Applied Linguistics 2017: 1–23 ß Oxford University Press 2017.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduc-
tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1093/applin/amx039

Translanguaging as a Practical Theory

of Language

LI WEI
UCL Centre for Applied Linguistics, UCL Institute of Education, University College
London

E-mail: li.wei@ucl.ac.uk

This article seeks to develop Translanguaging as a theory of language and discuss

the theoretical motivations behind and the added values of the concept. I con-
textualize Translanguaging in the linguistic realities of the 21st century, espe-
cially the fluid and dynamic practices that transcend the boundaries between
named languages, language varieties, and language and other semiotic systems.
I highlight the contributions Translanguaging as a theoretical concept can make
to the debates over the Language and Thought and the Modularity of Mind
hypotheses. One particular aspect of multilingual language users’ social inter-
action that I want to emphasize is its multimodal and multisensory nature. I
elaborate on two related concepts: Translanguaging Space and Translanguaging
Instinct, to underscore the necessity to bridge the artificial and ideological div-
ides between the so-called sociocultural and the cognitive approaches to
Translanguaging practices. In doing so, I respond to some of the criticisms and
confusions about the notion of Translanguaging.

1. INTRODUCTION
The term Translanguaging seems to have captured people’s imagination. It has
been applied to pedagogy, everyday social interaction, cross-modal and multi-
modal communication, linguistic landscape, visual arts, music, and transgender
discourse. The growing body of work gives the impression that any practice that is
slightly non-conventional could be described in terms of Translanguaging. There
is considerable confusion as to whether Translanguaging could be an all-encom-
passing term for diverse multilingual and multimodal practices, replacing terms
such as code-switching, code-mixing, code-meshing, and crossing. It also seems to
be in competition with other terms, for example polylanguaging, polylingual
languaging, multilanguaging, heteroglossia, hybrid language practices, translin-
gual practice, flexible bilingualism, and metrolingualism, for academic discourse
space. Dissents exist that question the need for the term, and indeed the other
terms as well, dismissing it as merely a popularist neologism and part of the
sloganization of the post-modern, possibly also post-truth, era. The central object-
ive of this article is therefore to explicate the theoretical motivations for having
2 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

the term Translanguaging and its added value, respond to some of the questions
raised by researchers who are either sympathetic or critical of the term, and clarify
some of the confusion that has been caused by the proliferation of its usage. I will
do so by framing Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. It is important
to say that the perspective presented in this article is largely a personal one,
though of course a product of collaborative work with many others.
The article is structured as follows: I begin by outlining the kind of practical
theory of language that I believe applied linguistics needs, and the kinds of lin-
guistic practice that I am interested in investigating through a Translanguaging
lens. I then discuss in detail the key theoretical arguments that underpin the
notion of Translanguaging. In particular, I highlight the two fundamental issues
in the study of language and linguistics with which Translanguaging aims to
engage—language and thought and the modularity of mind. I will also discuss
the relationship between Translanguaging and multimodality. I go on to discuss
two related notions: Translanguaging Space and Translanguaging Instinct, which
have important implications for policy and practice. I conclude by highlighting
the added values of Translanguaging.

2. APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN NEED OF A PRACTICAL THEORY

OF LANGUAGE
Applied linguistics has borrowed many different concepts and methods from
other disciplines including, but way beyond, linguistics. Yet we own very few
theoretical concepts and analytical methods of our own, and the disciplines
from which we have borrowed concepts and methods pay relatively little at-
tention to what we as applied linguists have done in return. ‘Applied’ is often
taken as synonymous with atheoretical, therefore of lower scientific value.
Many applied linguists would not mind that because our primary interest is
in policy and practice concerning language and how to solve real-world prob-
lems in which language is a central issue (Brumfit 1995). On the other hand,
many applied linguists would like to think that what we do is, or should be,
‘theoretical’: we are offering new thinking and new ways of looking at every-
day linguistic practices in society, not just practical solutions.
In her 2015 reflection on applied linguistics as a field of enquiry, Kramsch
made a timely call for an ‘applied linguistic theory of language practice’.
Kramsch’s (2015) ideas are informed by Bourdieu’s (1977) practice theory
where the notion of ‘habitus’ is central to capture the dialectic between
social structure and human agency and how social beings, with their diverse
motives and their diverse intentions, make and transform the world. I would
like to suggest that Translanguaging is a good candidate for a theory of lan-
guage practice. But due to my own cultural upbringing, my ideas of a theory of
the practice come from a rather different source, and I shall call it a Practical
Theory. It is essentially based on Mao’s reading of Confucius as well as
 W. LI 3

western, including Marxist, philosophies, advocating the so-called dialectical-

materialist approach to knowledge acquisition that knowledge is wrought
through practice. Mao (1937) emphasized the dependence of theory on prac-
tice, that is, theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The process
of theorization, or knowledge construction, involves a perpetual cycle of prac-
tice-theory-practice. The crucial first step in knowledge construction is descrip-
tive adequacy. Note that it is not accuracy: no one description of an actual
practice is necessarily more accurate than another because description is the
observer–analyst’s subjective understanding and interpretation of the practice
or phenomenon that they are observing. Questions are formulated on the basis
of the description and, crucially, as part of the observer–analyst’s interpretation
process. Interpretation is experiential and understanding is dialogic. The ques-
tions are therefore ideologically and experientially sensitive. A practical theory
goes for holistic descriptions to the observer’s best ability and descriptions of all
that has been observed, not just selective segments of the data. Whilst descrip-
tive adequacy is a matter of degree, richness and depth, therefore, rather than
elegance (cf. Chomsky 1965 on ‘descriptive adequacy’ but from a formal rules
and elegance perspective) are the key measures. The main objective of a prac-
tical theory is not to offer predictions or solutions but interpretations that can
be used to observe, interpret, and understand other practices and phenomena.
The theory should provide a principled choice between competing interpret-
ations that inform and enhance future practice, and the principles are related
to the consequentialities of alternative interpretations. An important assess-
ment of the value of a practical theory is the extent to which it can ask new
and different questions on both the practice under investigation and other
existing theories about the practice. It is also useful to recognize that practices
can be of very diverse natures; for instance, the academic practices of know-
ledge production which include the purposes of the research articulated in
specific socio-historical settings, language practices by the language users
being studied, and professional practices such as language teaching. I am pri-
marily concerned with everyday language practices of multilingual language
users, and I want to show, in this article, that Translanguaging as a practical
theory of language offers better interpretations of the kinds of language prac-
tice that I am interested in and the kinds of theoretical questions it can raise in
relation to some of the most central issues in linguistic science.

