Classroom Discourse

ISSN: 1946-3014 (Print) 1946-3022 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20

Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing

limits, breaking boundaries

Li Wei & Angel M. Y. Lin

To cite this article: Li Wei & Angel M. Y. Lin (2019) Translanguaging classroom discourse:
pushing limits, breaking boundaries, Classroom Discourse, 10:3-4, 209-215, DOI:
10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032

Published online: 01 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3847

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=rcdi20
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
2019, VOL. 10, NOS. 3–4, 209–215
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032

Translanguaging classroom discourse: pushing limits,

breaking boundaries
Li Wei and Angel M. Y. Lin

In fond memory of Professor Peter Martin (1949-2009) and Professor Gunther Kress (1940-
2019).

In March 2009, Li Wei and Peter Martin published a special issue of the International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Volume 12, Number 2) on ‘Conflicts and
Tensions in Classroom Codeswitching’ that they jointly edited. Peter passed away
unexpectedly shortly after that, on 24th April. The present volume is a sequel to that
special issue and a tribute to Peter. He was a great friend of ours, and a scholar who
devoted much of his life to bilingual education and social justice.
The overarching aim of the 2009 Li and Martin volume was to bring together a range
of studies, from different contexts, on the conflicts and tensions between language
policy and codeswitching practices in the classroom. This was important because, as
stated in the introduction (Li and Martin 2009), whilst bilingual language users routinely
switched between different languages in their everyday social interaction, in educational
contexts, especially in the classroom, codeswitching was deemed inappropriate or
unacceptable, as a deficit or dysfunctional mode of interaction, and in many cases
prohibited by policy. Indeed, the studies in that special issue showed the conflicts and
tensions between the way codeswitching in the classroom occurred and the language
policies imposed from above which were ‘imbued with and influenced by pervasive and
persistent monolingual ideologies’ (p. 117). In particular, teachers who allowed their
pupils to use their mother tongues that were not the school’s language of instruction, or
in Probyn’s words ‘smuggling the vernacular into the classroom’ (2009, 123), were
accused of being guilty of sabotaging the pupils’ learning (see also Martin 2005, 76).
Angel Lin collaborated with Peter in critiquing the language-of-instruction policies in
many post-colonial contexts (Lin and Martin 2005) and provided further evidence of the
conflicts and tensions between policy and practice in classroom interaction involving
bilingual learners and teachers.
Ten years on, the tensions and conflicts between everyday flexible multilingual
practices of the individual, including teachers and pupils, and the societal-imposed
policies of language-of-instruction in schools still remain in most parts of the world,
despite all the efforts by researchers and practitioners to promote the benefits of
multilingualism. More work that focuses on the classroom is therefore needed.
Readers will notice a new term, namely, Translanguaging. No doubt people will have
questions about the significance of adopting this term in place of Codeswitching (Lin,
Wu, and Lemke forthcoming). This is not the space to give a full historical account of the

CONTACT Li Wei li.wei@ucl.ac.uk

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
210 L. WEI AND A. M. Y. LIN

