System 92 (2020) 102269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction

Jasone Cenoz a, *, Durk Gorter a, b
a
University of the Basque Country, Spain
b
Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 March 2020
Accepted 27 April 2020
Available online 3 May 2020

1. Introduction

There is a strong tradition of teaching second and foreign languages in isolation even when programs aim at the devel-
opment of bilingual or multilingual competences. This monolingualism is what Cummins (2007) calls “two solitudes” when
referring to the rigid separation of French and English in immersion programs in Canada. The isolation of the target language
is a key idea in several second language teaching methods and approaches such as the Direct Method, the Audiolingual
Method or the Communicative Approach. As Cook (2001:404) explains, the use of the L1 can be seen as failure and the ideal
classroom should have “as little of the L1 as possible”. Ortega (2019: 24) points out that this view of language isolation looks at
second language acquisition using “monolingual first language acquisition as the main point of reference”. Ignoring and
avoiding the use of the L1 somehow poses a paradox because the focus is on monolingualism when the goal is to develop
multilingual competences. Traditionally, the term “Second Language Acquisition” has been used not only to refer to the
acquisition of a second language but also when the target language is a third or additional language. Some students have rich
multilingual trajectories which include very useful resources for the acquisition of additional languages, but these resources
are often ignored. Students are seen as empty vessels, learning from scratch and with the monolingual speaker of the target
language as a model. Moreover, if teachers can speak the students’ first language, they are supposed to hide it and try to avoid
its use. In fact, there are good reasons to say that this “focus on monolingualism” is problematic. It is obvious that extended
exposure to the target language(s) is necessary, but it is a real problem not to build on what students already know. Another
problem is that by ignoring and avoiding the use of the L1 or other languages previously learned, we are ignoring the way
multilingual speakers use languages outside the classroom.

2. Towards a focus on multilingualism and translanguaging

The monolingual focus on multilingualism and language learning, which in many contexts is still widely accepted, was
already contested some years ago (Cook, 2001; Grosjean, 1985). In the last few years there have been many proposals that
consider the need to focus on multilingualism, acknowledging that the boundaries between languages are softer and that the
reference to the monolingual native speaker is problematic (see for example Canagarajah, 2013; Cenoz & Gorter, 2014).

* Corresponding author. Department of Research Methods in Education Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology, 70 Avenida Tolosa, 20018,
Donostia e San Sebastian, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
E-mail address: jasone.cenoz@ehu.eus (J. Cenoz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102269
0346-251X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J. Cenoz, D. Gorter / System 92 (2020) 102269

The concept of translanguaging, which is representative of the new approaches that soften the boundaries between
languages, has gained currency in recent years (García & Li, 2014). Because it is extensively used in different contexts where
the realities of multilingualism take various shapes, translanguaging is nowadays an umbrella term that embraces a wide
variety of theoretical and practical proposals.
Leung and Valde s (2019: 359) distinguish two analytical perspectives when examining translanguaging. The first is that
“languages are distinct and separate semiotic entities” and the second that “languages are configurations of temporal lexical
and syntactic features expressing human meaning”. They consider that the first view, which is the mainstream perspective,
implies that languages are different entities even if they can be related to each other. The second view suggests that there are
“lexical, syntactic, phonological, and orthographic features in use in specific places and times”. These features do not have to
be permanent in a named language. The first view would be associated with the original concept of translanguaging
developed in Wales because Welsh and English are considered separate languages even if there is alternation of both lan-
guages for pedagogical purposes. The second view can be associated with the concept of translanguaging proposed by
Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015: 283) as “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful
adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages”. As García
and Otheguy (2019: 9) explain, “translanguaging sees multilinguals as possessing a unitary linguistic system that they build
through social interactions of different types, and that is not compartmentalized into boundaries corresponding to those of
the named languages”.
Another way to look at different approaches to translanguaging can be found in Cenoz and Gorter (2017), who distinguish
between pedagogical and spontaneous translanguaging. Pedagogical translanguaging is a pedagogic theory and practice that
refers to instructional strategies which integrate two or more languages. Spontaneous translanguaging refers to the reality of
bilingual usage in naturally occurring contexts where boundaries between languages are fluid and constantly shifting. These
two types of translanguaging can be best presented as a continuum (Fig. 1). In fact, a continuum can represent these two types
of translanguaging situations because pedagogical translanguaging is designed by the teacher but can occur next to the
spontaneous use of multilingual resources that has not been planned. There can also be situations of spontaneous trans-
languaging that are used by the teacher or the students to highlight specific points related to the curriculum. It is not a di-
chotomy with two possibilities but a continuum with pedagogical translanguaging at one end and spontaneous
translanguaging at the other.
Taking into account the perspective of Leung and Valde s (2019), we can view languages as distinct even if their boundaries
are soft and fluid. Speakers can use resources from their whole linguistic repertoire and there may be situations in which it is
difficult to say whether the speaker is using one language or another. However speakers identify different languages at the
conscious level (Ortega, 2019) and languages have a social reality which is reflected in education policies (see also Cummins,
2017). The focus of this article and the whole volume is towards the side of pedagogical translanguaging in the continuum,
which is closely related to the original use of the term in Wales, as will be seen in the next section.

