Scrutiny2

Issues in English Studies in Southern Africa

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rscr20

Translanguaging, Decoloniality, and the Global

South: An Integrative Review Study

Chaka Chaka

To cite this article: Chaka Chaka (2020) Translanguaging, Decoloniality, and the Global South:
An Integrative Review Study, Scrutiny2, 25:1, 6-42, DOI: 10.1080/18125441.2020.1802617

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18125441.2020.1802617

Published online: 31 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 384

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rscr20
 Article

Translanguaging, Decoloniality, and the Global

South: An Integrative Review Study
Chaka Chaka
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3558-4141
University of South Africa
chakachaka8@gmail.com

Abstract
Studies continue to be conducted on translanguaging as a concept, a
phenomenon, a practice, or a strategy at both theoretical and pedagogical levels.
However, there is not much research that has studied translanguaging through
the dual prism of decoloniality and the Global South. Nor are there integrative
review studies that have explored the triple concepts of translanguaging,
decoloniality, and the Global South. Against this backdrop, the current article
reports on an integrative review study of the intersection of translanguaging,
decoloniality, and the Global South in sixteen selected journal articles drawn
from peer-reviewed journals. The focus was on journal articles published
between 2012 and 2019. Framed within Southern perspectives and thematic and
intersectional analysis, the study employed snowball sampling and standard
inclusion and exclusion criteria applicable to systematic reviews and meta-
analyses. Based on the sixteen reviewed articles, the following were identified:
four categories of translanguaging definitions, three categories of
translanguaging exemplifications, five categories of translanguaging theories,
and seven theoretical frameworks of translanguaging. However, the identified
definitional categories lack a manifestly articulated intentionality behind their
given translanguaging definitions. Pertaining to a decolonial theorising of
translanguaging, one point that has been noted is that it is not evident from the
reviewed articles to what extent translanguaging theory is entirely embedded in
decoloniality or is wholly framed as post-monolinguistic. Finally, the practice
of rejecting and critiquing named languages on the one hand, and of providing
the self-same named languages as examples of translanguaging is something
that translanguaging scholarship needs to resolve going forward.

Keywords: translanguaging; decoloniality; the Global South; integrative review;

translanguaging definitions; translanguaging exemplifications;
translanguaging theories; translanguaging frameworks

scrutiny2 https://doi.org/10.1080/18125441.2020.1802617
www.tandfonline.com/rscr20 ISSN 1753-5409 (Online), ISSN 1812-5441 (Print)
Volume 25 | Number 1 | 2020 | pp. 6–42 © Unisa Press 2020
 Chaka

Introduction
Translanguaging as a concept, a phenomenon, a practice, or a strategy—or as a
combination of these aspects—has been rapidly gaining currency both locally and
globally. Added to this currency traction is the exponential growth in research and in
academic papers focusing on translanguaging. In this regard, barring edited academic
books, which are not the focus of this study, two strands of academic papers have
emerged. These are papers on empirical studies (see, for example, Bagga-Gupta and
Rao 2018; Guzula, McKinney, and Tyler 2016; Hurst and Mona 2017; Makalela 2019;
Mbirimi-Hungwe and Hungwe 2018; McKinney and Tyler 2019; Ndhlovu 2018;
Pennycook 2017; Velasco and García 2014) and theoretical papers (Carneiro 2018;
Guerra 2016; Lee 2016; MacSwan 2017; Pennycook 2018). Overall, currently, there
seem to be more papers on empirical studies than on purely theoretical or conceptual
issues in respect of translanguaging. In this context, academic papers on empirical
translanguaging studies fall into two salient categories: school-based studies and studies
conducted in higher education institutions (HEIs). Based on the current translanguaging
environmental scan informed by the present review study, there seems to be a
preponderance of the former over the latter.

Since translanguaging scholarship has taken root, both in South Africa and globally, no
review study has been conducted to survey cumulative developments and the state of
the art in this scholarly area. The current article is intended to offer such a review. As
an integrative review study, the article sets out to integrate and synthesise the
definitions, exemplifications, theories, and theoretical frameworks attributed to
translanguaging as posited from decolonial and Global South perspectives by the sixteen
reviewed journal articles. In doing all of this, the article is grounded in three paradigms:
integrationism, decoloniality, and a Global South perspective.

Framing Translanguaging for the Current Study

The first paradigm mentioned above, integrationism, is about integrational linguistics
which critiques and is diametrically opposed to orthodox linguistics (also referred to as
segregational or mainstream linguistics) (see Harris 1981; Harris 1998; Hutton, Pablé,
and Bade 2011; Orman 2013a; Orman 2013b; Orman and Pablé 2015; Sutton 2004).
One of the loci of criticism of orthodox Western-centric linguistics by integrationism is
the idea of the language myth that Harris (1981) argues it embodies. Central to the
language myth are two interlinked fallacies: the fixed-code fallacy and the telementation
fallacy. These two fallacies, which draw their valorisation from classical Saussurean
linguistic binarism, have dominated the theorisation of orthodox modern Western
linguistics. The first fallacy conceptualises languages as internally self-containing
structures and context-free systems comprising regularities, immutable units, and
determinate forms. The second fallacy views human communication as occurring
ineluctably and seamlessly through a neutral and transparent transference
communication model (Harris 1981; Harris 1998; Makoni 2013; Orman 2013a; Orman

7
 Chaka

2013b; Pablé 2013; Sutton 2004; also see Chaka 2006; Chaka n.d.; Mandende, Chaka,
and Makgato 2015).

Integrational linguistics rejects these two fallacies and the abstracting of the signifier
from the signified embodied in segregational linguistics (Orman 2013a; Orman 2013b;
Pablé 2013; Mandende, Chaka, and Makgato 2015). For the purposes of the present
article, integrationism resonates with translanguaging in so far as the latter rejects
language as a discrete, bounded, autonomous, and abstract object that can be named and
counted, as posited by canonical, mainstream sociolinguistic theory (Gomes 2018; also
see Bagga‑Gupta and Dahlberg 2018; Bagga‑Gupta and Rao 2018; Orman 2013b; Poza
2017; Veronelli 2015; Zavala 2018) or as founded on “positivist modernist
sociolinguistics” (García, Flores, and Spotti 2017, 6).

The second theoretical framing, decoloniality, is an eponymous framework and

approach adopted from Escobar (2010) and Mignolo (2010), meant to revisit and
critique mainly Western epistemes grounded on and informed by coloniality/modernity.
In the main, the view adopted by this article is that decoloniality, notwithstanding its
multiple appropriations which at times border on political posturing, offers an
intersectional approach to a plurality of epistemes. It does so by foregrounding subaltern
knowledges (cf. Kumaravadivelu 2016; Prinsloo 2020), which are often marginalised
by and backgrounded in “Western-centric, canonic epistemologies” (Gomes 2018, 51)
or “Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge” (Singh and Han 2017, vii), as typified by
mainstream sociolinguistic theorisation in relation to translanguaging. Thus, this article
regards decoloniality as a means for deparochialising (Chaka, Lephalala, and Ngesi
2017; Koh 2007; Lingard 2006) and not for foreclosing or effacing different types of
knowledges that can be utilised to theorise translanguaging.

In this context, a Global South perspective, as the third theoretical framing, draws on
and employs variants of Southern theory as propounded by Connell (2007; 2017). The
notion of the Global South (together with its polar counterpart, the Global North) is
highly contested and debatable (Prinsloo 2020). For example, even though the Global
South is at times a shorthand for poor and under-developed countries and a replacement
for the Third World (Kleinschmidt 2018), such countries are not homogenous, closely
knit entities (cf. Kleinschmidt 2018; Prinsloo 2020). They do not share the same
epistemes and cultures, nor are they clustered in the same geographical locations. To
this effect, the reified usage of the Global South as a “metageography” (Kleinschmidt
2018, 61) is also problematic, as it embodies the relics of the classically spatialised,
fuzzy North–South binary. In its Gramscian sense, the notion of Southernism plays an
ambivalent role: it refers to intellectuals supporting and upholding imperial imperatives
while simultaneously supporting subaltern groups (Brennan 2001; Gramsci 1971).
Nonetheless, in the current article, the Global South perspective is used as a counter-
hegemonic conceptual device to refer to one of the theoretic-linguistic perspectives
developed by scholars regarded as part of the Global South whose knowledges, theories,
viewpoints, and voices are misrecognised by and not validated by Global North theories

8
 Chaka

(see Connell 2007; Connell 2017; Gomes 2018; Milani and Lazar 2017; Prinsloo 2020;
Singh et al. 2016; Souza 2014; Sousa Santos 2016; Veronelli 2015). Therefore, the
present article contends that one theory to which translanguaging serves as a counter-
hegemonic conceptual and epistemic toolkit is mainstream sociolinguistic theory,
which, inter alia, is grounded on and valorises normative monolingualism and an
autonomous and segregationist view of language.

Within language studies, and especially within applied linguistics (and by extension
mainstream sociolinguistics), Pennycook (2018) refers to Global South perspectives as
“southern epistemologies” (with a lower-case letter). He argues that applied
linguistics—and analogously mainstream sociolinguistics—is premised on certain
Northern or Western frames of language and knowledge, particularly monolingual
Anglophone frames. In keeping with the foregoing points, translanguaging, in this
article, is seen as a counter-hegemonic epistemic approach to studying languages, an
approach whose ethos has resonance with that of integrational linguistics, decoloniality,
and Global South perspectives, as outlined above.

Research Methodology: Integrative Review

This study employed an integrative review as the methodological approach to reviewing
the sixteen journal articles under study and to integrating and synthesising the
definitions, exemplifications, theories, and theoretical frameworks of translanguaging
as viewed from decolonial and Global South perspectives by the sixteen reviewed
journal articles. In brief, an integrative review reviews, critiques, and synthesises sample
literature on a given topic with a view to developing new perspectives or frameworks
(Schick-Makaroff et al. 2016). It also offers a state-of-the-art review of an area of study
as discussed by past disparate empirical studies or by past diverse theoretical papers so
as to summarise and integrate the principal findings of such studies or the cardinal points
of such papers. It therefore allows for the inclusion of studies or papers based on diverse
methodologies (see Whittemore and Knafl 2005; cf. Souza, Silva, and Carvalho 2010;
Torraco 2016). Moreover, an integrative review needs to be grounded in an explicit
theoretical or philosophical perspective, and has to focus on a diverse sampling frame
(Whittemore and Knafl 2005). Most importantly, an integrative review ought to
encompass the following key components: purpose, problem identification, research
question, literature search, selection of studies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, data
extraction, data analysis, and synthesis (cf. Schick-Makaroff et al. 2016; Torraco 2016;
Whittemore and Knafl 2005).

