TRANSLANGUAGING IN 15 MINUTES | Otheguy, Garcia and Reid - "Clarifying translanguaging..." (2015)

Summary

This video script by Mike from 'The Social Life of Language' explores the distinction between 'translanguaging' and 'code switching'. It delves into the historical and political contexts that have shaped our understanding of 'named languages', often a product of colonial categorization. The script challenges the traditional perspective of language learning, advocating for translanguaging, which views language as a unified repertoire rather than separate systems. It critiques the outsider's approach to language assessment, promoting an insider's perspective that values the full linguistic potential of individuals.

Takeaways

• 📚 Translanguaging and code switching are fundamentally different concepts; the former is an insider's perspective, while the latter is an outsider's perspective.
• 🏛 The concept of 'named languages' stems from historical colonization, where linguistic systems were categorized and named by external institutions, often to subjugate and govern the colonized people.
• 🧑‍🏫 Code switching is viewed from an outsider's perspective, which assumes that named languages exist naturally and that language learning should be confined within these boundaries.
• 🌐 Translanguaging challenges the notion of named languages, suggesting that learners work from a unified collection of linguistic features, not separated into distinct systems.
• 🏫 In educational settings, code switching implies that teaching within the confines of a named language is the most effective and natural approach, while translanguaging encourages a more holistic view of language learning.
• 🧠 The brain does not naturally categorize linguistic features into named languages; this is a construct imposed by historical and political forces.
• 🏛️ The historical invention of named languages often has violent political histories and continues to play a significant role in governance and societal structures.
• 🔍 Translanguaging offers an insider's perspective, focusing on the learner's full linguistic repertoire without adherence to the boundaries of named languages.
• 📈 Code switching can inadvertently endorse the separation of linguistic systems, which may not align with how bilingual brains actually process language.
• 🌟 Translanguaging privileges the learner's perspective, recognizing the full range of their linguistic abilities, in contrast to code switching which may limit this by external evaluations.
• 🤔 The script prompts a rethinking of language assessment in schools, suggesting that a translanguaging approach could provide a more accurate measure of a child's linguistic and cognitive abilities.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video script?

The main topic of the video script is the distinction between trans languaging and code switching, as well as the concept of named languages from a linguistic perspective.

What does the term 'trans languaging' refer to?

Trans languaging refers to the deployment of a speaker's full linguistic repertoire without strict adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages.

What is the difference between an 'insider's perspective' and an 'outsider's perspective' in the context of the video?

The insider's perspective, associated with trans languaging, views language from the speaker's point of view, acknowledging a unified collection of linguistic features. The outsider's perspective, linked to code switching, observes and categorizes language from an external standpoint, often imposing social criteria onto language users.

What is the origin of the concept of 'named languages'?

The concept of named languages originates from historical processes, often involving colonization, where institutions or groups categorized and named linguistic systems to study and govern the people they were colonizing.

Why did colonizers categorize linguistic practices of the people they colonized?

Colonizers categorized linguistic practices to subjugate and govern the people they colonized, often viewing these practices through a lens of racism, as childlike or primitive, and differentiating them from their own languages.

How does the script suggest we should rethink language assessment in schools?

The script suggests that language assessment in schools should move away from the enforcement of named languages and instead consider the full linguistic repertoire of the learner, potentially leading to a more accurate assessment of a child's abilities and needs.

What is the script's stance on the natural existence of named languages?

The script posits that named languages do not naturally exist but are social constructs with often violent political histories, and their divisions are not inherent to our biology or brain matter.

How does the script describe the historical role of named languages in governance?

The script describes named languages as having played a significant role in governance, with nation-states using language as a criterion for participation and success, often tied to colonial histories and political interests.

What does the script imply about the current state of language learning and teaching?

The script implies that current language learning and teaching practices may be limited by the enforcement of named languages, suggesting that a shift towards trans languaging could provide a more natural and effective approach.

What is the potential impact of considering trans languaging in language education?

Considering trans languaging in language education could lead to more inclusive and effective learning experiences, as it acknowledges and values the full range of a learner's linguistic abilities rather than confining them to socially constructed categories.

How does the script connect the historical context of named languages to current language practices?

The script connects the historical context by highlighting how the categorization and naming of languages by colonizers have influenced current language practices, including how languages are taught, learned, and assessed, often to the detriment of a more natural and comprehensive understanding of linguistic diversity.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Trans Languaing vs. Code Switching

The video script begins with an introduction to the topic of trans languaging and code switching, emphasizing the need to differentiate between the two. It mentions a previous video on the subject and highlights the importance of understanding the distinction. The script introduces the concept of 'named languages', which are linguistic systems identified and labeled by institutions such as linguists or governments. It explains that code switching operates from an outsider's perspective, not questioning the idea of named languages, and sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the topic.

