Research Article

RELC Journal
2022, Vol. 53(2) 342–354
Pedagogical Translanguaging © The Author(s) 2022

and Its Application to Language Article reuse guidelines:

Classes sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00336882221082751
journals.sagepub.com/home/rel

Jasone Cenoz
University of the Basque Country, Spain

Durk Gorter
University of the Basque Country/Ikerbasque, Spain

Abstract
Pedagogical translanguaging refers to the use of different planned strategies based on activating stu-
dents’ resources from their whole linguistic repertoire . The aim of this article is to examine the
theoretical foundations of pedagogical translanguaging and its application in the classroom. The
core characteristics of pedagogical translanguaging will be discussed in relation to the languages,
students and programmes. Pedagogical translanguaging embraces different practices, but they all
share the characteristic of being planned by the teacher with a pedagogical purpose and using
resources from the students’ whole linguistic repertoire. In this way it is different from spontan-
eous translanguaging. Translanguaging practices aim at activating the students’ multilingual and
multimodal repertoires so that they can benefit from their own multilingualism. Translanguaging
practices can have strong or weak forms depending on the degree of pedagogical intervention
that takes place in the process of learning and the use of two or more languages in the same
class session. Some strong translanguaging practices use resources from different languages in
the same class so as to develop metalinguistic awareness, while other weaker forms are based
on the cross-linguistic coordination of activities carried out in different classes. The article will
also discuss the challenges that the implementation of pedagogical translanguaging poses for lan-
guage teachers.

Keywords
Translanguaging, multilingualism, metalinguistic awareness, integrated curriculum

Corresponding author:
Jasone Cenoz, Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of the Basque Country, Donostia
20008, Spain.
Email: jasone.cenoz@ehu.eus
Cenoz and Gorter 343

Introduction
The tradition in language teaching has been to separate the languages in the curriculum
and to avoid the use of languages other than the target language in class. The idea has
been that students could use the monolingual speaker of the target language as their
model (Cenoz and Gorter, 2013, 2015; Cummins, 2017; Llurda, 2015). However, this
position is problematic for different reasons. Multilingual speakers are different from
monolingual speakers in that they have the possibility of using resources from different
languages when they communicate. Learners of a second or additional language are
multilingual speakers even if they can be regarded as ‘emergent’ multilingual speakers.
It is not justified that multilingual speakers should aim to behave as if they were mono-
lingual speakers. Nowadays there is more knowledge about the way multilingual speak-
ers communicate and how they can use multilingual resources to convey meaning in a
more effective way than if they only used resources from one language (see, for
example, Canagarajah, 2013). In some cases, language learners who are on their way
to becoming multilingual speakers may use a word or expression in another language
as a compensation strategy when they have limitations in the second or additional lan-
guage (Oxford, 1990). However, the use of resources from other languages does not
necessarily have a compensatory function. Multilingual speakers also use their whole lin-
guistic repertoire, which includes resources from different languages to communicate
more effectively. This is quite common not only in face-to-face interaction but also in
digital communication.
Traditionally, teaching second and additional languages practices have isolated the
target language to avoid the influence of previously acquired languages. Some studies
have reported that beliefs about language separation are still strong among some pre-
service and in-service teachers (see for example, Haukås, 2016; Portolés and Martí,
2020) . Isolating languages creates a cognitive problem in the learning process because
it excludes the possibility of benefitting from prior knowledge. Learning can be enhanced
by using the knowledge that learners already have as a starting point which can then be
linked to new knowledge (Bransford et al., 2000). In the context of language learning, the
most important knowledge that students have is the knowledge of previously acquired
languages. To exclude this knowledge could have a negative effect on the learning
process.
Isolating languages and considering monolingual speakers of the target language as
the ultimate goal can also be associated with affective factors. Students may find that
the aim of speaking the target language like a native speaker is unreachable and that
they fail as language learners. When students are allowed to use their prior knowledge,
their self-esteem as language learners improves (Cenoz and Santos, 2020; Prada, 2019;
Santos et al., 2017).
We argue that learning can be enhanced when hard boundaries that isolate languages
are replaced by soft and permeable boundaries so that students can use their prior knowl-
edge when teaching and learning a second or additional language. We discuss the concept
of pedagogical translanguaging as compared to other uses of the term translanguaging. In
the second section we look at the way it can be applied in language programmes for stu-
dents of different backgrounds. Then we address practices based on pedagogical trans-
languaging in language classes. The final section discusses the challenges and future
perspectives of pedagogical translanguaging.
344 RELC Journal 53(2)