3. Translanguaging the original use of the term

The origin of translanguaging can be found in Welsh-English bilingual education in the 1980’s. Bilingual education in
Wales aims at bilingualism and biliteracy in both languages. Translanguaging is the translation into English of the original
Welsh term ‘‘trawsieithu’‘, which was developed by Cen Williams “to help English speakers use more Welsh” (Baker, 2019:
180). The idea is that the stronger language, English in the context of Wales, contributes to the development of the weaker
language, Welsh. In this way, students develop both languages.
Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012) summarize Cen Williams’ ideas about translanguaging in the Welsh context. Trans-
languaging is a pedagogical theory that is reflected in the practice of switching the language used in the input and the output
in bilingual classrooms. Welsh and English “are used in a dynamic and functionally integrated manner to organise and
mediate mental processes” (Lewis et al., 2012: 12). These mental processes include “the assimilation and accommodation of
information, choosing and selecting from the brain storage to communicate in speaking and writing” because trans-
languaging moves “from finding parallel words to processing and relaying meaning and understanding” (Lewis et al., 2012: 4).
Students have to internalize the input in one language and immediately use the concepts they have understood in the other
language, so the processing is dual.
Translanguaging is planned and systematic, and translanguaging practices are designed by the teacher. The input (reading
or listening) is given in one language and students have to use that information in the other language when speaking or

Fig. 1. Pedagogical and spontaneous translanguaging continuum.

 J. Cenoz, D. Gorter / System 92 (2020) 102269 3

writing (Lewis et al., 2012). Translanguaging often uses the stronger language to develop the weaker language, thus
contributing towards what could potentially be a relatively balanced development of a child’s two languages.
According to Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2013: 110), Williams (1994) considered translanguaging “as a way of developing two
languages to competency, but also resulting in effective content learning”. This is related to the deeper understanding of what
students can achieve when the two languages are used. Baker and Wright (2017: 280e281) explain that translanguaging “may
promote a deeper and fuller understanding of the subject matter. Given that a) pre-existing knowledge is a foundation for
further learning and b) there is ease of cross-linguistic transfer as two languages are interdependent (Cummins, 2017) then
translanguaging builds understanding in a most efficient way”. There are several ideas about the potential advantages of
translanguaging that are closely linked to new approaches in multilingual education.
The first is that translanguaging is aimed not only at language development but also at content development and this
refers mainly to students with English as a first language for whom Welsh is one of the languages of instruction. The idea is
that if the input is in Welsh, these students may not process the meaning even if they manage to complete some tasks. By
using both languages, the content can be better processed. This is relevant for CLIL programs with one or more subjects taught
through the medium of English or other languages. The two points made by Baker and Wright are crucial for pedagogical
translanguaging because translanguaging is based on using what the students already know and on the potential of using
resources from the whole linguistic repertoire cross-linguistically when learning languages and academic content.
Lewis et al. (2013) observed 100 lessons in primary and secondary Welsh schools and they reported that translanguaging
was mainly found in the last years of primary school. This follows Cen Williams’ recommendation to use translanguaging
when children are not in the early stages of language learning. They also reported that translanguaging could be mainly found
in arts and humanities and that it was less widespread than they had expected. Lewis et al. (2013) consider that trans-
languaging could be used in science and mathematics as well. They explain that the limited use of translanguaging can be
associated with the need to safeguard the Welsh language. The perception of translanguaging as a risk for minority languages
is discussed by Cenoz and Gorter (2017) who propose to use pedagogical translanguaging but also to keep “breathing spaces”
for students to use the minority language.

