Applied Linguistics Review 2024; 15(6): 2397–2425

Sarah Hui-Ching Lin and Alex Ho-Cheong Leung*

ESL classroom interactions in a
translanguaging space
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0202
Received December 18, 2022; accepted August 20, 2023; published online September 14, 2023

Abstract: There has been a recent proliferation of studies pertaining to trans-

languaging. This impetus is largely driven by the increasing acknowledgement of daily
communications as translingual practice. In fact, the closely related construct of plu-
rilingualism has been incorporated into the development of the companion volume of
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe.
2020. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available
at: www.coe.int/lang-cefr). Despite the rising awareness towards translanguaging and
plurilingualism in European and Northern American contexts (cf. Vallejo, Claudia &
Melinda Dooly. 2020. Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Emergent approaches and
shared concerns. Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 23(1). 1–16), scepticism remains, especially in classroom
settings. Through detailed analyses of extracts taken from 27 h of recordings of UK
university ESL classroom interactions among Taiwanese L1 Mandarin students tran-
scribed based on Jefferson (Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an
introduction. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first gener-
ation, 14–31. Philadelphia: John Benjamins) and supplemented by Matsumoto (Matsu-
moto, Yumi. 2019. Material moments: Teacher and student use of materials in
multilingual writing classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal 103(1). 179–
204) and Zhu et al. (Zhu, Hua, Wei Li & Agnieszka Lyons. 2017b. Polish shop(ping) as
translanguaging space. Social Semiotics 27(4). 411–433), we aim to demonstrate the
complementarity effect of various multimodal resources in progressing classroom in-
structions. Our analyses reveal that the different linguistic and non-linguistic resources
deployed contribute to scaffolding and the development of a layered understanding of
the concept in discussion (e.g. phrasal verbs). We argue that the translanguaging space
enables students to engage in deeper learning. Students are empowered to break down

*Corresponding author: Alex Ho-Cheong Leung, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK,
E-mail: alex.ho-cheong.leung@northumbria.ac.uk. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2175-9860
Sarah Hui-Ching Lin, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK,
E-mail: sarah.lin@northumbria.ac.uk. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5963-8816

Open Access. © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2398 Lin and Leung

the rigid power structure and actively participate in knowledge co-construction. We

end our paper by calling for research that bridges current understanding of trans-
languaging and policy and assessment strategies development.

Keywords: translanguaging; translanguaging space; L2 classroom interaction; scaf-

folding; multimodality

1 Introduction
Recent years have seen an increased recognition of the complexity of daily com-
munications as translingual practice. Strict linguistic boundaries are blurred and
various linguistics and non-linguistic resources are deployed to make meaning
(Blackledge and Creese 2010; Li 2018, 2020; Wicaksono and Hall 2019). This is
reflected through the ever-rising number of specialist articles (e.g. Danjo 2018; Tai
and Li 2020, 2021a, 2021b; see also Prilutskaya 2021), journal special issues (e.g. Jones
2020; Payant and Galante 2022; Vallejo and Dooly 2020) and edited volumes on
topics related to translanguaging and plurilingualism (e.g. Moore et al. 2020;
Piccardo et al. 2021; Tian et al. 2020). There is also evidence of wider interest as
tranlanguaging studies begin to feature in publication outlets which target non-
specialist audiences as well (e.g. Brooks 2022 – ELTJ review issue; Lovell 2019 – in
the Conversation). Despite the apparent enthusiasm, especially in the European
and Northern American contexts where translanguaging and plurilingualism have
most resonance (Vallejo and Dooly 2020), hesitancy of embracing such practices,
particularly inside the classroom persists (e.g. Martin 2005; Probyn 2009). Even
though a rich body of empirical work has long documented the prevalence of L1
use (e.g. García and Otheguy 2020; Hall 2020; Pennycook 1989, 2008; Smith 2003)
and indeed their potentially facilitative functions (e.g. Hall and Cook 2012; Lin
and Martin 2005), the utilisation of a person’s full repertoire of resources in the
classroom (Zhu et al. 2020) including their L1 remains the elephant in the room,
something to be frowned upon (Hall 2020) and translanguaing practice is consid-
ered “inappropriate” (Li and Lin 2019). The reluctance to use or even resistance to
using non-target language inside the classroom is arguably attributable to the
perpetuating “(mono)lingual bias” in the field of language learning and teaching
(see Block 2014; Liu et al. 2020; Zhu et al. 2020) as well as the misapplication of
second language acquisition research findings (see Spada 2015). There is thus a
need to communicate and raise awareness of the strong evidence base that
supports the normalcy and the potential benefits of translanguaging practices to
language learners and teachers (Coffey and Leung 2020; Hall 2020; Tian and
Shepard-Carey 2020).
 ESL classroom interactions 2399

