Nitary Translanguaging Theory (UTT) and Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory (CTT)

Plurilingual education portal

Subject classification: this is an education resource.

Type classification: this resource is a course.

Starting Activity

Imagine you are observing a classroom where students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds interact.

How do they switch between languages?
Do they use different languages for different purposes (e.g. socializing, academic tasks)?
How would you describe their language use: do they mix languages or use them separately?

Look at the following examples (see Figure 1 and Figure 2): Signs where multiple languages are used (see Linguistic Landscapes in Education).

Now think about the questions below:

How are these languages being used and why?
Try to think of monolingual versions of the examples. How would the communication/messages be different?
Figure 2 - Languages in Paris

Objectives

At the end of this section, you will be able to:

Recognize different theoretical perspectives on plurilingualism.
Understand the implications of a translanguaging approach to language use.
Develop a critical awareness of how plurilingualism functions in everyday communication and education.

Keywords

Plurilingualism, linguistic repertoire, bilingualism, multilingualism, translanguaging, language practices, sociolinguistics, education.

Introduction

The study of plurilingualism and its implications for education has evolved significantly over the past decades. Traditionally, language use was conceptualized through monolingual ideologies, where each language was seen as a separate, countable entity. However, more recent theories, such as translanguaging, argue for a more fluid and dynamic vision of language use.

Within this evolving field, the concept of translanguaging has become particularly influential. Rather than viewing multilingual speakers as alternating between separate language systems, translanguaging perspectives emphasize that individuals draw flexibly on their entire linguistic and semiotic repertoire to communicate and make meaning. At the same time, this perspective has generated considerable debate. While some scholars argue that multilingual language use is best understood as a unitary system, others maintain that socially recognized (named) languages continue to have theoretical, cognitive, and pedagogical relevance. This debate is reflected in the distinction between the Unitary Translanguaging Theory (UTT) and the Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory (CTT) (Cummins, 2021).

Plurilingualism therefore refers not only to the knowledge of multiple languages, but also to the ability to mobilize and integrate diverse linguistic resources according to communicative purposes and social contexts. Understanding the different theoretical perspectives on plurilingualism is important because they influence how multilingual competence is conceptualized and how languages are taught, learned, and valued in educational settings.

History of the Concept

The concept of plurilingualism has developed alongside changing perspectives on bilingualism, multilingualism, and language itself. Over time, researchers have moved from viewing languages as separate, autonomous systems to exploring more dynamic and integrated models of multilingual competence. However, these developments have also generated theoretical debate, and different perspectives continue to coexist.

Early views (1950s–1980s)

Early research on bilingualism generally conceptualized languages as separate, stable systems. Bilingual speakers were often assumed to alternate between distinct languages, each functioning independently. For example, Penfield and Roberts (1959) described bilingual speakers as having an "automatic switch" between languages, reflecting the view that languages were stored and accessed separately.

Holistic perspectives (1980s–1990s)

From the 1980s onwards, researchers began challenging strictly monolingual conceptions of bilingualism. Grosjean (1982, 1989) famously argued that "the bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person," emphasizing that bilingual competence should be understood as a unique and integrated phenomenon. Similarly, Coste, Moore, and Zarate (1997) described plurilingual competence as a complex and composite repertoire rather than the simple addition of separate languages.

Dynamic approaches (2002)

Building on these holistic perspectives, Herdina and Jessner's Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (2002) proposed that multilingual competence is constantly evolving through interactions among languages, cognitive processes, and environmental influences. Their work highlighted that multilingual systems are dynamic rather than static.

Critical perspectives (2007–2009)

Critical sociolinguists further questioned the status of languages as natural, bounded entities. Makoni and Pennycook (2007) argued that named languages should be understood as social and political constructs rather than pre-existing objects. García (2009) extended this perspective by proposing that multilingual speakers draw on an integrated linguistic repertoire instead of operating separate language systems.

Translanguaging theories (2009–present)

Building on these developments, García (2009) reconceptualized the notion of translanguaging, a term originally introduced by Cen Williams in Wales to describe bilingual pedagogical practices. While Williams' conception referred primarily to alternating languages for learning activities (e.g., reading in one language and discussing or writing in another), García broadened the concept into a theoretical framework that views multilingual speakers as drawing flexibly on an integrated linguistic repertoire. This broader interpretation has become highly influential in multilingual education, while also giving rise to considerable theoretical debate.