Purpose of the Integrative Review, Problem Identification, and Research

Questions
This integrative review study has the following three purposes:
1. To reflect on translanguaging by employing an integrated framework comprising
integrationism, decoloniality, and a Global South perspective
9
 Chaka

2. To establish the definitions, exemplifications, theories, and theoretical frameworks

of translanguaging as viewed from decolonial and the Global South perspectives by
the sixteen reviewed journal articles
3. To integrate and synthesise such definitions, exemplifications, theories, and
theoretical frameworks.

Based on the foregoing purposes, the article argues that few studies or theoretical
papers, if any at all, especially in the HE context, provide definitions, exemplifications,
theories, and theoretical frameworks of translanguaging from decolonial and Global
South perspectives. This is so notwithstanding the fact that both decoloniality and the
Global South standpoint are currently gaining traction in the HE sector. Again, this is
so despite the fact that translanguaging seems to lend itself well to decolonial and Global
South epistemologies. Additionally, this article seeks to establish and explore the types
of definitions, exemplifications, theories, and theoretical frameworks attributed to
translanguaging by the said journal articles. An integration and synthesis of these
aspects of translanguaging stands to contribute to the scholarship of translanguaging.

Against this backdrop, this article sets out to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: Which definitions, exemplifications, theories, and theoretical frameworks of
translanguaging are viewed from decolonial and Global South perspectives by the
sixteen reviewed journal articles?
RQ2: In instances where the sixteen reviewed journal articles make reference to the
decolonial approach and to the Global South, do these references have anything to
do with framing translanguaging from these two perspectives or not?

Literature Search, Selection of Studies, and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The literature search was conducted online, and entailed searching for relevant journal
articles, screening them, and selecting or isolating the relevant ones from the non-
relevant ones. The search was carried out on three sets of online platforms: three online
search engines (Google Search, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar); four online
databases (Taylor and Francis Online, Wiley Online Library, Education Resources
Information Center [ERIC], and Journal Storage [JSTOR]); and two online academic
social networking sites (ResearchGate and Academia.edu) (see Figure 1). The following
search strings were used: translanguaging, decoloniality, and the Global South;
translanguaging, decolonial approach, and the Global South; translingualism,
decoloniality, and the Global South; and translingualism, decolonial approach, and the
Global South. These search strings, including their permutations, were queried
iteratively in the three sets of online search platforms. In addition, as suggested by
Whittemore and Knafl (2005), ancestry searching or snowball sampling was conducted
based on the bibliographies provided by the yielded journal articles. Above all, the
following final search string, consisting of the combination of the Boolean operators
OR and AND, was queried on the three sets of online platforms: “translanguaging” OR
10
 Chaka

languaging* OR “translingualism*” AND “decoloniality” OR decolonial OR

“decolonial turn” OR “decolonial approach” OR “decolonial paradigm” AND “Global
South” OR “southern theory” OR “southern perspective” (cf. Lambert 2019). The same
search string was used in relation to integrationism or integrational linguistics.

The integrative review process was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, one of the primary
objectives of which is to ensure transparency and clarity in terms of the search process
(see Moher et al. 2015; Van Laar et al. 2017). The review process employed a four-
phase flow chart, as depicted in Figure 1. A total of 1 689 articles were identified during
the search process on the three sets of online platforms. After the removal of duplicate
and non-relevant articles, and articles that did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria
(see Table 1), sixty-six articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, fifty articles were
excluded as they dealt with translanguaging in HE but did not refer to decoloniality or
the Global South.

Data Extraction and Data Analysis

The data sets—in the form of definitions, exemplifications, theories, and theoretical
frameworks of translanguaging as viewed from decolonial and Global South
perspectives—were extracted from the sixteen reviewed journal articles. These data
were subjected to thematic and intersectional analysis, the coding procedures of which
were open, focused, and axial in nature (Creswell 2012; Saldaña 2013; also see Chaka,
Lephalala, and Ngesi 2017; Poza 2017).

Table 1: Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Criteria Inclusion Exclusion

Time period Articles on translanguaging
published between 2012 and 2019
Types of Articles on translanguaging
articles published in peer-reviewed journals
Content and Articles which mention either the
focus of term “decoloniality” (and related
articles variants which include “decolonial”
as a prefix) or the term “the Global
South” (and its variants, such as
“Southern theory”, or its variants
which use “the Global South” and
“Southern” as adjectives), or both
terms
Language of Articles on translanguaging
publication published in English
Articles on translanguaging published
before 2012 and after 2019
Articles on translanguaging published
in journals that are not peer reviewed
Articles which do not mention either
the term “decoloniality” (and related
variants which include “decolonial”
as a prefix) or the term “the Global
South” (and its variants, such as
“Southern theory”, or its variants
which use “the Global South” and
“Southern” as adjectives)
Articles on translanguaging published
in languages other than English

11
 Chaka

Figure 1: Four phases of screening articles during the integrative review process

12
 Chaka

Findings
Table 2 displays the names of the authors of the sixteen reviewed articles and the
publication dates, which range from 2016 to 2019. Of these articles, four make reference
to translanguaging and two refer to translingualism. In contrast, ten articles make
reference to both translanguaging and translingualism. Viewed from another angle,
thirteen of the reviewed articles have references to decoloniality. Decoloniality, in this
context, entails decoloniality as a concept as well as its permutations, such as decolonial
approach, decolonial perspective, decolonial view, decolonial framework, and so forth.
Six articles reference the Global South, with two more referencing both the Global
South and Southern perspectives, while eight articles do not reference either of the two
concepts. Additionally, twelve of the sixteen articles offer definitions of
translanguaging and eleven articles provide exemplifications of translanguaging. By
contrast, fifteen articles offer theories of translanguaging, whereas nine articles have
translanguaging theoretical frameworks (also see Table 3).

Table 2: Numbers, names of authors, and years of publication of the reviewed articles

Number Author(s) Year

1 M. Childs 2016
2 E. Cushman 2016
3 J. W. Lee 2016
4 M-Z. Lu and B. Horner 2016
5 F. Hsu 2017
6 E. Hurst and M. Mona 2017
7 J. Kierman, J. Meier, and X. Wang 2018
8 I. Léglise 2017
9 S. Bagga-Gupta and A. Rao 2018
10 L. Gomes 2018
11 L. Makalela 2018
12 F. Ndhlovu 2018
13 A. Pennycook 2018
14 C. Medina 2019
15 R. R. Pessoa, V. P. V. Silvestre, and J. D. V. P. Borelli 2019
16 M. L. Pratt 2019

Pertaining to the key focal areas of this review study, as reflected in Tables 4a to d, there
are some which are simple and straightforward in their framing, while others are
complexly framed. This relates to all the key focal areas as articulated by journal articles
depicted in Tables 4a to d in varying degrees. The following instances serve to illustrate
the varied framings of these key areas by the respective articles: 1, 4, 5, 8, and 11 vs. 2,
3, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 16 (translanguaging definitions); 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, and 14 vs. 2, 4, 5, 7,
and 15 (exemplifications); 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, and 16 vs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 ,12, and 13
(theories of translanguaging/theorising translanguaging); and 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 15 vs.
9, 10, and 14 (translanguaging theoretical frameworks).

13
 Chaka

Table 3: Journal articles mentioning translanguaging, decolonial(ity), global

South/Southern perspective, and containing definitions, exemplifications, theories and
theoretical frameworks of translanguaging

1 Yes1 No Yes3 Yes Yes No Yes

2 Yes1, 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
3 Yes1, 2 Yes* No Yes Yes Yes No
4 Yes1, 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
5 Yes1, 2 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
6 Yes1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Yes2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
8 Yes1 No Yes3 Yes Yes Yes No
9 Yes1, 2 Yes Yes3 No No Yes Yes
Journal article number

10 Yes1, 2 Yes Yes3 No No Yes Yes

11 Yes1, 2 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
12 Yes1, 2 Yes Yes3, 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes
13 Yes1, 2 No Yes3, 4 Yes No Yes No
14 Yes 1, 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
15 Yes1 Yes Yes3 No Yes Yes Yes
16 Yes2 Yes Yes3 Yes No Yes No
Global South/Southern

theoretical framework
Theory of/Theorising
Exemplification of
Translanguaging/

Translanguaging
Translingualism

translanguaging

translanguaging

translanguaging
Decolonial(ity)

Definition of
perspective

Notes: * = endnotes; 1 = translanguaging; 2 = translingualism; 3 = Global South; 4 = Southern

perspective

14
 Chaka

Table 4a: Definitions of translanguaging

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles and

page
numbers
“Translanguaging is a means of providing planned and systematic use of the Art. 1:
home language of learners with the language of the classroom in order to pp. 22, 23,
foster learning and teaching” (p. 22). 24, 25
“In this article, I argue that translanguaging can be used as a pedagogical tool
in multilingual classrooms to bridge communication in nuanced ways and
bring about a more humanising experience for both learners and teachers”
(p. 23).
“Translanguaging is a practice used by multilingual individuals to move
between the languages that they know in order to communicate in a range of
social contexts. Their language repertoire is understood as one system, rather
than as a collection of discrete languages” (p. 24).
“The practice of translanguaging offers the opportunity for a disruption of
typical power relations in the classroom where learners are encouraged to take
ownership of their language practices” (p. 24).
“Translanguaging fits within the spectrum of work on multilingualism.
Included in this range of language activity are code switching, translation, and
translanguaging” (p. 25).
Regards translingual approaches, at a paradigmatic level, as having the Art. 2:
capacity to expose and transform colonial matrices of power that sustain p. 235
Western hierarchies of knowledges and languages. At a pedagogical level,
such approaches are seen as being capable of promoting students’ languages
and categories of understanding that can be articulated in classrooms.
NB: “[T]ranslingualism can be defined as those meaning making processes
that involve students and scholars in translanguaging, translating, and
dwelling in borders” (p. 235). The three moves could foster epistemic
delinking and border thinking as per Mignolo. In turn, delinking attempts
engender pluriversal realities in composition studies that are likely to
transform disciplinary and pedagogical dogmas.
A translingual orientation challenges a monolingual view of language by Art. 3:
highlighting how language boundaries are ideological constructs created by pp. 177, 178
European philology and the nation-state. Monolingualism idealises and
privileges linguistic utopia/purism and marginalises minority languages.
“Discourses of translingualism should not be reduced to translingual writing”
(p. 178). Equally, translingualism should not be confined to the demand for
linguistic rights.
The term “translingual” has entered college English as a way of contesting the Art. 4:
dominance of monolingualism in the teaching of college writing and reading p. 207
in the United States and other parts of the globe. Like plurilingual,
translanguaging, and code-meshing, translingual has no predetermined,
predefined outcome, and has conflicting inflections.

