• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Translanguaging: Does It Work in EFL Contexts?

November 2022 – Volume 26, Number 3

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a25

Willy A Renandya
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
<willy.renandyaatmarknie.edu.sg>

Anna C S Chang
Hsing Wu University
<anacschangatmarkyahoo.com>

Translanguaging is an idea that is often contrasted with previously dominant concepts in language education, e.g., monolingualism, interlanguage, native-speakerism. These concepts are now considered dated and when applied in language education, according to proponents of translanguaging, may harm rather than facilitate learning. The newer and more progressive terms today include bilingualism, multilingualism and plurilingualism (just to name a few) which are increasingly seen as major improvements over the linguistic imperialism of the past. Adopting these approaches is now seen as politically correct in that we are seen as championing inclusivity and diversity in education. The term translanguaging has become so trendy that it is not easy to find detractors.

A cursory look at recent publications in major journals shows that translanguaging is currently one of the hottest research topics in language education. Language researchers have now examined translanguaging from both theoretical and practical angles in diverse language learning contexts. Their collective insights are that translanguaging pedagogy can help (i) “address linguistic inequities and injustices in the classroom” and (ii) “develop flexible, plurilingual spaces in the classroom where learners’ full linguistic repertoires can be leveraged as a resource in meaning-making or communication” (Li, this volume). One wonders if anyone would disagree with such noble goals in education.

Some of the big names in the translanguaging movement include Li Wei, Ofelia Garcia and Suresh Canagarajah whose work has inspired numerous studies and publications on the topic in the past two decades. It is worth noting that translanguaging scholars are more sociolinguistically-inclined in their theoretical orientations than the typical TESOL scholars whose theoretical orientations are mostly informed by research in ELT. The former are typically more interested in how social and political factors affect language learning, while the latter are more interested in linguistic, cognitive, affective, and other classroom-related factors that can facilitate or hinder language acquisition.

Not surprisingly, there are comparatively few TESOL scholars who whole-heartedly embrace translanguaging pedagogy. In fact, the construct of translanguaging is often understood by TESOL practitioners simply as an approach that allows L2 learners to make use of their L1 in the L2 classroom. Concepts such as code-switching/mixing and use of bilingual dictionaries are familiar ideas that TESOL practitioners, at varying degrees, are already using in their teaching. But for a good majority, the full concept of translanguaging as defined by sociolinguists may be a little foreign to them. Some may adopt the approach without fully understanding its theoretical orientations, while others may simply dismiss it as being of little relevance to language learning.

In a recent book by Cenoz & Gorter (2021), the authors provide a brief description of what translanguaging is and how it can be applied in numerous language learning contexts. It is a good read for those who know very little about translanguaging and its origins, theoretical underpinnings, and potential applications in language education. Overall, the authors are in favour of translanguaging and are advocating a wider adoption of translanguaging pedagogy.

Here is a quote from the book that caught our attention.

Pedagogical translanguaging is at the crossroads of several areas of applied linguistics because it is related to bilingual and multilingual education, second and foreign language acquisition and teaching and majority and minority languages (p. 43).

Reading the quote above, one may get the impression that translanguaging pedagogy can be applied regardless of our teaching contexts, i.e., whether we teach English in monolingual, bilingual, multilingual, plurilingual, or the more traditional EFL contexts where English is typically learned as a school subject and where students often start learning the language from scratch. Would translanguaging work in the EFL contexts? Would it help learners develop confidence in using the target language for social and academic communication?

Hard to say. Research on translanguaging to date seems to be done mostly in non-EFL contexts. In addition, the focus of the research seems to be more on content rather than language learning. Translanguaging research is typically done in EMI (English as the Medium of Instruction) contexts. While there is a focus on language, the primary goal of instruction is more on the mastery of course content than language development. A popular approach is CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), where content is presented using simplified language and further supported by the use of visual or graphical information to make the lessons more palatable.

Our thought is that translanguaging is probably more applicable in immersion or semi-immersion contexts (e.g., EMI, CLIL, or other Bilingual programmes) when students already have a certain level of proficiency in two or three languages. In these contexts, allowing students to translanguage when learning content makes a lot of sense.

We are, however, not so sure if translanguaging would help EFL teachers improve their students’ proficiency in the target language.  In order to help students increase their command of the target language, say from A1 to A2 or from A2 to B1, EFL teachers would need to draw theoretical wisdom from well-established second language acquisition theories (e.g., Ellis, 2014, Lichtman & VanPatten, 2021, and Krashen, Lee & Lau, 2017). EFL practitioners are also more likely to consult practice-oriented ELT resources (e.g., Hinkle, 2023; Richards & Renandya, 2002) when designing their day-to-day lessons and when assessing learning outcomes.

In conclusion, whether translanguaging is an approach that can help us achieve our curricular goals is for us to decide. But our decision should be guided by a set of evidence-based principles, and not by what is currently trendy or fashionable.

About the Authors

Willy A Renandya is a language teacher educator teaching language education courses at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests include language acquisition, extensive reading and teacher professional development. He writes regularly in his blog: https://willyrenandya.com. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1183-0267

Anna C S Chang is professor in Applied English Department at Hsing Wu University, Taipei, Taiwan. She has published extensively in international refereed journals such as TESOL Quarterly, System and Reading in a Foreign Language. Her main research interests focus on listening and reading development and vocabulary learning. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4216-6394

To Cite this Article

Renandya, W. & Chang, A. (2022). Translanguaging: Does it work in EFL contexts? Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 26 (3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a25

References

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, M. A. Snow, & D. Bohlke (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second of Foreign Language (pp. 31-45). Cengage Learning.

Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2023). Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning. Routledge.

Krashen, S. D., Lee, S. Y., & Lao, C. (2017). Comprehensible and compelling: The causes and effects of free voluntary reading. ABC-CLIO.

Li, G. (this volume). Toward inclusive translanguaging in multilingual classrooms. TESL-EJ.

Lichtman, K., & VanPatten, B. (2021). Was Krashen right? Forty years later. Foreign Language Annals, 54(2), 283-305.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.

© 1994–2025 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.