3. THE PRACTICE
Let me first explain the kinds of language practice that I am particularly con-
cerned with. The first set of examples comes from a corpus of what I have
called New Chinglish (Li 2016a) which includes ordinary English utterances
being re-appropriated with entirely different meanings for communication be-
tween Chinese users of English as well as creations of words and expressions
4 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

that adhere broadly to the morphological rules of English but with Chinese
twists and meanings.
(1)
 Niubility = niubi, originally a taboo word, now meaning awesome
ability that is worth showing off or boasting about + ability.
 Geilivable = geili, to give force, regional dialectal expression meaning
‘supportive’ or ‘cool’ + able.
 Chinsumer = a mesh of ‘Chinese consumer’, usually
referring to Chinese tourists buying large quantities of luxury goods
overseas.
 Smilence = smile + silence, referring to the stereotypical Chinese
reaction of smiling without saying anything.
 Propoorty = describing the mounting costs property owners, espe-
cially the young, in China have to incur.
 Don’train = dong, v. move; advanced high-speed trains are called dong
che in Chinese. Don’train, which sounds similar to the Chinese term,
refers to both the high costs that prevent ordinary workers in China to
be able to take the high-speed trains and the government-imposed speed
restrictions after a number of accidents on the railway.
 Circusee = circle/circus + see, referring to a common phenomenon
where crowds gather around an accident or around elderly people’s dan-
cing and singing in public places. It also makes use of the habit of adding
a vowel after a final consonant that some Chinese speakers of English
have.
 Z-turn = Chinese netizens’ translation of a warning by the former
Chinese president Hu Jintao, (bu zheteng, NEG. + verb), ‘Don’t
make trouble or cause turmoil’, manipulating the sound (Z-turn and
zhe teng ), the letter shape, and the semantics.
 Shitizen = shit + citizen, reflecting how ordinary citizens in China feel
about their status in society.
 Democrazy = democracy + crazy; mocking the so-called demo-
cratic systems of the west and in some parts of Asia where certain legis-
lations such as the ownership of firearms can be protected due to political
lobbying and, in the case of Taiwan, parliamentarians get into physical
fights over disagreements. The occurrence of the word was prominent
after the news of Trump’s victory in the US presidential election broke.
 Gunvernment = gun + government; after Mao’s saying
‘Government comes out of the barrel of the gun’.
 Freedamn = freedom + damn, mocking the idea of ‘freedom
with Chinese characteristics’.
 Harmany = The Chinese Communist Party’s discourse on
‘harmony’ has been turned by the bilingual netizens into harm +
many, as many people felt that the social policies imposed on them
brought harm rather than cohesion.
 Departyment = department + party, mocking government depart-
ments spending time and resources on parties.
 W. LI 5

 How are you = back word-to-word literal translation from Chinese

(how + BE + you), meaning Why you?!
 How old are you = back word-to-word literal translation from Chinese
(how + old + BE + you)., meaning Why always you?!
 You can you up, no can no BB, meaning ‘If you have the ability then you do
it. If you don’t have the ability, then say nothing.’, which is a translation
of ,
 You ask me, me ask who?, meaning ‘Don’t look at me. I have no idea.’,
from a word-to-word translation of , ?
 We two who and who?, meaning ‘We are the best buddies.’, from
?
 I will give you some colour to see see, meaning ‘I will teach you a lesson’, a
literal translation of !
These examples look English, but a monolingual English speaker may find it
difficult to understand precisely their meanings and connotations. Existing
terms such as code-mixing and code-switching that assume the existence of
different languages as structural and cognitive entities and focus on structural
configurations of the form seem unable to fully capture the creative and critical
dimensions of these expressions. A fuller description and interpretation must
involve an understanding of the sociopolitical context in which these expres-
sions occur, the history of Chinglish, the subjectivities of the people who
created and use these expressions, as well as the ideologies, including linguistic
ideologies, that these expressions challenge.
The second example is provided by Ng Bee Chin of the Nanyang
Technological University in Singapore who recorded an exchange between
Jamie, a Chinese Singaporean in his 50s, and an old family friend, Seetoh,
who had just lost her husband.
(2)
Seetoh: Aiyoh (discourse particle), we are all <ka ki nang> ( = own
people, meaning ‘friends’), bian khe khi ( = don’t mention
it). Ren lai jiu hao ( = good of you to come), why bring so
many ‘barang barang’ (’things’). Paiseh ( = I’m embarrassed).
‘Nei chan hai yau sum’ ( = you are so considerate).
Jamie: Don’t say until like that. Now, you make me malu (’shame’) only. You
look after my daughter for so many years, mei you gong lao ye you
ku lao ( = you have done hard work even if you
don’t want a prize). I feel so bad that I could not come earlier. ‘Mm hou
yi si’ ( = I’m embarrassed). I was so shocked to hear about
Seetoh, tsou lang ham ham ( ham ham—meaning life is unpre-
dictable), jie ai shun bian. ( = hope you will restrain your grief
and go along with the changes)
Seetoh: ta lin zou de shi hou hai zai gua nian ( = He was
thinking of Natalie before he passed away) Natalie (Jamie’s daughter).
Of all your children, he ‘saying’ ‘love’ her the most.
6 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

Bold: Hokkien
In square brackets < >: Teochew
Underlined: Mandarin
In double quotation marks: Malay
In single quotation marks: Cantonese
Italics: Singlish
Standard font: English
This is typical of the everyday speech of ethnic Chinese Singaporeans. Whilst I
have tried to mark what I can identify in terms of namable languages and
varieties, there seems to be little point in asking what languages or varieties
they are speaking or counting how many languages are being spoken here.
A classic code-switching approach would assume switching back and forward
to a single language default, and it would be the wrong assumption to make
about this community of multilinguals. If we treat each nameable language or
language variety as a discrete entity, some, such as Teochow and Hokkien, are
disappearing fast in Singaporean Chinese communities as the younger gener-
ations increasingly shift towards English–Mandarin bilingualism instead of the
traditional multilingualism in regional varieties of Chinese. But many words
and expressions, particularly those that have not been standardized with writ-
ten Chinese characters, are being preserved and used in the highly fluid and
dynamic speech of Singaporean speakers as in the example here.
Conservationist discourses surrounding endangered languages do not typically
pay any attention to this kind of speech, are ambivalent towards language
mixing, and tend to argue instead that the integrity of individual languages
should be protected.
I have many other examples of dynamic and creative linguistic practices that
involve flexible use of named languages and language varieties as well as other
semiotic resources. My main concern here is not whether these and other
examples are instances of (different kinds of) Translanguaging, but more gen-
erally that the-more-the-better approaches to multilingualism seem increas-
ingly over-simplistic and inadequate for the complex linguistic realities of the
21st century. Whilst there has been significant progress in many parts of the
world where multilingualism, in the sense of having different languages co-
existing alongside each other, is beginning to be acceptable, what remains
hugely problematic is the mixing of languages. The myth of a pure form of a
language is so deep-rooted that there are many people who, while accepting
the existence of different languages, cannot accept the ‘contamination’ of their
language by others. This is one of the reasons for Chinglish to have been the
object of ridicule for generations, even though the creative process it repre-
sents is an important and integral part of language evolution. The practices in
the Singapore example above are in fact under threat from English–Mandarin
bilingualism there and the compartmentalization of languages, or what has
been called the ‘complementary distribution’ principle. We are facing serious
Post-Multilingualism challenges (Li 2016a) where simply having many
 W. LI 7

different languages is no longer sufficient either for the individual or for society
as a whole, but multiple ownerships and more complex interweaving of lan-
guages and language varieties, and where boundaries between languages, be-
tween languages and other communicative means, and the relationship
between language and the nation-state are being constantly reassessed,
broken, or adjusted by speakers on the ground. Concepts such as native, for-
eign, indigenous, minority languages are also constantly being reassessed and
challenged. What is more, communication in the 21st century requires much
more involvement with what has traditionally been viewed as non-linguistic
means and urges us to overcome the ‘lingua bias’ of communication. The Post-
Multilingualism era raises fundamental questions about what language is for
ordinary men and women in their everyday social interactions—questions to
which I believe Translanguaging can provide some useful answers.