More recently, however, scholars have debated how multilingual competence should be understood theoretically. Cummins (2021) distinguishes between two major perspectives. The Unitary Translanguaging Theory (UTT) proposes that multilinguals draw on a single integrated linguistic system and questions the cognitive reality of separate languages. In contrast, the Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory (CTT) accepts that languages are socially constructed rather than natural entities but argues that named languages remain meaningful categories for understanding multilingual competence, crosslinguistic transfer, and educational practice.

Consequently, contemporary research no longer focuses on whether multilingual speakers use all their linguistic resources—they clearly do—but rather on how these resources should be conceptualized. While UTT emphasizes a unitary linguistic repertoire, CTT maintains that socially recognized languages continue to play an important role in cognition, communication, and education. This ongoing debate has important implications for language teaching, curriculum design, and multilingual pedagogy.

Definitions and Theoretical Perspectives

Plurilingualism: “the dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire of an individual user/learner” (Council of Europe, 2020, p. 30)

Translanguaging: A perspective that sees language use as fluid, where speakers move across linguistic boundaries without adhering to rigid categorizations.

According to Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015, p. 281), translanguaging refers to the deployment of multilingual speakers' full linguistic, semiotic, and multimodal repertoire "without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages."

Canagarajah (2011) describes translanguaging as the strategic use of all available linguistic resources to communicate effectively. This perspective emphasizes that multilingual speakers select linguistic forms according to their communicative needs and contexts, challenging the traditional view of languages as separate, autonomous systems.

Similarly, Li Wei (2011) argues that multilingual speakers create translanguaging spaces, in which they draw on their full linguistic repertoires to make meaning, communicate, and construct knowledge.

Although translanguaging has become an influential framework, its theoretical assumptions remain the subject of scholarly debate. Critics argue that the unitary conception of multilingual competence may underestimate the continuing relevance of named languages as socially recognized constructs, particularly in education, language policy, and language assessment (Cummins, 2021; Treffers-Daller, 2024).

Linguistic Repertoire: The full range of linguistic and semiotic resources an individual has access to, regardless of conventional language boundaries.

A linguistic repertoire includes resources acquired through different experiences, such as languages learned at home, in school, or independently, and speakers may have varying levels of proficiency in each. These resources can serve different communicative functions—for example, in family interactions, education, work, or identity construction—and are often used in combination. Rather than being fixed, linguistic repertoires are dynamic and continually evolve as individuals encounter new communicative situations. From this perspective, language learning is understood as a process of extending, reorganizing, and enriching one's repertoire.

More recently, Piccardo (2017) has proposed the concept of plurilanguaging, extending the notion of languaging to emphasize the dynamic, agentive, and emergent nature of plurilingual communication and learning. Drawing on Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, she argues that language learning is not a linear process of acquiring separate languages but a recursive process in which learners actively construct meaning through mediation, awareness, and the flexible use of linguistic and semiotic resources. In this perspective, plurilanguaging can be understood as the operationalization of plurilingualism in educational contexts.

Unitary Translanguaging Theory (UTT) (Cummins, 2021): UTT proposes that multilingual speakers draw on a single, integrated linguistic system rather than on separate language systems. Consequently, named languages are viewed primarily as social constructs rather than as distinct cognitive entities.

Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory (CTT) (Cummins, 2021): CTT recognizes the flexible use of multilingual speakers' full linguistic repertoire while maintaining that named languages remain meaningful categories for understanding multilingual competence, crosslinguistic transfer, and language education.

According to Cummins (2021), the principal difference between these perspectives lies in how they conceptualize the status of named languages. UTT argues that multilinguals operate through a unitary linguistic system, whereas CTT accepts that, although languages are socially constructed, they remain useful theoretical and pedagogical constructs. CTT therefore emphasizes the importance of crosslinguistic relationships, transfer, additive bilingualism, and explicit connections between languages in educational contexts.

Both theories recognize that languages are shaped by social contexts rather than being fixed, natural entities, and both challenge traditional assumptions that languages should always be kept strictly separate in educational settings. They also agree that multilingual speakers flexibly mobilize their available linguistic resources according to communicative needs. However, they differ in the extent to which they attribute theoretical, cognitive, and pedagogical significance to named languages.

Practical Examples

Example 1: Linguistic Landscapes

Multilingual signs in public spaces demonstrate how languages coexist and interact. A street sign in Brussels may include French, Dutch, and English, reflecting social and political dimensions of plurilingualism.