Our study aims to speak to the theory and practice divide by providing analyses of
Taiwanese (L1 Mandarin) English as a second language (ESL) university classroom
discourse in a translanguaging space, which demonstrate the beneficial effect such a
space can have on progressing classroom instructions (including scaffolding). We argue
that when a liberating translanguaging space is allowed, learners can benefit from the
complementary effects that different deployed resources bring which in turn facilitate
negotiations and understanding. We also illustrate how the translanguaging space and
the translanguaging stance it espouses together allow students to take on non-traditional
roles inside the classroom to challenge authority and engage in deeper learning. The
discussion of our data below contributes further supporting evidence, as called for by
Lin (2022), to convince educators of the possibilities that can be opened by embracing the
translanguaging space where language users’ full repertoire of resources is utilised.
The remainder of this article first provides a brief account of translanguaging
and translanguaging space. It then reviews research on translanguaging in class-
rooms, and scaffolding before providing contextual information about Taiwanese
ESL classrooms. The methodology is then discussed, followed by data analyses. It
ends with some concluding remarks advocating translanguaging practices inside
classrooms, highlighting the deeper student engagement it stimulates and their
possibility of disrupting the traditionally rigid power structure.

1.1 Translanguaging and translanguaging space

Williams’s (1994) and Baker’s (2001) pioneering work in Welsh classrooms, which
reported observations of apparently seamless communications in and across English
and Welsh, spearheaded investigations into translanguaging (see Lewis et al. 2012a,
2012b for the development of the term; see also Mufwene 2001). In addition to exploring
translingual exchanges, later translanguaging work has extended their scope to
include mutli-/trans-modality, and the relationship between language and semiotic
repertoires in and outside classrooms (e.g. García and Li 2014; Tai and Li 2020, 2021a,
2021b; Zhu et al. 2017a, 2017b). For example, Pennycook and Otsuji (2014: 161) high-
lighted how linguistic resources and urban space are interlinked when they coined
“spatial repertoires”. Li’s (2011, 2018) “translanguaging space” aims to capture the
creativity, fluidity, multimodality, multi-historicity, and multifaceted nature of
(multilingual) communications and language. He describes a translanguaging space as:

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 (Li 2018: 23).
2400 Lin and Leung

It is a space where speakers “bring together different dimensions of their personal

history, experience and environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their
cognitive and physical capacity into coordinated and meaningful performance”
(Li 2011: 1223). Translanguaging is, therefore, not only about going between various
linguistic, cognitive, semiotic systems and modalities, but going beyond them (e.g.
W. Li 2020). We argue below that translanguaging and translanguaging space pro-
vide a useful lens to understand ESL/EFL classroom interactions where various
multimodal resources (e.g. linguistic and paralinguistic codes, gestures, realia, etc.)
are deployed and “orchestrated” (Zhu et al. 2020) to make meaning and perform
pedagogical functions.