4. WHY TRANSLANGUAGING?
It must be said that the term Translanguaging was not originally intended as a
theoretical concept, but a descriptive label for a specific language practice. It
was Baker’s (2001) English translation of Williams’ (Williams 1994) Welsh
term trawsieithu, to describe pedagogical practices that Williams observed in
Welsh revitalization programmes where the teacher would try and teach in
Welsh and the pupils would respond largely in English. Sometimes the lan-
guage choice would be reversed when the pupils would read something in
Welsh and the teacher would offer explanations in English. Such practices
were by no means unique to the Welsh context. But instead of viewing
them negatively as tended to be the case in classrooms involving bilingual
learners, Williams suggested that they helped to maximize the learner’s, and
the teacher’s, linguistic resources in the process of problem-solving and know-
ledge construction. Over the years, Translanguaging has proven to be an ef-
fective pedagogical practice in a variety of educational contexts where the
school language or the language-of-instruction is different from the languages
of the learners. By deliberately breaking the artificial and ideological divides
between indigenous versus immigrant, majority versus minority, and target
versus mother tongue languages, Translanguaging empowers both the learner
and the teacher, transforms the power relations, and focuses the process of
teaching and learning on making meaning, enhancing experience, and de-
veloping identity (Garcı́a 2009; Creese and Blackledge 2015). What I like
about William’s and Baker’s idea of Translanguaging is that it is not conceived
as an object or a linguistic structural phenomenon to describe and analyse but
a practice and a process—a practice that involves dynamic and functionally
integrated use of different languages and language varieties, but more import-
antly a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s). It takes us
beyond the linguistics of systems and speakers to a linguistics of participation
(Rampton, p.c.).
8 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

For me, the Translanguaging pedagogy also helps to re-examine an age-old

question of the role of L1 in second, foreign, and additional language teaching
and learning. Despite the theoretical appraisal in recent years of the import-
ance of L1 in learning additional languages, the target-language-only or one-
language-at-a-time monolingual ideologies still dominate much of practice and
policy, not least in assessing learning outcomes. The actual purpose of learning
new languages—to become bilingual and multilingual, rather than to replace
the learner’s L1 to become another monolingual—often gets forgotten or neg-
lected, and the bilingual, rather than monolingual, speaker is rarely used as the
model for teaching and learning.
As explained in my 2011 article (Li 2011a), whilst I was aware of Williams’
and Baker’s work on Translanguaging as a pedagogical practice, my initial idea
of Translanguaging came from a different source, namely, the notion of
Languaging. In a short commentary on Newmeyer’s (1991) essay on the origins
of language, Becker (1991) borrowed the term Languaging from the Chilean
biologist and neuroscientist Humberto Maturana and his co-author Francesco
Varela (Maturana and Varela 1980) and invited us to think that ‘there is no
such thing as Language, only continual languaging, an activity of human
beings in the world’ (p. 34). He reiterated Ortega y Gasset’s (1957) argument
that language should not be regarded ‘as an accomplished fact, as a thing made
and finished, but as in the process of being made’ (p. 242). This argument has
been followed up by other researchers in at least two ways.
Swain (2006), for example, used the term to describe the cognitive process of
negotiating and producing meaningful, comprehensible output as part of lan-
guage learning as a ‘means to mediate cognition’, that is to understand and to
problem-solve (p. 97) and ‘a process of making meaning and shaping know-
ledge and experience through language’ (p. 97). She gave specific examples of
advanced second language learners’ cognitive and affective engagements
through languaging, whereby ‘language serves as a vehicle through which
thinking is articulated and transformed into an artifactual form’ (Swain
2006: 97). She also mentioned Hall’s work on languaging in psychotherapy
(Hall 1999) where ‘talking-it-through’ meant ‘coming-to-know-while-speak-
ing’ (Swain and Lapkin 2002). I particularly like the connections Swain and
the others made between languaging and thinking, cognizing and conscious-
ness. But I wanted to ask the question: How is the thinking process affected by
simultaneous use of multiple languages of the kinds in the examples above?—
a very common practice amongst multilinguals whether all the named and
nameable languages get verbalized or written. I also wanted to extend the
discussion beyond advanced second language learners to include different
types of multilingual language users and to find a term that would capture
their ‘talking-it-through’ in multiple languages however incomplete or trun-
cated their knowledge of the individual languages may be. It is the entirety of
the learner’s linguistic repertoire that I am concerned with, rather than know-
ledge of specific structures of specific languages separately. Perhaps it is closer
to Lado’s (1979) idea of language as ‘full linguistic performance’ (p. 3), to
 W. LI 9

which Swain contrasted her conceptualization of Languaging, although Lado

did not deal with multiple languages either.
Another line of enquiry has been pursued from the perspectives of distrib-
uted cognition and what has become known as ‘ecological psychology’, where
languaging refers to ‘an assemblage of diverse material, biological, semiotic and
cognitive properties and capacities which languaging agents orchestrate in
real-time and across a diversity of timescales’ (Thibault 2017: 82). Following
Love (Love 1990, 2004), scholars such as Stephen Cowley, Paul Thibault, and
Sune Steffensen set out to challenge what they call ‘the code view’ of language
that sought to identify abstract verbal patterns, morphosyntax, or lexicogram-
mar, divorced from cognitive, affective, and bodily dynamics in real-time and
specify the rules for mapping forms to meanings and meanings to forms. They
regard language thus identified and specified as a second-order construct, the
product of first-order activity, languaging (Thibault 2011, 2017; Steffensen
2009, 2011; Cowley 2017), and argue that ‘human languaging activity is rad-
ically heterogeneous and involves the interaction of processes on many differ-
ent time-scales, including neural, bodily, situational, social, and cultural
processes and events’ (Thibault 2017: 76). They urge linguists, psychologists,
and others working on human communication to ‘grant languaging a primacy
over what is languaged’ (Cowley 2017: 13, following Love 2016).
I find this particular way of conceptualizing languaging appealing for three
key reasons:
1 Fundamentally, it invites us to rethink language not as an organism-
centred entity with corresponding formalism, phonemes, words, sen-
tences, etc., but as ‘a multi-scalar organization of processes that enables
the bodily and the situated to interact with situation-transcending cul-
tural-historical dynamics and practices’ (Thibault 2017: 78).
2 It sees the divides between the linguistic, the paralinguistic, and the
extralinguistic dimensions of human communication as nonsensical and
emphasizes what the researchers call the orchestration of the neural-
bodily-worldly skills of languaging. In particular, it highlights the import-
ance of feeling, experience, history, memory, subjectivity, and culture.
Although they do not talk about ideology and power, it is entirely con-
ceivable that these too play important roles in languaging.
3 On language learning, it advocates a radically different view that the
novice does not ‘acquire’ language, but rather ‘they adapt their bodies
and brains to the languaging activity that surrounds them’, and in doing
so, ‘they participate in cultural worlds and learn that they can get things
done with others in accordance with the culturally promoted norms and
values’ (Thibault 2017: 76). This linguistics-of-participation approach res-
onates with the language socialization’s and complex dynamic system’s
perspectives on language acquisition and learning (The Five Graces Group
et al., 2009; Duranti et al. 2011). For me, language learning is a process of
embodied participation and resemiotization (see also McDermott and
10 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