Translanguaging and Pedagogical Translanguaging

Translanguaging is a term that has gained currency in recent years to refer to different
realities in educational and non-educational contexts around the world (Cummins,
2021; García and Li, 2014; Liu and Fang, 2020; Makalela, 2019; Zavala, 2019).
Translanguaging is a polysemic word nowadays and can be understood as an umbrella
term that refers to a number of theoretical and practical proposals (Cenoz and Gorter,
2020, 2021; Jaspers, 2018; Leung and Valdés, 2019). In this article we look at peda-
gogical translanguaging that is defined as follows: ‘planned by the teacher inside the
classroom and can refer to the use of different languages for input and output or to
other planned strategies based on the use of students’ resources from the whole linguistic
repertoire’ (Cenoz, 2017: 194). As Cenoz and Gorter (2021) point out, pedagogical trans-
languaging is ‘a pedagogic theory and practice that refers to instructional strategies which
integrate two or more languages’.
Pedagogical translanguaging is associated with educational contexts including
primary school and secondary school as well as at the university level. It considers
that the boundaries between languages are soft and fluent and that students should
benefit from being multilingual by using resources from their whole linguistic repertoire.
Pedagogical translanguaging is closely related to the original use of the term ‘trans-
languaging’ in bilingual schools in Wales (Lewis et al., 2012; Williams, 1994). In this
context, the use of Welsh and English is carefully planned and there is a systematic
use of the two languages in the same lesson. In most cases there is an alternation of
the languages for the input and the output, and the aim is the development of language
skills in the two languages, Welsh and English. One of the ideas is that translanguaging
implies a higher level of cognitive stimulation because it is more demanding. Pedagogical
translanguaging aims at developing multilingualism and considers the value of alternat-
ing languages in both the input and the output. Pedagogical translanguaging is based on
the original concept of translanguaging but it is broader and can apply to a wider range of
contexts. Pedagogical translanguaging has these characteristics (Cenoz and Gorter,
2021):

1) It can be applied not only to two languages, as in Wales, but also to three or more
languages and even to students’ home languages, which are not in the school
curriculum.
2) It proposes a wide range of practices and activities that use elements from the
whole linguistic repertoire. These practices and activities can have different func-
tions which include obtaining a deeper understanding of academic texts, access to
more information, the development of metalinguistic awareness and the reinforce-
ment of skills based on the coordination of activities in the language classes in
different languages. The main activity in the case of translanguaging in Welsh
schools was the alternation of languages in the input and the output.
3) It can be applied to more programmes and a wide range of students in all levels of
education. In Welsh bilingual schools, translanguaging was particularly aimed at
secondary school students.

Pedagogical translanguaging takes as its point of departure the approach ‘Focus on multi-
lingualism’ which considers multilingual speakers as different from monolingual
Cenoz and Gorter 345

speakers and advocates for soft and fluid boundaries between languages (Cenoz and
Gorter, 2014). According to this approach, multilingual speakers are different from
monolingual speakers regarding their type of competence, trajectories and discourses.
Multilingual speakers have a rich repertoire, which can be used as a resource to commu-
nicate and to learn additional languages more effectively. It is natural for multilingual
speakers to try to use resources from other languages because they try to link their
prior knowledge to new knowledge. ‘Focus on multilingualism’ also looks at the
social context of communicative interaction. When multilingual speakers communicate
(face-to-face or digitally) they use multilingual resources in their repertoire and translan-
guage to a greater or lesser extent depending on the social context.
Pedagogical translanguaging aims at activating the resources that multilingual learners
have because of their knowledge of different languages. This is the opposite of isolating
languages in traditional approaches or comparing multilingual learners to monolingual
native speakers who do not have multilingual resources. In the next sections the scope
of pedagogical translanguaging will be presented. The discussion of theoretical concepts
of pedagogical translanguaging and its implementation can change teachers’ traditional
beliefs about language separation (Gorter and Arocena, 2020).