15
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles and

page
numbers
The article traces the origin of translanguaging from and references Williams’ Art. 6:
(1994) definition of this term through Canagarajah (2011, 401; 2013) as “the p. 132
ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the
diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (p. 132).
It also contends that translingual practice, in line with Canagarajah (2013), is
more messy and complex, and that it presumes that language practices entail
complex communicative strategies which encompass “crossing, code-
meshing, polyglot dialogue, plurilingualism, etc.” (p. 132).
Defines translingualism alongside transnationalism, maintaining that writing Art. 7:
studies (composition studies) be looked at through transnational and p. 647
translingual inquiry. No standard themes in transnational and translingual
curricula (and pedagogies), as many dimensions, negotiations, and tensions
related to linguistic and cultural diversity are explored. Literacy is fluid, and
not fixed. The local and the global intersect, with students and teachers
constantly engaged in negotiations of languages and cultures translocally.
Presently, translanguaging is the most frequently used term, rather than Art. 8:
crossing, super-diversity, polylanguaging, and hybridity (pp. 4, 5). Hybridity pp. 4, 5
is criticised for viewing languages as discrete entities and for assuming that
languages exist as separate codes (p. 5). Prefers the term “heterogeneous
language practices” (pratiques langagières hétérogènes) (p. 5) to refer to
translanguaging practices as it privileges pluri-accentuation and variation over
discrete codes.
Defines translanguaging as “a language communicative function of receiving Art. 11:
an input in one language and giving an output in another language” (p. 4, p. 4
citing Baker 2011; Wei 2011), with the input–output mechanism enabling
multilingual students to leverage their optimal multilingual resources (p. 4).
Subsumed under this input–output process are multiple discursive practices,
semiotic resources, non-formal languaging exchanges, and other related
languaging modalities (p. 4). Invokes Wei’s (2011, 1223) idea of
“translanguaging space”.
References García and Kleyn (2016, 14), who view translanguaging as Art. 12:
speakers deploying their full aggregate linguistic repertoire, which does not pp. 6, 7, 8
conform to socially and ideologically defined boundaries of named languages.
Invokes the weak (softening language boundaries) and strong (using linguistic
features selectively) versions of translanguaging. Aligns itself with the latter.
Views language boundaries as porous and temporal, challenges linguistic
normativity (mainstream sociolinguistic theorisations), argues for an anti-
foundational view of language, and challenges a segregationist/colonial
standpoint regarding language.

16
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles and

page
numbers
“The point of the ‘trans’ rather than ‘inter’ terminology is that it supersedes Art. 13:
the initial framework. Translanguaging, for example, is explained as ‘an pp. 115,
approach to the use of language, bilingualism and the education of bilinguals 128–29
that considers the language practices of bilinguals not as two autonomous
language systems as has been traditionally the case, but as one linguistic
repertoire with features that have been societally constructed as belonging to
two separate languages’ … That is to say, translanguaging challenges the
notion of separable languages that underpin notions such as bilingualism, and
posits a different way of thinking about linguistic resources and repertoires”
(p. 115).
“There are two useful parallels to be drawn from the new sociolinguistic focus
on translinguistic practices … On the one hand, the translinguistic supersedes
the linguistic, challenging underlying assumptions about the ontological status
of languages. Translanguaging is not just a new term for mixing languages
together but a different way of thinking about what languages are”
(pp. 128–29).
“The term translingual refers to the dispositions, theories, and frameworks that Art. 14:
propose inclusive approaches to the use of multiple languages, or p. 74
translanguaging, for communication, in spite of monolingual efforts to
invalidate non-standard Academic English (SAE). By translanguaging, I refer
to ‘both the complex language practices of multilingual individuals and
communities, as well as the pedagogical approaches that draw on those
complex practices to build those desired in formal school settings’” (p. 74).
Viewed differently, translingualism defines a decolonial paradigm which Art. 16:
employs decolonial in the same way in English and Spanish. However, this p. 123
paradigm is rejected for its failure to anchor itself in any form of decolonising
practice. But, it is worth noting the word “decolonial” does not mean the same
thing in English and Spanish. In English, “decolonial” has the same
connotations as decolonisation, whereas in Spanish decolonial has nothing to
do with decolonisation (interlingual slippages) (p. 123).

17
 Chaka

Table 4b: Exemplifications of translanguaging

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
Translanguaging can be instantiated through multilingual materials such as Art. 1:
multilingual glossaries and multilingual fiction, and by resources provided p. 26
through Nal’ibali and Biblionef.
The possibility of scholars with multiple disciplinary homes, and students with Art. 2:
majors selected from courses based on projects, questions, or real-world pp. 236,
problems and solutions. And the prospect of students moving laterally across 237
languages, disciplinary silos, and symbolic systems. Additionally, the
possibility of all languages and multiple scripts and media being valued equally
and being used routinely, and the added prospect of new genres of expression
that inform disciplinary and institutional practices. These types of epistemic
delinking in composition studies classrooms, scholarship, and academic
engagements might help transform orthodox disciplinary contexts, or genres of
expression.
A student essay at a US-based university in which an undergraduate Chinese- Art. 3:
American student had interwoven Chinese expressions in her essay. p. 180
Translingualism should not be equated with linguistic tourism.
• Language (including varieties of Englishes, discourses, media, or Art. 4:
modalities) as performative: not something we have but something we do p. 208
• Users of language as actively forming and transforming the very
conventions we use and social-historical contexts of use
• Communicative practices as not neutral or innocent but informed by and
informing economic, geopolitical, social-historical, and cultural relations of
asymmetrical power
• Decisions on language use as shaping as well as shaped by the contexts of
utterance and the social positionings of the writers, and thus having
material consequences on the life and world we live in.
Provides an instance in which a Spanish student draws on her lived and local Art. 5:
experiences and blends Spanish and English to coin the word grander instead of pp. 121,
“bigger”. She refers to this as a postmethod deployment of a critical 122
heteroglossic approach in a classroom situation. Calls for teachers to tolerate
students’ translingual coinages (expressions) of this nature as opposed to a
dogmatic adherence to “appropriateness-based approaches”. Argues that this
translingual pedagogical practice of validating local languaging practices as
legitimate spaces of knowledge questions the hegemonic privileging of the
West as a locus of instructional power.
Students enrolled in a first-level course, Texts in the Humanities, possess a wide Art. 6:
range of language biographies. Some (e.g. Coloured students) may identify pp. 132,
themselves as Afrikaans-English bilinguals, while others (e.g. black African 133
students) speak one or more African languages as their first language.
A translanguaging approach adopted in the course is a response to students’
language practices, which encompass diverse dialects and many accents, and
involve isiXhosa or isiZulu (p. 132).

18
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
How transnational and translingual pedagogies can address the practical, such Art. 7:
as the fact that most writing classrooms are culturally and linguistically diverse, pp. 649,
and how they can include teachers’ pedagogical experiences in terms of their 650
teaching and their scholarship (p. 649). Transnational and translingual
approaches/orientations as used in writing classrooms cannot be a sole solution
to the multiple faces of exclusivity (e.g. race, gender, class, etc.) that minority
student populations have to confront (p. 650). Both transnationalism and
translingualism are capable of encouraging, creating, and fostering levels of
inclusivity needed in writing classrooms across national and linguistic borders
(p. 650).
Language policies applied in hospitals in French Guiana which construct Art. 8:
hermetic boundaries (in respect of languages and knowledge) between French p. 11
medical language and patients’ languages.
The researcher’s spontaneous exchanges with (a translingual) Omphile which Art. 12:
were encoded in multiple languages (isiZulu, Sepedi/Setswana, and English). pp. 4–5
Critiques translanguaging lesson demonstrations presented in one of the
conference sessions he attended: they reinforced the notion of languages as
bounded and fixed objects.
“The writing examined in this piece is by multilingual students in a bilingual Art. 14:
fyc [first-year composition] taught with a translingual approach that was pp. 74,
incorporated through readings, discussions, and writing assignments” (p. 74). 75
“From 2013–2017, my institution offered four sections of an fyc two-course
sequence that enacted a translanguaging approach. Serving approximately 80
students over four years, each class of approximately twenty students began the
fyc course titled Critical Thinking and Writing 1 Bilingual in Spanish (CTW1)
with my colleague” (p. 75).
Referencing a Brazilian applied linguist Fabrício (2017) about his observation Art. 15:
that secondary school history classroom “learners brought transmodal and p. 346
translanguage texts and discourses that invoked different scales (family,
personal, religious, universal, etc.), which thus encouraged them to engage with
the difference and to stand in favour of a multiplicity of lifestyles” (p. 346).
Emphasises the need for an epistemic diversity in teacher education.

19
 Chaka

Table 4c: Theories of translanguaging/theorising translanguaging

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
Employing translanguaging as a humanising pedagogy and as a tool enabling Art. 1:
epistemological access. Alludes to how socio-political histories have impacted pp. 22,
on language issues as a result of the tensions between the Global North and the 23, 24,
Global South. Maintains that strategies such as code switching, translation, and 25
other related “assistive language practices” (p. 24) are deemed to be unwanted
by teachers who perceive language as a pure and bounded system.
Translanguaging is perceived to be a strategy capable of disrupting the power
relations characterising South Africa’s classrooms.
Translanguaging is geared towards exposing the structuring principles Art. 2:
implicated in historical, cultural, and instrumental values and practices hidden p. 235
in meaning making. This has the potential to decentre the status accorded to
English as the prime lingua franca of composition studies, and to affirm other
languages spoken in the classroom, used in the readings and writing assigned to
students, and produced in educational materials.
Caution: Translanguaging is not the same as multilingualism. However, there
is a pluriversality of languages; this embraces the notion of (many) Englishes. A
translingual approach to meaning making entails a decolonial lens that can be
employed to highlight the ideologies implicated in any tool chosen for meaning
making such as genre, mode, and media.
Translingualism has gained popularity as a theoretical concept in composition Art. 3:
studies. There is a need to view conventional language boundaries not as pp. 174,
impermeable and static, but as fluid and dynamic. A translingual orientation 176
resonates with the principles of linguistic social justice as it strives to accord
(linguistic) rights to all students irrespective of their English proficiency as
determined by parochial, monolingual, monolithic normativity. A central
concern should not be how to assess translingual writing, but how to do
translanguage assessment.
A temptation to turn translingual theory into a search for difference that elides Art. 4:
power differentials in communicative practices to the point of overlooking the p. 211
effects of such power differentials, must be avoided. Translinguality must
confront and deconstruct the “invisible architecture” that monolingualist
ideology has brought into writing assessment, as such architecture puts
language difference and cognitive achievements between native speakers and
multilinguals at odds—creative and critical thinking for native speakers and
diligence for multilinguals.
• Decolonial options for English language teaching Art. 5:
• Decolonial alternatives in English language teaching pp. 111,
• Foundational reconceptualisations are central to designing pedagogies that 114, 120,
present decolonial options. 127
• If we are to consider the idea of a grammar of decoloniality, then we can
understand that there are many sentences, or methods, that can be
constructed with this grammar. Therefore, there are many possible
articulations of the decolonial option.