Roth 1978; McDermott et al. 1978; Dore and McDermott 1982; and
Gallagher and Zahavi 2012).
By adding the Trans prefix to Languaging, I not only wanted to have a term that
better captures multilingual language users’ fluid and dynamic practices such
as those in the New Chinglish and Singaporean speech examples above but
also to put forward two further arguments:
1 Multilinguals do not think unilingually in a politically named linguistic
entity, even when they are in a ‘monolingual mode’ and producing one
namable language only for a specific stretch of speech or text.
2 Human beings think beyond language, and thinking requires the use of a
variety of cognitive, semiotic, and modal resources of which language in
its conventional sense of speech and writing is only one.
These are about two of the fundamental theoretical questions in contemporary
linguistics: Language and Thought and Modularity of Mind.
With regard to the first point, there seems to be a confusion between the
hypothesis that thinking takes place in a Language of Thought (Fodor 1975)—
in other words, thought possesses a language-like or compositional structure—
and that we think in the named language we speak. The latter seems more
intuitive and commonsensical and has indeed attracted a great deal of atten-
tion by researchers who, through elaborate experiments, have tried to provide
evidence that, for instance, Japanese or Greek speakers process motion events,
shape, and colour differently from English or Russian speakers. This line of
argument is not all that different from earlier observations that speakers of
English, Semitic, Oriental, Romance, and Russian languages had rather differ-
ent rhetorical patterns (Kaplan 1966), though being much more speculative of
the relationship between the language used in the expressions and the thought
processes that lie behind them, as well as allowing the possibility of change
from one way of thinking to another as a result of language learning. However,
it remains a controversial topic, not least because it cannot address the ques-
tion of how bilingual and multilingual language users think without referen-
cing notions of the L1, ‘native’ or ‘dominant’ language.
For me, one of the most important, and challenging, issues in bilingualism
and multilingualism research is to understand what is going on when bilingual
and multilingual language users are engaged in what Grosjean calls ‘the bilin-
gual mode’ (Grosjean 2001) and what Green and I have called ‘an open control
state’ (Green and Li 2014) where they constantly switch between named lan-
guages. It is hard to imagine that they shift their frame of mind so frequently in
one conversational episode let alone one utterance. With utterances such as
the ones in the Singaporean example above, a question such as: ‘Which lan-
guage is the speaker thinking in?’ simply does not make sense. We do not
think in a specific, named language separately. The language we individually
produce is an idiolect, our own unique, personal language. No two idiolects are
likely to be the same, and no single individual’s idiolect is likely to be the same
 W. LI 11

over time. As Otheguy et al. (2015) argue, a bilingual person’s idiolect would
consist of lexical and grammatical features from different socially and politic-
ally defined languages, just as a so-called monolingual’s idiolect would consist
of lexical and grammatical features from regionally, social class-wise, and styl-
istically differentiated varieties of the same named language. If we followed the
argument that we think in the language we speak, then we think in our own
idiolect, not a named language. But the language-of-thought must be inde-
pendent of these idiolects, and that is the point of Fodor’s theory. We do not
think in Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian, or Spanish; we think beyond the
artificial boundaries of named languages in the language-of-thought.
We must also not forget that the names and labels that we use to talk about
languages, for example English, German, Danish, and Norwegian, or Burmese,
Chinese, Thai, and Lao, are names and labels assigned by linguists to sets of
structures that they have identified. Often these names and labels are also
cultural–political concepts associated with the one-nation/race-one-language
ideology. From a historical perspective, human languages evolved from fairly
simple combinations of sounds, gestures, icons, symbols, etc., and gradually
diversified and diffused due to climate change and population movement.
Speech communities were formed by sharing a common set of communicative
practices and beliefs. But incorporating elements of communicative patterns
from other communities has always been an important part of the selection
and competition, that is survival, process (Mufwene 2008). The naming of
languages is a relatively recent phenomenon. The word Ænglisc only appeared
in the mid-17th century, and the invention of the nation-state also triggered
the invention of the notion of monolingualism (Makoni and Pennycook 2007;
Gramling 2016). Translanguaging is using one’s idiolect, that is one’s linguistic
repertoire, without regard for socially and politically defined language names
and labels. From the Translanguaging perspective then, we think beyond the
boundaries of named languages and language varieties including the geog-
raphy-, social class-, age-, or gender-based varieties.
This is not to say that the speakers are not aware of the existence of the
idealized boundaries between languages and between language varieties. As
part of the language socialization process, we become very much aware of the
association between race, nation, and community on the one hand, and a
named language on the other and of the discrepancies between the boundaries
in linguistic structural terms versus those in sociocultural and ideological
terms. A multilingual is someone who is aware of the existence of the political
entities of named languages (Li 2016a), has acquired some of their structural
features, and has a Translanguaging Instinct (see further below) that enables a
resolution of the differences, discrepancies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities, if
and when they need to be resolved, and manipulate them for strategic gains.
As to the second argument regarding thinking beyond language, it concerns
the ways in which the Modularity of Mind hypothesis has been interpreted
and operationalized in research. According to Fodor (1983), the human mind
consists of a series of innate neural structures, or modules, which are
12 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

encapsulated with distinctive information and for distinct functions, and lan-
guage is but one module. This has somehow been understood to mean that the
language and other human cognitive processes are anatomically and/or func-
tionally distinct; therefore in research design, the so-called linguistic and
non-linguistic cognitive processes would be assessed separately. Thierry
(2016: 523–4), a leading neuroscientist in the field of bilingualism, has the
following to say:
I would go as far as saying that making a distinction between lan-
guage and the rest of the mind is meaningless. Making such a dis-
tinction implies that language and mind are two ensembles that can
be delimited, as if one could draw a line between the two, or indeed
trace a line around language within the mind. This is misleading
both from an anatomical and functional viewpoint. First, there is no
such thing as a language-specific brain region. . . . It has been widely
shown that the areas of the cerebral cortex, inner brain ganglia, and
the cerebellum involved in language processing are also activated
by numerous nonverbal auditory and visual processes. . . . Second,
there is no such thing as a cognitive operation impermeable to or
wholly independent of language processing and vice versa’.
In other words, language processing cannot be wholly independent of auditory
and visual processes, just as cognitive processes such as number processing and
colour categorization cannot be wholly independent of language. There is
increasing evidence that the language experience and cognitive capacity of
learners and users, multilingual or not, are closely interconnected and mutu-
ally beneficial (on bilinguals, Bialystok and Poarch 2014; Litcofsky et al. 2016).
Language, then, is a multisensory and multimodal semiotic system intercon-
nected with other identifiable but inseparable cognitive systems.
Translanguaging for me means transcending the traditional divides between
linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive and semiotic systems.
It is also inconceivable from existing research evidence that the human mind
can be divided into different languages. Some earlier experimental data did
show that processing later acquired language might involve certain neural
networks that are not central to first language processing. But that tells us
more about the process of language learning than about the representation
of different languages in the human mind. Likewise, the findings that certain
brain areas may be involved in processing the lexical tones and logographic
writing systems that some of the world’s languages have point to the closer
connections between language and other cognitive systems as much as to the
differences between languages. Earlier attempts to identify the ‘switch’ in the
brain for code-switching have long been discredited. In any case, technological
advances have allowed some scientists to raise questions about the very exist-
ence of the Broca’s area that has long been assumed to be responsible for
language (Ullman 2006; Tsapkini et al. 2008). But the idea that everything
has to have an essence, be localized or localizable, be pinned down to an
 W. LI 13