development of the concept of Translanguaging. Readers are referred to the two articles
by Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012a, 2012b) that trace the origins and developments of
the term. Significantly, (i) the term came out of bilingual education, particularly minority
language revitalisation (in the case of Cen William’s original work, 1994) and the
education of minoritised learners (in Ofelia Garcia’s work, 2009); and (ii) it was coined,
by Baker (2001), by adding trans to languaging, a concept that had been in existence for
some time and associated with a different group of researchers in the sociocultural
theories of second language acquisition (most notably Swain’s work, e.g. 2006), Systemic
and Functional Linguistics (e.g. Halliday 1985), anthropological linguistics (e.g. Becker
1991), and distribution language and cognition (e.g. Love 2004; Thibault 2011). These
two basic facts are significant in that the pedagogical practices that the term advocates
are intrinsically linked to the way language is conceptualised, a way that is quite
different from how language is conceptualised and operationalised in codeswitching
research and practice.
Swain (2006) used the term Languaging to describe the cognitive process of negotiating
and producing meaningful, comprehensible output as part of language learning as a ‘means
to mediate cognition’, that is to understand and to problem-solve and ‘a process of making
meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language’ (p. 97). Halliday (1985)
regarded language as a ‘meaning potential’ and linguistics as ‘the study of how people
exchange meanings by languaging’ (p. 193). Becker (1991) argued that ‘there is no such
thing as Language, only continual languaging, an activity of human beings in the world’ (p.
34). He reiterated Ortega Y Gasset’s (1957) argument that language should not be regarded
‘as an accomplished fact, as a thing made and finished, but as in the process of being made’
(p. 242). Love (2004) set out to challenge what they call ‘the code view’ of language that
sought to identify abstract verbal patterns, morphosyntax, or lexicogrammar, divorced from
cognitive, affective, and bodily dynamics in real-time and specify the rules for mapping
forms to meanings and meanings to forms. He regards language thus identified and
specified as a second-order construct, the product of first-order activity, languaging, an
activity that is ‘radically heterogeneous and involves the interaction of processes on many
different time-scales, including neural, bodily, situational, social, and cultural processes and
events’ (Thibault 2017, 76). The languaging perspective sees the divides between the
linguistic, the paralinguistic, and the extralinguistic dimensions of human communication
as nonsensical and emphasizes therefore what the researchers call the orchestration of the
neural-bodily-worldly skills of languaging. In particular, it highlights the importance of
feeling, experience, history, memory, subjectivity, and culture. As Li (2018) points out,
although these specific scholars do not talk about ideology and power, it is entirely
conceivable that these too play important roles in languaging.
Both the trans- prefix and the – ing suffix in Translanguaging are significant. Garcia and Li
(2014, 3) talked about three senses of the trans-: (1) a trans-system and trans-spaces that
facilitate fluid practices that not only go between but more importantly go beyond socially
constructed language and education systems, structures and practices to engage diverse
students’ multiple meaning-making systems and subjectivities. (2) its transformative nature;
i.e. ‘as new configurations of language practices and education are generated, old under-
standings and structures are released, thus transforming not only subjectivities, but also
cognitive and social structures. In so doing, orders of discourses shift and the voices of
Others come to the forefront, relating then translanguaging to criticality, critical pedagogy,
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 211

social justice and the linguistic human rights agenda’ (p. 3). (3) ‘the trans-disciplinary
consequences of the languaging and education analysis, providing a tool for understanding
not only language practices on the one hand and education on the other, but also human
sociality, human cognition and learning, social relations and social structures’ (p.3). At the
same time, the – ing suffix urges us to focus on the momentariness, instantaneity and the
transient nature of human communication, in the present case, the ongoing activities in the
classroom setting.
The original discussion of Translanguaging as a pedagogical practice by Williams and Baker
included modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. As it has been developed as
a theoretical concept, Translanguaging embraces the multimodal social semiotic view that
linguistic signs are part of a wider repertoire of modal resources that sign makers have at their
disposal and that carry particular socio-historical and political associations (Kress 2015). It
foregrounds the different ways language users employ, create, and interpret different kinds
of signs to communicate across contexts and participants and perform their different sub-
jectivities. In particular, Translanguaging highlights the ways in which language users make
use of the tensions and conflicts among different signs, because of the socio-historical
associations the signs carry with them, in a cycle of resemiotization and transformation. In
a similar effort, Angel Lin builds on Halliday’s notion of ‘trans-semiotic’ (2013) and develops the
term ‘trans-semiotizing’ to highlight the tension-filled yet seamless flow of entanglement of
multiple meaning making resources (Lin 2019). Hawkins (2018) proposes the notion of
‘transmodalities’, linked to critical cosmopolitanism, to embrace the processes of semiosis
across place, space, and time that transcend the local, to become translocal and transnational,
indexing the diversity of actors engaged in new configurations of communicative engage-
ments in a globalized, technologized world.
In the last ten years or so, ample studies have shown that Translanguaging can be an
effective pedagogical practice in a variety of educational contexts where the school lan-
guage or the language-of-instruction is different from the languages of the learners. ‘By
deliberately breaking the artificial and ideological divides between indigenous versus
immigrant, majority versus minority, and target versus mother tongue languages,
Translanguaging empowers both the learner and the teacher, transforms the power rela-
tions, and focuses the process of teaching and learning on making meaning, enhancing
experience, and developing identity (Garcia 2009; Creese and Blackledge 2015)’ (Li 2018).
In the title of the present special issue, Translanguaging is used as a verb in present
progressive and without the preposition ‘in’. As William’s and Baker emphasized in their
conceptualization of Translanguaging, it is not an object or a linguistic structural
phenomenon to describe and analyse; it is a practice that involves dynamic and
functionally integrated use of different languages and language varieties, but more
importantly a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s). It
takes us beyond the linguistics of systems and speakers to a linguistics of participation
(Li 2018). Translanguaging pedagogy therefore cannot and should not be reduced to
allowing the pupils to use their non-language-of-instruction L1s in class, nor to mixing
and switching between linguistic codes only. It is an action to transform classroom
discourses, including both the discourses by the participants of the classroom activities
and the discourses about the classroom. When we talk about the classroom, we tend to
have an immediate image of a confined physical space with specified and often
hierarchical role sets and planned learning objectives and tasks. Translanguaging
212 L. WEI AND A. M. Y. LIN