20
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
Theorising translanguaging from a decolonial perspective, especially from a Art. 6:
Mignoloian border thinking, as a pedagogic approach, as a legitimate epistemic pp. 127,
positioning, and as a critique of the Euro-centrist views of languages. Supports 128
a theoretical turn toward viewing languages as sets of resources and practices,
and not as “pure, autonomous and bounded entities” (p. 128).
NB: Takes a jab at decolonisation for “its lack of a clear identification of
‘colonial’ thought and the tendency to replace Euro-centrism with other
centrisms” (p. 127), while crediting it for its rejection of dominant European
languages.
Many translingual discussions on writing studies are philosophical and not Art. 7:
pedagogical, and are tilted towards raising awareness about multilingual and pp. 648,
translingual worldviews among composition studies scholars (p. 648). 649
NB: References Cushman (2016, 235) to point out that translingual approaches
can offer more decolonial possibilities (p. 649).
“In the context of the Global South, the concepts of language, language contact, Art. 8:
and code-switching … seem particularly inadequate, because of the colonial pp. 4, 5
history they are permeated with and also because of the multiplicity of language
practices actually observed in the field” (p. 4).
“But this [focus] on practices rather than languages is not new in
sociolinguistics. In our quest for the best term to describe the practices we
encounter, the term ‘heterogeneous language practices’ (‘pratiques langagières
hétérogènes’) seems to [be] the most appropriate, firstly because the adjective
language rather than linguistic avoids designating discrete entities, and secondly
because it includes the phenomena of variation and pluri-accentuation … The
language practices studied in the context of the Global South are heterogeneous,
in the sense that they are not only pluri-accentuated but also plurilingual. They
are produced by plurilingual speakers with varied linguistic skills, resources,
and repertoires. Rather than describing these practices as code-switching or
code-mixing, we observe the use of language resources by social actors, a use
that could be described as ‘linguistic bricolage’” (p. 5).
“While the idea of a language being a bounded unit and monolingualism, Art. 9:
inherent in the Eurocentric one-nation-one-language ideology, have been p. 4
challenged repeatedly, they are particularly difficult to dislodge in global-North
discourses where it gets normatively mapped onto a one-language-one-
individual norm. This means that while ‘citizens’ … are designated a default
monolingual identity-position, ‘immigrants’ get positioned as bilinguals
(irrespective of their language-repertoires). While the fallacy of such reasoning
is increasingly acknowledged in some global-North scholarship,
bi/multi/translingualism (as well as translanguaging) at the individual level
continues to be marked in terms of the exotic, not ‘normal’” (p. 4).

21
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
“[T]here exists a stronger tendency to draw on assumptions about language akin Art. 10:
to positivist modernist sociolinguistics … That is, in general, studies seem to pp. 58–
subscribe to ideas of languages as being units that can be delineated, separated, 59, 61
named and counted. Rather than affirming that languages are not abstract
systems that can be named, differentiated and counted, the point here is that
there is an important ongoing debate in socio- and applied linguistics … with
which recent … studies have not engaged” (pp. 58–59).
“Moreover, authors oppose an epistemological stance that stands for the
production of objective, neutral and universal knowledge systems, and
champion, instead, a stance that assumes the situatedness of knowledge
production” (p. 61).
Advocates ubuntu translanguaging, whose alter ego is multi-languaging. Traces Art. 11:
the cultural and linguistic manifestations of ubuntu, whose shibboleth is, “I am pp. 2, 3,
because you are, you are because we are” (p. 2), to the pre-colonial and pre- 4
European Enlightenment Mapungubwe territory. In this pre-colonial kingdom,
different language groups such as the Ngunis, the Sothos, the Khoes, and the
Sans had their languages co-existing not as discrete language systems, but as
multilingual encounters. Maintains that these linguistic practices exemplified a
decolonial language use and defied Western monolingual practices. Sees
translanguaging as offering prospects for transforming monolingual ideologies
in education, and for language boundaries (p. 2).
Views translanguaging as a transformative multilingual strategy and theory in
line with postmodern thought (p. 3). Ubuntu translanguaging appropriated
interchangeably with mutilingualing (p. 4).
References some of the critiques of sociolinguistic normativity, such as Art. 12:
“transidiomatic practice”, “polylanguaging”, “codemeshing”, p. 3
“translanguaging”, and “metrolingualism” (p. 3). A “call for unbounding
language from its position as an object of study and situating it in the
sociocultural complexity that surrounds speakers’ ‘real language use’” (p. 3).
Critiques conventional research methodologies: oral interviews, surveys, focus
groups, participant observations, and so on. Advocates an anti-foundational
stance that aligns itself with translanguaging. Challenges the practice of
investigating languages as ordered and enumerable entities (p. 3).

22
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
“[W]hat we actually need to do is both to undermine such hegemonic Art. 13:
knowledge structures and to seek a much better understanding of alternative pp. 124,
frameworks of knowledge … An applied linguistics that can embrace Global 125, 126,
South perspectives needs researchers who are culturally grounded, political 129
engaged, continuously self-reflexive, and capable of adopting multiple
perspectives on data … It is unfortunate and limiting that sociolinguists from
elsewhere—Africa, South America, or South and East Asia—are not included.
On the other hand, this absence perpetuates ‘a particular geopolitics of
knowledge that privileges Northern perspectives and prevents Southern scholars
from contributing a differently positioned interpretation of events and practices
that concern them …’” (p. 124). “Orthodox applied linguistics takes a view of
language as a given and thus assumes that it is dealing with ‘determinate rule-
based systems called ‘languages’” (p. 126). “The translinguistic focus on
repertoires of semiotic resources … suggests a way of thinking about applied
linguistic theory in terms of epistemological resources that we draw on in order
to engage in certain language-related concerns” (p. 129).
“Within writing studies, decolonial theory continues to gain attention because it Art. 14:
reveals and resists enduring colonial legacies that subjugate those marked by pp. 86,
linguistic or racial difference” (p. 86). 87
“A decolonial framework provides a critical method for analyzing student texts
because experiences with language cannot be separated from the social and
cultural ecologies of student knowledge” (p. 87).
Using decolonial thinking to try and change the traditional model of in-service Art. 15:
teacher education courses to bring about epistemic diversity. p. 343
Translinguistic work is seen as an important tool of decolonisation to address Art. 16:
conflicting and intersecting histories produced by colonialism. “Bilingualism pp. 120,
and translingual research across languages are key instruments of 121
decolonization” (p. 120).

Table 4d: Translanguaging theoretical frameworks

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
Conceptual framing: translanguaging and humanising pedagogy, which entails Art. 1:
the Freirean concepts of dialogue, critical thinking, and mutual humanisation, pp. 25,
and student-centric pedagogic strategies advocated by Bartolomé (1994, 182). 26
NB: Translanguaging as a humanising pedagogy in multilingual contexts.
• Critical heteroglossic approach Art. 5:
• Pedagogy of engagement pp. 114,
• Critical theoretical lens of coloniality 122, 123
• Theoretical framework of coloniality

23
 Chaka

Definitions/Descriptions/Explanations Articles
and page
numbers
Proposes a multilingual pedagogical approach as a socially just antidote to a Art. 6:
colonial education system in South Africa. Advocates a social justice approach p. 131
to, or “a socially just pedagogic framework” (p. 131) for translanguaging devoid
of all the negative -isms together with their kindred permutations.
Bi/multi/translingualism (including translanguaging) pockmarked as exotic, and Art. 9:
abnormal in Global North discourses due to the entrenched “Eurocentric one- pp. 3, 4,
nation-one-language ideology” (p. 4). 5
Employs a decolonial perspective to counter “the hegemonies of … namism”
(p. 4) and opts for units of analysis which are irreducible to bounded languages
based on imagined boundaries which give rise to individuals, communities,
nations, and language varieties. A call for a new reflexivity to engage in
empirically framed research. This entails a shift from colonially framed
discussions to multiple “ways-of-being-with-words” (p. 4).
“Furthermore, while postmodern and poststructural critiques also challenge the Art. 10:
neutrality of knowledge production and promote a greater involvement with pp. 53–
methodological and epistemological reflexivity, and researcher positionality, a 54, 62
decolonial approach takes yet another step and envisages the need to redress the
extant erasure of voices from the global South from current sociolinguistic
debates … by deliberately bringing to the fore such perspectives, be it by
focussing on the particular struggles of peoples from the global South, or by
drawing on theory developed in Southern contexts” (pp. 53–54).
“Furthermore, such an approach takes a step towards disrupting the current
unbalance of geopolitics of knowledge, foregrounding Southern perspectives in
the analysis of language practices” (p. 62).
The ubuntu translanguaging pedagogy (or approach) which is realisable through Art. 11:
the motto “I learn because you learn” (p. 9). p. 9
Employs autoethnography as its theoretical framework—a narrative research Art. 12:
using a double narrative process (participants’ narratives and a researcher’s pp. 3, 4,
voice) and reflexivity. 10, 13
NB: The article maintains that the Global South has to do with breaking away
from Western methodologies, and that it embraces Southern theory, decolonial
epistemology, and decolonising indigenous methodologies. It also argues for
counter research practices to subvert normative research practices.
“For decolonial practices to be effective, they need to be iterative and Art. 14:
reconstituted by taking local institutional contexts into account” (p. 87). pp. 87,
“Presenting translingualism in the classroom increases student awareness of the 88
evolving nature of language and disrupts monolingual arguments that negatively
impact how multilingual students view the validity of their writing. Translingual
theories and practices contribute to decolonial practice when curricular
materials and assignments call attention to monolingual ideology and provoke
students’ critical reflection on the discriminatory institutional practices that
affect how multilingual speakers negotiate language use” (p. 88).
Decolonial thinking/standpoint which is built locally and requires Art. 15:
epistemological and ontological moves in the area of language teacher pp. 343,
education. 349

24
 Chaka

Synthesis and Discussion of Findings

This section synthesises and discusses the findings of the present integrative review
study. The synthesis and discussion is grounded on the findings as presented in the
previous section and as depicted in Tables 3 and 4a to d. It is also framed in relation to
the three purposes and in response to the two research questions (RQ1 and RQ2) of the
study. The synthesis and discussion section consists of the following sub-sections:
definitions of translanguaging, exemplifications of translanguaging, theories of
translanguaging and theorising translanguaging, and translanguaging theoretical
frameworks.