organ, an organism or a gene still haunts the human condition (see Gallagher
and Zahavi 2012).

4.1 Translanguaging and multimodality

The discussion of the interconnections between language and other cognitive
systems in the human mind brings forth the issue of multimodality. Human
communication has always been multimodal; people use textual, aural, lin-
guistic, spatial, and visual resources, or modes, to construct and interpret mes-
sages. In specific communities, a primary mode may be especially featured; for
instance, in the Deaf community, sign language may feature more promin-
ently than other modes of communication, though bimodal bilingualism in
both oral and sign languages can also be common. A considerable amount of
work on Translanguaging practices in Deaf communities is emerging where
Translanguaging is used to describe the meaning- and sense-making processes
in cross- and multi-modal communication (Kusters in press).
In a thematic issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
‘Language as a multimodal phenomenon’, Vigliocco et al. (2014) asked the
intriguing question: What if the study of language had started from signed
language rather than spoken language? They pointed out that our understand-
ing of the cognitive and neural underpinnings of language has traditionally
been firmly based on spoken Indo-European languages and on language stu-
died as speech or text. Yet language, or more precisely languaging, is and has
always been multimodal. In face-to-face interaction, speech signals are invari-
ably accompanied by visual information on the face and in manual gestures,
and sign languages deploy multiple channels (hands, face, and body) in utter-
ance construction. The contributors to the special issue also point out that the
narrow focus on spoken Indo-European languages has entrenched the as-
sumption that language is comprised wholly by an arbitrary system of symbols
and rules. They argue that iconicity, that is resemblance between aspects of
communicative form and meaning, is the norm. They discuss in detail the
implications of shifting the current dominant approaches and assumptions to
encompass multimodal expression in both signed and spoken languages for
language learning, processing, and evolution. More recent work by Kita et al.
(2017) shows how gesture not simply accompanies speech but influences
thinking and speaking.
Perhaps a better known perspective on multimodality is the social semiotics
of multimodality, especially Gunther Kress’ work. Coming from a literacy and
writing studies context, Kress defines mode as ‘a socially and culturally shaped
resource for making meaning. Image, writing, layout, speech, moving images
are examples of different modes’ (Kress 2010: 79). These modes are ‘shaped by
both the intrinsic characteristics and potentialities of the medium and by the
requirements, histories and values of societies and their cultures’ (Kress and
van Leeuwen 1996: 34). A medium, on the other hand, is the substance in
which meaning is realized and through which it becomes available to others.
14 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

For instance, the electronic medium is often used to create digital modes with
the interlacing of image, writing, layout, speech, and video. Multimodality is
the aggregate or ensemble of modal resources required to create a single arte-
fact, say a film or a website. The ways in which the modes are assembled
contribute to how multimodality affects different rhetorical situations, or
opportunities for increasing an audience’s reception of an idea or concept.
Take a textbook or a web page, for example; everything from the placement
of images to the organization of the content creates meaning. Increasingly in
the digital age, we see a shift from isolated text being relied upon as the pri-
mary source of communication, to the image being utilized more frequently.
One consequence of this is that the speaker/writer and audience/reader rela-
tionship evolves as well. Multiliteracy, the ability to comprehend and analyse
different modes in communication—not only to read text, but also to read
other modes such as sound and image, and more importantly to understand
how the different modes are put together to create meaning—is a crucial com-
ponent for the social semiotic perspective on multimodality.
Williams’ and Baker’s original discussion of Translanguaging as a peda-
gogical practice did include modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. As it has been developed as a theoretical concept, Translanguaging
embraces the multimodal social semiotic view that linguistic signs are part of a
wider repertoire of modal resources that sign makers have at their disposal and
that carry particular socio-historical and political associations. It foregrounds
the different ways language users employ, create, and interpret different kinds
of signs to communicate across contexts and participants and perform their
different subjectivities. In particular, Translanguaging highlights the ways in
which language users make use of the tensions and conflicts among different
signs, because of the socio-historical associations the signs carry with them, in
a cycle of resemiotization. As Scollon and Scollon (2004) have pointed out,
certain actions transform a whole cycle of actions during which each action is
also transformed. This transformation cycle is often referred to as resemiotiza-
tion (Iedema 2003), where actions are re-semiotized, that is they are re-
designed, from one semiotic mode to another, with new meanings emerging
all the time. Translanguaging is a transformative, resemiotization process,
whereby language users display the best of their creativity and criticality as
illustrated in the New Chinglish and Singaporean speech examples above,
which conventional code-based approaches cannot address.
To sum up the discussion so far, Translanguaging reconceptualizes language
as a multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal resource for
sense- and meaning-making, and the multilingual as someone who is aware of
the existence of the political entities of named languages and has an ability to
make use the structural features of some of them that they have acquired. It
has the capacity to enable us to explore the human mind as a holistic multi-
competence (Cook 1992; Cook and Li 2016), and rethink some of the bigger,
theoretical issues in linguistics generally.
 W. LI 15

5. TRANSLANGUAGING SPACE AND TRANSLANGUAGING

INSTINCT
There are two related concepts—Translanguaging Space and Translanguaging
Instinct—to which I shall now turn.