Pedagogical Translanguaging: Languages, Students and

Programmes
Pedagogical translanguaging has as its aim the learning of languages and academic
content in school contexts. In this article we look at language classes, but pedagogical
translanguaging is also relevant for the learning of academic content because content
is learned through the medium of language.
Pedagogical translanguaging uses all the languages in the students’ multilingual rep-
ertoire as a resource. These languages can be curricular languages and also other home
languages. Students can activate prior knowledge of other languages and maximize
their own resources when they translanguage. The school languages can be national lan-
guages which are widely used in the country where the school is located, minority lan-
guages which are used in the region where the school is located or other second and
foreign languages such as English. In some school contexts there are two languages in
the curriculum, the national language and English. Examples of this situation can be
found in many countries and regions in Asia, Latin America and Europe, among
others. In English-speaking countries English is the first language and there is often a
second language learned at school. In some cases, the second language learned at
school is the students’ home language, as in the case of Spanish first language learners
in the United States. In other cases the second language is a foreign language such as
Chinese, Spanish, French or German that is learned as a foreign language. It is also
common to have schools where more than two languages are included in the curriculum.
For example, in some European regions such as the Basque Country or Friesland, the
regional minority language (Basque or Frisian), the national language (Spanish or
Dutch) and English are curricular languages. In these contexts a fourth language such
as French or German can also be learned in secondary education. Pedagogical trans-
languaging reinforces the commonalities between languages not only when there are
two languages but also when there are more.
346 RELC Journal 53(2)

Due to the mobility of the population nowadays there are also many students who
speak home languages that are not curricular languages. Pedagogical translanguaging
aims at the development of curricular languages but considers non-curricular languages
as a rich resource that students can use to enhance the positive influence of their own
multilingualism (Günther-van der Meij et al., 2020).
In the Welsh context, Williams (2002) considers that translanguaging is appropriate
mainly at secondary school when students have a reasonable knowledge of Welsh and
English. Pedagogical translanguaging is broader in the type of activities proposed and
can be implemented not only at secondary school but also at primary school and in
higher education. Pedagogical translanguaging can be implemented in different school
grades and different levels of multilingual competence. Students can be speakers of a
majority or a minority language.
Pedagogical translanguaging aims to develop language and literacy skills in two or
more languages. This includes language classes in the first, second or additional language
when the target language is learned as a school subject. Pedagogical translanguaging can
also be implemented in immersion and content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
programmes when a second (or additional) language is used to teach academic subjects.
In immersion programmes a second (or additional) language is taught for at least 50% of
the school time and there are different possibilities regarding the number of hours
assigned to each language in different grades (Baker and Wright, 2021; Lyster and
Genesee, 2019). There are immersion programmes in many contexts, such as French
immersion in Canada, immersion in minority languages such as Mā ori in New
Zealand, Catalan or Basque in Spain or Welsh in the United Kingdom. CLIL programmes
have the same core characteristics as immersion programmes, but they often have English
as the second or additional language, and the time devoted to instruction through English
may be less than 50% of the school time (Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz et al., 2014). Schools with
immersion and CLIL programmes not only teach through the medium of a second or add-
itional language but often have language classes in the languages that are included in the
curriculum. In these cases, the coordination between language teachers and content tea-
chers is necessary even if it is not always possible (He and Lin, 2018; Hu and Gao, 2021;
Villabona andd Cenoz, 2021). As He and Lin (2018: 164) state: ‘CLIL requires a content
teacher to be language-aware and a language teacher to be content-aware’. Here we focus
on pedagogical translanguaging in language classes, but it is important to highlight that
language teachers can have a very important influence on other classes as well because
language is the vehicle to learn academic content. When the language of instruction is
a second or additional language, there is more need to work on pedagogical translangua-
ging in language classes so that students learn to use their multilingual resources in effect-
ive ways.
Multilingual speakers use the resources of their linguistic repertoire and often translan-
guage in a spontaneous way. Spontaneous translanguaging can also take place inside the
classroom and can even be used pedagogically by the teachers, but pedagogical trans-
languaging goes beyond accepting or promoting the flexible use of the multilingual
speakers’ languages (Cenoz and Gorter, 2021). In pedagogical translanguaging practices
and activities, there are specific objectives that will be accomplished by carrying out a
series of learning tasks that use resources from two or more languages in the same
class. The teacher will select the necessary material so that students use the multilingual
learning strategies which are most appropriate to achieve the objectives of the lesson. By
Cenoz and Gorter 347