classroom discourse is not only about encouraging fluid multilingual practices within the
limits and boundaries set up by these role sets, objectives and tasks, but to aim at
challenging and transforming them. Whilst we fully accept that Translanguaging peda-
gogy alone cannot solve the larger issues of racism, classism, colonialism, and domina-
tion of reified standard codes and unequal power relations that stigmatize students’
communicative repertoires (García and Lin 2018), it nonetheless stands a good chance of
disrupting the hierarchy of languages, transforming both teachers and students’ atti-
tudes towards their diverse meaning making resources, and enabling students’ full
participation in knowledge co-making (García and Lin 2016). We want to see the class-
room as a process through which learning takes place as well as a space for co-
participation in the co-construction of knowledge by the pupils and teachers.
The present issue gathers together a range of studies based in a variety of sociolinguistic,
economic-political and educational contexts. Margie Probyn, who contributed to the Li and
Martin (2009) volume, examines the process of construction of science knowledge in
a multilingual classroom in South Africa and demonstrates how pedagogical translanguaging
challenges the monoglossic and post-colonial orthodoxies. The study shows that despite
significant policy changes over a quarter century into the democratic era, the historic imbal-
ances and inequalities of apartheid education have remained. The educational achievement
gap between the majority of learners from working class and poor families who attend
historically black township and rural schools and comprise 80 per cent of the school-going
population a minority of middle class learners who attend well-resourced schools that were
formerly reserved for white learners and some formerly Indian and ‘coloured’ schools is very
wide. And this gap is most notable in science education. Probyn argues that the prevailing
monoglossic orientations to education that originated in the apartheid era are a major con-
tributing factor to the gap. Through the analysis of classroom data, Probyn suggests that
pedagogical translanguaging would be important and necessary in supporting learners’
opportunity to learn science. However, Probyn warns that translanguaging on its own is not
a sufficient condition for the improvement of the disadvantaged learners’ learning of science.
Broader issues of access, equity and social justice need to be dealt with to provide a safe space
for translanguaging pedagogies which in turn open up opportunities for science learning.
Also dealing with the educational and social inequalities in the South African context,
Leketi Makalela shows how translanguaging is effective in deepening comprehension
and cultivating a high sense of self. His study reveals a high prevalence of translangua-
ging in the classroom that reflects infinite relations of dependency between various
linguistic resources employed by both teachers and students. Such dynamic practice is
interpreted within the African value system of ubuntu (I x We): I am because you are.
Makalela argues that this cultural competence can be leveraged for successful learning
and teaching. He makes a number of recommendations on how the universals of
Ubuntu translanguaging as a regime for multilingualism becomes transformative in
enhancing epistemic access and identity positions of multilingual students.
Wu and Lin take us to content-language-integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms in
Hong Kong. Using Lin’s notion of ‘trans-semiotizing’, they offer a fine-grained multimodal
analysis of the interactions and activities in a biology class to show the teacher used embodi-
ment and spatial repertoire, as well as multilingual resources, to co-construct knowledge with
the learners. Post-lesson interviews and survey support their argument that such practices had
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 213