05:05

🏛 Historical Context of Named Languages

This paragraph delves into the historical context of named languages, suggesting that they were often a result of colonial efforts to categorize and control the linguistic practices of colonized peoples. It describes how colonizers would identify linguistic features, bundle them into named languages, and impose their own linguistic categories onto these groups. The paragraph also touches on the political implications of named languages in governance and education, and how they are often tied to social constructs and historical power dynamics, rather than being inherently natural or neutral.

10:06

🧠 Trans Languaing: An Insider's Perspective

The final paragraph contrasts code switching with trans languaging, which is presented as an insider's perspective. It challenges the notion that linguistic features are naturally separated into distinct systems and argues for a more unified view of language. Trans languaging is described as the use of a speaker's full linguistic repertoire without adherence to the boundaries of named languages. The paragraph criticizes the enforcement of named languages in educational settings and suggests that a trans languaging approach could lead to a more accurate assessment of a learner's abilities and needs, focusing on the individual's linguistic experience rather than external social evaluations.

Keywords

💡Translanguaging

Translanguaging refers to the fluid use of a speaker's full linguistic repertoire without being constrained by the traditional boundaries of named languages. It is a concept that challenges the conventional approach to language teaching and learning, emphasizing an insider's perspective that does not separate linguistic features into distinct systems. In the script, translanguaging is contrasted with code-switching, highlighting its focus on a unified collection of linguistic features rather than the separation imposed by named languages.

💡Code Switching

Code switching is the practice of alternating between two or more languages or dialects in conversation. The script explains that it is viewed from an outsider's perspective and assumes that named languages exist naturally, which contrasts with translanguaging. Code switching is often seen as a social phenomenon rather than a reflection of the speaker's full linguistic capabilities, as it adheres to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages.

💡Named Languages

Named languages are linguistic systems that have been given specific names by institutions, such as linguists or governments. The script discusses how named languages are social constructs with often violent political histories, resulting from the categorization and naming of linguistic practices by colonizers. This concept is central to understanding the video's theme, as it questions the natural existence of named languages and their role in language learning and assessment.

💡Colonizing Institutions

Colonizing institutions are those that historically sought to study, subjugate, and govern the people they colonized. In the context of the script, these institutions played a significant role in the creation of named languages by imposing their own linguistic categories onto the colonized people's speech. This historical context is crucial for understanding the political implications of named languages and their impact on language learning and perception.

💡Linguistic Features

Linguistic features refer to the various elements that make up a language, such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The script uses the term to describe how these features are perceived and categorized, either as part of a named language or as part of a speaker's translingual repertoire. The concept is key to understanding the difference between the outsider's perspective of code switching and the insider's perspective of translanguaging.

💡Insider's Perspective

The insider's perspective is the viewpoint from within the speaker's head, focusing on the full range of linguistic features they use without being limited by named languages. The script contrasts this with the outsider's perspective, which imposes external categorizations and evaluations on language use. The insider's perspective is central to the concept of translanguaging and is emphasized as a more natural and holistic approach to language.

💡Outsider's Perspective

The outsider's perspective is an external viewpoint that categorizes and evaluates language use based on named languages and social criteria. In the script, this perspective is associated with code switching and the historical processes of naming languages by colonizers. It is presented as a limiting factor in language learning and assessment, contrasting with the more inclusive approach of the insider's perspective.

💡Language Competence

Language competence refers to the ability to use language effectively in communication. The script discusses how traditional assessments of language competence often rely on tools developed by nation-states, which assume that named languages exist naturally and can be measured in a neutral way. This concept is challenged by the script, suggesting that a more holistic approach, like translanguaging, might better reflect a speaker's true linguistic abilities.

💡Social Construct

A social construct is a concept or category that is created and defined by society rather than having an inherent, natural existence. In the script, named languages are described as social constructs with political implications, rather than being inherent aspects of human cognition. This understanding is crucial for challenging the traditional views on language and advocating for the translanguaging approach.

💡Linguistic Repertoire

A speaker's linguistic repertoire encompasses the full range of linguistic features and resources they command, including multiple languages, dialects, and styles. The script highlights the importance of considering the entire linguistic repertoire in the translanguaging approach, as opposed to the segmented view of language competence often associated with code switching and named languages.

💡Mental Capacity

Mental capacity, in the context of the script, refers to the historical assessment of intelligence based on linguistic abilities, particularly the ability to speak a named language like English. The script criticizes this approach, pointing out that it unfairly categorized bilingual children and African-American children as mentally deficient because their linguistic features were not recognized or valued in the tests. This concept is used to illustrate the limitations and biases of traditional language assessments.

Highlights

Translanguaging and code switching are not the same, representing different perspectives on language use.

Translanguaging is an insider's perspective, while code switching is viewed from an outsider's perspective.