Definitions of Translanguaging
Conceptual definitions are not easy to pin down or streamline without running the risk
of, on the one hand, vitiating them or, on the other hand, totalising them. This is even
more so for such a dynamic, evolving, and, at times, elusive term as “translanguaging”.
Nonetheless, a scholarly work such as the current review study requires that
translanguaging be located within its relevant definitional parameters. To this end, there
are four categories of definitions of translanguaging that emerge from the reviewed
articles which attempt to delineate translanguaging. One article straddles all four
categories, while another chimes with two categories. The four categories are:
1. the school-based additive view of translanguaging
2. linguistic alternation
3. translanguaging as a disruptive decolonial practice
4. the heteroglossic view of translanguaging as an enabling or navigational
learning tool.
Two articles (1 and 2) tend to embrace a school-based additive view of translanguaging.
Article 1 frames translanguaging as “a means of providing planned and systematic use
of the home language of learners with the language of the classroom in order to foster
learning and teaching” and “as a pedagogical tool in multilingual classrooms to bridge
communication in nuanced ways and bring about a more humanising experience for
both learners and teachers” (Childs 2016, 22, 23). Similarly, article 2 posits that at a
pedagogical level, translanguaging approaches are seen as being capable of promoting
“students’ languages and categories of understanding that can be expressed in the
classroom” (Cushman 2016, 235). The first part of article 1 lucidly captures a school-
based additive view of translanguaging. The latter, as appropriated in this study, is about
utilising learners’ linguistic resources for learning purposes in addition to the primary
linguistic resources intended for teaching and learning.

Invariably, a school-based additive view of translanguaging is student-oriented. It is

employed as a tool to enable students to learn and to access learning through linguistic
resources they have already mastered, which often differ from and run counter to the
dominant and normative language of learning and teaching (LoLT). Through this view,
students derive a humanising experience (Childs 2016) and have their linguistic
resources affirmed and their categories of understanding enhanced (Cushman 2016).
25
 Chaka

This view is also pedagogically oriented and, as such, has classroom utilitarian value.
This classroom functional value tends to challenge existing classroom language
normativity by trying to equalise the available linguistic resources and repertoires
students possess. In this sense, it seems to have a decolonial orientation. However,
adding a language practice to an existing normative language practice is, in itself, not
decolonial. Rather, it is the underlying motive behind that additive language move that
determines whether such a move is decolonial or simply mechanical.

The second category of definition is linguistic alternation. Mostly, linguistic alternation,

also known as language alternation (see Crisfield 2019; Poza 2017, 111), entails
alternating two or more linguistic resources. Three articles (1, 11, and 13) manifest
elements of this definition. Article 1 characterises this linguistic alternation as follows:
“The translanguaging is a practice used by multilingual individuals to move between
the languages that they know in order to communicate in a range of social contexts”
(Childs 2016, 24). Article 11 adds to this definitional view by highlighting the input–
output interface, in which there is an input language and an output language in a
communicative process. To this end, article 13 constructs translanguaging as an instance
in which one linguistic repertoire has features applicable to another language practice
(see Table 4a).

Nielsen Niño (2018, 55) aptly articulates this linguistic alternation practice:

[T]ranslanguaging is defined as a strategic resource that is strengthened within

multilingual classrooms, allowing the development of the student’s linguistic abilities
in both languages (language of instruction–language of origin) based on a significant
pedagogical approach that enhances the multiple practices pedagogical and discursive
in which individuals (students and teachers) participate in order to generate lasting
learning and a natural contextualization of the multicultural environment in which they
find themselves.

As is the case with a school-based additive view of translanguaging, linguistic

alternation may entail a decolonial intentionality, but unless such intentionality is
manifestly articulated (and this is not the case with the three articles in question), it may
not be easy for an outsider to detect it. This implies that linguistic alternation must be
undergirded by and undertaken with explicitly articulated decolonial intentions. The
same applies to any Global South perspective that linguistic alternation might want to
use and put into practice.

Concerning translanguaging as a disruptive decolonial practice, articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 13,

and 16 exemplify this category of definition to varying degrees. For instance, article 3
foregrounds this by maintaining that a translingual orientation challenges a monolingual
view of language by highlighting how language boundaries are ideological edifices
created by European linguistics and the nation-state, and by contesting its utopianism
and its marginalisation of minoritised languages. Article 4 and the last part of article 13
echo the same sentiment. Likewise, article 16 adopts a decolonial turn while also

26
 Chaka

critiquing decoloniality for not being grounded in a decolonisation project.

Additionally, article 13 problematises “decolonial” as a concept by highlighting how it
is used differently in Spanish and English. Moreover, the article invokes Cusicanqui
(2012), who rejects decoloniality as an essentialist and historicist project that fails to
address issues of decolonisation, but rather conceals and reincarnates practices of
subalternisation and colonisation. Overall, this definition rejects the colonial and
Western-centric view of languages as separate, autonomous, bounded, and named
entities (see Hutton 2011; Lee 2018; Otheguy, García, and Reid 2015). In this respect,
this definition resonates with the integrationist view of language, which also rejects an
autonomous and bounded view of languages.

The fourth and last category of definition is a heteroglossic view of translanguaging as

an enabling or navigational learning tool. As shown in Table 4a, instances of this
definitional category are articles 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 14. Article 5 traces the definitional
etymology of translanguaging to Williams’ (1994) founding definition, while invoking
multilingual speakers’ diverse linguistic repertoires and the notion of plurilingualism.
Articles 7 and 8 bring transnationalism/translocality and heterogeneous language
practices to this heteroglossic equation, respectively. Moreover, both articles 12 and 14
add aggregate linguistic repertoires that defy named languages and contain complex
multiple languages related to this heteroglossic definitional view. This definition, too,
reflects elements of the integrationist view of language. From another angle, this
definition evinces what Léglise (2017) calls “linguistic bricolage” and what Cushman
(2019, 2) refers to as “pluriversal possibilities”. However, Bagga-Gupta (2017) cautions
that at times prefixes such as “multi-”, “pluri-”, “trans-”, and “super-” may have the
unintended stratifying effects of indexing and reproducing boundaries meant to sustain
named and discrete languages. If this happens, then such prefixes may likely serve as
“boundary-marked/marking concepts” (Bagga-Gupta 2017, 104). This implies that
employing alternative prefixes or concepts in translanguaging scholarship should serve
the purpose of delinking them from (and not inadvertently perpetuating) the classical
normativity they are intended to challenge.

Exemplifications of Translanguaging
Examples of translanguaging are many and varied. The same is the case with examples
of instances of translanguaging as they apply to HEIs. As regards the reviewed articles,
three categories of examples were identified from eleven articles. These are oral
translanguaging, written translanguaging, and multimodal translanguaging. The first
category is instantiated by articles 8 and 12. These instances involve medical French
and patients’ languages, and isiZulu, Sepedi/Setswana, and English. The second
category is exemplified by the following instances: multilingual materials, fiction, and
resources (article 1); Chinese-American bilingualism (article 3); Spanish–English
bilingualism (article 5); a university course presented in English, isiXhosa, and isiZulu
(article 6); writing classrooms—theoretical examples (article 7); and multilingual
students’ written assignments in a bilingual first-year course (article 14). Lastly, the
third category is exemplified by multiple scripts and media (article 2); language,
27
 Chaka

including varieties of Englishes, discourses, media, or modalities (article 4); and a

theoretical example relating to Brazilian history learners (article 15).

While the examples of translanguaging instances provided here are not many,
something that stands out is examples of translanguaging given in named normative
languages. This tendency contains the relics of a Western-centric balkanisation of
languages, which is one of the practices that translanguaging contests. This particular
framing serves to perpetuate “dichotomizing, essentialized academic-branded concepts”
(Bagga-Gupta 2017, 103) around which translanguaging still needs to work its way if it
wants to make a complete break with throwbacks to the colonial past. The other
examples that are non-committal or non-specific tend to bring into sharp focus the
slipperiness of translanguaging as a concept and as an area of study. Elsewhere, Reschly
and Christenson (2012, 14) calls this conceptual haziness a “jingle/jangle” situation in
which “the same term is used to refer to different things (jingle) and different terms are
used for the same construct (jangle)” (11).

Theories of and Theorising Translanguaging

In respect of theories of translanguaging or types of theorising translanguaging, five
categories of themes emerge from the reviewed articles. These include pedagogical
approach, linguistic social justice, disruptive epistemic tool, decolonial approach, and
Global South standpoint. To this effect, three articles fit into two categories.

As depicted in Table 4c, the first category is embodied by articles 1, 2, and 7, all of
which have elements of this category in varying degrees. Of these three articles, article 1
invokes the notion of a humanising pedagogy that translanguaging tends to epitomise.
Embedded in the idea of translanguaging as a humanising pedagogy is the belief that
translanguaging accords a humanising touch to students and teachers in multilingual
settings (see Childs 2016; cf. Duarte 2016; Vaish 2018). On this basis, translanguaging
serves as an epistemological tool for students possessing multiple linguistic practices
and multiple linguistic repertoires to access learning better than they would if they had
to do so by appropriating one universalising language such as English or French. It also
affords students the opportunity to access “webs-of-understandings” (Bagga-Gupta
2017, 106) that normative monolingualism does not offer them.

The second category is typified by article 3. This theorising of translanguaging is similar

to the first, but takes it a step further to embrace linguistic social justice by means of
which students, especially subaltern students, should be accorded linguistic rights. It has
an aura of education for social justice which espouses responsibility, honesty, fairness,
and caring (cf. Heybach 2009). The idea of translanguaging delivering social justice to
minoritised students is also articulated by García and Leiva (2014, 200) as follows:
“[T]translanguaging could be a mechanism for social justice, especially when teaching
students from language minoritized communities.” This theorisation runs counter to
classical colonial monolingual theorisation, which tends to strip minoritised students of
their linguistic rights.
28
 Chaka

The theorisation of translanguaging as a disruptive epistemic tool that is part of the third
category is exemplified by articles 1, 4, 11, and 13. Article 4 puts forth a telling view in
this regard by arguing that translinguality, and by extension translanguaging, has to
deconstruct and destabilise the “invisible architecture” bequeathed to second-language
writing by monolingualist ideology (Lu and Horner 2016) in the form of asymmetrical
power/knowledge matrices embedded in normative language theorising. The theorising
of translanguaging as a disruptive epistemic tool marks an epistemological turn in which
translanguaging is seen as a deliberate instrument used to contest and problematise
epistemes existing in language studies (cf. Jakonen, Szabó, and Laihonen 2018).
Pennycook (2018, 121) refers to epistemes, in line with a Foucauldian conception, as
“framing ways of knowing that may be both common and practical”. An
epistemological turn in translanguaging embodies an epistemological critique
(Grosfoguel 2013; Pennycook and Makoni 2018; Sousa Santos 2018) of named,
bounded, and marked Western-centric language conceptions. This particular theorising
of translanguaging has elements of the integrationist view of language.