1.2 Translanguaging and the classroom

Underscoring the facilitative functions of translanguaging and a translanguaging

space, Lin and He (2017) demonstrate that translanguaging is practised by a science
teacher in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classroom in Hong Kong
(HK) to motivate and engage South Asian ethnic minority students despite the
monological school and governmental policies. They argue that translanguaging
helps “to bridge communication disconnects, to activate creative thinking […] to
motivate learning, and to affirm learners’ ethnic/cultural identities” (243) and should
therefore be embraced. Similarly, Tai and Li (2020, 2021a, 2021b) suggest that a safe
space for co-learning is created by translanguaging practice in a secondary English as
a medium of instructions (EMI) mathematics classroom in HK. Students are able to
use multilingual, multimodal, multisensory resources and real-world knowledge to
learn new maths concepts collaboratively and negotiate meaning. Moreover, in the
translanguaging space, learners are able to utilise playful language to challenge or
even “transgress” the imbalanced classroom power relationship. It is also worth
noting, however, that translanguaging and plurilingual practices are not always
welcomed because of entrenched “either-or”, “binary” thinking (i.e. either L1 or L2)
in curriculum design, assessment, and more generally the conceptualisation of
language (Lin 2020).
In Taiwan, EMI has been promoted by the government and school stakeholders
(National Development Council Ministry of Education 2021). But there is evidence
that multilingual and multimodal resources are being deployed in different class-
rooms. Kao’s (2022) recent study of 422 in-service teachers shows that although
translanguaging is a new concept to many in Taiwan, various language and semiotic/
para-linguistic resources are used daily among teachers of different subjects to a
varying degree. While elementary and middle school English teachers employ En-
glish and other semiotic resources, middle school content teachers prefer using L1 to
 ESL classroom interactions 2401

reinforce subject learning. Kao suggests that the “translanguaging approach has
expanded the linguistics practices and empowered the use of other meaning-making
signs that are typically less valued in school” (1). Lin (2022) discusses the variability
and complexity of language use and choice in Taiwanese university engineering and
science lab meetings among culturally and linguistically diverse students and pro-
fessors. Through 53 interviews, Lin discovers that “language choice was subject to
constant negotiations among all lab members, leading to dynamic flows and con-
figurations of translanguaging” but “not all language choices are equally inclusive
and conducive to learning for all members” (117) because of the local-global tension
between Taiwanese students’ preference of (Mandarin) Chinese and international
students’ preference of using lingua franca English, each choice including/excluding
certain groups. Lin ends by calling for more research with discourse data to identify
“optimal” translanguaging practices. Hence our study attempts to provide classroom
data and explore pedagogical functions/scaffolding in a translanguaging space.

1.3 Scaffolding

Scaffolding was initially described as an “interactional instructional relationship”

between adults and learners that “enables a child or novice to solve a problem […]
beyond his unassisted efforts” (Bruner 1983; Wood et al. 1976: 90). In a classroom
setting, it can be understood as “a type of teacher assistance that helps students learn
new skills, concepts, or levels of understanding that leads to the student successfully
completing a task, a specific learning activity with finite goals” (Maybin et al. 1992:
88). Scaffolding can take many forms, from clarification check to error correction, so
long as they are aimed at assisting learners.
Translanguaging practice can also be used as a means of scaffolding, such as
progression of lesson and clarification of misunderstanding/confusion (Li 2011,
2018). Feller’s (2022) longitudinal investigation of a third-grade bilingual classroom
in Portugal provides a recent example of how translanguaging is used to teach
content and establish communication in natural and social sciences and English
language lessons. Feller shows that scaffolding is not limited to teacher-initiated
sequences, but learners also actively scaffold each other’s contributions to advance
their understanding of a target concept/structure, concurring with our analyses
below.
Our study is guided by the overarching question: how does a translanguaging
space facilitate scaffolding in an ESL classroom in higher education in the UK? This is
addressed through examining: (1) how scaffolding is carried out in the trans-
languaging space, and (2) how the teacher and students co-construct learning and (3)
how students share their perspective to challenge the classroom power structure.
2402 Lin and Leung

