Keywords

7.1 Introduction

Translanguaging is a strategy to assist with meaning making and/or articulating by consciously utilizing two (or more) languages in a bilingual or multilingual space. It “celebrates and approves flexibility in language use and the permeability of learning” by combining one’s skills in more than one language (Lewis et al., 2012, p. 659). It is the reality of bilinguals (Wang, 2020) and can be used as a pedagogical resource and “a deliberate teaching strategy” (Palmer & Martínez, 2013, p. 27). “[E]ducators who understand the power of translanguaging encourage emergent bilinguals to use their home languages to think, reflect, and extend their inner speech” (Palmer & Martínez, 2013, p. 27). In multilingual and multicultural classrooms, some educators have taken the initiative to create space for their students to access multiple language resources to enhance and engage with learning (García & Kleifgen, 2010, p. 63).

Translanguaging is therefore relevant to EMI teaching as this occurs in a context where the educators and their students are bi/multilingual. However, much of the research in this field has been conducted by researchers advocating for monolingualism and consequentially identifying challenges in EMI teaching as predominantly English shortfalls. To revisit the propositions outlined in Chap. 1, a plethora of EMI research surrounds: professional learning programs conducted by English language experts and organizations (Klaassen & Räsänen, 2006; Werther et al., 2014); policies and assessment foregrounding EMI lecturers’ general and/or academic English (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005); and universities’ policies to promote EMI programs and English language competency as the main criteria for recruiting EMI lecturers (Costa & Coleman, 2013; Dearden, 2014; García et al., 2017; Leszny, 2007; Macaro et al., 2002; Tennyson, 2010; Werther et al., 2014). These foci across the body of EMI research is further clarified when considering the search results when ‘EMI’ was entered into Google Scholar in mid-2021. From within the 1.5 million hits, 2.9% foreground discussions of L1/L2 in the context of EMI programs, and only 0.4% of the articles included a perspective featuring translanguaging. This indicates that ‘few’ researchers consider the importance of lecturers’ or students’ L1 in EMI programs and even fewer acknowledge EMI teaching and learning relating to translanguaging.

This is not to say, there is no movement at all in this direction in the EMI research field. For example, recently, the translanguaging practices in several Hong Kong based high schools was studied. These included research which interrogated data relating to: Translanguaging practices to analyze how an EMI teacher created a bilingual space for co-learning in the classroom (Tai & Li, 2021a, b); multimodal conversations to explore how an EMI teacher mobilized multilingual and semiotic resources to cater for the needs of diverse student groups in science and mathematics lessons (Tai, 2022); evidence of translanguaging practices to examine a teacher’s construction of a translanguaging space to incorporate the students’ daily life experiences into a high school’s EMI program to assist with meaning-making (Tai & Li, 2020), and the reality of translanguaging to explore the teacher’s use of the iPad to extend students’ semiotic and spatial repertoires for learning in an EMI class (Tai & Li, 2021a, b). These studies identified several advantages when translanguaging practices were incorporated into the EMI classes under study. These included: addressing equity issues in knowledge construction; changing the hierarchical teacher-student relationship (Tai & Li, 2021a, b, p. 241), enacting students’ prior knowledge for inclusive education (Tai, 2022, p. 975); including real world learning and problem solving (Tai & Li, 2020), and creating a technology-mediated, engaging learning environment (Tai & Li, 2021a, b).

Two studies on translanguaging and EMI teaching in tertiary EMI programs were also located with findings relevant to this research. One was conducted in a Spanish university and investigated a course where students were bilingual Basque–Spanish speakers. The course lecturer created a multilingual space during lecture time allowing students to incorporate the multiple languages available to them. This translanguaging opportunity was greeted by positive responses from the students involved (Muguruza et al., 2020). In contrast, another study conducted by a group of researchers on EMI teaching in one institution in China (Macaro et al., 2020) uncovered negligible use of L1 in the participant lecturers’ EMI classes. The contention was that L2 was preferred to reinforce comprehension of the specific academic content subject knowledge in English. This finding was coupled with little evidence demonstrating the EMI lecturers’ use of L1 for assisting with English proficiency, classroom management or establishing interaction with students. The student perspective was also part of this study and disclosed that they preferred English in their EMI classes with L1 intervention only when communication was dysfunctional.