A decolonial approach is the fourth category identified above. Thirteen of the reviewed
articles articulate a decolonial theorising of translanguaging in varying permutations
(see Table 4c). Article 6 tends to capture the essence of this decolonial theorising of
translanguaging by situating it within a Mignoloian border thinking that challenges
Euro-centrist views of languages as “pure, autonomous and bounded entities” (Hurst
and Mona 2017, 128; cf. McKinney 2017; Turner and Lin 2017). Reflecting on border
thinking in respect of translingualism, Cushman (2016) contends that translingual
approaches should eschew simply altering the content of what is taught and studied and
strive to embrace borders so as to re-envision paradigmatic systems of thought that
structure everyday language practices (also see Medina 2019). Such border thinking
entails epistemic delinking, forecloses disciplinary silos, and engenders new genres and
pluriversal realities (see Cushman 2019) in translanguaging scholarship. While the
aforesaid reviewed articles evince varying permutations of a decolonial theorising of
translanguaging, it is not clear, borrowing from Cushman’s (2016) observation, to what
extent their translanguaging theory is fully embedded in decoloniality or is completely
post-monolinguistic.

The final and fifth category is a Global South standpoint. Two articles (articles 8 and
13) espouse a Global South theorising of translanguaging (see Table 4c). To this end,
article 8 advocates the view that in the Global South context, the orthodox
conceptualisation of concepts such as language, code-switching, and language contact
is insufficient and unhelpful. Similarly, article 13 points out that Global South
frameworks of knowledge should reject and challenge hegemonic knowledge structures
of language associated with the Global North, as the latter only valorises Northern
perspectives and deliberately marginalises Southern perspectives (also see
Kleinschmidt 2018; Prinsloo 2020). In this sense, the Global South entails diverse
traditions with multiple directions that can be appropriated to dismantle binaries
established by Northern frameworks to determine academic knowledge. It calls for a

29
 Chaka

pluriverse of both frameworks and solutions (see Grosfoguel 2013; Kleinschmidt 2018;
Pessoa, Silvestre, and Borelli 2019; Prinsloo 2020) for theorising and creating
translanguaging knowledge. This Global South theorising of translanguaging resonates
with the integrationist view of language.

Translanguaging Theoretical Frameworks

Seven translanguaging theoretical frameworks are identifiable from the reviewed
articles. Except for two frameworks, which are shared by five and two articles
respectively, the remaining frameworks are not shared. The seven frameworks in
question are:
1. humanising pedagogy
2. a socially just pedagogic framework
3. an ubuntu translanguaging framework
4. a theoretical framework of coloniality
5. a decolonial framework
6. a Global South/Southern framework
7. an autoethnographical theoretical framework.

The first three frameworks constitute what can be regarded as a category of humanistic
frameworks in translanguaging, owing to their orientation to humanism. The first one,
a humanising pedagogy, as embraced by article 1 and as applied to translanguaging, is
a conceptual framing premised on Freirean concepts of critical thinking, dialogue, and
mutual humanisation (see Freire 1970), and on a Bartoloméan humanising pedagogy
that is student-centric in nature. At the core of this conceptual framing is empowering,
emancipating, and humanising students (see Childs 2016; cf. Gill and Niens 2014).
Freirean humanising pedagogy, which itself is grounded on humanism (especially
Marxist humanism), is often employed as a counter-practice to dehumanising and
disempowering practices such as English monolingualism, one debilitating effect of
which is double selves experienced by students whose primary language is not English.
In all, a humanising pedagogy views students as active and critical participants in co-
creating knowledge (Salazar 2013).

The second framework in this category is a socially just pedagogic framework, as

espoused by article 6. This framework, like the linguistic social justice theorising of
translanguaging mentioned earlier, is grounded on social justice, especially a strand of
Fraser’s (1997) conceptualisation of social justice. In addition, it has an aura of
linguistic human rights to it. Opining about Fraser’s (1997) conception of social justice,
Hölscher (2014, 23) points out that “she (Fraser) has developed a normative framework
of social justice” and that her “theorising on social justice builds on her understanding
that participatory parity constitutes the central norm against which to evaluate how just,
or unjust particular social arrangements are.” Operating within Fraser’s (2008) triple
polar concepts of (mal)distribution, (mis)recognition, and (mis)representation, it
becomes evident whose rights are (mal)distributed, (mis)recognised, and
(mis)represented when translanguaging is not utilised as a daily practice. Similarly, it
30
 Chaka

becomes apparent whose learning expectations are (mis)framed, following Fraser’s

(2008, 25) “grammar of frame-setting”, when students are not exposed to
translanguaging scholarship. To this end, Hölscher (2014, 24) avers: “Constituting the
grammar of social justice, framing issues are issues of scope and pertain to the question
of who does and who does not count as subject of justice.”

The third framework in this category is an ubuntu translanguaging framework,

exemplified by article 11. The article characterises this framework as epitomised by the
mantra “I am because you are, you are because we are” (Makalela 2018, 2) and
maintains that the ubuntu concept constituted a moral barometer in pre-colonial
Mapungubwe. The notion of ubuntu has been debated and interrogated extensively in
southern African scholarly works (see Letseka 2012). Its Nguni version is “umuntu
ngumuntu ngabantu” and its corresponding Sotho version is “motho ke motho ka batho”,
both of which can be loosely translated as “a human being is a human being because of
other human beings” (Letseka 2012, 48). The humanistic nature of the ubuntu
framework is embodied by the expressions associated with it. This means that pertaining
to translanguaging, this humanism (in all its variants) is foregrounded and centre-staged
in terms of both pedagogical practices and curricular ethos.

Besides the three afore-mentioned theoretical framings, there are four framings which,
in the context of this review study, fall under the umbrella label “critical frameworks”.
The first of these is a theoretical framework of coloniality. As employed by article 5,
this framing is critical of colonial structures that define language, culture, subject
relations, and knowledge production. It argues that colonialism, race, and capitalism are
implicated in language structuring and in English language teaching, and that a
decolonisation process is needed (see Hsu 2017). Importantly, it challenges “the validity
of dualistic and deterministic language identities such as NES/NNES [native English
speaker/non-native English speaker] and ESOL/non-ESOL [English to speakers of other
languages]” (Hsu 2017, 117–18; cf. Chaka n.d.). This dualistic and deterministic
theorisation of language identities has parallels in the dualistic and deterministic
conceptualisation of language espoused by segregationist linguistics, to which
translanguaging is an antidote. As such, this theoretical framing contains features of the
integrationist view of language.

The second critical framing is a decolonial framework, whose features are evinced by
articles 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 in varying degrees. Of the five articles, article 9 aptly and
pointedly captures the core focus of this framework by maintaining that a decolonial
perspective counters “the hegemonies of … namism” and opts for units of analysis
which are irreducible to bounded languages based on imaginary boundaries which give
rise to individuals, communities, nations, and language varieties (Bagga-Gupta and Rao
2018, 4). Article 14 adds to this critical framing equation by contending that a decolonial
standpoint helps students develop critical reflection of practices that marginalise
multilingual speakers (see Medina 2019). In the same vein, article 15 expresses the view
that decolonial thinking has to be locally oriented, and entails epistemological and

31
 Chaka

ontological moves (see Pessoa, Silvestre, and Borelli 2019). Elsewhere, Maldonado-
Torres (2011) avers that that a decolonial turn is often grounded in given forms of
scepticism and epistemic attitudes. This entails epistemological diffidence, as per
Appadurai’s (2000, 4) view (also cf. Chaka, Lephalala, and Ngesi 2017, 214). That is,
a decolonial translanguaging framework displays epistemological diffidence to
provincial and Eurocentric conceptions of language and languaging. But, most
importantly, a decolonial translanguaging framework should exhibit epistemological
diffidence to translanguaging itself through both self-problematisation and self-critique.
This decolonial framing, too, embodies elements of integrational linguistics.

The third critical framing is constituted by Global South or Southern frameworks, as

exemplified by articles 10 and 12. According to article 10, the Global South has to do
with reclaiming subaltern voices which are constantly silenced by Northern
frameworks. Such voices, the article argues, can only be catered for by Southern
perspectives in their analyses of language practices (Gomes 2018; also see Table 4d).
In this case, article 12 contends that Global South frameworks constitute a rupture with
Western methodologies and embrace Southern theory (Ndhlovu 2018; also see Table
4d). The Global South, despite its attendant disputes and criticisms, is not a singular
framework. Rather, it is part of a Southern turn (Takayama, Sriprakash, and Connell
2015) in language studies in general and in translanguaging in particular, which
encompasses multiple frameworks. Such frameworks are also part of Southern theories
and epistemes.

The last critical framework is autoethnography, which, according to article 12, involves
narrative research using a double narrative process (participants’ narratives and a
researcher’s voice) and reflexivity. It is an approach, a method, and a conceptual
framework that is oppositional to positivist and hegemonic research methodologies such
as surveys, questionnaires, oral interviews, participant observation, and focus groups
(Ndhlovu 2018). Ellis, Adams, and Bochner (2010) crisply contextualise
autoethnography by pointing out that it is an approach to writing and research that
attempts to describe and intensely analyse (“graphy”) self-experiences (“auto”) with a
view to understanding cultural experiences (“ethno”). One of its goals is to challenge
canonical and conventional ways of doing research and representing participants in
research. As such, it is both a process and a product in which a researcher combines
autobiographical and ethnographic tenets to do and write research. Nonetheless,
autoethnography is criticised for its lack of rigour, for being self-serving, for being less
scientific, and for being coloured with personal biases (Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2010;
cf. Méndez 2013).

