Translanguaging or code-switching?

Garcia (2009) argued that bilingual contacts are distinguished by ‘borrowings’ or ‘loans’ of words along with their meaning from other languages. These borrowings are characterised by phonological and grammatical assimilations while at other times bilinguals borrow the meaning of a word but use the word in their home language (García, 2009). For example, bilinguals do not separate languages but move across languages while talking. This mobile linguistic approach was defined as “code- switching”. More precisely, code-switching can be defined as the combination of two “different grammatically” languages during discursive exchanges (García, 2009). Lin (1997, p. 273) referred to classroom code-switching as “the alternating use of more than one linguistic code in the classroom by any of the classroom participants (e.g. Teachers, students)”. Some researchers separate code-switching from code-mixing by advocating that code-switching is characterised as an ability to choose the language based on its linguistic characteristics and according to recognisable external cues while code-mixing refers to mixing elements of languages because the interlocutor is not aware of the way to distinguish between them (García, 2009).

Code-switching is used spontaneously among bilingual speakers and even though it is considered by some as an inadequate knowledge of both languages, it has been shown that code-switching is an advanced linguistic skill and characterises proficient bilinguals (García, 2009). Martin- Jones & Heller (1996) state that research has focused its attention mostly on the use of code-switching as a way of scaffolding the construction of knowledge by using both languages when learning. At the same time, researchers around the world questioned the boundaries set around languages and

presented the educational benefits behind “code- switching”. Lin and Arthur (2005) and Arthur and Martin (2006) supported the pedagogic potentials of code-switching maximising the inclusion, participation, and enhancing understandings of students in the learning processes.

Martin-Jones (1995; Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996) stated that code-switching is a popular way of describing and understanding classroom talk as it enables the use of local discursive practices such as distinguishing among various forms of talk, maximising participation during discussions, repeating a point and highlighting new information. Further, it was argued that teachers do not understand the pedagogic advantages of code-switching because of the educational constraints that create distance between students’ linguistic knowledge, the knowledge of the linguistic resources they bring to school and the type of knowledge promoted by educational settings (Martin- Jones &Heller, 1996).

Li Wei (1997) argued that there is an immediate need for broadened knowledge regarding code-switching in contexts such as the classroom. Arthur’s & Martin’s research (2006) showed that code-switching facilitated students’ understanding and allowed greater participation in the lesson offering the opportunities for ‘silent’ or passive students to become active to the process of learning as well as to interpret and access texts necessary for achieving the targets of a lesson. Lin (1997) suggested that code-switching can be considered as an additional resource for teachers’ linguistic repertoire that will facilitate teaching within the classroom by indicating and negotiating various frames (e.g formal, official, learning frames vs informal friendly

code-switching between English and Cantonese enhanced students’ participation and understanding. However, Lin (1999) stated that the development of bilingual discursive practices where code-switching is used as a primary method can easily be transferred to other classrooms in other contexts where code-switching is not accepted but also considered as a learning difficulty.

Martin (2005) questioned whether bilingual pedagogies can facilitate learning by supporting communication such as the development of the exploratory talk which is necessary for constructive and creative discussions that will enable collaborative reasoning. Creese & Blackledge (2010) advocated that moving between two languages is a natural process and can be beneficial for learning. However, the development of such theory needs to take into account the socio-political and historical context where bilingual practices can be performed, teachers’ pedagogic abilities as well as the local ecologies of schools and classrooms which have to be able to adopt the linguistic background of each student (Creese & Blackledge, 2010).

While research on code-switching focused on language interference, transfer, borrowing and loan, the concept of translanguaging expands its focus from cross- linguistic influence and highlights that bilinguals interrelate and mix the linguistic characteristics of a specific language variety which are institutionally and linguistically officialised (García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012). Translanguaging focuses on the communicative mode of language and the way it is used by bilingual communities and not just on spoken language (Hornberger & Link, 2012).

Lewis et al. (2012a; 2012b) argued that translanguaging in the classroom is historically related to code-switching. Code- switching was once again defined as the combination of two languages in the same sentence in classroom discussions which was also characterised as a creative strategy by the language learner (Lewis et al. 2012a). Lewis et al’s (2012a) research questioned the primary idea that translanguaging was related to intentional and planned use of two languages since data showed spontaneous use of translanguaging using both their languages to enhance their understanding and achieve progress (Lewis et al. 2012a).

Code-switching is considered to be part of the field of linguistics which examines the speech of bilinguals and translanguaging follows the theoretical framework of sociolinguistics as it is considered to be social, cultural, ecological and situated (Lewis et al. 2012a). Baker (2001) stated that translanguaging is not related to code-switching since it is a pedagogical practice that promotes the natural existence of bilingualism without “functional separation”. Similarly, Lewis et al. (2012a) advocated that code- switching is conceptualising bilingualism as language separation while translanguaging’s ideological framework supports the flexible and fluid character of linguistic resources as two or more languages or linguistic varieties for learning My research focuses on the way students’ translanguage by using both CD and SMG in discussions within the classroom. Emphasis is given to translanguaging as a way of examining students’ bidialectism without separating the functions of CD and SMG as well as highlighting the social, cultural and situated character of learning.

that occurs, from familiarity, power relationships and the linguistic skills of the listeners (Martin Jones, 2000; Baker 2008). Therefore, code-switching can be considered as a powerful scaffolding strategy within bilingual classrooms as well as a method of valorising the connections with the language used at home (García, 2009). This alternation between two linguistic codes can be a systematic, strategic and sense- making process. However, the notion of translanguaging can elevate a more dynamic bilingualism where the input and the output are on purpose in different languages by dual- languaging processing (García, 2009). The requirements for conceptualising translanguaging is that such a practice needs to have context and not just content as well as to be a cognitive and intellectual activity that operates inside as well as outside the context of the classroom and not just about linguistic code (Lewis et al. 2012b). Educators are challenged to change their conceptions regarding translanguaging in classrooms and give greater value to this inclusive pedagogical practice.