5.1 Translanguaging Space

In Li (Li 2011a), I talked about a Translanguaging Space, a space that is created
by and for Translanguaging practices, and a space where language users break
down the ideologically laden dichotomies between the macro and the micro,
the societal and the individual, and the social and the psychological through
interaction. A Translanguaging Space allows language users to integrate social
spaces (and thus ‘linguistic codes’) that have been formerly separated through
different practices in different places. As has already been said,
Translanguaging is not simply going between different linguistic structures, cog-
nitive and semiotic systems and modalities, but going beyond them. The act of
Translanguaging creates a social space for the language user by bringing to-
gether different dimensions of their personal history, experience, and envir-
onment; their attitude, belief, and ideology; their cognitive and physical
capacity, into one coordinated and meaningful performance (Li 2011a:
1223), and this Translanguaging Space has its own transformative power be-
cause it is forever evolving and combines and generates new identities, values
and practices. Translanguaging underscores multilinguals’ creativity—their
abilities to push and break boundaries between named language and between
language varieties, and to flout norms of behaviour including linguistic behav-
iour, and criticality—the ability to use evidence to question, problematize, and
articulate views (Li 2011a,b; Li and Zhu 2013). From a Translanguaging lens,
multilingualism by the very nature of the phenomenon is a rich source of
creativity and criticality, as it entails tension, conflict, competition, difference,
and change in a number of spheres, ranging from ideologies, policies, and
practices to historical and current contents. Enhanced contacts between
people of diverse backgrounds and traditions provide new opportunities for
innovation and creativity. As discussed earlier, multilingual language users are
aware of the existence of the political entities of named languages, have
acquired some of their structural features, and have an ability to use them.
They are capable of responding to the historical and present conditions critic-
ally. They consciously construct and constantly modify their sociocultural
identities and values through social practices such as Translanguaging.
Translanguaging goes beyond hybridity theory that recognizes the complex-
ity of people’s everyday spaces and multiple resources to make sense of the
world. A Translanguaging Space has much to do with the vision of Thirdspace
articulated by Soja (1996) as a space of extraordinary openness, a place of
critical exchange where the geographical imagination can be expanded to en-
compass a multiplicity of perspectives that have heretofore been considered by
16 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

the epistemological referees to be incompatible and uncombinable. Soja cri-

tiques binaries and proposes that it is possible to generate new knowledge and
discourses in a Thirdspace. To frame his Thirdspace, Soja uses the Argentinean
Jorge Luis Borges’ short story, ‘El Aleph’, of which Borges (1945) says it is
‘where all places are—seen from every angle, each standing clear, without any
confusion or blending’, that is ‘the sum total of the spatial universe’ (p. 189,
English edition). A Translanguaging Space acts as a Thirdspace which does not
merely encompass a mixture or hybridity of first and second languages; instead
it invigorates languaging with new possibilities from ‘a site of creativity and
power’, as bell hooks (1990: 152) says. Going beyond language refers to trans-
forming the present, to intervening by reinscribing our human, historical com-
monality in the act of Translanguaging.
The notion of Translanguaging Space has implications for policy and prac-
tice. For example, in Garcı́a and Li (2014), we argued that education can be a
Translanguaging Space where teachers and students can go between and beyond
socially constructed language and educational systems, structures and practices
to engage diverse multiple meaning-making systems and subjectivities, to gen-
erate new configurations of language and education practices, and to challenge
and transform old understandings and structures. In so doing, orders of dis-
course shift and the voices of Others come to the forefront, relating
Translanguaging to criticality, critical pedagogy, social justice, and the linguis-
tic human rights agenda.

5.2 The Translanguaging Instinct

Translanguaging emphasizes the interconnectedness between traditionally and
conventionally understood languages and other human communication sys-
tems. As said above, human beings’ knowledge of language cannot be sepa-
rated from their knowledge of human relations and human social interaction
which includes the history, the context of usage, and the emotional and sym-
bolic values of specific socially constructed languages. Following Pinker’s
(1994) Language Instinct metaphor to describe human beings’ innate capacity
for acquiring languages, some psychologists, anthropologists, and linguists
have argued for an ‘Interactional Instinct’, a biologically based drive for infants
and children to attach, bond, and affiliate with conspecifics in an attempt to
become like them (Lee et al. 2009; Joaquin and Schumann 2013). This natural
drive provides neural structures that entrain children acquiring their languages
to the faces, voices, and body movements of caregivers. It also determines the
relative success of older adolescents and adults in learning additional languages
later in life due to the variability of individual aptitude and motivation as well
as environmental conditions. I have extended this idea in what I call a
Translanguaging Instinct (Li 2016b) to emphasize the salience of mediated
interaction in everyday life in the 21st century, the multisensory and multi-
modal process of language learning and language use. In particular, the
Translanguaging Instinct drives humans to go beyond narrowly defined
 W. LI 17

linguistic cues and transcend culturally defined language boundaries to

achieve effective communication. Contrary to the elegance of the principle
of economy in linguistic theories such as the Minimalist Program, a Principle
of Abundance is in operation in human communication in real-life social con-
texts. Multiple cues are present simultaneously in producing a message;
human beings have a natural drive to draw on as many different sensory,
modal, cognitive, and semiotic resources as they are available to them to in-
terpret the meaning intentions whilst assessing the relative relevance and sig-
nificance of the different cues when cues complement and compensate each
other. But human beings read multiple cues in a coordinated manner rather
than singularly. In the meantime, the Translanguaging Instinct highlights the
gaps between meaning, what is connected to forms of the language and other
signs, and message, what is actually inferred by hearers and readers, and leaves
open spaces for all the other cognitive and semiotic systems that interact with
linguistic semiosis to come into play.
The idea of the Translanguaging Instinct has implications for language learn-
ing. Whilst the natural drive to combine all available cognitive, semiotic, sen-
sory, and modal resources in language learning and language use is innate, one
relies on different resources differentially across one’s lifespan and life course,
as not all resources are equally available at all times. In first language acqui-
sition, infants naturally draw meaning from a combination of sound, image,
and action, and the sound–meaning mapping in word learning crucially in-
volves image and action. The resources needed for literacy acquisition are
called upon later. In bilingual first language acquisition where cross-linguistic
equivalents are learned, the child additionally learns to associate the target
word with a specific context or addressee as well as contexts and addressees
where either language is acceptable, giving rise to the possibility of code-
switching. In second language acquisition in adolescence and adulthood,
some resources become less available, for example resources required for
tonal discrimination, while others can be enhanced by experience and
become more salient in language learning and use, for example resources
required for analysing and comparing syntactic structures and pragmatic func-
tions of specific expressions. As people become more involved in complex
communicative tasks and demanding environments, the natural tendency to
combine multiple resources drives them to look for more cues and exploit
different resources. They will also learn to use different resources for different
purposes, resulting in functional differentiation of different linguistic resources
(e.g. accent, writing) and between linguistic and other cognitive and semiotic
resources. Crucially, the innate capacity to exploit multiple resources will not
be diminished over time; in fact it is enhanced with experience. Critical ana-
lytic skills are developed in terms of understanding the relationship between
the parts (specific sets of skills, such as counting; drawing; singing) and the
whole (multi-competence (Cook 1992; Cook and Li 2016) and the capacity for
coordination between the skills subsets) to functionally differentiate the dif-
ferent resources required for different tasks.
18 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

One consequence of the Translanguaging perspective on bilingualism and

multilingualism research is making the comparison between L1 and L2 acqui-
sition purely in terms of attainment insignificant. Instead, questions should be
asked as to what resources are needed, available, and being exploited for spe-
cific learning task throughout the lifespan and life course? Why are some
resources not available at certain times? What do language users do when
some resources become difficult to access? How do language users combine
the available resources differentially for specific tasks? In seeking answers to
these questions, the multisensory, multimodal, and multilingual nature of
human learning and interaction is at the centre of the Translanguaging
Instinct idea.

