Languages as resources: the use of poly- and translanguaging in social contexts

Guest Authors: Magdalena Bakun, Katarzyna Gulińska, Julia Mklif, and Julia Wirkowska
1st Year Students at the MA in English Philology, University of Białystok, Poland

The recent developments in sociolinguistics indicate the growing popularity of the notion of language as a social phenomenon. Consequently, the traditional, structural concept of languages has become undermined in the light of new arguments. The conventional assumption that different languages constitute distinct, bound and isolated packets of linguistic features that do not interweave with other linguistic features, does not verify the reality and the factual use of language (Jørgensen, et al., 2011). Language as a social construct, on the other hand, responds to the needs of the linguistic community who utilise languages according to their needs, as the primary function of language is communication and not merely the representation (Bo, 2015, p. 88). Heller (2007, p. 1), one of the advocates of this phenomenon, supports the notion that speakers tend to draw on linguistic resources which are meaningful in a given social situation. Blommaert (2009, p. 425) argues that people do not learn a closed set of features that build a language, but they rather make use of pieces of language that later on form a repertoire, which is further employed in various interactions. What shapes an individual’s linguistic repertoire is life experience, social relations and power structures.

But even though languages can be socio-culturally or ideologically defined, they cannot be interpreted in terms of the manner in which they are used, nor based on who the language users are. Therefore the concept of languages as social constructs may function but it is not applicable at an analytical level of language practices (Jørgensen, et al., 2011, p. 28). It occurs when people perform languaging, but it is particularly evident in polylanguaging, and translanguaging, the central subjects of discussion in this essay.

A Word on Polylanguaging

Polylanguaging is the real use of the language of the communities characterised by super-diversity. It is manifested through the employment of linguistic resources at their disposal, which are associated with languages other than they operate (Ritzau, 2013, p. 660), and it can be performed even in the situation of a speaker not possessing vast knowledge about the features of the given language. The phenomenon is particularly observable among the youth characterised by ethnic diversity, or those who experience contact with foreign languages on a daily basis either in the educational environment, the Internet, or others (Ritzau, 2013, p. 664). Polylanguaging does not carry only linguistic features in their structural sense, but it also entails values to these features. This is evident in the definition provided by Jørgensen et al. (2011: 34), who validate the use of linguistic features that may be perceived as not compatible. Møller (2008: 235), on the other hand, views polylanguaging as a creative practice and a speaker’s deliberate linguistic exploitation of languages for interactional purposes. Speaker agency is a common point of reference for polylanguaging and translanguaging, a phenomenon described in detail in the subsequent part of this essay.

Speaker Agency and Translanguaging

In accordance with the previous views, in bilingual or multilingual humans there are two or more independent systems of languages (García & Li Wei, 2014), and language acquisition should be held in such a way that does not threaten language mixing (Jørgensen, 2012). However, modern approaches introduce the theory of translanguaging, according to which multilingual speakers have one linguistic repertoire and by selecting the most convenient features, humans are able to communicate without dividing their linguistic knowledge (Robinson et al., 2018, p. 78). The term translanguaging comes from the Welsh trawsieithu and refers to pedagogical practice in which students have to alternate languages to increase in-class productivity (García & Li Wei, 2014, 20).

As García & Li Wei (2014) stated, the theory of translanguaging focuses more on the communicative processes of bi- and multilinguals than specifically on languages. Multilingualism is considered to be dynamic and fluid, languages penetrate each other and the speaker may use all of the resources available to successfully communicate or learn (Robinson, et al., 2018). Moreover, translanguaging challenges English hegemony and purist norms of language by “privileging bilingual performances and legitimizing all the varieties of language” (Robinson, et al., 2018). Due to the increasing diversity and growing number of minority communities, overthrowing English dominance in academic or governmental institutions may turn out to be one of the most crucial stages of creating an inclusive environment.

Translanguaging refers to the intended pedagogical transformation of spoken and written language in both receptive and productive modes. According to García (2009, p. 44) ‘translanguaging, or engaging in bilingual or multilingual discourse practices, is an approach to bilingualism that is centred not on languages as has often been the case, but on the practices of bilinguals that are readily observable’. Students, as well as teachers in different contexts, are able to use more languages and thus use their dynamic variations. Such as vernacular, formal, academic, or based on race, ethnicity, affinity and affiliation.

A Critical View of Resources

Furthermore, Blommaert (2010) defined the valorization, recognition and study of mobile resources as the critical sociolinguistics of globalization. From a social, cultural and

political context, it focuses mainly on the mobility of linguistic and communication resources. It is considered to be an approach to understanding linguistic practices by multilingual people. Among other things, changing the code, i.e. the moment when speakers use two different grammatical systems during the conversation. Moreover, translanguaging focuses not only on the spoken language but also on other modes of communication. Thus, such an extension allows for a better portrayal of language in motion and is able to help change the understanding of literacy language for researchers and teachers.

Translanguaging provides us with methods of crossing socio-cultural barriers in various settings, home, street and school among others. Due to its nature, it is a most useful tool in the endeavour not only to facilitate integration but linguistic knowledge acquisition and skills mastery as well. In their study pertaining to introducing translanguaging in an English-only classroom Robinson et al. (2018: 82) state that it “provided opportunities for the students to examine their definitions of language” and “helped us as researchers and teachers as well as helping the students to understand learning language as a process of strategic adaptation.”

What is more, translanguaging is a common practice in multi- or bilingual families and communities. For the communication to be successful its participants have to draw on their multilingual linguistic repertoires to be able to both understand and be understood. Language practices within such groups are fluid and selected carefully to fit accordingly with the interlocutors (García and Wei, 2004).

Conclusion

Seeing as the language we use shapes our thoughts and beliefs and is of great importance when it comes to establishing one’s identity, employing translanguaging enables us to embrace different cultures and traditions and to celebrate them (Robinson et al. 2018) rather than alienate and isolate, creating socio-cultural barriers and boundaries. Polylanguaging undermines the notion of ‘pure languages’ and encourages unrestricted mixing of various linguistic resources within superdiverse communities. By being culturally inclusive frameworks, poly- and translanguaging challenge the hegemony of English and strive to shift the power and importance from English back to many marginalised native, indigenous and minorities’ languages.

References

Blommaert, J (2009). Language, asylum, and the national order. Current Anthropology, 50(4), 415–441.

Bo, C. (2015). Social constructivism of language and meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, XV(43), 87–113.

García, O. & Li Wei (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave..

Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.) Bilingualism: A Social Approach (pp. 1–22). Palgrave Macmillan, 1–22.

Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

Jørgensen, J. N. (2012). Ideologies and norms in language and education policies in Europe and their relationship with everyday language behaviours. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(1), 57–71

Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M.S., Madsen, L. M. & Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 23–38.

Møller, J. S. 2008. Polylingual performance among Turkish-Danes in late-modern Copenhagen. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 217–236.

Ritzau, U. (2015) Learner language and polylanguaging: how language students’ ideologies relate to their written language use, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(6), 660–675, https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.936822

Robinson, E., Tian, Z., Martínez, T., & Qarqeen, A. (2018). Teaching for justice: Introducing translanguaging in an undergraduate TESOL course. Journal of Language and Education, 4(3), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-3-77-87