The focus of this Chapter is informed by and builds on, the current literature and seeks to explore and contribute to an enrichment of pedagogical practices in EMI. It examines the EMI lecturers’ language ideology and how this impacts on their translanguaging practices. Translanguaging is offered as a stand-alone Chapter in addition to, but necessarily separate from, Chap. 5 with its focus on cross-linguistic influence. Whilst the two concepts are interconnected, the distinction needs to be drawn as cross-linguistic influence is couched within a psycholinguistic perspective reflecting bi/multilinguals speakers’ cognitive processes when ‘doing’ languaging. In contrast, translanguaging, is inherently aligned with a sociolinguistic perspective which includes political and pedagogical frames of reference beyond the realm of cross-linguistic influence. The following section reviews the epistemology of translanguaging to assist with the data analysis and generation of the findings.

7.2 A Post-structuralist Theorization of Translanguaging

Translanguaging although ‘legitimate’ can be considered an ‘unconventional’ meaning making system achieved through blurring the boundaries between languages, discourses and systems. It is a process in and of itself, between two languages at certain moments in time and situations. From a post-structuralist perspective, translanguaging is a powerful concept for interpreting and examining teaching and learning phenomena in bi/multilingual classes.

7.2.1 Going ‘Between’ and ‘Beyond’ Languages

The prefix ‘trans’, a variant of ‘tran’, from the Latin, means ‘across’ or ‘beyond’, and in relation to translanguaging has been defined as ‘going between’ two languages or ‘going beyond” one language (Baker, 2011; García, 2009a; Li, 2011). By ‘going between languages’, translanguaging enables bilinguals to dismantle language boundaries and allows the permeation, integration and combination of one into the other. ‘Trans-ing’ can be between the linguistic forms of the languages involved such as bilingual speakers’ purposeful integration of their L1 words into their L2 expressions. It can also occur between different modalities of the languages, such as ‘trans-ing’ from reading for comprehension in L2 to writing in L1 (García, 2009b; Li, 2011). ‘Trans-ing’ can also occur between non-linguistic modes. Using the New London Group’s (1996) notion of multiliteracies to provide a reference point, ‘trans-ing’ can be initiated when bilinguals use body language from L1 into an L2 context. Translanguaging is not constrained by the demands of syntax, semantics, or pragmatics as does transfer; nor is there need for concern relating to aspects of genré and/or discourse across languages.

When considering ‘trans’ as referring to ‘going beyond’ the languages or languaging, Li (2011) proposes that translanguagers bring “their personal history, experience … their attitude, beliefs and ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity” (Li, 2011, p. 1223) into this languaging process. Likewise, García, (2009a, p. 47) clarifies further that translanguaging “convey[s] not only linguistic knowledge, but also combined cultural knowledge that comes to bear upon language use”. From these perspectives, ‘going beyond’ aligns with a post-structuralist view of language. Translanguaging embraces the epistemological uncertainty and relativism of post-structuralism as it recognises and equalizes resources and knowledge systems bilinguals possess or can access and imbues the validity of them as double-resourced and double-knowing agents. The ‘trans-ing’ of resources signifies that translanguaging can extend from the linguistic to the educational domain. It can be used to examine bilingual teachers’ language in their classroom practices, the material and the funds of knowledge they employ, and the pedagogical knowledge they own or could access from multiple education systems and cultural resources.

7.2.2 Translanguaging as a Process

The ‘languaging’ within translanguaging represents actions, processes, or a collection of behaviors whereby languages, resources and knowledge systems are integrated. It is described as the ‘process’ of using two languages in the one space for “making meaning” and “gaining understanding” of the world (Baker, 2011, p. 288). It is the ‘act’ of accessing various modes of autonomous languages to enhance communication (García, 2009b, p. 140; Li, 2011, p. 1223). Translanguaging is the continuous action/process itself which operates between two or more languages. Whilst the ‘trans’ component has connotations similar to ‘language transfer’, translanguaging is less concerned with the form as transfer does, in favour of acknowledging the behavior or process itself to enhance communication and understanding. Therefore, translanguaging empowers a bi/multilingual speaker with the agency to ensure comprehension is achieved by enacting language switching, seeping, translating, meshing or other innovative and untraditional methods of languages use.

