Translanguaging

Plurilingual education portal

Subject classification: this is an education resource.

Type classification: this resource is a course.

Starting activity

Watch the two videos below and observe the use of languages by the people and characters. These practices could be described as translanguaging. How would you define translanguaging?

Objectives

At the end of this section, you should be able to...

know what translanguaging is;
be familiar with different concepts of translanguaging;
critically evaluate this perspective on plurilingualism.

Keywords

Plurilinguism, theories, translanguaging or translinguistic practices

Prerequisites

If necessary, review the page on theories and models of plurilingualism.

Introduction

For many years, bilingualism was understood as the mastery of two languages. Bilingual individuals were often perceived as having deficient skills in both languages.

Since the 1980s, however, the perception of plurilingualism and plurilinguals in academic literature has evolved. Plurilinguals are now recognized as people who use languages in specific ways and possess particular linguistic skills.

The concept of translanguaging, which has gained prominence in recent years, describes these plurilingual practices that go beyond the (real or imagined) boundaries between languages.

History of the concept

For a long time, bilingualism was seen as the mastery of two languages and the ability to switch seamlessly between them (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). This has often led to a deficit view of individuals who use two (or more) languages in their daily lives. They were sometimes designated as “semilinguals” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981) because they did not possess the competences expected by the normative standard in their different languages.

Since the 1980s, many researchers have taken a different view of plurilingualism and plurilinguals. They believe that these are people with specific uses of languages and particular skills (Grosjean, 1982, 2010; Lüdi & Py, 1986). Gradually, the idea that plurilinguals have a unique and specific competence and different resources in the different languages became established (Cook, 1992, 2016, 2020; Cummins, 1981). Coste, Moore and Zarate (2009) have defined what they call “plurilingual and pluricultural competence”, which is at the heart of the political and pedagogical project of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) and its Companion Volume (Council of Europe, 2021). The notion of a single competence means that different resources can be mobilised to communicate and learn languages. This leads us to recognize that plurilinguals often engage in translinguistic practices - especially among themselves - by mixing languages in communication.

Recently, various publications have developed the concept of translanguaging to describe these practices across the (real or imagined) borders between languages.

The origins of the term ‘translanguaging’ go back to bilingual education in Wales in the 1980s. The Welsh term trawsieithu, coined by the educator Cen Williams and later translated into English as translanguaging, refers to a planned teaching strategy that systematically integrates multiple languages (English and Welsh, in the Welsh context) within a single lesson to support understanding, writing and speaking (Lewis et al., 2012, p. 643). In this way, a text can for example be read in one language and summarised in another (Egli Cuenat, 2025).

The term was then taken up by North American research, in order to particularly describe and valorize the linguistic practices of LatinX communities - primarily in the United States - for whom the use of several languages (English and Spanish) and their blending (Spanglish) is integral to everyday communication.

Used in a variety of contexts in which plurilingualism takes diverse forms, translanguaging can be understood as a broad umbrella term that encompasses a range of theoretical and practical approaches (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020, p. 2).

Conceptions

Dimensions of translanguaging

Work on translanguaging is multifaceted: it describes language practices that involve the blending of languages, includes a pedagogical dimension (often referred to as pedagogical translanguaging) and, in some cases, carries a strong political dimension.

Two underlying theories: UTT and CTT

After reviewing the literature, Cummins (2021; 2022; 2025) suggests a distinction of two theories underlying pedagogical translanguaging: UTT (unitary translanguaging theory) and CTT (crosslinguistic translanguaging theory).

UTT (unitary translanguaging theory)

UTT (unitary translanguaging theory), particularly prominent in García's work, posits that bilinguals do not speak languages, but use the resources of their repertoire selectively to communicate (García & Lin, 2016, p. 10). According to this view, they possess a single linguistic system rather than a sum of distinct languages. To communicate, they use all their resources without making distinctions based on named languages.

According to this approach, languages do not exist; they have no reality, either linguistic or cognitive. For Garcia and Wei, languages are political constructs, not linguistic systems. At the socio-political level, authors such as Flores and Rosa (2015) believe that teaching the standard (normative) language leads to a stigmatization of learners' authentic linguistic varieties (Cummins 2021, p. 9-10).

