Translanguaging: Implications for the language classroom derived from the revised version of the CEFR

Main Article Content

Hadrian Aleksander Lankiewicz

Abstrakt

One of the basic documents defining, among others, language learning, teaching, and assessment within the EU is the CEFR (2001). Since the moment of its first publication, many political and social changes have occurred which necessitated the reshaping of general language teaching policy to meet the new conditions. There also appeared new theoretical reflections on the process of language learning and language use. Through enhanced mobility a remarkable number of European citizens have become plurilingual, living in multilingual environments. On the other hand, new insights into the process of language learning and teaching accentuated the need for the departure from monolingual approaches in favour of translingual practices (Canagarajah 2013; García & Li 2014). The objective of this article is to present the implications derived from a translingual instinct (Li 2011) for teaching an additional foreign language to plurilingual students. The author of the article derives his reflections from the theoretical underpinnings of multilingualism, his own research on translanguaging and the revised version of the CEFR (2018).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Lankiewicz, H. A. (2021). Translanguaging: Implications for the language classroom derived from the revised version of the CEFR. Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 47(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2020.47.2.06
Dział
Artykuły

Bibliografia

  1. Alderson, J.C. (2017). Foreword to the Special issue “The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) for English Language Assessment in China”. Language Testing in Asia. Lang Test Asia, 7, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0049-9 [access: 21.02.2020].
  2. Androutsopoulos, J. (2013). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19 (2), 185–205.
  3. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  4. Beacco, J.-C. / Byram, M. / Cavalli, M. / Coste, D. / Egli Cuenat, M. / Goullier, F. / Panthier, J. (2010). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
  5. Blommaert, J. / Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13 (2), 1–19.
  6. Boufoy-Bastick, B. (2015). Rescuing language education from the neoliberal disaster: Culturometric predictions and analyses of future policy. Policy Futures in Education, 13 (4), 439–467.
  7. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice. Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge.
  8. Carroll, K.S. (2017). Concluding remarks: Prestige planning and translanuaging in higher education. In: C.M. Mazak / K.S. Carroll (eds.), Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies (pp. 177–185). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  9. Clandinin, D.J. (1992). Narrative and story in teacher education. In: T. Russell / H. Mundy (eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 124–137). London: Falmer Press.
  10. Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research, 7, 103–117.
  11. Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CUP. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1bf [access: 21.02.2020].
  12. Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 [access: 21.02.2020].
  13. Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal Volume, 66 (4) Special issue, 477–485. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccs037.
  14. Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1 (4), 253–266.
  15. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  16. García, O. / Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In: A. Creese / A. Blackledge (eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). New York: Springer.
  17. García, O. / Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Polgrave Macmillan.
  18. Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.
  19. He, P. / Lai, H. / Lin, A. (2017). Translangugaing in multimodal mathematics presentation. In: C.M. Mazak / K.S. Carroll (eds.), Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies (pp. 91–120). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  20. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
  21. Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91 (4), 663–667.
  22. Komorowska, H. (2017). Europejski system opisu kształcenia językowego – nowe potrzeby i nowe rozwiązania. Konińskie Studia Językowe, 5 (2), 165–183. http://ksj.pwsz.konin.edu.pl. DOI: 10.30438/ksj.2017.5.2.1 [access: 21.02.2020].
  23. Kramsch, C. (2002). Introduction. How can we tell the dancer form the dance? In: C. Kramsch (ed.), Language learning and language socialization. Ecological perspectives (pp. 1–30). London and New York: Continuum.
  24. Kucharczyk, R. (2017). United in multilingualism. A few words about the didactics of multilingualism. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 41 (2), 166–183. DOI: 10.17951/lsmll.2017.41.2.16.
  25. Kucharczyk, R. / Szymankiewicz, K. (2016). Teorie osobiste dotyczące rozwijania kompetencji różnojęzycznej na lekcjach języka obcego – przypadek przyszłych nauczycieli języka francuskiego. Języki Obce w Szkole, 4, 64–70.
  26. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing and seeing. New York and London: Routledge.
  27. Lankiewicz, H. (2015). Teacher language awareness in the ecological perspective: A collaborative inquiry based on languaging. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
  28. Lankiewicz, H. (in press). Linguistic hybridity and learner identity: Translingual practice among plurilinguals in the educational setting.
  29. Lankiewicz, H. / Wąsikiewicz-Firlej, E. (2019). Theoretical considerations for developing intercultural sensitivity through translation activities: Beyond the monolingual premise in foreign language education. Neofilolog, 52 (2), 313–334.
  30. Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (5), 1222–1235.
  31. Lier van, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In: J.P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  32. Lier van, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  33. Lier van, L. (2010). Telling ELT tales out of school. The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 2–6.
  34. Malmkjær, K. (ed.) (1998). Translation and language teaching: Language teaching and translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
  35. Martyniuk, W. / Noijons, J. (2007). The use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe member states. Documents of the Linguistic Forum 2007. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
  36. Mazak, C.M. (2017). Introduction: Theorizing translanguaging practices in higher education. In: C.M. Mazak / K.S. Carroll (eds.), Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies (pp. 1–10). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  37. Mazak, C.M. / Carroll, K.S. (eds.) (2017). Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  38. Morrow, K. (ed.) (2004). Insights from the Common European framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.
  40. Pajeres, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
  41. Piccardo, E. (2018). Webinar on the CEFR Companion volume and practical consideration for implementation. Strasbourg, 30 January 2018. https://rm.coe.int/plurilingual-and-pluriculturalcompetence-piccardo-/1680788b26 [access: 21.02.2020].
  42. Prokop, I. (2002). Typologia interakcji dydaktycznych. In: W. Wilczyńska (ed.), Autonomizacja w dydaktyce języków obcych: Doskonalenie się w komunikacji ustnej (pp. 159–173). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
  43. Weir, C.J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European framework for developing comparable examinations and tests University of Roehampton. Language Testing, 22 (3), 281–300.
  44. Widła, H. (2016). Zmierzch bilingwizmu i jego skutki. Neofilolog, 47 (1), 9–19.