4. The characteristics of pedagogical translanguaging

Following the original use of the term translanguaging in Wales, pedagogical translanguaging is “planned by the teacher
inside the classroom and can refer to the use of different languages for input and output or to other planned strategies based
on the use of students’ resources from the whole linguistic repertoire” (Cenoz, 2017:194). Pedagogical translanguaging uses
the multilingual speaker’s whole linguistic repertoire, as prior knowledge can support comprehension and the development
of language and content (Escamilla et al., 2013; Flores & Garcia, 2013; Lin, 2016). As was proposed by Cen Williams in Wales,
the idea is that students need full comprehension and their prior linguistic knowledge needs to be activated. In many cases,
students already have a rich multilingual repertoire, but it needs to be activated in order to benefit from multilingualism.
Pedagogical translanguaging is closely related to the principles and practices of the original way translanguaging was used
in Wales and includes the alternation of languages in the input and the output, but it also goes beyond that by including many
other practices that use elements from the whole linguistic repertoire. Pedagogical translanguaging is part of the lesson plan
and has a pedagogical purpose. It can be designed at the phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic, pragmatic and discourse levels
and it can be implemented in language classes and content classes including oral and written activities (see Leonet, Cenoz, &
Gorter, 2017; Cenoz & Santos, this volume). An example of pedagogical translanguaging in a CLIL class could be to identify
cognates in different languages after reading a text. An example at the discourse level could be to analyze the structure of a
narrative text in one language and to write texts that follow the same structure in the other language(s) in the curriculum.
Pedagogical translanguaging includes multilingual instructional strategies based on cross-linguistic comparison even if the
term translanguaging is not used in all cases (see for example Arteagoitia & Howard, 2015; Dault & Collins, 2017; Lyster,
Quiroga, & Ballinger, 2013; Woll, 2018).
Pedagogical translanguaging can take many shapes but it also shares some core characteristics, as can be seen in Table 1.
Following the aims of translanguaging in the Welsh context, the goal of pedagogical translanguaging is to develop
multilingualism and multiliteracy. The terms multilingualism and multiliteracy have replaced bilingualism and biliteracy to
allow for more than two languages in the curriculum. The key idea is that there is no replacement of one language by another
and translanguaging can focus not only on two languages, such as in Welsh (Welsh-English) or Canadian (French-English)
immersion programs but also on three or more, as can be seen in multilingual programs in the Basque Country (Basque-
Spanish-English). Pedagogical translanguaging aims at the development of school languages and academic content. It sup-
ports the learning of weaker languages, which can be minority languages or languages not widely used in society, by using the

Table 1
Core characteristics of pedagogical translanguaging.

Type of program Multilingual education program

Aims Aims at linguistic and academic development
Organization Translanguaging activities are specifically designed
Approach Soft boundaries between languages
4 J. Cenoz, D. Gorter / System 92 (2020) 102269

multilingual speaker’s resources. As has already been said, pedagogical translanguaging activities are designed by the teacher
as part of his/her lesson plan and have specific aims. The general approach of pedagogical translanguaging implies that the
boundaries between languages are soft. Soft boundaries mean that elements from several languages can be used in the same
session and that there is a dynamic process of using resources in the multilingual repertoire. Pedagogical translanguaging has
core characteristics but it can take many shapes because there are contextual factors that have to be taken into consideration.
Pedagogical translanguaging can take many forms due to the differences in the students, the curriculum and the teachers
(Table 2). Student background and proficiency levels are important for teachers to design pedagogical translanguaging but the
most important source of diversity is related to what can be labeled as the curriculum in a broad sense. The curriculum
includes the number and status of the languages, school subjects, school grade and intensity as well as teaching strategies
regarding language level, skills, participant organization and materials. The teacher’s background regarding his/her own
multilingualism and specific training can also influence pedagogical translanguaging. Another factor related to the teacher is
his/her ideologies regarding the use of spontaneous translanguaging along with practices that have been planned and
designed. The list shown in Table 2 has 13 sources of variation but it is not a closed list and there could be more factors
affecting pedagogical translanguaging in different contexts. In any case, by going beyond the alternation of input and output
in the Welsh context, the diversity of forms pedagogical translanguaging can take on increases substantially.
Translanguaging strategies and practices that have not been previously planned by the teacher can also take place in
classes where pedagogical translanguaging is being used. For example, if the teacher helps a student by translating a word
from the L1 to the L2 when the student has to complete a task, we can say that it is not pedagogical translanguaging in a strict
sense because this translation is not part of the lesson plan and has not been previously designed by the teacher. However, this
practice can obviously have a pedagogical value.