CTT (crosslinguistic translanguaging theory)

CTT (crosslinguistic translanguaging theory), by contrast, does not challenge the existence of languages. They are viewed as historical, cultural, and ideological constructs with material consequences that shape social action (Cummins, 2021, p. 17). The CTT approach also affirms the legitimacy of the following (widely accepted) concepts:

Additive bilingualism: refers to the learning of a second language (L2) in addition to the first language (L1), without replacing it. In other words, the two languages coexist and develop, each reinforcing the individual's cognitive and linguistic skills.

Common underlying proficiency: The central idea of the common underlying competence (Cummins, 1984) is that the skills developed in languages have a common cognitive base, even if the languages are different on the surface (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc.).
Interlingual transfer: Transfer refers to the process whereby a learner uses elements of a known language, e.g. French, to understand or produce another language, e.g. Spanish. While positive transfers - such as université/universidad, livre/libro, bouteille/botella - facilitate learning, negative transfers, also known as interference, lead to erroneous results. For example, the Spanish word raro does not mean rare in French, but rather strange or bizarre.

What they have in common

Despite the relatively significant differences at the theoretical level, the claims of the proponents of the two theories are similar when it comes to promoting translanguaging in practice. The term pedagogical translanguaging encompasses approaches aimed at consciously activating learners' plurilingual resources - both L1 and other language resources acquired in formal or informal settings.

Pedagogical translanguaging is thus integrated into the didactic planning of the course and pursues a precise learning objective. Oral and written activities can cover phonetics, vocabulary, morphosyntax and text. They can be carried out in language classes, but also in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Cenoz & Gorter 2020, p. 3). Examples of activities include bilingual or multilingual discussions or presentations, collaborative multilingual writing (e.g. of a poem), reading and comparison of parallel texts (i.e. of the same text in two languages) and cross-readings (comparison of texts dealing with the same theme, but from different languages or cultural contexts).

It is important to note that many of these activities proposed in translanguaging approaches are also carried out in more “traditional” pluralistic approaches such as intercomprehension and integrated language didactics (Candelier et al. 2012). With regard to vocabulary, for example, learners can be asked to consciously search for words from related languages to facilitate the comprehension process (Cenoz & Gorter 2020, 3).

Examples of adaptable pedagogical practices are available on the PEP project website:

Criticism of translanguaging

Criticism of the UTT and the questioning of the existence of languages

Cummins is one of several researchers to raise a critical voice against the early work of García and her followers on translanguaging. The author believes that there are many arguments against questioning the existence of languages. To this end, he refers to work on aphasia (Bhatt & Bolonyai, 2022, cited by Cummins, 2025), which indicates that languages exist at the cognitive level. This work has, in fact, shown that each language corresponds to specific forms of neural organization. Moreover, he believes it would be paradoxical to rely on knowledge of one language - for example, the recognition of similar words - to learn another, if we deny the linguistic reality of languages.

Criticism of translanguaging hegemony and risks

Cavalli and Egli Cuenat (2024) deplore the hegemony of the term translanguaging, which tends to replace other terms and even eclipse various existing works. This is especially true of the “radical” version of translanguaging represented in texts by García and colleagues. Egli Cuenat (2025) believes that “the generalization of radical translanguaging, without taking into account historical and socio-political contexts, may reduce it to a mere educational slogan disconnected from local realities”. Furthermore, questioning languages as such could weaken efforts to preserve minority languages and favor the supremacy of English particularly in academic usage, where this language tends to impose itself ‘quite naturally’ (Cavalli & Egli Cuenat, 2024, 11).

These authors also criticize work on translanguaging for ignoring the many previous works on plurilingualism and its promotion.

Pioneering work ignored - The example of interlectal practices

One example of this overlooked work is research into so-called “interlectal” practices (Prudent, 1981, p. 198; Souprayen-Cavery, 2010) in French territories where French and a French-based creole exist. Interlectal specialists describe daily mixtures of French and creole that could now be described as translanguaging. In these practices, the boundary between the two “lects” sometimes becomes imperceptible, and while linguists can quite often link certain elements to one of the languages involved, they are sometimes unable to distinguish between them. These pioneering works are not mentioned by translanguaging specialists.