7.2.3 Multilingual Ideology of Translanguaging

Multilingualism confers power to translanguaging as having a legitimate base from which to justify its beliefs about language articulation, structure and use (Silverstein, 1979). These beliefs and justification are not free of social, political and cultural influences. “Particularly in the bilingual classroom, translanguaging as a concept tries to move acceptable practice away from language separation, and thus has ideological – even political – associations.” (Lewis et al., 2012, p. 659). Advocates of translanguaging positively acknowledge bilingual speakers’ access to the additional cognitive and language resources they hold, going beyond monolingualism and nativespeakerism (Canagarajah, 2011; Cummins, 2007; Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 35; Kubota, 2013; Roy & Galiev, 2011). It further acknowledges that bilinguals are not two monolinguals in the one person, that is, there should not be language separation (García, 2009a). This ideology challenges notions of a unanimous, conservative, hegemonic monolingualism purported by the ‘old’ structuralism school. A translanguaging ideology counters the monolinguists’ belief in insulated and isolated language conduits. It welcomes bi/multilinguals’ acceptance of themselves and the realities of being conversant in more than one language. This ideology ascribes bi/multilingual speakers’ non-English L1 as having legitimate status (García & Li, 2014), defuncting notions of a ‘deficit’ when translanguaging is actioned. This ideology credits translanguagers’ prior knowledge, intellectual resources and knowledge systems equally across L1 and L2 (Singh & Han, 2017).

7.2.4 Translanguaging as Pedagogical Practice

Pedagogy is the collection of continually adjusted practices focusing on learning and the learner’s needs, in response to the negotiations between teachers, and the contexts and content required by the learning environment (Watkins & Mortimore, 1999). Thus, to appraise translanguaging as a worthwhile pedagogy, the teachers’/lecturers’ specific values, the needs of their individual learners, the expectation from educational communities and broader society, and how translanguaging practice relates to the complexity of the subject content, need consideration (Lewis et al., 2012). Secondly, as translanguaging is often described as “pedagogical practice” (García, 2009a, p. 45) or “everyday bilingual practice” (Palmer & Martínez, 2013, p. 27), by implication, as a teaching pedagogy it has the potential to be purposeful daily practice providing students with a model of acceptance and legitimacy for their own translanguaging action. At the same time practice must involve “standards of excellence and obedience to rules” and “achievement.” Thus, “to enter into a practice is to accept the authority of those standards” (MacIntyre cited in Pennycook, 2010, p. 24). Teachers’ or lecturers’ performance is judged accordingly. Translanguaging might be ‘ecological’ or a naturally occurring phenomenon for bilinguals (García, 2009a). It would be a little ‘romantic’ to believe bilinguals only need an open space from within which translanguaging practice can be created (Canagarajah, 2011). Bilingual educators who promote meaningful translanguaging practices will need to ensure they examine and establish appropriate standards and criteria for these practices and protocols. Translanguaging as pedagogical practice is not simply promoting a theory into practice application. The reverse needs to be recognized. Translanguaging should be grounded in a bilingual teachers’ or lecturers’ languaging resource bank, to develop a practical framework that enables answers to: “How is it that bilingual lecturers or teachers know what to do and how to implement translanguaging practices in the very specific contexts in which they teach? and What are the systematic patterns or ‘laws’ in bilinguals’ languaging behaviors that can contribute to translanguaging pedagogy and practice?