5. This volume

This volume focuses on pedagogical translanguaging and takes into account the multilingual speaker’s linguistic resources
from the whole linguistic repertoire when learning languages. By doing this, pedagogical translanguaging goes against tra-
ditions of isolating the target language to avoid influence from other languages. This volume aims at identifying the main
challenges teachers and students face when implementing pedagogical translanguaging. These challenges are discussed as
related to teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical practices, student feedback, and assessment in different sociolinguistic contexts at
schools and universities.
The diversity of contexts in this volume shows that pedagogical translanguaging can be implemented in a variety of ways,
taking into account the languages involved and the context in which these languages are used. The studies in this Special Issue
clearly show the potential of pedagogical translanguaging to learn more effectively but also identify the challenges teachers
and students face in their implementation. The innovative designs and methods used show the achievements in language and
content teaching but also the tensions that some teachers may feel between the ideologies of language separation in their
own training and practice, and the implementation of translanguaging.
In all the contributions to this special issue, the authors conceive of multilingualism as a positive resource for teachers and
students alike and for the authors the benefits of translanguaging are a point of departure for investigating different edu-
cation contexts. All articles include a focus on beliefs and language practices of teachers. A brief summary of each contribution
can be given.
In their paper on ‘Translanguaging pedagogy and practice: A question of professional readiness?’ Tracey Costley and Constant
Leung observe that teachers experience tensions “between monolingual educational policies and multilingual classroom
realities”. Their article is based on an analysis of policy documents about publicly funded schools in England and interview

Table 2
Diversity of pedagogical translanguaging.

Students
Student background Majority, regional minority, immigrant minority
Proficiency level Different possible levels in each of the languages involved
Curriculum
Number of languages At least two languages but there can be three or more
Status of languages International, national and local status of each of the languages
School subject Any school subject, both language and content classes
School grade Any level of primary, secondary or tertiary education
Intensity Different degrees from one class to more intense forms
Language level Phonetics, lexicon, morphosyntax, pragmatics, discourse
Skills Reading, writing listening, speaking
Participant organization Whole class, groups, pairs
Materials Multimodal or not, online or not
Teachers
Teacher background Multilingual or not, specific training for multilingualism
Spontaneous translanguaging Encouraged by the teacher or not
 J. Cenoz, D. Gorter / System 92 (2020) 102269 5