6. CONCLUSION: ADDED VALUES OF TRANSLANGUAGING

I have sought in this article to explain the theoretical motivations for the con-
cept of Translanguaging. I have emphasized that Translanguaging is not merely
a descriptive label for the kinds of Post-Multilingualism practices that one ob-
serves in the 21st century, as illustrated in the examples at the beginning of the
article, although descriptive adequacy is crucial in theory building. I have
argued that Translanguaging offers a practical theory of language that sees the
latter as a multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal resource
that human beings use for thinking and for communicating thought. The
Translanguaging perspective challenges the received and uncritical view in
some quarters of the applied and socio-linguistics communities that bilingualism
and multilingualism are about the protection of individual languages and, since
language and sociocultural identity are postulated to be intrinsically linked,
maintaining one’s language means maintaining one’s identity. If the divide be-
tween languages and between language and other cognitive systems has no
psychological reality, shouldn’t the sociocultural conventionalization of differ-
ent languages and the one-to-one relationship between language and identity
be reconsidered and reconceptualized too? We know for a fact that the labelling
of languages is largely arbitrary and can be politically and ideologically charged,
and there is often a close relationship between the identity of a language and the
nation-state. But in everyday social interaction, language users move dynamic-
ally between the so-called languages, language varieties, styles, registers, and
writing systems, to fulfil a variety of strategic and communicative functions. The
alternation between languages, spoken, written, or signed; between language
varieties; and between speech, writing, and signing, is a very common feature of
human social interaction. It constructs an identity for the speaker that is differ-
ent from a La identity or a Lb identity. Moreover, language users use semiotic
resources, gesture, facial expression, etc., in conjunction with language to com-
municate with each other. From a Translanguaging perspective, asking simply
which language is being used becomes an uninteresting and insignificant
question.
 W. LI 19

Ultimately, Translanguaging aims to present a new transdisciplinary re-

search perspective that goes beyond the artificial divides between linguistics,
psychology, sociology, etc, and as such it requires analytic methods that move
the focus away from treating languages as discrete and complete systems to
how language users orchestrate their diverse and multiple meaning- and
sense-making resources in their everyday social life.
For me, Translanguaging has never intended to replace code-switching or
any other term, although it challenges the code view of language. It does not
deny the existence of named languages, but stresses that languages are histor-
ically, politically, and ideologically defined entities. It defines the multilingual
as someone who is aware of the existence of the political entities of named
languages and has an ability to make use of the structural features of some of
them that they have acquired. It is a research perspective that challenges con-
ventional approaches to multilingualism. Fundamentally, Translanguaging is a
Practical Theory of Language, therefore an applied linguistics theory, that
comes out of practical concerns of understanding the creative and dynamic
practices human beings engage in with multiple named languages and mul-
tiple semiotic and cognitive resources. It has the capacity to enable us to ex-
plore the human mind as a holistic multi-competence (Cook 1992; Cook and Li
2016). But in addition to the analysis of multilingual practices, the concept of
Translanguaging also enables us to ask some bigger questions about some of
the core concerns of linguistic theories, such as language evolution, language
and thought, and how we understand the Modularity of Mind hypothesis, and
to demonstrate that Applied Linguistics can make a significant contribution to
these issues. The added values of the concept are highlighted in the Trans
prefix to languaging by referring to:
 the fluid practices that go beyond, i.e., transcend, socially constructed lan-
guage systems and structures to engage diverse multiple meaning-making
systems and subjectivities;
 the transformative capacity of the Translanguaging process not only for
language systems but also for individuals’ cognition and social structures;
and
 the transdisciplinary consequences of re-conceptualizing language, lan-
guage learning, and language use, and working across the divides be-
tween linguistics, psychology, sociology, and education.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writing of this article benefited hugely from the numerous exchanges the author had with
friends and colleagues, especially with members of the research team of the Translation and
Tranlanguaging project (RES-000-23-1180: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tlang/index.
aspx) and the Cross-London Sociolinguistics Seminar Group (https://www.facebook.com/
CLSociolinguisticsGroup/). Ben Rampton, John O’Regan, Ofelia Garcı́a, Ricardo Otheguy, Zhu
Hua, together with two anonymous reviewers and the two guest editors of this special issue,
Maggie Hawkins and Junko Mori, provided detailed comments on earlier versions of this article
20 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

that helped to improve the presentation enormously. Ng Bee Chin of Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, and the creators of Kongish Daily (https://www.facebook.com/
KongishDaily/), especially Alfred Tsang and Nick Wong, supplied the author with wonderful ex-
amples. The author is grateful to all of them.

REFERENCES
Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of Bilingual Education Garcı́a, O. and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaing:
and Bilingualism, 3rd edn. Multilingual Matters. Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave
Becker, A. L. 1991. ‘Language and languaging,’ Macmillan.
Language and Communication 11: 33–5. Gramling, D. 2016. The Invention of
Bialystok, E. and G. Poarch. 2014. ‘Language Monolingualism. Bloomsbury.
experience changes language and cognitive abil- Green, D. and W. Li. 2014. ‘A control process
ity,’ Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft: ZfE 17: model of code-switching,’ Language, Cognition
433–46. and Neuroscience 29: 499–511.
Borges, J. L. 1945. El Aleph (The Aleph). Editorial Grosjean, F. 2001. ‘The bilingual’s language
Losada. Translated into English by N. T. di modes’ in J. Nicole (ed.): One Mind, Two
Giovanni . 1978. Dutton. Languages: Bilingual Language Processing.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Blackwell, pp. 1–22.
Cambridge University Press. Hall, L. M. 1999. Languaging: The Linguistics of
Brumfit, C. 1995. ‘Teacher professionalism and Psychotherapy. Empowerment Technologies.
research’ in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds): hooks, b. 1990. Yearning: Race, Gender, and
Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Cultural Politics. South End Press.
Oxford University Press, pp. 27–41. Iedema, R. 2003. ‘Multimodality, resemiotiza-
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. tion: Extending the analysis of discourse as
MIT Press. multi-semiotic practice,’ Visual Communication
Cook, V. 1992. ‘Evidence for multicompetence,’ 2: 29–57.
Language Learning 42: 557–91. Joaquin, A. D. L. and J. H. Schumann. 2013.
Cook, V. and W. Li (eds). 2016. The Cambridge Exploring Interactional Instinct. Oxford University
Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence. Press
Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. B. 1966. ‘Cultural thought patterns
Cowley, S. J. 2017. ‘Changing the idea of lan- in inter-cultural education,’ Language Learning
guage: Nigel Love’s perspective,’ Language 16: 1–20.
Sciences 61: 43–55. Kita, S., M. W. Alibali, and M. Chu. 2017.
Creese, A. and A. Blackledge. 2015. ‘How do gestures influence thinking and
‘Translanguaging and identity in educational speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization
settings,’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics hypothesis,’ Psychological Review 124: 245–66.
35: 20–35. Kramsch, C. 2015. ‘Applied linguistics: A theory
Dore, J. and R. P. McDermott. 1982. of the practice,’ Applied Linguistics 36: 454–65.
‘Linguistic indeterminacy and social context Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic
in utterance interpretation,’ Language 58: Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge.
374–98. Kress, G. R. and T. van Leeuwen. 1996.
Duranti, A., E. Ochs, and B. Schieffelin (eds).
Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.
2011. The Handbook of Language Socialization.
Psychology Press.
Wiley.
Kusters, A. in press. ‘Deaf and hearing signers’
Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Though. Harvard
multimodal and translingual practices,’ A spe-
University Press.
cial issue of Applied Linguistics Review.
Fodor, J. 1983. Modularity of Mind: An Essay on
Lado, R. 1979. ‘Thinking and ‘‘languaging’’: A
Faculty Psychology. MIT Press.
psycholinguistic model of performance and
Gallagher, S. and D. Zahavi. 2012. The
learning,’ Sophia Linguistica 12: 3–24.
Phenomenological Mind, 2nd edn. Routledge.
Lee, N., L. Mikesell, A. D. L. Joaquin, A.
Garcı́a, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st
W. Mates, and J. H. Schumann. 2009. The
Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley.
 W. LI 21

