to question
and problematize received wisdom, and to express views adequately through reasoned responses
 368 BOOK REVIEW

to situations” (p. 67). Accordingly, an essential premise of a translanguaging pedagogy and its
use as a research lens requires that creativity and criticality be taken seriously.
Creativity and criticality represent distinct elements of a translanguaging approach to language
learning, which can also help sustain heritage languages and promote the co-construction of new
identities. García and Wei draw on Davies and Harre to focus on identity construction involving
positioning as “the discursive process whereby selves are located in conversations as observably
and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced story lines” (p. 48). One example of
how creativity can help sustain heritage languages includes García’s work with kindergarteners
who were part of a bilingual program that separated the language of instruction with a “Spanish”
teacher and an “English” teacher. However, Spanish and English were found to be used simulta-
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 06:56 22 October 2015

neously for six meta-functions: (a) to mediate understanding among each other, (b) to construct
meaning of what the other is saying, (c) to construct meaning within themselves, (d) to include
others, (e) to exclude others, and (f) to demonstrate knowledge. An example provided by the
authors of how criticality can promote the construction of new identities includes a study by
Canagarajah (2011) where one bilingual graduate student uses four “codemeshing” strategies
in a narrative: (a) recontextualization to gauge the context to figure out whether she could use
codemeshing, (b) voice strategies to include making textual space for her linguistic resources,
(c) interactional strategies that provide the confidence in her identity and background to draw
from Arabic and Islamic resources, and (d) textualization strategies that emphasize rhetorical
effects and the persuasive appeal of her writing (p. 86). Canagarajah argues that it is through
these strategies that codemeshing is “the shuttle between repertoires, especially in writing, for
rhetorical effectiveness” (p. 40). In these ways the student was able to position herself as the
language expert in relation to her classmates and teacher and negotiate her multilingual identity.
Throughout the chapters, the ways bilinguals use their linguistic repertoire to communicate
affirm scholarship in the field, such as Zentella’s (1997) seminal work with Puerto Rican children
in New York City. The authors provide multiple examples from studies with students at different
points of the bilingual continuum that corroborate that practitioners and bilingual learners use
translanguaging discursive practices for specific functions such as: (a) to participate, (b) to elab-
orate ideas, (c) to raise questions, and (d) to clarify (p. 103). In other words, a translanguaging
approach frames language practices by bilinguals beyond the ways in which code-switching is
typically described as “going back and forth from one language belonging to one grammati-
cal system to another” (p.12). A translanguaging lens and pedagogy seeks to develop discursive
strategies such as, “construct[ing] and constantly modify[ing] [students’] sociocultural identities”
(p. 67).
In the last few chapters, García and Wei urge researchers and practitioners in the field of
bilingual education to make an epistemological change by disrupting and transforming tradi-
tional notions of language, bilingualism, and education. The authors propose to change the
umbrella term bilingual education to translingual education. They emphasize the idea that a
translanguaging space in classroom settings can be a powerful addition because of its fluid nature
and the way this space has the potential to generate new identities and linguistic practices.
In this book, García and Wei have provided readers with a stepping-stone to explore the trans-
formative potential a translanguaging approach can have on learning in the classroom context.
Although it is limited, as stated by the authors in chapter 7, in the ways it can provide specific
principles and strategies for a translanguaging pedagogy, the practice of translanguaging has been
effectively studied in social life. Because there is a significant gap in the literature regarding ways
 BOOK REVIEW 369

translanguaging can be effectively used in classrooms, the authors point to the need for further
research in the area of standardized assessments. The authors argue that if assessments will con-
tinue to be a way the world measures scholastic success or improvement, then standardized tests
should also reflect the translanguaging practices bilingual students and teachers use to commu-
nicate. García and Wei state that, “standardized assessments [should] be done in translanguaged
ways,” and in doing so, more diverse ways of communicating would be legitimated (p. 134).
This textbook will attract academics and practitioners with a keen interest in the dynamic
direction in which pedagogy is moving related to language learning and how bilingual children
are positioned in classroom settings. The chapters are ideal for language policymakers and prac-
titioners interested in learning more about the use of translanguaging strategies in multilingual
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 06:56 22 October 2015

classrooms. The textbook also offers teacher educators responsible for courses on second lan-
guage acquisition, bilingual education, and biliteracy a platform for retheorizing ways in which
language, culture, and semiotic systems can be integrated in classroom learning. Finally, the
authors offer a resource for researchers who seek to use a translanguaging lens for examining
ways learners engage in a multilingual and transnational world.

REFERENCES

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The
Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–417.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?
The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of dual language education
programs. Center for Applied Linguistics, 35.
Martin, P. (2005). Safe’language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions between policy and practice.
Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice, 74–97.
Martínez, R. A. (2010). Spanglish as literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English
code-switching in the development of academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124–149.
Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wales, Bangor.
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.