a positive impact on the students’ learning and their development of a positive attitude
towards multilingualism.
Despite the positive effects of translanguaging pedagogies as the studies in this
collection show, there are real challenges in practice. And Viniti Vaish’s study clearly
illustrates the difficulties in implementing a translanguaging pedagogy in an English
reading class in Singapore. Although most of the pupils in the class in question from
multilingual backgrounds and have languages other than English at home, they seem to
have a strong negative view towards the teacher’s attempt to use the mother tongues of
the pupils in the learning support programme. The dominant ideologies and educational
systems are as such that even a limited understanding of translanguaging in the sense
of using the pupils’ other languages to help improve their vocabulary, grammar and
comprehension in English is being resisted. This study has important implications for
teachers, policy makers and advocates of translanguaging pedagogy that unless the
ideologies and systems changed, multilingual education where all languages are equally
valued, learners with languages other than the dominant national one will continue to
struggle with access to the process of knowledge construction.
Fallas Escobar’s paper presents an analysis of a translanguaging by design activity he
himself has conducted with students on an EFL program at a Costa Rican university. He
used multimodal cues to stimulate discussions amongst the students using their multi-
lingual repertoire. Follow-up interviews reveal some of the affordances and constraints
of purposefully bringing translanguaging into educational programs that have been
dominated by monolingual language ideologies. The study is an attempt at transform-
ing translanguaging from a furtive to a purposefully planned practice, which is needed
in challenging monolingual and language separation ideologies in EFL programs gen-
erally and in disrupting the trend in EFL education to view students simply as learners,
and not as emergent bilinguals with a complex linguistic repertoire and intricate
languaging skills.
Josh Prada’s study explores how translanguaging serves as vehicle to help re-configure
linguistic attitudinal and ideological structures in a university Spanish course in the US for
heritage speakers. It focuses on the links between exposure to and engagement in
classroom translanguaging and the participants’ challenging of traditional monoglossic
ideologies governing folk imaginary regarding language purity, standard, and appropriate
academic discourse. Using ethnographic observations and semi-structured individual
interviews, the study unveils what Prada calls ‘a double-action’ whereby translanguaging
creates a sociolinguistic frame that challenges widely held linguistic attitudes and ideol-
ogies about the nature of flexible linguistic practices, as it stimulates their normalization
and inclusion in a context that has traditionally been closed to such practices.
Carla Jonsson carried out an ethnographic study of four English language lessons in a so-
called bilingual school in Stockholm, Sweden, where languages are kept separate as parallel
monolingualisms in planning and in the schedule and where the language competences of
the teachers are also ‘separated’ in the sense that teachers who use Spanish as their main
medium of instruction are expected to understand and speak Swedish whilst the teachers of
Swedish and other subjects are not expected to understand or speak Spanish. Jonsson
shows, however, that Translanguaging is a common practice employed both by the teacher
and the students, especially in their out of class interaction. Nevertheless, these practices are
used seemingly without reflection and are not made explicit in the language classroom.
214 L. WEI AND A. M. Y. LIN

There remains a struggle between translanguaging in classroom discourse and parallel

monolingualisms. Jonsson advocates making the pedagogical gains associated with trans-
languaging explicit by discussing the joint communicative repertoire between the teachers
and the students and encouraging them to move across and beyond languages to acquire
and co-construct knowledge and competences in new languages and to negotiate linguistic
and semiotic resources, making links between and across them as well as integrating and
entangling them.
Also in Sweden, Annaliina Gynne examines multilingual interactions in an upper
secondary Language Introduction Programme (LIP) classroom. The programme offers
recently arrived immigrant youth (ages 16–19) education where the emphasis is on the
majority language of the surrounding society, Swedish, but where teaching can also
include other subjects. Drawing on ethnographic data and micro-analysis of classroom
interaction, Gynne shows the ways in which students and teachers engage in (trans)
languaging and language policing processes, and reflects upon the tension between
seeking to teach and learn through linguistic diversity and participants’ understandings
of what kind of languaging is appropriate.
We are extremely grateful to Ofelia Garcia who took time to read and comment on
the contributions in this special issue. Her powerful Coda reminds us what motivates the
growing research on Translanguaging classroom discourse.
As we completed the editing of this volume, we lost a dear friend and colleague
Professor Gunther Kress on 20 June 2019. His social semiotic view of language deeply
influenced our work.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Li Wei http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2015-7262