Example 2: Classroom Translanguaging Practices

Students in a bilingual classroom use English for academic tasks but switch to their home language for peer discussions. This challenges traditional monolingual teaching models.

An engaging activity to promote the use of one's entire linguistic repertoire could be a plurilingual debate. Students are given a topic and asked to prepare several arguments. During the debate, they present their points while intentionally switching between the different languages they can use.

Example 3: Crosslinguistic Transfer in Writing

One possible activity for exploiting similarities between languages is described in Kursiša & Richter-Vapaatalo (2018, p. 63). Finnish learners of German compare the typical structure and expressions used in informal emails in German, English, Swedish and Finnish, identifying similarities and differences.

Link: “Mehr als Deutsch”: https://www.goethe.de/prj/dlp/de/unterrichtsmaterial/mehr_als_deutsch

Example 4: Plurilingual Digital Communication

WhatsApp messages mixing multiple languages, emojis, and voice recordings showcase how plurilingualism is naturally integrated into daily interactions.

Take-Home Messages

Plurilingualism refers to the dynamic ability of individuals to draw on and develop their linguistic repertoire for communication and learning across different contexts.
Translanguaging emphasizes the flexible use of multilingual speakers' linguistic resources and challenges traditional views of languages as strictly separate systems.
Unitary Translanguaging Theory (UTT) and Crosslinguistic Translanguaging Theory (CTT) offer different explanations of how multilingual competence is organized. While both recognize the flexible use of linguistic resources, they differ in the role they attribute to named languages.
Both theories agree that languages are shaped by social contexts rather than being fixed entities and question rigid language separation in education. However, there is ongoing debate about the cognitive and pedagogical status of named languages and about the implications of translanguaging for language teaching and learning.

Self-Assessment

Resources to go further

CEFR and Plurilingualism: https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/plurilingualism
CARAP/FREPA: https://carap.ecml.at/
Research on Translanguaging: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14790718.2017.1400501
CUNY-NYSIEB Translanguaging Resources: The City University of New York's New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals offers a comprehensive collection of materials, including articles, videos, and classroom strategies, to support the implementation of translanguaging in educational settings. https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/translanguaging-resources

Bibliography

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(3), 271–283.Relations. Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan
Cavallaro, C. J., & Sembiante, S. F. (2020). Facilitating culturally sustaining, functional literacy practices in a middle school ESOL reading program: a design-based research study. Language and Education, 35(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1775244
Cummins, J. (2021). Translanguaging: A critical analysis of theoretical claims. In P. Juvonen & M. Källkvist (Eds.), Pedagogical Translanguaging: Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Perspectives (pp. 7–36). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788927383
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell, München.
García, O., & Lin, A. (2017). Translanguaging in Bilingual Education. Springer.
Kasula, A. J. (2016). Olowalu Review: Developing identity through translanguaging in a multilingual literary magazine. Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J., 18(2), 109–118.
Kursiša, A., & Richter-Vapaatalo, U. (Eds.). (2018). Mehr als Deutsch! Goethe-Institut Finnland. https://www.goethe.de/prj/dlp/de/unterrichtsmaterial/mehr_als_deutsch
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying Translanguaging and Deconstructing Named Languages. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Translanguaging and the role of language in social identity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 281–297.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton University Press.
Piccardo, E. (2017). Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: A systemic analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169
Treffers-Daller, J. (2024). Unravelling translanguaging: A critical appraisal. ELT Journal, 78(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccad058

Credits

This resource has been created by Projet PEP (discuss • contribs) (Erasmus+ project, co-financed by the European Commission) :

Diego Cortés Velásquez (Università Roma Tre)
Anastasia Gkaintartzi (University of Thessaly)

Portal: Plurilingual education

	A) Bilinguals have an automatic switch that separates languages in their minds.
	B) Multilingual speakers access their linguistic resources as part of a single cognitive system.
	C) Languages should be taught separately to avoid interference.
	D) Translanguaging only happens in informal settings.

	A) They assume bilinguals speak two completely separate languages.
	B) They support language diversity in education.
	C) They promote crosslinguistic mediation.
	D) They encourage translanguaging in the classroom.

	A) CTT rejects the idea of a unitary linguistic system.
	B) CTT advocates for maintaining the concept of specific languages while also supporting additive bilingualism and the transfer of academic skills across languages.
	C) CTT criticizes switching between languages because it assumes the existence of two separate linguistic systems.
	D) CTT argues that languages do not exist as real entities.