using these strategies learners can take an active role and be responsible for their own
learning when they link prior knowledge to new knowledge. Pedagogical translangua-
ging embraces a wide range of practices that have different functions, as will be
shown in the next section.

Pedagogical Translanguaging Practices in Language Classes

Pedagogical translanguaging is broad regarding the practices that can be implemented in
language classes at different levels in diverse contexts. These practices have certain ele-
ments in common in that they are planned by the teacher and that resources from the lear-
ners’ multilingual and multimodal repertoires are activated so as to enhance the
development of multilingual competence. Pedagogical translanguaging practices aim at
activating prior multilingual knowledge but they can take different shapes.
Pedagogical translanguaging in language classes can focus on different language levels
(phonetics, lexicon, morphology, syntax, pragmatics and discourse) and skills (reading,
writing, listening and speaking). Here we look at some ways in which pedagogical trans-
languaging in language classes can be implemented.
Pedagogical translanguaging practices can have strong or weak forms depending on
the use of two or more languages in the same class session or in separate class sessions.
Strong practices use resources from the students’ whole multilingual repertoire next to
each other in the same class session. These are explained in the next two subsections.
A weaker form of pedagogical translanguaging can take place in school contexts in
which teachers are not allowed to use different languages in the same class, which is
explained in the subsection ‘Integrated Curriculum’.

Pedagogical Translanguaging to Achieve a Deeper Understanding of Academic

Texts and to Have Access to More Information
This practice is a strong form of pedagogical translanguaging because it uses two or more
languages in the same class. This is also a translanguaging practice used in Welsh bilin-
gual education when learners alternate different languages for the input and the output.
For example, students can read a text or watch a video in one language and summarize
the content or discuss it orally in another language (Lewis et al., 2012; Williams,
1994). The idea is that translanguaging can enhance a deeper understanding of the
content of the text than when the information is only in one language. Lewis et al.
(2012) highlight that several cognitive skills are activated when students have to alternate
the use of the two languages in the input and the output.
An important benefit of pedagogical translanguaging is that learners can have greater
access to information when they can use different languages. Cenoz and Santos (2020)
report how pedagogical translanguaging is used in a secondary school in the Basque
Country where the compulsory languages are Basque, Spanish and English. The lesson
aimed to develop communicative competence in different languages. Learners had to
analyse the structure of news items in different languages and then listened to news
items before discussing the content and structure of the news. Students completed
tasks using different languages when reading and explaining the content of the news to
other members of the group. In this activity students were able to compare news items
348 RELC Journal 53(2)

in Basque, Spanish and English by working with the same news item in different lan-
guages. They also wrote a piece of news in Basque (the minority language) using specia-
lized language. The activity was useful to develop their metalinguistic awareness about
the differences between oral communicative language and formal written language.
Students also performed a metalinguistic task comparing Basque, Spanish and English
by identifying cognates.
The implementation of pedagogical translanguaging in this class was part of a profes-
sional development course which the teacher had attended. Before this implementation,
the teacher used only English in this English language class, and students were surprised
when they were asked to use Basque and Spanish as well. The teacher reported that stu-
dents learned more than with other activities, and they became more aware of their advan-
tages as multilinguals, as can be seen in the feedback the teacher provided (see also Cenoz
and Santos, 2020):

Students have undoubtedly answered that they have learnt more dealing with more than one
language in class, because they could talk more, they knew the words and they could learn
the three languages together. Students have found [sic] very interesting learning that they
can transfer the knowledge from one language to the other. And they have become aware of
the advantages of multilingualism.