Take-home messages

The term translanguaging brings together different theoretical conceptions. What unites the translanguaging approaches is the fact that they are based on a social justice agenda, addressing the needs of minority learners for equitable education and social inclusion. In practice, pedagogical translanguaging seeks to integrate and promote learners' plurilingual resources (L1 and other languages).

Translanguaging, especially in its "radical" version, which calls into question the cognitive and linguistic existence of languages, is subject to a number of criticisms.

Self-assessment

In what specific context was the term translanguaging first used?
What are the main differences between the two underlying theories of translanguaging: UTT (unitary translanguaging theory) and CTT (crosslinguistic translanguaging theory)?
What is the general aim of pedagogical translanguaging?

Resources to go further

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765
Juvonen, P., & Källkvist, M. (2021). Pedagogical Translanguaging: Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Perspectives. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788927383
MacSwan, J. (2022). Multilingual Perspectives on Translanguaging. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800415690

Bibliography

Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V. De Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., … Schröder-Sura, A. (2012). Le CARAP. Un cadre de référence pour les approches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Compétences et ressources. Graz : Centre européen pour les langues vivantes. https://carap.ecml.at/Portals/11/documents/CARAP-FR-web.pdf

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020) Pedagogical translanguaging. An introduction. System, 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102269

Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 44(4), 557‑591. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x

Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. Dans L. Wei & V. Cook (Éds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence (p. 1‑25). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107425965.001

Cook, V. (2020). Multicompetence. Dans C.A. Chapelle (Éd.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (p. 1‑6). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0778.pub2

Conseil de l’Europe. (2001). Un cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : Apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Didier ; Conseil de l’Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8

Conseil de l’Europe. (2021). Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : Apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume complémentaire. Conseil de l’Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cadre-europeen-commun-de-reference-pour-les-langues-apprendre-enseigne/1680a4e270

Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle : Vers un cadre européen commun de référence pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues vivantes. Version révisée et enrichie d’un avant-propos et d’une bibliographie complémentaire. Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe. https://rm.coe.int/168069d29c

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. Dans California State Department of Education (Éd.), Schooling and language minority students : A theoretical framework (p. 16‑62). California State University.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2021). Translanguaging: A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Claims. Dans P. Juvonen, & M. Källkvist (Éd.), Pedagogical Translanguaging. Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Perspectives (p. 7-36). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788927383-004

Cummins, J. (2022). Pedagogical translanguaging: Examining the credibility of unitary versus crosslinguistic translanguaging theory. OLBI Journal, 12, 33-55. https://doi.org/10.18192/olbij.v12i1.6073

Cummins, J. (2026). Translanguaging: Contrasting unitary and crosslinguistic theoretical conceptions. In C. Ollivier & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Encyclopédie de l'éducation plurilingue. Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education (p. 326-328). Peter Lang. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1588003

Egli Cuenat, M. (2026). Translanguaging - Une perspective critique. In C. Ollivier & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Encyclopédie de l'éducation plurilingue. Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education (p. 317-319). Peter Lang. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1588003

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015) Undoing appropriateness. Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education.Harvard Educational Review, 85, 149–171.

García, O., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2017). Translanguaging in Bilingual Education. Dans O. García, A.M.Y. Lin., & S. May (Éd.). Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_9

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages : An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual : Life and reality. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674056459

Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging. Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718488

Lüdi, G., & Py, B. (1986). Etre bilingue. Peter Lang.

Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton University Press; https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6269074M/Speech_and_brain-mechanism

Prudent, L.-F. (1981). Diglossie et interlecte. Langages, 61, 13‑38.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not : The education of minorities (L. Malmberg & D. Crane, Trad.). Multilingual Matters.

Souprayen-Cavery, L. (2010). L’interlecte réunionnais : Approche sociolinguistique des pratiques et des représentations. Harmattan.

Credits

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

Christoph Hülsmann (Paris Lodron Universität Salzburg)
Christian Ollivier (Université de La Réunion).