7.2.5 Translanguaging Identity

As language is a means of creating an individual’s identity, translanguaging can therefore shape a bi/multilingual speaker’s translanguaging identity. That is, bilinguals should be able to assert control over their ‘trans-’ behavior as “personal preference” (García, 2009b, p. 48), and feel their translanguaging action is an integral part of their belonging (Noguerón-Liu & Warriner, 2014), which contributes to their identity construction (García-Mateus & Palmer, 2017; Makalela, 2015; Nguyen, 2019). Thus, for educational practitioners who value translanguaging as a pedagogy it is not only for communication purposes but more importantly demonstrates and augments their identity. The translanguaging identity intersects with, but is not equal to, their bilingual identity. Research on bilingual identity indicates that for most bilingual speakers there is a systematic shift in personality when switching language use between L1 and L2 (Dewaele & Nakano, 2013, Pavlenko, 2006, Ramirez-Esparza et al. 2006; Veltkamp et al. 2012). Findings report bilinguals felt genuine, commonsensical, emotional and thoughtful in their L1; they described feelings of not being their true selves, being less logical and less emotional when communicating in their L2 (Dewaele & Nakano, 2013; Pavlenko, 2006). In such cases the competency of the bilingual speaker across the two languages was uneven, with less proficiency in their L2. Bilingual identity can present as a combination of two conduits in the one person demonstrating an unstable self. In contrast, a positively embraced translanguaging identity enables a unified identity for a person regardless of when or how their two languages are switched, integrated, transposed, and/or translated.

7.3 Chinese EMI Lecturers’ Language Ideology vs Translanguaging Practice

This section analyzes the views of languaging in EMI teaching held by the EMI lecturers’ along with their actual languaging practices. The EMI lecturers were invited to complete a survey where one set of questions aimed at revealing the EMI lecturers’ views concerning mono/bi/multilingualism. The EMI lecturers were asked to complete the following statements: (1) I am satisfied/dissatisfied with my English proficiency because … (2) I support/do not support L1 use in EMI teaching because … (3) I practice monolingual/bilingual teaching in my EMI class because… (4) I feel good/bad about my practice because …. In addition observational data were collected from the lecturers’ during their teaching sessions recording the role of translanguaging in their teaching. The data were filtered by ‘visible translanguaging behavior’.

7.3.1 EMI Lecturers’ Monolingual vs Bi/Multilingual Ideology

Survey data indicate that a small number of individual lecturers were satisfied with their English proficiency. In correlation they believed implementing bi/multilingual resources was useful in EMI teaching. Among this group, some had lived in an English-speaking country for years. For them, accessing their bilingual repertoire was analogous to a linguistic liberty. In comparison, the majority of the EMI lecturers expressed a non-inclusive, hegemonic, monolingual view with the justification that English-only instruction enabled them and their students to be immersed in the language moving towards L2 language improvement. However, contradicting these answers, the survey data also captured their self-criticism of their English as being “not authentic”, “with accent” and “not fluent” (Table 7.1). This finding resonates with the results of other researchers interested in EMI studies (Inbar-Lourie & Donitsa-Schmidt, 2020; Jenkins, 2018; Jiang et al., 2019; McCambridge & Saarinen, 2015; Phillipson, 2015). Accommodating the superiority of native English in favour of their own variations is rooted in these EMI lecturers’ ideology. Their narratives also reflected their institution’s position on and requirement for monolingual instruction. The data indicate that the proposition of English imperialism robustly influenced these lecturers’ self-confidence and self-assessment. Being a bilingual seems to have kindled a sense of shame in their ability with any sense of pride as academics and educators being submerged under this view of English imperialism. These lecturers disregarded and undervalued their pedagogical experience as a teaching professional, ignored their subject knowledge and what they could offer as an academic.

Table 7.1 EMI lecturers’ monolingual vs bi/multilingual views of their instructional languages
Full size table

The labelling of ‘English’ Medium Instruction is not innocent in directing some lecturers’ compliance with English purism. EMI is widely understood as “teaching a subject purely in English” – this EMI criterion reflects political and economic interests (Kroskrity, 2010). As the majority of the EMI lecturers in this study confirmed a belief that instruction should be delivered exclusively through English, it follows that translanguaging would be viewed as detrimental to achieving this aim. This view persisted across the survey data even though research has concluded “bilingual instruction entails no adverse effects on the development of either L1 or L2 academic abilities” (Cummins, 2005, p. 6). Politically, English imperialism may be an impact factor; culturally, this view may be connected to the ideal of attaining perfectionism in academic achievement (Castro & Rice, 2003; Chang, 1998; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). For this group of EMI lecturers, their views of translanguaging are, that its outcome produces neither flawless English nor perfect Chinese. The potential for translanguaging to contribute to effective teaching and learning was not acknowledged in their views.