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations

The current integrative review study had three related purposes and two research
questions (RQ1 and RQ2), stated earlier on. The synthesis and discussion of the findings
was structured with the three purposes and with the two research questions in mind.
32
 Chaka

Four categories of definitions have been identified from the reviewed articles. These are
a school-based additive view of translanguaging, linguistic alternation, translanguaging
as a disruptive decolonial practice, and a heteroglossic view of translanguaging. There
are some caveats to be noted in this regard. For instance, for each of these definitional
categories there needs to be a manifestly articulated intentionality behind a given
translanguaging definition. Pertaining to the first category of definition, the caveat is
that adding a language practice to the already existing normative language practice is
not necessarily a decolonial practice, unless such as a move is accompanied by a clearly
expressed decolonial intention. The same applies to the other three categories of
definitions. The other caveat is that employing the now-familiar prefixes, such as
“multi-”, “pluri-”, “trans-”, and “super”, may at times engender the unintended
consequences of reproducing and normalising the very boundaries that serve to sustain
named languages. Two definitions of translanguaging have been found to have
resonance with the integrationist view of language, even though the articles in question
do not employ an integrationist perspective.

With reference to translanguaging exemplifications, three categories were detected.

These are oral translanguaging, written translanguaging, and multimodal
translanguaging. These encompass instances such as isiZulu, Sepedi/Setswana, and
English on the one hand, and unspecified examples such as multiple scripts and media
on the other hand. What is noteworthy here is those examples given in named and
discrete languages, something which reflects a throwback to the colonial balkanisation
of languages. This practice of rejecting and critiquing named languages on the one hand,
and of providing the self-same named languages as examples of translanguaging, which
in the main has colonial relics, is something that translanguaging scholarship needs to
resolve going forward. It smacks of an epistemological irony. The unspecified examples
tend to underscore the conceptual “jingle/jangle” that is at times attendant to
translanguaging as a concept. Again, here, two theories of translanguaging have been
found to evince elements of the integrationist view of language, even though the articles
in question do not employ an integrationist perspective.

Concerning theories of translanguaging (together with theorising translanguaging), five

categories of theories have been identified from the reviewed articles. These include the
following: a pedagogical approach, linguistic social justice, a disruptive epistemic tool,
a decolonial approach, and a Global South standpoint. In respect of a decolonial
theorising of translanguaging, one point that has been noted is that it is not evident from
the reviewed articles to what extent translanguaging theory is entirely embedded in
decoloniality or is wholly framed as post-monolinguistic. In relation to translanguaging
theoretical frameworks, two categories of frameworks have been discerned. One
category comprises humanistic frameworks and is constituted by a humanising
pedagogy, a socially just pedagogic framework, and an ubuntu translanguaging
pedagogy. A key feature of these frameworks is humanism. The other category is made
up of critical frameworks, and consists of a theoretical framework of coloniality,
a decolonial framework, Global South/Southern frameworks, and autoethnography.

33
 Chaka

A salient feature of these frameworks is their critique of canonical and hegemonic

frameworks. Once more, two translanguaging frameworks have been found to embody
elements of the integrationist view of language, even though the articles in question do
not employ an integrationist perspective.

As is the case with most review studies, the current integrative review study has its own
limitations. Firstly, the study is biased towards online databases and online search
engines in respect of the journal articles used. This means journal articles not appearing
in these online platforms were excluded. The decision to use journal articles from online
platforms was related to their availability. In addition, the study has a slant towards peer-
reviewed journal articles as opposed to books and book chapters. This decision was
motivated by a desire to compare similar publications and publications which have an
in-built, and not a custom-made, peer review process. Lastly, the study has a narrow
focus on translanguaging as it applies to HE and as determined by the
inclusion/exclusion criteria employed.

References1
Appadurai, A. 2000. “Globalization and the Research Imagination.” Public Culture
12 (1): 1–19.

Bagga-Gupta, S. 2017. “Language and Identity beyond the Mainstream: Democratic and
Equity Issues for and by Whom, Where, When and Why.” Journal of the European Second
Language Association 1 (1): 102–12. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.22.

Bagga‑Gupta, S., and G. M. Dahlberg. 2018. “Meaning-Making or Heterogeneity in the Areas

of Language and Identity? The Case of Translanguaging and Nyanlända (Newly-Arrived)
across Time and Space.” International Journal of Multilingualism 15 (4): 383–411.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1468446.

*Bagga‑Gupta, S., and A. Rao. 2018. “Languaging in Digital Global South–North Spaces
in the Twenty-First Century: Media, Language and Identity in Political Discourse.”
Bandung: Journal of Global South 5 (3): 1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40728-018-0047-z.

Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Bartolomé, L. I. 1994. “Beyond the Methods Fetish: Toward a Humanizing Pedagogy.”

Harvard Educational Review 64 (2): 173–95.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.64.2.58q5m5744t325730.

Brennan, T. 2001. “Antonio Gramsci and Postcolonial Theory: ‘Southernism’.” Diaspora:

A Journal of Transnational Studies 10 (2): 143–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/dsp.2011.0004.

1 * = Reviewed articles
34
 Chaka

Canagarajah, S. 2011. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies

of Translanguaging.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 401–17.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x.

Canagarajah, S. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations.

New York: Routledge.

Carneiro, A. 2018. “Doing Research in the Field of Language and Society: Ways to Go Beyond
the Constraints of Modernist Science Paradigms.” Multilingual Margins: A Journal of
Multilingualism from the Periphery 5 (2): 23–25.

Chaka, C. 2006. “Critical Linguistics and Postmodernism: An Assessment with Reference to

Selected English Texts.” PhD diss., University of the Free State.

Chaka, C. n.d. “Memorializing Alan Davies: Philosophical Views, Native Speakerism and
Decoloniality.” Unpublished paper.

Chaka, C., M. Lephalala, and N. Ngesi. 2017. “English Studies: Decolonisation,

Deparochialising Knowledge and the Null Curriculum.” Perspectives in Education
35 (2): 208–29. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593x/pie.v35i2.16.

*Childs, M. 2016. “Reflecting on Translanguaging in Multilingual Classrooms: Harnessing the

Power of Poetry and Photography.” Educational Research for Social Change 5 (1): 22–40.
https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2016/v5i1a2.

Connell, R. 2007. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science.
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Connell, R. 2017. “Southern Theory and World Universities.” Higher Education Research and
Development 36 (1): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1252311.

Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson Education.

Crisfield, E. 2019. “Translanguaging: Are We Getting Confused?” January 28, 2019.

Accessed November 29, 2019. https://www.crisfieldeducationalconsulting.com/single-
post/2019/01/28/Translanguaging-Are-we-getting-confused.

*Cushman, E. 2016. “Translingual and Decolonial Approaches to Meaning Making.”

College English 18 (3): 234–42.

Cushman, E. 2019. “Decolonizing Projects: Creating Pluriversal Possibilities in Rhetoric:

Introduction.” Rhetoric Review 38 (1): 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1549402.

Cusicanqui, S. R. 2012. “Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: A Reflection on the Practices and Discourses of

Decolonization.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 111 (1): 95–109.
https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-1472612.
35
 Chaka

Duarte, J. 2016. “Translanguaging in Mainstream Education: A Sociocultural Approach.”

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22 (2): 150–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231774.

Ellis, C., T. E. Adams, and A. P. Bochner. 2010. “Autoethnography: An Overview.” Forum

Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12 (1): Art. 10.
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108.

Escobar, A. 2010. “Afterword.” In Globalization and the Decolonial Option, edited by

W. Mignolo and A. Escobar, 391–99. New York: Routledge.

Fabrício, B. F. 2017. “Processos de Ensino-Aprendizagem, Educação Linguística e

Descolonialidade.” [“Processes of Teaching and Learning, Language Education and
Decoloniality.”] In Linguagens e Descolonialidades: Práticas Linguageiras e Produção de
(des) Colonialidades no Mundo Contemporâneo, edited by F. Zolin-Vesz, 15–38.
Campinas: Pontes.

Fraser, N. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition.

London: Routledge.

Fraser, N. 2008. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalising World.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

García, O., N. Flores, and M. Spotti. 2017. “Introduction—Language and Society: A Critical
Poststructuralist Perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society, edited
by O. García, N. Flores, and M. Spotti, 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190212896.013.21.

García, O., and T. Kleyn. 2016. “Translanguaging Theory in Education.” In Translanguaging

with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments, edited by O. García and
T. Kleyn, 9–33. New York: Routledge.

García, O., and C. Leiva. 2014. “Theorizing and Enacting Translanguaging for Social Justice.”
In Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy, edited by A. Blackledge and A. Creese,
199–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7856-6_11.

Gill, S., and U. Niens. 2014. “Education as Humanisation: A Theoretical Review on the Role
of Dialogic Pedagogy in Peacebuilding Education.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative
and International Education 44 (1): 10–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.859879.

*Gomes, L. R. 2018. “Family Language Policy Ten Years on: A Critical Approach to Family
Multilingualism.” Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery
5 (2): 50–71. https://doi.org/10.14426/mm.v5i2.98.

36
 Chaka

Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Q. Hoare
and G. N. Smith. New York: International.

Grosfoguel, R. 2013. “The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities: Epistemic

Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16th Century.” Human
Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 11 (1): 73–90.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137292896.0006.

Guerra, J. C. 2016. “Cultivating a Rhetorical Sensibility in the Translingual Writing

Classroom.” College English 78 (3): 228–33.

Guzula, X., C. McKinney, and R. Tyler. 2016. “Languaging-for-Learning: Legitimising

Translanguaging and Enabling Multimodal Practices in Third Spaces.” Southern African
Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 34 (3): 211–26.
https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2016.1250360.

Harris, R. 1981. The Language Myth. London: Duckworth.

Harris, R. 1998. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.

Heybach, J. 2009. “Rescuing Social Justice in Education: A Critique of the NCATE

Controversy.” Philosophical Studies in Education 40: 234–45.

Hölscher, D. 2014. “Considering Nancy Fraser’s Notion of Social Justice for Social Work:
Reflections on Misframing and the Lives of Refugees in South Africa.” Ethics and Social
Welfare 8 (1): 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2012.744845.

*Hsu, F. 2017. “Resisting the Coloniality of English: A Research Review of Strategies.”

The CATESOL Journal 29 (1): 111–32.

*Hurst, E., and M. Mona. 2017. “‘Translanguaging’ as a Socially Just Pedagogy.” Education
as Change 21 (2): 126–48. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2017/2015.

Hutton, C. 2011. “The Politics of the Language Myth: Reflections on the Writings of Roy
Harris.” Language Sciences 33 (4): 503–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.005.

Hutton, C., A. Pablé, and D. Bade. 2011. “Roy Harris and Integrational Linguistics.” Language
Sciences 33 (4): 475–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.001.