data with experienced language education specialists. Their aim is to understand multilingualism through a translanguaging
perspective. The policy documents show some celebration of multilingualism, but at the same time the school curricula
maintain their monolingual English character. Also favourable attitudes towards multilingualism were found during the
interviews, but these views do not transfer to practices in the classroom. Costley and Leung’s findings do not show any ev-
idence of translanguaging activities in policy documents or in classrooms in England.
In her article ‘Opening minds to translanguaging pedagogies’ Claudine Kirsch focuses on early childhood education in
Luxembourg. In this context more than two languages are used and almost two thirds of these young children do not speak
Luxembourgish as their home language. The data come from a longitudinal research project which included professional
development about multilingual pedagogies. The article focuses on the challenges faced by preschool teachers when they
implement a translanguaging pedagogy and how they solve the problems. Her findings show that even when the teachers
develop positive attitudes about multilingual education, the implementation of a translanguaging pedagogy is very complex
and there remains a need for continued professional development.
In their contribution on ‘Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in a course on translanguaging’ Durk Gorter and Elizabet
Arocena report on a study of in-service teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism. Teachers play a key role in educational change,
but it is usually hard to alter deep-seated monolingual beliefs. Groups of in-service teachers in the Basque Country who all
teach in an educational system that aims for multilingualism in three languages (Basque, Spanish and English) received
professional development training on pedagogical translanguaging and multilingual practices. Questionnaire data were
collected on their beliefs about multilingualism and translanguaging before, during and after the course. The results show
that teachers’ beliefs do change in the direction of becoming more favourable to multilingual practices and pedagogical
translanguaging. These changes seem to persist over time, which can have consequences for classroom practices.
In their article “Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools”, Jasone Cenoz and Alaitz Santos discuss how
in-service teachers apply pedagogical translanguaging in their lessons in trilingual primary and secondary schools in the
Basque Country where Basque, Spanish and English are included in the curriculum. In this study, in-service teachers were first
provided with theoretical and practical information about translanguaging. Teachers were provided a guideline for the
implementation and were asked to prepare a lesson plan including activities that involved the use of two or more languages
for pedagogical purposes. Thereafter the teachers implemented pedagogical translanguaging in their own class. The feedback
from their students and their own reflections on the implementation make clear that these teachers could create opportu-
nities for language learning and increasing language awareness through pedagogical translanguaging.
Angelica Galante contributes to this special issue by presenting the outcomes of a study on ‘Pedagogical translanguaging in
a multilingual English program in Canada: Student and teacher perspectives of challenges’. She describes the implementation of
translanguaging tasks for academic listening and speaking for international students at a university in Toronto and its
incorporation into the language curriculum.
Seven teachers and their students (n ¼ 79) took part and field notes, classroom observations, student diaries, and teacher
interviews were collected as data. The teachers wonder if classroom activities that allow students to draw on all of their
multilingual resources might not disadvantage them later in assessments English only. From the students’ perspective, the
need perform the task of the explanation of an idiom across languages, thus to engage in a translanguaging activity, showed
that also in the classroom this approach needs to be flexible in its application.
In her article “Towards crosslinguistic pedagogy: Demystifying pre-service teachers’ beliefs regarding the target-language-only
rule” Nina Woll discusses the outcomes of a pilot study among pre-service teachers in Quebec. She investigates beliefs of
Francophone future teachers of English as a Second Language who hold onto strong ideas about monolingual use of the target
language. As part of a pedagogical intervention, these student teachers took part in a German language course for beginners,
involving cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. The results of this study show that the students agreed theoretically
that making links with other languages are useful and during the German course they took, their experiences with such cross-
linguistic activities were positive. However, at the same time, their convictions about monolingualism and maximum
exposure to the target language turned out hard to change. Their experiences with translanguaging as part of the German
language learning course was not enough to challenge their monolingual bias about teaching English as a Second Language
(ESL).
Jiajia Liu, Yuen Yi Lo and Angel Lin in their article “Translanguaging Pedagogy in Teaching English for Academic Purposes:
Researcher-Teacher Collaboration as a Professional Development Model” look into advantages and challenges of a trans-
languaging pedagogy in a master course of teaching English for academic purposes (EAP) in a Chinese university. As re-
searchers, they collaborate intensively with the teacher. Their translanguaging approach included strategies such as
scaffolding from L1, reading multilingual texts and translingual writing practices based on the Multimodalities-
Entextualization Cycle (MEC) framework (Lin, 2016). Their findings showed developments in perceptions of the teacher,
her use of translanguaging pedagogy but also persistent challenges, such as monolingual convictions or controlling the extent
of translanguaging. According to the authors, this type of researcher-teacher collaboration could be a model of professional
development to support teachers in adopting a translanguaging pedagogy.
In their article “Translanguaging in Conjunction with Language Revitalisation” Corrinne Seals and Vini Olsen-Reeder start
from a diagnosis of how and when spontaneous translanguaging occurs in two early childhood centers in Aotearoa/New
Zealand. The minority language te reo M aori is used in one center and Samoan in another. Their diagnosis helps to create
translingual teaching materials based on the principles of sustainable translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017). These ma-
terials include a number of rules that build on vocabulary across languages, and there is repetition of ideas, moving between
6 J. Cenoz, D. Gorter / System 92 (2020) 102269