In fact, the possibility of working with news items in the three languages offered some
advantages because there could be a deeper understanding of the information, access to
more information and the possibility of developing metalinguistic awareness by compar-
ing the way texts are organized in different languages and the vocabulary used in these
texts. Some English language teachers may be worried because students in this peda-
gogical translanguaging class had less time to work in English when the other two lan-
guages were also used. This situation can be remedied if pedagogical translanguaging
is also implemented in the Basque and Spanish classes and students work with the
three languages in the three language classes.
In this example we have seen that three languages are used to complete different tasks,
but there can be activities with a different number of languages. For example, García et al.
(2017) show how translanguaging can include activities using English and Spanish in
bilingual education schools in the United States.
An important point in this type of activity is that oral and written competences are
developed. This modality of translanguaging provides the possibility of accessing infor-
mation in different languages and using different languages when working on the same
topic. Pedagogical translanguaging using resources in different languages for the input
and the output implies a high level of cognitive engagement because the tasks are chal-
lenging in both languages (see also Baker, 2003; Williams, 2002). Williams (2002)
explains that when students translanguage using different languages for the input and
the output they can even augment and supplement the message in the output.

Pedagogical Translanguaging to Develop Metalinguistic Awareness

This is a strong form of implementing pedagogical translanguaging because two or more
languages are used next to each other at the same time in the language classes. There is a
Cenoz and Gorter 349

deep reflection about the way languages work that can be done at different linguistic
levels.
Some studies have focused on vocabulary building through pedagogical translangua-
ging. Leonet et al. (2020) report an intervention in the 5th and 6th years of primary edu-
cation at a Basque school. The intervention aimed at developing metalinguistic awareness
at different linguistic levels and took place in the three language classes (Basque, Spanish
and English) for 12 weeks. The results on morphological awareness indicate that the
primary school students in the experimental group, who had taken part in the pedadogical
translanguaging project, obtained higher results in morphological awareness tests than
those in the control group. Students were asked to identify morphemes in words that
could be decomposed such as ‘teacher’ or ‘sportsman’ and also to use prefixes and suf-
fixes to create new meanings such as the word ‘helpful’ in the following sentence:

My sister is always ready to help. She is very … … .

Although Leonet et al. (2020) report the results in English, the intervention was in
three languages, with the idea being that students could build their vocabulary by realiz-
ing that words in Basque, Spanish and English can be decomposed into morphemes.
Cenoz et al. (2021) examined the effect of another practice used in the same peda-
gogical translanguaging intervention by evaluating the recognition of cognates in the
three languages. Two groups of students completed a cognate recognition task in pairs
and were asked to think aloud while doing the exercise. The differences between the
number of cognates identified by the students in the experimental and control groups
did not reach significance (see also White and Horst, 2012). However, students who
had taken part in the pedagogical translanguaging implementation were able to explain
the relationship between the three languages better and offered more elaborate explana-
tions, thus demonstrating a higher level of metalinguistic awareness. The following
example shows how students reflect on the way cognates can be useful for them
(Cenoz et al., 2021):

Researcher: nola laguntzen dizue horrek? [how does it help you?]