7.3.2 EMI Lecturers’ Language Identity

The data collected from the two survey items “I practice monolingual/bilingual teaching in my EMI class because…” and “I feel good/bad about this practice because …”, reveal responses predominantly in two categories. A small number of participants acknowledged their translanguaging practice and expressed “feeling good”; it was “not wrong” and “no clear cut” distinction between L1 Chinese and L2 English (Table 7.2). This indicated they were comfortable and confident when practicing translanguaging. This finding aligns with Dewaele and Nakano’s (2013) research which reported that bilinguals with proficiency in both languages incurred less of an emotional shift when switching or mixing their languages.

Table 7.2 EMI lecturers’ language identity
Full size table

The majority of the EMI lecturers indicated they would prefer to use English as the only instructional language, however they described their EMI teaching as “not pretty”, “not very confident”, “not comfortable”, “not stylish” and some indicated the need to “borrow Chinese” in their teaching. Their responses further indicated they were struggling with English only teaching; that there was a mismatch between what they thought they should be doing, and their capacity to do so; that translanguaging countered their acceptance of themselves as successful EMI lecturers. Such self-assessments did not afford these EMI lecturers with “dignity, pride, or honor” as purported by Fearon (1999, p. 1) as should be the case for all bilinguals. In contrast, their EMI class was not a safe space to use translanguaging as their collective concern was that their students might view this as a signal of their incompetence as EMI lecturers. From their perspective, concurrent use of two languages or translanguaging did not bring them consistent confidence but rather personality and psychological awkwardness. This research does not support the argument that translanguaging necessarily and automatically creates positive translanguaging-identity or bilingual identity for the majority of EMI lecturers.

7.3.3 Translanguaging Practice as the Norm in EMI Teaching

Whilst the survey data captured a mainstream view across most participants that challenged bi/multilingual use as ideal practice in EMI programs, the observational data revealed that translanguaging practice was the norm in EMI lecturers’ classroom teaching and served intentional and specific pedagogical purposes.

7.3.3.1 Translanguaging as a Scaffolding Strategy

Data indicated the EMI lecturers used translanguaging to scaffold students’ learning. These situations were most often identified when the lecturers asked the students questions and/or needed to provide an explanation, or further information, in response to an awkward silence from students. At those moments, the lecturers habitually re-orientated the students’ thinking by switching to Chinese (Table 7.3).

Table 7.3 Translanguaging as scaffolds
Full size table

It was observed that the translanguaging in these instances was not ‘switch and move on’ to new information, but rather the switch was ‘dwelling on’ and a partial translation of the old information, the information not being comprehended. It functioned as repetition, reiteration and cluing. It was further noted that the translation in translanguaging was not accurately word for word or translation for the sake of translation. It was used for illustration or interpretation. Thus, the translation in translanguaging functioned as a scaffolding strategy to help students’ understandings or meaning making. The translation appearing in translanguaging is not simply translating the vocabulary and following the syntax as with separationist languages behavior. Translation was considered as one kind of translanguaging behavior in this context as the translation brought languages together to serve one task and to build on learning.

7.3.3.2 Translanguaging for Facilitating the EMI Lecturers’ Own Cognitive Process

Teaching in English created an additional cognitive load not only for students but also for the EMI lecturers. This is not unfamiliar for a teacher of ESL background in a ‘normal’ ESL class, where the content subject knowledge is not the primary focus. According to the observational data, most lecturers engaged both languages to assemble segments of information to ensure clear instruction and information was available to the students, in order to survive the EMI class. One kind of switch or hybrid use of English to Chinese represented an overt cognitive process when the lecturer was searching for the correct English expressions or vocabulary and was obviously struggling with this process. For example, when an English expression was absent and after initiating a pragmatic marker “eh…” there was a definite tendency for them to change the code and continue in Chinese (Table 7.4). They gave priority to English expressions rather than the content knowledge.

