Demystifying Translanguaging

From the inception of this Special Issue on translanguaging in deaf communities, we noted that translanguaging is a rapidly evolving field with a broad focus. Academics apply translanguaging theory in various ways, including through educational practices, cognitive functions, and communicative behaviors. In this editorial, we describe the current state of the research on translanguaging, foregrounding the work of notable scholars of color, explore differing definitions in deaf fields, and summarize applications in deaf communities by referencing the work of the authors who contributed to this Special Issue.

Contemporary perspectives on translanguaging diverge from traditional constructs such as bilingualism, translating, and code-switching, which consider languages to be inherently separated. Instead, translanguaging acknowledges that the brain processes all meanings, semiotics, and linguistic features through a single, unified system. Translanguaging embraces the continuous activation of all meaning-making resources during interacting, reading, writing, signing, creating, or thinking. Translanguaging sees people’s choices for language use as performance in response to social demands, such as filtering certain communicative features based on politics, nationality, space, or people. Translanguaging recognizes that people assign names to certain communicative resources, such as “American Sign Language (ASL)”, “English”, or “Spanish”, and attempt to create boundaries between these named languages. By asserting the boundaries across named languages, people establish expectations about how one should communicate. Vogel and García (2017, p. 5) elaborate:

“Translanguaging theory recognizes that all people—including those whom society views as monolinguals and those viewed as bilingual or multilingual—have one linguistic repertoire, learned through dynamic social interactions, from which they select and deploy features to make meaning in context… At the same time, however, translanguaging theory recognizes that the linguistic repertoire of the bilingual includes features from what society would view as more than one named language. These named languages carry different statuses and impose different social expectations and constraints upon bilinguals; thus, for bilinguals, there is more ‘complex socio-cultural marking of which features to use, when, and where’ than for monolinguals, who most often speak with the language conventions of the society in which they live.”

In an alternate world where individuals could use their entire repertoire to communicate, language separation would be unlikely, as this is not how language functions on a neurolinguistic level. For instance, a person can seamlessly use features that are named by other people as “ASL”, “English”, and “Spanish” in their expressions. However, along with society, culture, and nationality, social demands and educational training ingrain unique skills in people, enabling them to filter their repertoire and select specific resources to accomplish certain goals. These efforts are typically made to align with societal expectations, political beliefs, and/or practices that are acceptable or accessible to our communication partners.

These social dynamics surrounding communication can have benefits and drawbacks. For example, some language resources become extinct, some merge, and some attempt to remain static. Whether any of these outcomes are worth celebrating depends on our viewpoints and positions in relation to how we use language in society. In the context of the United States, people who only use features that are named English, commonly known as monolinguals, dominate society and dictate how people should communicate. Therefore, the elimination of certain language resources that are not considered as English may be desirable in their view because it serves them. Alternatively, people who use language resources that are considered ASL or Navajo may want to establish ASL-only or Navajo-only spaces to resist the dominance of English. It is important to recognize that in an alternate world void of power dynamics, people would be free to communicate using everything they know, which is arguably the most natural state of communication—without filters or constraints. Translanguaging explores these communicative dynamics while keeping in mind the tensions or dance between innate neurolinguistic functions and social, cultural, and political constructs of language.

Language is a fluid and dynamic construct that is inseparable from the mind and body. It evolves and adapts much like humans do. Yet, people are inclined to categorize and standardize language, which interrupts its fluid state and can become confounding when diverse communities interact and merge. For example, one might ask: At what point do linguistic features used in English that originated from other languages cease to belong to those languages and become English? This question is relevant for any named language, including ASL. For instance, when do signed words in ASL that originated from French Sign Language stop being considered French and start being recognized as distinctly U.S. American? Similarly, what about the current features in ASL that are derived from English? Do they still belong to English or are they now considered part of ASL? These questions may make one muse on the malleability of language, and the answers may depend on each individuals’ power and influence in modifying these boundaries by claiming or rejecting certain features from their language use.

In essence, language is interwoven with meaning properties that can be adopted and used by anyone, transcending the artificial borders we often impose. Henner characterizes translanguaging as “the removal of boundaries between languages and the removal of any prescriptive language policies.” He further illustrates this with a metaphor: “Languages are like rivers. Does an atom of water know it’s in the Mississippi River? Does it know when another river feeds into it? It does not. It’s just water. But we create these political boundaries and these names…” Henner’s analogy elucidates the fluidity of languages and how their histories are shaped by authentic human interactions. This encapsulates the essence of translanguaging.