References
Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 3rd ed. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Becker, A. L. 1991. “Language and Languaging.” Language and Communication 11: 33–35.
doi:10.1016/0271-5309(91)90013-L.
Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2015. “Translanguaging and Identity in Educational Settings.” Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 35: 20–35. doi:10.1017/S0267190514000233.
Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley.
García, O., and A. M. Y. Lin. 2016. “Translanguaging in Bilingual Education.” In Bilingual and
Multilingual Education (Encyclopedia of Language and Education), edited by O. García,
A. M. Y. Lin, and S. May, 117–130. Switzerland: Springer.
García, O., and A. M. Y. Lin. 2018. “English and Multilingualism: A Contested History.” In Routledge
Handbook of English Language Studies, edited by P. Seargent, 77–92. London: Routledge.
García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 215

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). “Systemic Background.” In Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1:

Selected Theoretical Papers from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop, Benson and
Greaves (eds). Praeger
Halliday, M. A. K. 2013. “Languages, and Language, in Today’s Changing World.” Research Seminar
Delivered at the University of Hong Kong 23 (October): 2013.
Hawkins, M. R. 2018. “Transmodalities and Transnational Encounters: Fostering Critical
Cosmopolitan Relations.” Applied Linguistics 39 (1): 55–77. doi:10.1093/applin/amx048.
Kress, G. 2015. “Semiotic Work: Applied Linguistics and a Social Semiotic Account of
Multimodality.” Aila Review 28 (1): 49–71.
Lewis, G., B. Jones, and C. Baker. 2012a. “Translanguaging: Origins and Development from School
to Street and Beyond.” Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (7): 641–654. doi:10.1080/
13803611.2012.718488.
Lewis, G., B. Jones, and C. Baker. 2012b. “Translanguaging: Developing Its Conceptualisation and
Contextualisation.” Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (7): 655–670. doi:10.1080/
13803611.2012.718490.
Li, W. 2018. “Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language.” Applied Linguistics 39 (1): 9–30.
doi:10.1093/applin/amx039.
Li, W., and P. Martin. 2009. “Conflicts and Tensions in Classroom Codeswitching. A Special
Thematic Issue of The.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12: 2.
Lin, A. M. Y. 2019. “Theories of Trans/Languaging and Trans-Semiotizing: Implications for
Content-Based Education Classrooms.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 22 (1): 5–16. doi:10.1080/13670050.2018.1515175.
Lin, A. M. Y., Y. Wu, and J. L. Lemke. forthcoming. “It Takes a Village to Research a Village’:
Conversations with Jay Lemke on Contemporary Issues in Translanguaging.” In Critical
Plurilingual Pedagogies: Struggling toward Equity Rather than Equality, edited by S. Lau and
S. V. V. Stille. Switzerland. Springer.
Lin, A. M. Y., and P. Martin, Eds.. 2005. Decolonisation, Globalization: Language-In-Education Policy
and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Love, N. 2004. “Cognition and the Language Myth.” Language Sciences 26 (6): 525–544.
doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.003.
Martin, P. (2005). “‘Safe’ Language Practices in Two Rural Schools in Malaysia: Tensions between
Policy and Practice.” In Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-education Policy and Practice,
edited by A. M. Y. Lin and P. W. Martin, 74–97. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ortega Y Gasset, J. 1957. “What People Say: Language. Toward a New Linguistics.” In Man and
People, Ch. II, edited by W. R. Trask, 222–257. W.W. Norton.
Probyn, M. 2009. “‘Smuggling the Vernacular into the Classroom’: Conflicts and Tensions in
Classroom Codeswitching in Township/Rural Schools in South Africa.” International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12 (2): 123–136. doi:10.1080/13670050802153137.
Swain, M. 2006. “Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Learning.”
In Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky, edited by H. Byrnes,
95–108. London: Continuum.
Thibault, P. J. 2011. “First-Order Languaging Dynamics and Second-Order Language: The Distributed
Language View.” Ecological Psychology 23 (3): 210–245. doi:10.1080/10407413.2011.591274.
Thibault, P. J. 2017. “The Reflexivity Of Human Languaging and Nigel Love’s Two Orders Of
Language,” Language Sciences. 61: 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014
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],’ Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Bangor doi:10.3168/jds.
S0022-0302(94)77044-2