I consider this a monolingual approach, not a translanguaging one, because the focus is still on which language is being used. Many of the critiques of translanguaging I’ve encountered seem to simply define it as using multiple languages at once, or using the L1 in the L2 classroom. study abroad) will lead to monolingual immersion. Monolingual language ideologies are frequently the perspective used to analyze multilingualism, and we see this in expectations of the “balanced bilingual” (two monolingual speakers in one!), the view that a monolingual environment is the best way to learn a language, and the expectation that crossing national borders (e.g. This perspective is a response to the socially dominant ideological position based in monolingual language ideologies, where linguistic, ethnic, and national boundaries are assumed to be mutually reinforcing. To me, translanguaging is an ideological position, or a perspective on language itself, that shifts the focus from languages as the point of reference ( which language am I using?) to the linguistic repertoires of individual speakers ( how am I using the features in my linguistic repertoire to achieve my goal in this particular social context?). I work in a different context, and don’t want to claim that my views exactly match or represent García’s, as they may not, but her work is certainly the most influential on my thinking. My understanding of translanguaging theory is based primarily on the work of Ofelia García and her colleagues, who developed their theories mostly in the context of bilingual education settings in the United States. However, I honestly haven’t found the critiques of translanguaging I’ve encountered compelling, so I thought I would discuss them here.įirst, it’s important to clarify what I mean by translanguaging, as I think the bulk of the critiques I’ve encountered are using a different definition, which makes it confusing to argue. Personally, I’m always interested in critiques of ideas I feel strongly about (to the extent that I frequently google “critique of _” just out of curiosity). Critique is a necessary part of academic work and theoretical development, so this is important. Over the past few years, translanguaging as a theoretical framework has risen in popularity (at least in my circles) and this means that critiques of it have also become more vocal, something I definitely noticed attending the recent AAAL Conference.

Monolingual approach