Table 7.4 Translanguaging and cognitive processing
Full size table

The survey provided additional opportunity for the EMI lecturers to clarify whether, when and why they would ‘translanguage’ in teaching. The answers were: “I am stuck sometimes so I rely on Chinese”; “When I messed up an explanation in English, I would change to Chinese”; “Mixing English and Chinese is not nice, but I need Chinese to help with my expression.” English monolingualism, did appear to be conditioned within these EMI lecturers’ ideology, however, translanguaging was observed to be their lecturing reality. They drew on their bilingual resources more or less in a spontaneous and organic mode, to ensure students’ understanding. Table 7.4 below provides examples.

The observational data did not reveal the extent to which the EMI lecturers were empowered to obey or oppose the discursive rules and norms surrounding translanguaging. The translanguaging observed in the actual EMI classes appeared more as a strategy to keep the lesson flowing, rather than an EMI lecturer, as a language creator being in control of when to cross the boundaries between languages. Literature claims that the moving between or mixing languages reflects fluidity of bilinguals’ thinking, and negotiation of meaning (Canagarajah, 2011; Chen et al., 2020; Douglas Fir Group, 2016; García, 2009a; Kubota, 2013). In the context of this EMI research, the translanguaging is functional in purpose as Cenoz and Gorter (2017) argued; it facilitated the maintaining of the flow of their thinking and therefore speaking. For many EMI lecturers translanguaging is the key for their own ‘survival’ in EMI teaching; it is not a piece of perfect artwork or a pre-planned teaching approach.

7.3.4 Translanguaging for Emotional Connection with Students

There was a very small group of EMI lecturers in this study, who had experienced multiple years of research and teaching in Western Anglophone countries, and they were equally capable in both languages. Whilst they no doubt had the capability to implement English as the sole language of instruction, evidence of translanguaging behaviors were observed in their teaching. These examples were not for scaffolding students’ learning nor to ease the cognitive load, rather they changed the instruction from English to Chinese when they switched from the direct subject matter to an unrelated topic. This included personal stories or experiences, and ‘moral’ education (Table 7.5). For these bilingual lecturers who were equally fluent in both languages, the factors contributing to their use of translanguaging were found through the stimulated recall interview. One lecturer expressed: “some topics have to be done in Chinese. Like what I told them about my accident on the way to the class. It is not related to their study. It is a casual talk outside of the topic”.

Table 7.5 Translanguaging as a mean of interpersonal connection
Full size table

García (2009b) and Li (2011) both address the influence of ‘mode’ when defining translanguaging. Their description of ‘modes’ includes linguistic modes such as speaking and writing and others such as audio, visual and gestural. It could be that a person translanguaging uses L1 in writing and L2 in reading; or a bilingual integrates a particular ‘body language’ from one’s L1 discourse in his/her L2 discourse. Translanguaging used by very competent L1 and L2 bilinguals, is not necessarily related to ‘mode’ but more likely to ‘field’. Chapter 2 addresses the relationship between field, tenor and mode. Change to one dimension will result in a change in the other two (Murray, 1988). A mode-switch precedes an associated change in field and the speaker-audience relationship; a field-switch, for example from a formal academic to a personalized format, will impact the choice of mode. These changes inevitably impact on the tenor or the interpersonal relationship between speaker and audience. The data above reveal that when those few EMI lecturers switched from an academic topic to a personal story, the translanguaging served to establish a particular relationship with the students where recounting a personal anecdote in L1, had the potential to generate a social connection and classroom harmony. This finding is supported by research which identified interpersonal or “affiliative” use of translanguaging when bilinguals switched to L1 for establishing an affective and more intimate connection with students and drew on L2 for instructional purposes (Douglas Fir Group, 2016; García, 2009b; Gutierrez et al., 2001, p. 128; Jones, 2017).