Jakonen, T., T. P. Szabó, and P. Laihonen. 2018. “Translanguaging as Playful Subversion of a

Monolingual Norm in the Classroom.” In Translanguaging as Everyday Practice, edited
by G. Mazzaferro, 31–48. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94851-5_3.

*Kierman, J., J. Meier, and X. Wang. 2018. “Transnational Exigency: Pedagogies for Change.”
Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies 4 (3): 647–54.

37
 Chaka

Kleinschmidt, J. 2018. “Differentiation Theory and the Global South as a Metageography of

International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 43 (2): 59–80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375418811191.

Koh, A. 2007. “Deparochializing Education: Globalization, Regionalization, and the Formation

of an ASEAN Education Space.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
28 (2): 179–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300701289144.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2016. “The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern
Act?” TESOL Quarterly 50 (1): 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.202.

Lambert, S. 2019. “Do MOOCs Contribute to Student Equity and Social Inclusion?
A Systematic Review 2014–18.” Computers and Education 145: Art. 103693.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693.

*Lee, J. W. 2016. “Beyond Translingual Writing.” College English 79 (2): 174–95.

Lee, J. W. 2018. The Politics of Translingualism after Englishes. New York: Taylor & Francis.

*Léglise, I. 2017. “Multilinguisme et hétérogénéité des pratiques langagières. Nouveaux

chantiers et enjeux du Global South.” [“Multilingualism and Heterogeneous Language
Practices: New Research Areas and Issues in the Global South.”] Langage et société
160–61 (2): 251–66. https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.160.0251.

Letseka, M. 2012. “In Defence of Ubuntu.” Studies in Philosophy of Education 31: 47–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9267-2.

Lingard, B. 2006. “Globalisation, the Research Imagination and Deparochialising the Study of
Education.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 4 (2): 287–302.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720600752734.

*Lu, M-Z., and B. Horner. 2016. “Introduction: Translingual Work.” Faculty Scholarship 70.
Accessed 29 July 2020. http://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty/70.

MacSwan, J. 2017. “A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging.” American Educational

Research Journal 54 (1): 167–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935.

*Makalela, L. 2018. “‘Our Academics Are Intellectually Colonised’: Multi-Languaging and

Fees Must Fall.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36 (1): 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1452877.

Makalela, L. 2019. “Uncovering the Universals of Ubuntu Translanguaging in Classroom

Discourses.” Classroom Discourse 10 (3–4): 237–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1631198.

Makoni, S. B. 2013. “An Integrationist Perspective on Colonial Linguistics.” Language

Sciences 35: 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.06.001.

38
 Chaka

Maldonado-Torres, N. 2011. “Thinking through the Decolonial Turn: Post-Continental

Interventions in Theory, Philosophy, and Critique—An Introduction.” Transmodernity:
Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1 (2): 1–16.

Mandende, I. P., C. Chaka, and M. M. Makgato. 2015. “Teknonymy and Multi-nominality as

Multiple Identity Markers for Vhavenḓa: An Autochthonic View.” Journal of Asian and
African Studies 52 (7): 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909615623808.

Mbirimi-Hungwe, V., and T. Hungwe. 2018. “Translanguaging for Epistemic Access to

Computer Science Concepts: A Call for Change.” Per Linguam 34 (2): 97–111.
https://doi.org/10.5785/34-2-771.

McKinney, C. 2017. Language and Power in Post-Colonial Schooling: Ideologies in Practice.

London: Routledge.

McKinney, C., and R. Tyler 2019. “Disinventing and Reconstituting Language for Learning in
School Science.” Language and Education 33 (2): 141–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1516779.

*Medina, C 2019. “Decolonial Potential in a Multilingual FYC.” Composition Studies

47 (1): 74–95.

Méndez, M. 2013. “Autoethnography as a Research Method: Advantages, Limitations and

Criticisms.” Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 15 (2): 279–87.
https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2013.2.a09.

Mignolo, W. 2010. “Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the
Grammar of De-coloniality.” In Globalization and the Decolonial Option, edited by
W. Mignolo and A. Escobar, 303–68. New York: Routledge.

Milani, T. M., and M. M. Lazar. 2017. “Seeing from the South: Discourse, Gender and
Sexuality from Southern Perspectives.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 21 (3): 307–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12241.

Moher, D., L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, A. Liberati, M. Petticrew, P. Shekelle,

L. A. Stewart, and PRISMA-P Group. 2015. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement.” Systematic Reviews
4: Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

*Ndhlovu, F. 2018. “Omphile and His Soccer Ball: Colonialism, Methodology,

Translanguaging Research.” Multilingual Margins: A Journal of Multilingualism from the
Periphery 5 (2): 2–19. https://doi.org/10.14426/mm.v5i2.95.

Nielsen Niño, J. B. 2018. “Foreign Students and Their Learning Spanish Process: First Hint of
Translanguaging.” Alfa 62 (1): 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1804-3.

Orman, J. 2013a. “Linguistic Diversity and Language Loss: A View from Integrational
Linguistics.” Language Sciences 40: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.04.005.
39
 Chaka

Orman, J. 2013b. “New Lingualisms, Same Old Codes.” Language Sciences 37: 90–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.001.

Orman, J., and A. Pablé. 2015. “Polylanguaging, Integrational Linguistics and Contemporary
Sociolinguistic Theory: A Commentary on Ritzau.” International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 19 (5): 592–602.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1024606.

Otheguy, R., O. García, and W. Reid. 2015. “Clarifying Translanguaging and Deconstructing
Named Languages: A Perspective from Linguistics.” Applied Linguistics Review
6 (3): 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014.

Pablé, A. 2013. “Integrating Rorty and (Social) Constructivism: A View from Harrisian
Semiology.” Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy
29 (1): 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782587.

Pennycook, A. 2017. “Translanguaging and Semiotic Assemblages.” International Journal of

Multilingualism 14 (3): 269–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315810.

*Pennycook, A. 2018. “Applied Linguistics as Epistemic Assemblage.” AILA Review

31 (1): 113–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00015.pen.

Pennycook, A., and S. Makoni. 2018. Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics from
the Global South. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429489396.

*Pessoa, R. R., V. P. V. Silvestre, and J. D. V. P. Borelli. 2019. “Challenges of a Decolonial

Undertaking in Teacher Education.” (“Desafios de Uma Iniciativa Decolonial na Formação
Docente”). Calidoscópio 17 (2): 342–60. https://doi.org/10.4013/cld.2019.172.07.

Poza, L. 2017. “Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and Further Needs in Burgeoning

Inquiry.” Berkeley Review of Education 6 (2): 101–28. https://doi.org/10.5070/b86110060.

*Pratt, M. L. 2019. “Decolonization: Who Needs It?” Language, Culture and Society
1 (1): 120–25. https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00007.pra.

Prinsloo, P. 2020. “Data Frontiers and Frontiers of Power in (Higher) Education: A View
of/from the Global South.” Teaching in Higher Education 25 (4): 366–83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1723537.

Reschly, A. L., and S. L. Christenson. 2012. “Jingle, Jangle, and Conceptual Haziness:
Evolution and Future Directions of the Engagement Construct.” In Handbook of Research
on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 3–20.
New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.

Salazar, M. d. C. 2013. “A Humanizing Pedagogy: Reinventing the Principles and Practice of

Education as a Journey toward Liberation.” Review of Research in Education 37 (1):
121–48. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x12464032.

40
 Chaka

Saldaña, J. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage.

Schick-Makaroff, K., M. MacDonald, M. Plummer, J. Burgess, and W. Neander. 2016. “What

Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research
Synthesis.” AIMS Public Health 3 (1): 172–215.
https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172.

Singh, M., and J. Han. 2017. Pedagogies for Internationalising Research Education:
Intellectual Equality, Theoretic-Linguistic Diversity, and Knowledge Chuàngxīn. Penrith:
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2065-0.

Singh, M., C. Manathunga, T. Bunda, and Q. Jing. 2016. “Mobilising Indigenous and Non-
Western Theoretic-Linguistic Knowledge in Doctoral Education.” Knowledge Cultures
4 (1): 56–70.

Souza, L. M. de. 2014. “Epistemic Diversity, Lazy Reason and Ethical Translation in Post-
Colonial Contexts: The Case of Indigenous Educational Policy in Brazil.” Interfaces
Brasil/Canadá, Revista Brasileira de Estudos Canadenses 14 (2): 36–60.

Souza, M. T. de, M. D. da Silva, and R. de Carvalho. 2010. “Integrative Review: What Is It?
How to Do It?” Einstein 8 (1): 102–106.

Sousa Santos, B. de. 2016. “Epistemologies of the South and the Future.” From the European
South 1: 17–29.

Sousa Santos, B. de. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of
Epistemologies of the South. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Sutton, J. 2004. “Representation, Levels, and Context in Integrational Linguistics and

Distributed Cognition.” Language Sciences 26: 503–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.002.

Takayama, K., A. Sriprakash, and R. Connell. 2015. “Rethinking Knowledge Production and
Circulation in Comparative and International Education: Southern Theory, Postcolonial
Perspectives, and Alternative Epistemologies.” Comparative Education Review
59 (1): v–viii. https://doi.org/10.1086/679660.

Torraco, R. J. 2016. “Writing Integrative Reviews of the Literature: Methods and Purposes.”
International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology 7 (3): 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijavet.2016070106.

Turner, M., and A. M. Y. Lin. 2017. “Translanguaging and Named Languages: Productive
Tension and Desire.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
23 (4): 423–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1360243.

Vaish, V. 2018. “Translanguaging Pedagogy for Simultaneous Biliterates Struggling to Read in

English.” International Journal of Multilingualism 16 (3): 286–301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1447943.
41
 Chaka

Van Laar, E., A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan. 2017.
“The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature
Review.” Computers in Human Behavior 72: 577–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010.

Velasco, P., and O. García. 2014. “Translanguaging and the Writing of Bilingual Learners.”
Bilingual Research Journal 37 (1): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893270.

Veronelli, G. A. 2015. “The Coloniality of Language: Race, Expressivity, Power, and the
Darker Side of Modernity.” Wagadu 13: 108–34.

Wei, L. 2011. “Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive Construction of

Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5):
1222–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035.

Whittemore, R., and K. Knafl. 2005. “The Integrative Review: Updated Methodology.”
Journal of Advanced Nursing 52 (5): 546–53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.

Williams, C. 1994. “Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg

Uwchradd Ddwyieithog.” [“An Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Methods in the
Context of Bilingual Secondary Education.”] PhD diss., University of Wales.

Zavala, V. 2018. “Language as Social Practice: Deconstructing Boundaries in Intercultural

Bilingual Education.” Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 57 (3): 1313–38.
https://doi.org/10.1590/010318138653255423542.

42