Code switching does not question the concept of named languages, which are systems named by institutions or governments.

Named languages often have violent, political histories and remain important to governance.

Colonizers and institutions historically invented or discovered linguistic systems to categorize and subjugate people.

The concept of named languages is a social construct, not a mental or psychological one.

Code switching assumes that named languages exist naturally and are a good starting point for language learning.

Translanguaging challenges the idea that linguistic features are naturally separated into named languages.

Translanguaging posits that learners work from a unified collection of linguistic features, not divided into systems.

Language teaching often enforces the split between named languages, which is not natural but a historical political invention.

Translanguaging is the deployment of a speaker's full linguistic repertoire without adherence to named language boundaries.

Translanguaging privileges the learner's perspective, focusing on what is inside the learner's head.

Code switching privileges social evaluations from the outside, enforcing named language divisions.

Language assessment in schools often suppresses linguistic features that do not fit into the named language being tested.

Translanguaging could allow for a more accurate assessment of a child's linguistic abilities and needs.

The video emphasizes the importance of understanding the difference between code switching and translanguaging for language education.

Transcripts

welcome back word nerds mike here with

the social life of language making

complex theories simple but never

simplified if you think that sounds cool

hit that subscribe button

now today we'll be covering the article

clarifying trans languaging

and deconstructing named languages a

perspective

from linguistics by othegy garcia and

reed before we start full disclosure a

couple years ago ophelia requested that

i make a video on trans languaging which

i did

and i strongly recommend that after this

video you go back

and watch that one too i'll put the link

up in the corner now

ortegi ended up seeing this video and he

told me

mike you gotta make it really clear that

trans languaging and code switching

are not the same so in this video we

approach

this question again what's the

difference between trans languaging

and code switching let's find out

first a clear statement trans languaging

does not equal code switching imagine

trans languaging and code switching

are two perspectives standing on the

opposite side

of a mountain what can be seen what's

going to be observed is

totally different in this article the

authors use this idea of

perspective trans languaging is an

insider's perspective

while code switching is an outsider's

perspective i want to start on familiar

territory

let's clarify code switching and the

outsider's perspective

first this takes us to a major keyword

in the title of this

article named languages what is that

it refers to linguistic systems that

have been named by various

institutions or group of institutions

for example

a group of linguists or a state

government

names like english or spanish or

whatever

code switching does not question the

idea of a named

language let's ask some questions first

how does a language get a name

let me tell you a true but generalized

story to begin we might perceive

a linguistic feature feature 1 f1

and then also feature 2 f2 and

f3 and f4 we might make the claim that

this

cluster of features that we just

perceived

are used by this particular group of

people

we then draw a box around these

linguistic

features and then we say this group of

features constitute what we call

a language a language named english or

spanish

or whatever let's ask a bigger question

what reason did we have at some point

in history to describe to list words

to create grammar books and then give a

name to those linguistic features

those linguistic features that were

spoken by some group

we can't just pretend like we didn't

have a reason to do it in the first

place

let's build on our story if we look at

history and the emergence of named

languages

we are talking about colonizing

institutions who had an

interest in studying the people they

were colonizing

usually to subjugate and govern them

this might require they go in and they

study their linguistic practice

and since colonizers have a dependably

racist view

of the people they colonized they would

study and categorize their linguistic

practice

as childlike as primitive so if this is

obviously not english then we should

give this

another name so they get their own

linguistic category their own

name their own box to be more blunt

these colonizers these outsiders brought

with them

a very specific set of assumptions of

what

constitutes a language and essentially

forced other people's linguistic

practices

into those boxes into that set of

assumptions that they brought

with them from the outside for example

if a certain number of linguistic

features

were observed across a certain number of

people

suddenly we start seeing linguistic

patterns

suddenly we start assuming there is a

stable linguistic system

this set of assumptions about language

is from an outsider's perspective

literally in essence colonizers would

not simply

discover a group of people or discover

some land

they would also discover new linguistic

systems much in the same way christopher

columbus

discovered america

from a different perspective we can also

say

that he along with historiographers

along with map makers along with

soldiers

along with the nation state that

financed all of these adventures

together they invented america now

mapping was an important part of the

colonial enterprise

those maps were made from the outsiders

perspective

not from for example the colonized

people's

perspective who probably had a totally

different way of perceiving the land

so importantly these maps are made from

an outsider's perspective

not from for example the colonized

people's perspective

in the same way we can think of the

discovery of linguistic

systems as mapping linguistic features

from an outsider's perspective an

outsider that says

oh these are the important parts these

are the less important parts

these are the important patterns this

makes up the grammar this makes

up the system this is a linguistic

system that needs

a name on top of that the colonizers

might say

something like hey you can participate

in your own colonial governance

but using our ideas of what a language

is

and we already mapped out your language

and it's not

modern enough to participate in

governance here's the thing