7.4 Discussion

Scholars have been emphasizing the role of translanguaging to assist with meaning making and to provide a safe learning space in bilinguals’ classrooms (Canagarajah, 2011; García, 2009a). It is acknowledged that “the planned and systematic use of two languages for teaching and learning” is valuable in ESL and EMI contexts irrespective of their distinct focus on language only learning (ESL) or academic subject knowledge and language learning (EMI) (Lewis et al., 2012, p. 643). The data in this research did indicate that this group of lecturers demonstrated translanguaging practice. They used translanguaging strategies to cognitively scaffold the development of their own teaching capabilities, their students’ cognitive comprehension and to emotionally engage students. Translanguaging was not practiced randomly but was rather a considered response to the students’ and the lecturers’ own needs. This indicates that translanguaging, even if not systematically implemented, can be meaningful in achieving specific educational purposes.

The translanguaging practice of these EMI lecturers was only ‘moderate’. This can be explained in terms of their institution’s instructional policies influencing their own individual monolingualist view. This was exemplified in the data which recorded their description of the institutional demands on their EMI teaching. The EMI classes were designed to be English immersion lectures in favour of any direct planning for a bilingual mode. This finding echoes the research of Macaro et al. (2020) in which English only instruction was the preferred pedagogy. However, research conducted in Hong Kong and Spain revealed translanguaging practices were more fully embraced in their EMI programs (Muguruza et al., 2020; Tai & Li, 2020, 2021a, b) leading to the conclusion that there are different language ideologies in operation across these countries.

Scholars widely acknowledge the scope of translanguaging as a process of knowledge construction involving a range of multilingual resources including languages and cross-cultural knowledge (García, 2009a; Li, 2011). Accordingly, it could be expected that translanguaging practices of the EMI lecturers in this research, would include their language, cultural and social resources and knowledge across both English and Chinese systems – a recognition of themselves and their students as double-resourced and double-knowing agents. This confers with Cenoz and Gorter’s (2020, p. 307) recent argument that pedagogical translanguaging should aim at using “the knowledge multilinguals have” from “their own linguistic and educational background”. The data in this research reveals that the EMI lecturers’ specific and strategic use of translanguaging resources was basic and limited to integrating English and Chinese in the form of code-switching and translation. There was little evidence indicating ‘trans-ing’ of resources from the two systems as carried by these two languages. Whilst the practices of these lecturers could have potentially contributed to the development of translanguaging pedagogy, rich evidence of a variety of translanguaging strategies was not apparent as the impact of the prevailing ideology constrained their motivation to accept and implement translanguaging as a valid pedagogy.

7.5 Conclusion

This Chapter identified and discussed the use of translanguaging in the EMI lecturers’ teaching through a post-structuralist lens. The data analysis enables this Chapter to deduce three findings. Firstly, translanguaging was notably organic behavior and/or strategic action rather than any planned implementation as a preferred teaching mode. Its frequency in use was dependent on the lecturers’ and students’ cognitive and emotional need but was also identified as a representation of the bilingual lecturers’ ideology and the impact of the institution’s policy towards EMI. Secondly, translanguaging behaviors enabled three pedagogical functions to be achieved: for the EMI lecturers, it assisted in scaffolding students’ comprehension; it cognitively supported them to maintain the information flow during their lectures; and positively, and emotionally facilitated their connection with their students. Thirdly, most of the EMI lecturers tended to show two distinct, paralleled identities when switching languages between L1 and L2. For those few EMI lecturers who had advanced levels in both L1 and L2, they demonstrated one unified identity, feeling confident and comfortable lecturing in L1, or in L2 as the conduit language or any variation of translanguaging between the two. For the majority of those who had uneven bilingual capabilities there was a tendency for them to demonstrate two divergent personalities specific to the language being spoken. Thus, it is important for all EMI lecturers to be supported to establish a positive translanguaging identity and this is recommended as an optimal state for bi/multilingual lecturers and their lecturing in EMI programs in higher education.