Translanguaging research commonly explores two domains of language use: studying educational settings, where language is used, taught, and practiced, and studying spontaneous translanguaging, wherein people use language in social situations. The literature on translanguaging is growing exponentially, continuously refining and deepening our understanding of its definition and applications. A recent systematic review highlighted a surge in translanguaging publications from 2018 onwards, primarily targeting students in primary, middle, and tertiary education (Prilutskaya 2021). Another review on the use of translanguaging in English as a Foreign Language classrooms revealed mixed findings: while half the studies favored translanguaging over English-only methods, the other half found no significant differences (Huang and Chalmers 2023). However, some critics argue against viewing translanguaging purely as a deconstructivist concept, suggesting that languages and their labels have genuine psychological significance and differences (MacSwan 2022). Some scholars apply definitions characterizing translanguaging as a practice requiring fluency in two languages (Baker 2011), while other scholars offer dramatically different definitions that apply to all individuals regardless of their language fluency. This discrepancy reflects the rapid evolution of what translanguaging entails and scholars’ differing perspectives on this topic. This Special Issue aims to build a base of knowledge about translanguaging predominately through the lens of deaf scholars to illustrate its potential as a theoretical and practical orientation regarding how deaf people create meaning and communicate. Because deaf individuals constantly navigate communication across modalities, communication partners, and contexts, their perspectives and experiences with translanguaging are rich.

Special Issue Contributions

• Anna Lim (deaf) recounts the experience of translanguaging within a multi-generational family comprising both deaf and hearing members across two different countries. Her paper illustrates how translanguaging is a family affair, even when not all members share the same language, as they navigate communication amongst themselves and with others in medical, societal, and educational contexts.
• Joanne Weber (deaf), Chelsea Jones (hearing), and Abneet Atwal (hearing) examine the dinner table experiences of deaf individuals and their family members. Through interviews, they explore instances where translanguaging occurred in the home environment, as well as missed opportunities for communication. Their findings underscore how spoken language is frequently privileged in the home setting.
• Jon Henner (deaf) and Octavian Robinson (deaf) connect their Crip Linguistics theory to translanguaging in deaf education. They analyze the influence of whiteness and abledness on language assessments and elucidate the biases against marginalized individuals. They offer insights into the importance of teachers’ fluency in signed language for deaf students.
• Brittany Lee (hearing) and Kristen Secora (hearing) conduct a literature review to examine fingerspelling as a versatile translanguaging practice employed by deaf and hearing individuals across all ages. Fingerspelling surpasses the boundaries of languages and modalities, as it connects with signed, spoken, and printed words and can be utilized in linear or spatial manners. They provide suggestions for pedagogy to maximize the benefits of this practice.
• Michael Skyer (deaf) explores how three faculty members in higher education incorporate diverse meaning-making resources into their learning space. By applying multimodal resources that go beyond linguistic-bound features during communication, they enriched the classroom experience for their students.
• Julia Silvestri (deaf) and Jodi Falk (hearing) employ a grounded theory approach to follow a school’s 3-year transformation from a Total Communication philosophy that implemented Simultaneous Communication (speaking and signing concurrently) to an ASL/English bilingual philosophy that embraces multimodal communication such as tactile ASL and Augmentative and Alternative Communication. The school utilized a language planning process to adopt new language practices, including translanguaging, while avoiding a return to Simultaneous Communication.
• Millicent Musyoka (hearing) presents an overview of prominent translanguaging frameworks in education and offers contextualized applications for educational programs serving deaf students. Although ASL/English bilingual education has made strides in moving away from monolingual stances, it often comes short in supporting multilingual deaf students through translanguaging pedagogy. She provides valuable recommendations for both teacher preparation programs and K-12 educational settings dedicated to supporting multilingual deaf students.
• Kimberly Wolbers (hearing), Leala Holcomb (deaf), and Laura Hamman-Ortiz (hearing) devise a translanguaging framework tailored specifically for deaf education. Their translanguaging framework includes means to affirm and expand on deaf students’ communicative resources via validating students’ idiolects, building metalinguistic knowledge, communicating with external audiences, and critically analyzing the social context. They suggest that the translanguaging framework can be successful when prioritizing deaf students’ access in all communicative decisions while mentioning the resources students bring to the classroom and connecting them to those shared by their broader communities.
• Jessica Scott (hearing) and Scott Cohen (deaf) investigate the functions of translanguaging in science classrooms through a review of the literature on hearing and deaf students. Their findings suggest that leveraging translanguaging practices with deaf students can enhance their knowledge and understanding of science concepts. The 3D spatial nature of signed language, in conjunction with fingerspelling, writing, and drawing, offers unique advantages in supporting concept building within science classes.
• Leala Holcomb (deaf) chronicles the writing development of three deaf siblings from a signing deaf family over the span of their first ten years of life. These siblings exhibited a unified system, incorporating both ASL and English knowledge into their early writing. As they grew older, they increasingly filtered their communicative choices to utilize English resources more exclusively. This change in writing was attributed to the siblings adapting to the predominantly monolingual society in which they are being raised.
• Rhys McGovern (hard of hearing), a speech language pathologist, uses responsive translanguaging instruction with a deaf high school student. The student, who simultaneously speaks and signs, has experienced chronic language deprivation throughout his life in both family and school settings. Detailed accounts are provided on the various translanguaging practices employed during language sessions that promote ASL and English skills, along with evidence of the student’s growth in terms of language proficiency.
• Onudeah Nicolarakis (deaf) and Thomas Mitchell (deaf) interviewed fifteen signing deaf adults who are considered proficient writers to explore their applications of translanguaging strategies. Their findings reveal that deaf adults use varied translanguaging strategies regularly to facilitate their writing processes, which is suggested to be associated with their overall achievement. These adults activate their whole language knowledge, including ASL, as they write.