Interactional Instinct: The Evolution and McDermott, R. P., K. Gospodinoff, and

Acquisition of Language. Oxford University Press. J. Aron. 1978. ‘Criteria for an ethnographic-
Li, W. 2011a. ‘Moment analysis and translangua- ally adequate description of concerted activities
ging space: Discursive construction of identities and their contexts,’ Semiotica 24: 245–76.
bymultilingual Chinese youth in Britain,’ Mufwene, S. S. 2008. Language Evolution:
Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1222–35. Contact, Competition and Change. Bloomsbury.
Li, W. 2011b. ‘Multilinguality, multimodality and Newmeyer, F. J. 1991. ‘Functional explanation
multicompetence: Code- and mode-switching in linguistics and the origins of language,’
by minority ethnic children in complementary Language and Communication 11: 3–28.
schools,’ Modern Language Journal 95: 370–84. Ortega y Gasset, J. 1957. ‘What people say:
Li, W. 2016a. ‘New Chinglish and the post-multi- Language. Toward a new linguistics’ in W.
lingualism challenge: Translanguaging ELF in R. Trask (trans.): Man and People, Ch. II. W.
China,’ Journal of English as a Lingua Franca W. Norton.
5: 1–25. Otheguy, R., O. Garcı́a, and R. Wallis. 2015.
Li, W. 2016b. ‘Multi-competence and the trans- ‘Clarifying translanguaging and decon-
languaging instinct’ in V. Cook and W. Li structing named languages: A perspective
(eds): The Cambridge Handbook of Multi-Competence. from linguistics,’ Applied Linguistics Review 6:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 533–43. 281–308.
Li, W. and H. Zhu. 2013. ‘Translanguaging iden- Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. William
tities and ideologies: Creating transnational Morrow & Co.
space through flexible multilingual practices Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon. 2004. Nexus
amongst Chinese university students in the Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet.
UK,’ Applied Linguistics 34: 516–35. Routledge.
Litcofsky, K. A., D. Tanner, and J. G. van Soja, E. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles
Hell. 2016. ‘Effects of language experience, and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell.
use, and cognitive functioning on bilingual Steffensen, S. 2009. ‘Language, languaging and
word production and comprehension,’ the extended mind hypothesis,’ Pragmatics and
International Journal of Bilingualism 20: 666–83. Cognition 17: 677–97.
Love, N. 1990. ‘The locus of languages in a redefined Steffensen, S. 2011. ‘Beyond mind: An extended
linguistics’ in H. Davis and T. J. Taylor (eds): On ecology of languaging’ in S. J. Cowley (ed.):
Redefining Linguistics. Routledge, pp. 53–117. Distributed Language. Benjamins, pp. 185–210.
Love, N. 2004. ‘Cognition and the language Swain, M. 2006. ‘Languaging, agency and col-
myth,’ Language Sciences 26: 525–44. laboration in advanced second language learn-
Love, N. 2016. ‘Can distinguishing between the ing’ in H. Byrnes (ed.): Advanced Language
orders of language be used to develop a new Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and
kind of linguistics that aligns with a twenty-first Vygotsky. Continuum, pp. 95–108.
century science of embodied cognition?’. Paper Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2002. ‘Talking it
presented at Orders of Language Conference, through: Two French immersion learners’ re-
University of Southern Denmark, February, 2016. sponse to reformulation,’ International Journal
Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing of Educational Research 37: 285–304.
and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters. The Five Graces Group, Beckner, C.,
Mao, Z. 1937. . English translation. On R. Blythe, J. Bybee, M. H. Christiansen,
Practice: On the Relation Between Knowledge W. Croft, N. C. Ellis, J. Holland, J. Ke,
and Practice, Between Knowing and Doing. D. Larsen-Freeman, and T. Schoenemann.
Foreign Language Press/International Books. 2009. ‘Language is a complex adaptive system:
Maturana, H. and F. Varela. 1980. ‘Biology of Position paper,’ Language Learning 59: 1–26.
cognition’ in Aufopoiesis und CognitionThe Thibault, P. J. 2011. ‘First-order languaging dy-
Realization of the Living. Boston Studies in the namics and second-order language: The distrib-
Philosophy of Science, vol. 42. Reidel. uted language view,’ Ecological Psychology 23:
McDermott, R. P. and D. R. Roth. 1978. ‘The 210–45.
social organization of behavior: Interactional Thibault, P. J. 2017. ‘The reflexivity of human
approaches,’ Annual Review of Anthropology 7: languaging and Nigel Love’s two orders of lan-
321–45. guage,’ Language Sciences 61: 74–85.
22 TRANSLANGUAGING AS A PRACTICAL THEORY

Thierry, G. 2016. ‘Questions of multi-compe- Vigliocco, G., P. Perniss, and D. Vinson. 2014.
tence’ in V. Cook and W. Li (eds): The ‘Language as a multimodal phenomenon:
Cambridge Handbook of Multi-Competence. Implications for language learning, processing
Cambridge University Press, pp. 521–32. and evolution,’ Philosophical Transactions of the
Tsapkini, K., A. B. Vivas, and L. C. Triarhou. Royal Society B 369: 20130292.
2008. ‘‘‘Does Broca’s area exist?’’: Christofredo Williams, C. 1994. ‘Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac
Jakob’s 1906 response to Pierre Marie’s holistic Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd
stance,’ Brain and Language 105: 211–19. Ddwyieithog, [An evaluation of teaching and
Ullman, M. T. 2006. ‘Is Broca’s area part of a learning methods in the context of bilingual
basal ganglia thalamocortical circuit?,’ Cortex secondary education],’ Unpublished doctoral
42: 480–5 thesis, University of Wales, Bangor.
 W. LI 23

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR
Li Wei is Chair of Applied Linguistics and Director of the UCL Centre of Applied
Linguistics, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, UK. He is a
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, UK, and Principle Editor of International
Journal of Bilingualism and Applied Linguistics Review. His 2015 book with Ofelia
Garcı́a, Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education, won the 2016 British
Association of Applied Linguistics Book Prize. Address for correspondence: UCL Centre
for Applied Linguistics, UCL Institute of Education, University College London,
London WC1H 0AL, UK. <li.wei@ucl.ac.uk>