Sara Ganassin, Durham University

Translanguaging as a pedagogic strategy and

as a resource for identity performance in the

context of Chinese community schooling

Literature and emerging issues

Focus on transmission of Mandarin Chinese language and culture mainly for heritage language (HL) learners (Mau et al., 2009).

“ Speak Chinese only” policy often stated by Chinese community language schools and reinforced in the teachers’ practices (Li & Wu, 2008).

Within Chinese community schooling a range of languages are at play and different languages make competing claims to be the/a Chinese language(Archer et al., 2010).

Languages and identities are socially constructed. Although it is an oversimplification to consider certain languages as symbols of identities, researchers need to take into account how people might believe that languages can function as a salient feature in their perception of identity (Blackledge & Creese, 2010)

Research aims and objectives

To explore the role and significance of Chinese community schooling from the perspectives of pupils, parents and school staff involved.

To investigate participants’ constructions of culture and language vis-à-vis the agenda of the school.

To explore how such constructions support pupils to understand who they are and to shape their identities.

To explore the significance of a multilingual researcher approach in this research context.

RQs

How did pupils’ translanguaging practices in the classrooms impact on pupils’ identities?

How does Canagarajah’s (2013) concept of performative competence support an understanding of pupils’ translanguaging practices?

Methods & sampleOverarching study:

14 months in-the-field doctoral research

Multimodal data collection with 23 pupils: cartoon storyboards and Venn diagrams +focus group discussions, class recordings, researcher notes.

One-to-one-semi-structured interviews with 18 adults.

Translanguaging practices analysed through classroom interactions with peers and teachers. These data derive from my researcher field notes recording observations of formal classroom teaching and informal conversations in the classrooms.

Translanguaging in this study

“Flexibility of [bilingual] learners to take control of their own learning, to self-regulate when and how to language, depending on the context in which they’re being asked to perform” (Garcia & Li, 2014, p. 80).

“The meaning of the message is not clear without both languages” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p.108). Traslanguaging can be used both as a pedagogic strategy and as a resource for identity performance.

Canagarajah (2013) labels performative competence the ability of translingual speakers—and in particular learners—of using strategically their language resources. Being practice based, performative competence requires creativity, strategic thinking, alertness and learners’ ability to respond to the context.

Language, translanguaging and pupils’ identitiesLanguage as one of the principal factors contributing towards pupils’ understanding of their identities.

Languages don’t determine or limit our identities, but provide new and creative resources to construct new and revised identities through reconstructed forms and meanings of new indexicalities (Canagarajah, 2013).

Language can be investigated from two perspectives:

How pupils understood role and value of (Chinese) language

How they used it

Translanguaging as a learning strategy

Louis: 我不知道中文什么说 : <I don’t know how to say in Chinese>“how do Chinese make robots”? Jenny help me! Jenny: OK, 中国人怎做 robot, robot 是 shi robot, 是吗 ? Erica: I think it’s 器机人 or something like that. 我想不起来。 <I cannot remember>.

 

Translanguaging was used in contexts where pupils worked to support each other to accomplish a task or solve a problem:

Translanguaging as an identity performance to peers and teacher

 

Rose: 现在是 xianzai shi Elsa <now it’s Elsa’s turn>. Elsa come here. Use whichever character makes sense to you, 没关系 mei guanxi <never mind>.Elsa: Is this one OK? {She chooses 根 gen}Rose: 好的 hao de<good> , OK 你觉得是什么 ? Ni juede shi shenme <What do you think that this is?>Elsa: {She pauses to think} I don’t know, 不好意思 Bu hao yisi <sorry>. {She returns to her desk}Rose: 没关系 mei guanxi {indicates another character}, Christina 你 知道不知道这个汉子？ <Do you know this character?>Christina: One is 口 kou, and one then it’s 那 na.Rose: 哪？是什么意思？ Na? Shi shenme yisi?<Na? What does it mean?>Christina: 你在哪里的意思？ Ni zai nali de yisi<The meaning of “where are you”?>Rose: So if I say to you 你在哪里？ Ni zai nali?<Where are you?>Christina: 我在学校！ Wo zai xuexiao <I am at school!>Rose: 好， 你坐一下 Hao de, ni zuo yixia. <Good, go to sit>. Lucas, don’t be shy, your turn. 写下来吧。Xie xialai ba <Write> Use 一个 yi ge <one> card. {speaks to the other pupils}. I want you all to be the teacher and correct him.Lucas: 不知道怎么选择 Bu zhidao zenme xuanzi. <I don’t know which one to choose>.Rose: I will choose one for you. {she shows the card} 谁知道 Shei zhidao the answer? <Who knows the answer?>Elsa: Is the character of “to fail”!I KNOW!

Some issues emerged in the classrooms

Alice: 都 in English means “everyone”. Like we, us, everyone. Can you make a sentence with 我们都 ? {No response from the pupils}. I show you: 我们都高兴。都在这儿。 <We are all happy. We are all here>. It’s simple. What do they mean? {No response from the pupils}. Susan: I don’t get it. Why [are you translating] “everyone”? Alice: Because it’s a group. Everyone of us. Us both. {Pupils look at each other}Billie: Ah, so you mean “all”, we “all”, 我们都今天来学校。 <Today we all came to school>. Alice: Is this not what I explained? We all, that is everyone of us, or both of us two 是吗 ? <isn’t it?>Susan: Not really, “all” and “everyone” in English have a different meaning.

ConclusionsAlthough a “Chinese only” policy is promoted by the school and some teachers try to implement it to give

children more exposure to the language, the reality is more complex.

As pupils and teacher moved across languages, they created a new linguistic repertoire with norms that

transcended the boundaries between English and Mandarin as separate languages.

As they reconfigured norms, expanded their repertories and co-constructed terms of engagement pupils

and teachers also re-negotiated their identities.

Pupils made use of their performative competence to support each other’s learning, to perform as

successful learners, but also to assert their positionality and to challenge existing power relations.

 

References

Archer, L., Francis, B. & Mau, A. (2010). The Culture Project: Diasporic negotiations of ethnicity, identity and culture among teachers, pupils and parents in Chinese language schools. Oxford Review of Education, 36(4), 407-426.

Canagarajah , S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge.

Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching. Modern Language Journal, 94, 103 –115.

Garcia, O. & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Li, W., & Wu, C. J. (2008). Code-switching: Ideologies and practices. In A. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 225–238). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Centre and University of Hawaii Press.

Mau, A., Francis, B. & Archer, L. (2009). Mapping politics and pedagogy: understanding the population and practices of Chinese complementary schools in England. Ethnography and Education, 4(1), 17-36.

.

Thank you