By Melissa Enns
For those who are newer to this blog, a topic that has been of great interest to me is translanguaging. I have written a series of posts on the topic and will be referring to several of them today, as they might be helpful to build a broader understanding of the topic. I won’t repeat what I’ve written previously; instead, this post connects the concept of metalinguistic knowledge with translanguaging and offers a teaching strategy that encourages both.
In Metalinguistic Knowledge: More Layers, I argued that metalinguistic knowledge in one language is useful to the learning of another. Jessner (1999) views the comparison of different languages as a productive activity in improving metalinguistic understanding and developing useful metacognitive language learning strategies. This idea is echoed in Cummins’ (2005) comment that “failure to draw students’ attention to cognate relationships across languages” actually limits their learning (p. 588). In other words, the assumption that learners’ first languages are a hindrance to target language learning is not necessarily true. This idea brings us into translanguaging territory.
To recapitulate, translanguaging is a term used to denote a different way of thinking about languages and the ways people view and use them. It is a perspective in which people’s languages are viewed as flexible linguistic resources that do not have clear separations in users’ minds, but rather are called upon strategically in response to different social settings and needs (García 2011; Otheguy et al., 2015). In other words, instead of being kept strictly separated, proponents of translanguaging argue that elements of speakers’ different languages actually “leak into one another” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 106).
Any language-lover who has spent a day in Montreal can certainly attest to the fascinating effects of the city’s linguistic diversity (and language laws) on signage and speech everywhere. I can assure you that in a short ride on the metro, you will hear conversations with elements of two or more languages in them. It is not an aberration; it’s a social reality and indicates somethings about speakers’ social competence. I am certainly not arguing that languages should be taught without boundaries; however, if we view the boundaries as socially mediated, we are free to make use of the linguistic resources students already possess rather than attempting to keep their languages separated, as has traditionally been common practice (García 2011; Otheguy et al., 2015; Creese & Blackledge, 2010).
Some of the strategies I have mentioned for increasing metalinguistic awareness, thus may constitute translanguaging and, as such, serve additional purposes. According to Palmer et al. (2014), allowing learners to draw from their first language affirms their linguistic identity construction and contributes to greater investment in language learning. Furthermore, beyond stimulating growth of metalinguistic knowledge, incorporation of translanguaging practices in the language classroom is believed to increase learners’ activity in both languages (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012) and scaffold and support their linguistic and academic success (Palmer, et al., 2014; Celiz & Selzer, 2011).
We have already talked about the value of drawing attention to cognates (click here to see the posts), and I have written about some other useful translanguaging activities, including creative translation projects (see the post here). If you have time to look through some of that material, I have shared a good number of personal examples and practical suggestions and would love to hear what you think about them.
Finally, the additional strategy I wish to present is the use of multilingual projects and texts (Celic & Selzter, 2011). These can take on many forms, but the common element is that students collaborate to complete some parts of the work in the target language but are free to use whichever language they want for others. For example, they may brainstorm in any language but do their writing in the target language. Conversely, they may listen to an audio file in the target language and discuss it in any language. There is a lot of room for creativity here, as this could easily be done with multimedia projects, skits, or art, in which they could brainstorm and plan in any language and present in the target language.
These ideas may seem worrisome, but remember that activities like this will not only validate learners’ home languages and identity, but they will also stimulate learners’ development of language-learning strategies and help them build their metalinguistic knowledge. Additionally, these types of activities are believed to build students’ content knowledge, engage their higher-order thinking skills, and scaffold their literacy skills in the target language (Celic & Seltzer, 2011). With all that being said, it is important that educators emphasize that students’ linguistic choices should be based on how they will learn more efficiently since they still have to be able to meet target language objectives.
Celic and Seltzer offer clear descriptions of many more strategies that productively incorporate learners’ home languages in the target language classroom in their useful Translanguaging Guide, which can be downloaded here.
As you can see, there is overlap between translanguaging practices and those used to increase metalinguistic knowledge, and in all of the examples here, learners are permitted to tap into their first language in ways that advance their learning of the target language. What do you think of the strategies suggested here? What challenges do you think you might encounter in implementing them in your context, and how could you counter them?
Please note that the Ramblings of a Linguaphile site is currently being used for thesis research. Between June 14, 2017, and November 30, 2017, any comments made on posts to this site may be used for research purposes. The identity of the person who posted the comment will be kept anonymous. For more information about the study, please see the About page. By commenting, you consent to participate.
Celic & K. Seltzer. Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York: CUNY-NYSIEB. Retrieved from www.nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/06/FINAL-Translanguaging
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94 (i). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/stable/25612290.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585-592. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588628.
García, O. (2011). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic & K. Seltzer.
Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York: CUNY-NYSIEB.
Retrieved from www.nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/06/FINAL-Translanguaging
Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. Language Awareness, 8, 201-209. Doi: 10.1080/09658419908667129.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307.
Palmer, D., Mateus, G., Martinez, R., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757-772. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12121.x0026-7902/14/757-772.