named languages do not just

exist they often have violent

political histories named languages

remain very important to governance

to this day when you get right down to

it we're

a nation that speaks english that's how

they will become

successful and do great so i think it's

more appropriate to be speaking english

so when we talk about named languages we

almost

always forget the postulate that a named

language

is a social construct not a mental

or psychological one we are standing

outside of the speaker's head

observing categorizing listing

documenting measuring observations that

depending on who

is doing the observing will notice

certain things

but not other things we'll say that's

important that's not important

this has value this other stuff does not

have value for example if you are a

school leader in charge of

assessing language competence you will

likely be using

tools developed by the nation state

you are using very specific criteria and

you're assuming that those name

languages have always just

existed and that there is some neutral

way to measure this thing we call

language competence this is what is

crucial here when we talk about

code switching we are observing from an

outsider's perspective

while also imposing a very specific

social criteria onto language users

that were developed throughout history

notice that up to this point

we have not talked about the speaker's

perspective

at all so let's pause right here and

let's overview what we've said

so far when we are talking about code

switching between

named languages we are assuming quite a

few things

first we assume that named languages

exist

in nature we forget about all the

historical processes that actually

helped

invent those named languages we forget

that

somewhere along the way there was a

group of people or an institution or a

nation-state

that had a political interest in

inventing or discovering linguistic

systems

and the next assumption follows from the

first

we believe that sorting out linguistic

features into named languages

is a good starting point for language

learners

so then what follows from there is we

start attaching

value to certain linguistic features and

not

others we say this language is good in

school

that is not this language is good for a

job interview

that is not this language is appropriate

here

but it's not there so when we talk about

code switching no matter

how positive we spin the idea the

authors say

the notion of code switching still

constitutes a theoretical endorsement

of the idea that what the bilingual

manipulates

however masterfully are two separate

linguistic

systems two separate named systems

but remember we named those systems

after the fact

yet we try to teach language learners as

if our language learning brain

naturally accepts those divisions

between linguistic systems

because supposedly that's just the way

language works

so that must mean our brain works like

that

too but trans languaging is like

nah so here's why we can't say code

switching and trans languaging are the

same trans languaging posits that

learners work from a unified collection

of linguistic features

not naturally separated into systems

into named languages again let's be

clear code switching assumes that our

brain

naturally sorts out these linguistic

features

naturally puts them into boxes but

everything that we've been talking about

thus far

reveals that those boxes are not natural

but historical political inventions

recent ones at that in terms of language

teaching

the idea of code switching assumes that

teaching within the parameters of a

named language

is probably the best way to teach

language learners

but also the natural way to teach

language learners

trans languaging is challenging us to

adopt a perspective

from inside the learner's head the

insider's perspective

that split between named languages is

not

built into our biology it's not built

into our brain matter but we

enforce that split every single

day from outside of the learner's head

especially in schools

[Music]

military men and women fighting are not

fighting for your right to speak spanish

they're fighting for your right to speak

american

for example in the united states english

spanish bilingual children

were constantly categorized as mentally

because surprise the tests that

were used to measure something called

mental capacity

rejected a giant chunk of a person's

linguistic features

of a person's linguistic abilities put

another way

those linguistic features just simply

didn't count

on that test it's the same reason black

children were also categorized as

mentally

because they weren't speaking the

language named english they were

speaking something else

they were speaking a language named

african-american english

and those linguistic features do not

count

on the test let me ask you a serious

question

has that kind of language assessment in

schools

really changed the authors say trans

languaging

is 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 nation-state

languages

for example a child growing up in a

household that speaks the languages

named

english and spanish is usually not

learning to talk

under social political constraints but

as soon as a child

steps into a school we immediately start

restricting

some linguistic features while valuing

other linguistic features

those restrictions those evaluations

come

from the outside they are not part of

natural psychological mental processes

so what if we thought about language

differently without the rigorous

enforcement of named languages

without attempting to measure what a

child knows

while simultaneously suppressing all the

linguistic features that are in

the wrong named language wouldn't we

actually be able to tell how brilliant a

child is

wouldn't we be able to assess even

better where a child

actually needs help to succeed so trans

languaging

privileges the learner privileges what

is going on

inside the learner's head code switching

privileges

social evaluations from the outside

from the outsiders perspective okay this

stuff is really complicated but you

might

feel the difference now but i spent most

of today's video

clarifying the assumptions underneath

code switching if i clarified

anything here i'm hoping that i

clarified that code switching and trans

languaging

are not the same thing this is where you

go watch my other video

on trans languaging there i focus on

trans languaging much more well that's

all for today folks don't forget to like

and subscribe and follow me on twitter

and go

support this channel on patreon you can

also download my publications off of

academia.edu this is mike with the

social life of language

and we're done

you