languages and across speakers. Those resources aim to support a socially responsive translanguaging pedagogy. The teachers
tried out the materials in the two centers. The authors conclude that translanguaging leads to more active classroom
involvement. But also, that the minority language can be used by the teacher even if other children are using English and that
they do not miss out on information in stories. In other words, accommodation to English does not have to be predominant.
Overall, the study demonstrated that sustainable translanguaging is feasible. Even if translanguaging and immersion seemed
like opposites, they need not be.
Heidi Byrnes wraps up the Special Issue by a structural discussion of several issues that come back in the different con-
tributions. She departs from a complex systems perspective for analysis of the studies included in the special issue to gain
insight into the translanguaging pedagogies used. She observes that the articles in the special issue explore from various
vantage points and in various settings the kind of teacher education and programs needed to initiate the implementation of
pedagogical translanguaging.
This Special Issue will certainly contribute to soften the boundaries between languages and to develop pedagogical
translanguaging in multilingual contexts. We would like to thank the following reviewers for their time and valuable
comments:
Tracey Costley, University of Essex, UK
Hildegunn Dirdal, University of Oslo, Norway
Danuta Gabrys, University of Silesia, Poland
Angelica Galante, Angelica Galante, McGill University, Canada
Natalia Ganuza, Uppsala University, Sweden
Rhian Hodges, Bangor University, UK
Tamara Kirson, the New School, US
Anna Krulatz, Trodheim University, Norway
Constant Leung, King College London, UK
Angel Lin, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Jorge Pinto, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Laura Portoles, University Jaume I, Spain
Alaitz Santos, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU
Corinne Seals, Victoria University of Wellington
Eivind Torgersen, Trodheim University, Norway
Nina Woll, Universite du Que bec a
 Trois-Rivie
res, Canada
Kutlay Yagmur, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Basque Government under Grant DREAM IT-1225-19.

References

Arteagoitia, I., & Howard, L. (2015). The role of the native language in the literacy development of Latino students in the U.S. In J. Cenoz, & D. Gorter (Eds.),
Multilingual education: between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 61e83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, C. (2019). A tribute to ofelia García. Journal of Multilingual Education Research, 9, 175e181.
Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (6th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge.
Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school context. International perspectives: An introduction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16, 193e198.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2014). Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In A. Creese, & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice
and pedagogy (pp. 239e254). Berlin: Springer.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Sustainable translanguaging and minority languages: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 38, 901e912.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402e423.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221e240.
Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual schools. In O. Garcia, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education, encyclopedia of
language and education (3rd ed., vol. 5). Springer.
Dault, C., & Collins, L. (2017). Comparer pour mieux comprendre : Perception d’e tudiants et d’enseignants d’une approche interlangagie re en langue
seconde. Language Awareness, 26(3), 191e210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1389949.
Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., et al. (2013). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action.
Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
Flores, N., & Garcia, O. (2013). Linguistic third spaces in education: Teachers’ translanguaging across the bilingual continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. Van
Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies (pp. 243e256). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García, O., & Li, W.( (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467e477.
Leonet, O., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Challenging minority language isolation: Translanguaging in a trilingual school in the Basque Country. Journal of
Language, Identity and Education, 16, 216e227.
Leung, C., & Valde s, G. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. The Modern
Language Journal, 103, 348e370.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18,
641e654.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2013). 100 bilingual lessons: Distributing two languages in classrooms. Bilingualism and multilingualism in school settings.
In C. Abello-Contesse, & R. Chaco  n Beltr
an (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century (pp. 107e135). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
 J. Cenoz, D. Gorter / System 92 (2020) 102269 7

Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer.
Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., & Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 1, 169e197.
Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement 2019), 23e38.
Otheguy, R., & García, O. (2019). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics
Review, 6, 281e307.
Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in
the context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished PhD thesis). Bangor, UK: University of Wales.
Woll, N. (2018). Investigating dimensions of metalinguistic awareness: What think-aloud protocols revealed about the cognitive process. Language
Awareness, 27(1/2), 167e185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1432057.