Joanes: sustraikideak direlako. [because they are cognates]
Researcher: eta horrek zer esan nahi du? [and what does that mean?]
Urko: antza handia dutela hitzek. [that there is a strong similarity between
words]
Joanes: pista bat ematen dizu. [it gives you a hint]

While pedagogical translanguaging can provide advantages in the development of lan-

guage proficiency, it can also show differences between languages. Galante (2020)
reported that some Chinese students who had carried out two tasks based on pedagogical
translanguaging became aware of some differences between Chinese and English.
According to these students, there can be similarities between the languages, but some
idioms and discourse markers are not used in the same way in both languages. Even
when this is the case, an important point is that metalinguistic awareness can be devel-
oped by reflecting on the way the different languages in the students’ repertoire work.
Linguistic distance is an important factor to be considered when using activities to
develop metalinguistic awareness. Languages that are close to each other can share
350 RELC Journal 53(2)

more elements at the phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic, discourse or pragmatic

levels. However, pedagogical translanguaging can also be implemented in educational
contexts where the languages are not closely related. For example, the three compulsory
languages in the curriculum of Basque schools do not belong to the same language
family. Spanish and English are Indo-European languages but belong to different fam-
ilies; Spanish is a Romance language and English is a Germanic language; and Basque
is a non-Indo-European language isolate, unrelated to others. In spite of language dis-
tance when implementing pedagogical translanguaging in this context, there can be cog-
nates that are shared in the three languages, but there are also characteristics that are
shared by two of the languages. For example, when we look at compounds, we can
see that the structure is head-final in English and Basque but not in Spanish:

English: weekend
Basque: asteburua (week + end)
Spanish: fin de semana (end of week)

It is also possible to use pedagogical translanguaging activities when the linguistic dis-
tance between the languages is very large and the languages are not in contact. In these
cases the focus can be more on the pragmatic and discourse levels. For example, one pos-
sibility could be to work with the way requests can be expressed in different languages
(see Nightingale and Safont, 2019; Portolés and Safont, 2018; Zhu, 2012).
Pedagogical translanguaging at the pragmatic level could work even if the distance
between the languages is very large, as in the case of Chinese and English. An
example of an activity based on pedagogical translanguaging and an English language
class in China could be the following:

Students work in groups in the English language class. Some groups are given information
about a specific situation describing the relationship between an employee and her boss in
China in Mandarin. Other groups are given the same situation in Australia in English. All
the students are asked to formulate a request in which the employee asks her boss for an after-
noon off for personal reasons. The students discuss their requests by paying attention to direct-
ness levels and the use of politeness devices in both languages. There can be a follow-up
changing some elements of the situations or asking students to find examples of common cross-
cultural misunderstandings between Chinese and English speakers.

This example aims at showing the differences between the use of requests in Chinese
and Australian English by activating the knowledge students already have as Chinese
speakers. Another possibility is to work at the discourse level comparing the structure
of different types of texts in different languages. In this way, students can see the simi-
larities and differences between the languages in their multilingual repertoire.
Some of the activities have been used in language classes for many years. The differ-
ence is that pedagogical translanguaging activities use the resources from the students’
repertoire in a systematic way in the language classes. Even if there is a designated lan-
guage for each class, the language classes include resources in different languages, soft-
ening the boundaries between them. Another important point is that activities are
contextualized and aim at the development of communicative competence even when
there can be a specific focus on developing metalinguistic awareness.
Cenoz and Gorter 351

Integrated Curriculum
This practice means that the syllabuses of the different language classes are coordinated
so that languages reinforce each other. In this way, the focus is on working on the same
linguistic elements or communicative functions in each of the language classes. The
implementation of an integrated curriculum implies coordination between the teachers
of the different languages.
This pedagogical translanguaging practice can be regarded as a weak form of peda-
gogical translanguaging because the integration takes place at the curriculum level and
not at the class level. Still, this practice can be considered pedagogical translanguaging
because it is planned and uses resources from the students’ multilingual repertoire
even if the languages are connected at the curriculum level rather than at the class
level. Lyster et al. (2013) report a pedagogic intervention on morphological awareness
carried out in Canada. Students were in year 2 (7–8 years old) and the intervention
took place in French and English. Teachers worked with the same stories and drew the
children’s attention to morphology, but they focused either on English or French in
each class. In this way, the languages can reinforce each other and students can benefit
more from their own multilingualism (see also Cenoz and Gorter, 2018).
Some possibilities of implementing pedagogical translanguaging have been explained
here, but there are many others. Using languages in the students’ multilingual repertoire
as a resource and conducting activities to reflect on languages can also raise metalinguis-
tic awareness when some of the languages are not part of the curriculum (Carbonara and
Scibetta, 2020; García et al., 2017; Günther-van der Meij et al., 2020).
Pedagogical translanguaging is a broad concept that includes a wide range of possibil-
ities which are planned for learning by using students’ prior knowledge of languages in
their multilingual and multimodal repertoires. As Cummins (2021: 273) explains, peda-
gogical translanguaging has empirical support and can also have important advantages:

In summary, the legitimacy of pedagogical translanguaging is supported by extensive research

demonstrating that mobilising students’ multilingual and multimodal repertoires can connect
curriculum to students’ lives, scaffold learning, affirm their identities, and reinforce their knowl-
edge of how language works as an oral and written communicative system.

Final Remarks
In this article the concept of pedagogical translanguaging has been discussed together
with the way it can lead to a deeper understanding of academic language, improved
access to information, development of metalinguistic awareness and development of
multilingual competence.
Pedagogical translanguaging can be implemented in different ways relating the learn-
ing of two or more languages. Its specific implementation is linked to the aims of the
multilingual education programme which the school uses and also to the wider context
of the area where the school is located. There is not a single way to implement peda-
gogical translanguaging, but in all cases the aim is to promote the activation of the lear-
ners’ multilingual repertoire in a way that is pedagogically planned.
The implementation of pedagogical translanguaging poses some challenges.
Ideologies of language separation are pervasive, and it is common to find teachers who
352 RELC Journal 53(2)

strongly believe that the target language has to be separated from other languages and that
the monolingual native speaker should serve as the model to aspire to in language teach-
ing. Even though pedagogical translanguaging is supported by research, it is important to
conduct more research studies in different contexts to provide further evidence that can
help teachers to change traditional ideologies of separation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the Eusko Jaurlaritza, Ministerio de Ciencia
e Innovación, (grant number IT-1225-19, PID2019-105818GB-100) .

ORCID iD
Jasone Cenoz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-7510

References
Baker C (2003) Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh national
curriculum. In: Hornberger N (ed.) Continua of Biliteracy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters, 71–90.
Baker C and Wright WE (2021) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Bransford JD, Brown AL and Cocking RR (eds) (2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind
Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Canagarajah AS (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations.
New York: Routledge.
Carbonara V and Scibetta A (2020) Integrating translanguaging pedagogy into Italian primary
schools: Implications for language practices and children’s empowerment. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Epub ahead of print 5 Apil 2020. DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2020.1742648
Cenoz J (2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or
different?. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28: 8–24.
Cenoz J (2017) Translanguaging in school context. International perspectives: an introduction.
Journal of Language, Identity and Education 16: 193–198.
Cenoz J, Genesee F and Gorter D (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: taking stock and looking
forward. Applied Linguistics 35: 243–262.
Cenoz J and Gorter D (2013) Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: soft-
ening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quaterly 47: 591–599.
Cenoz J and Gorter D (2014) Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In:
Creese A and Blackledge A (eds) Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy. Berlin: Springer,
239–254.
Cenoz J and Gorter D (2015) Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual education. In:
Cenoz J and Gorter D (eds) Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and
Translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–15.
Cenoz J and Gorter D (2018) Let’s make the most of multilingualism. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=vg8i2UHAf8s.
Cenoz and Gorter 353

Cenoz J and Gorter D (2020) Pedagogical translanguaging: an introduction. System 92. Epub ahead
of print 3 May 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102269.
Cenoz J and Gorter D (2021) Pedagogical Translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cenoz J, Leonet O and Gorter D (2021) Developing cognate awareness through pedagogical trans-
languaging. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Epub ahead of
print. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2021.1961675.
Cenoz J and Santos A (2020) Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools.
System 92. Epub ahead of print 3 May 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102273.
Cummins J (2017) Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In: García O, Lin A and
May S (eds) Bilingual Education: Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 5. Berlin:
Springer, 103–115.
Cummins J (2021) Rethinking the Education of Multilingual Learners. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Galante A (2020) Pedagogical translanguaging in a multilingual English program in Canada:
Student and teacher perspectives of challenges. System 92. Epub ahead of print 1 May
2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102274.
García O, Ibarra Johnson S and Seltzer K (2017) The Translanguaging Classroom. Philadelphia:
Caslon.
García O and Li W (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gorter D and Arocena E (2020) Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in a course on translangua-
ging. System 92. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102272.
Günther-van der Meij M, Duarte J and Nap L (2020) Including multiple languages in secondary edu-
cation: A translanguaging approach. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1): 73–106.
Haukås A (2016) Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical approach.
International Journal of Multilingualism 13(1): 1–18.
He P and Lin AMY (2018) Becoming a “language-aware” content teacher: Content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic,
and dialogic process. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 6(1):
162–188.
Hu J and Gao X (2021) Understanding subject teachers’ language-related pedagogical practices in
content and language integrated learning classrooms. Language Awareness 30(1): 42–61.
Jaspers J (2018) The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication 58: 1–
10.
Leonet O, Cenoz J and Gorter D (2020) Developing morphological awareness across languages:
translanguaging pedagogies in third language acquisition. Language Awareness 29: 41–59.
Leung C and Valdés G (2019) Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language
teaching and learning in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal 103(2): 348–370.
Lewis G, Jones B and Baker C (2012) Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to
street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(7): 641–654.
Liu Y and Fang F (2020) Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive trans-
languaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 28 August
2020. DOI: 0033688220939222.
Llurda E (2015) Non-native teachers and advocacy. In: Bigelow M and Ennser-Kananen J (eds) The
Routledge Handbook of Educational Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 105–116.
Lyster R and Genesee F (2019) Immersion education. In: Chapelle CA (ed.) The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/full/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0525.pub2 (accessed on October 28, 2021).
Lyster R, Quiroga J and Ballinger S (2013) The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological
awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1(2): 169–197.
354 RELC Journal 53(2)

Makalela L (2019) Uncovering the universals of ubuntu translanguaging in classroom discourses.

Classroom Discourse 10(3–4): 237–251.
Nightingale R and Safont P (2019) Pragmatic translanguaging: Multilingual practice in adolescent
online discourse. In: Salazar-Campillo P and Codina-Espurz V (eds) Investigating the
Learning of Pragmatics Across Ages and Contexts. Leiden: Brill, 167–195.
Oxford RL (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York:
Newbury House.
Portolés L and Martí O (2020) Teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogies and the role of
initial training. International Journal of Multilingualism 17(2): 248–264.
Portolés L and Safont P (2018) Examining authentic and elicited data from a multilingual perspec-
tive. The real picture of child requestive behaviour in the L3 classroom. System 75(1): 81–92.
Prada J (2019) Exploring the role of translanguaging in linguistic ideological and attitudinal recon-
figurations in the Spanish classroom for heritage speakers. Classroom Discourse 10(3–4):
306–322.
Santos A, Cenoz J and Gorter D (2017) Communicative anxiety in English as a third language.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20: 823–836.
Villabona N and Cenoz J (2021) The integration of content and language in CLIL: a challenge for
content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum. Epub ahead
of print. DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2021.1910703.
White J and Horst M (2012) Cognate awareness-raising in late childhood: Teachable and useful.
Language Awareness 21(1–2): 181–196.
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 sec-
ondary education]. PhD Thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. [In Welsh.]
Williams C (2002) A Language Gained: A Study of Language Immersion at 11–16 Years of Age.
Bangor, UK: School of Education. Available at: https://www.bangor.ac.uk/education-and-
human-development/publications/Language_Gained%20.pdf (accessed on September 30,
2021).
Zavala V (2019) Translanguaging pedagogies and power: A view from the South. Language and
Education 33(2): 174–177.
Zhu W (2012) Polite requestive strategies in emails: An investigation of pragmatic competence of
Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal 43(2): 217–238.