2 Methodology
This study is based on two UK university ESL classrooms informed by ideas from
Cognitive Linguistics taught by the first author. Data came from three-week video-
recorded observations, totalling 27 h. Semiotic resources, including cognitive
maps, semantic tables, and in-class tasks were utilised while designing the
teaching materials (see Appendix). The classroom is a translanguaging space by
design, as the materials tapped into similarities and differences between concept
constructions across L1 Mandarin and L2 English (e.g. conceptualisation of met-
aphors, categorisation, etc.). Materials focused on the conceptual understanding
of the adverbial particles or prepositions used in phrasal verbs (multi-word
constructions).1
Translanguaging practice is evident in the entire corpus of recordings. For
this paper, we focus on episodes of scaffolding and classroom interactions where
verbal and non-verbal resources are employed (i.e. gaze, facial expression,
gesture, hand movement, and object manipulation). We have selected two ex-
tracts that belong to two different modes in Walsh’s Self-Evaluation of Teacher
Talk (SETT) framework that are characterised by different interactional features
to demonstrate 1) the prevalence of fluid and dynamic use of speakers’ diverse
communication repertoire in the translanguaging classroom space and 2) how
they act as scaffolding to progress instructions (see Section 3).

2.1 Participants, materials and procedures

Thirteen L1 Mandarin Chinese UK university students aged 18–28 (Mean = 22.9,

SD = 3.20) participated. Eight were undergraduates and five postgraduates. The average
length of living in English-speaking countries was 3.3 years (SD = 3.98) (see Table 1).
Participants reported having at least seven years of English learning experi-
ence. Their level was between intermediate and upper-intermediate according to
IELTS scores. However, one participant did not report their English proficiency
level.
Three sets of worksheets (see Appendix) were used in class. They followed an
identical organisation, containing four main sections: (1) a list of ten target phrasal

1 The data set came from a larger study that aims to investigate the effect of ESL materials designed
based on key notions in cognitive linguistics such as conceptualisation of metaphors and catego-
risation on the learning of phrasal verbs. In this paper, we specifically focus on the interactions in the
translanguaging classroom space that’s created. Readers interested in the details of the cognitive
linguistics design can refer to Lin (in press).
 ESL classroom interactions 2403

Table : Participants’ demographics.

Participanta Age Education Years of Years spent in an IELTS

(UG = undergraduate; learning English-speaking scores
PG = postgraduate) English country

FS  UG   .
FS  PG   
FS  PG   
FS  UG  . n/a
FS  UG   .
FS  PG   
FS  UG   
CG  UG  . 
CG  PG   .
CG  UG  . .
CG  PG   
CG  UG   .
CG  UG  . .
a
FS = frame semantics class, CG = categorisation class.

verbs involving two target particles, (2) two radial category diagrams and a semantic
table (3) a table of example sentences, and (4) two in-class tasks: word map drawing
and story creation.
The project received ethical approval from the authors’ university. Participants
consented to partake and be video recorded. A small camera was used to minimise
disruptions.
To identify relevant interaction episodes, each author first viewed the recordings
and transcribed the data individually. Interaction data were transcribed in accordance
with Jefferson’s system (2004). We modelled our transcription after Jefferson’s
convention in order to capture interactional details relevant to our analyses textually
as adequately as possible. This is supplemented by Matsumoto’s (2019) and Zhu et al.’s
system (Zhu et al. 2017b) which captures both verbal and non-verbal behaviours.
Screenshots were used to demonstrate multimodal interactions.2 We then selected the
two episodes on which to focus (see below) and coded the data with reference to
Walsh’s (2011) SETT framework of classroom discourse. Next, we compared and
resolved transcription discrepancies by repeatedly watching recordings together. We
then collectively and iteratively interrogated the data to analyse the moment-by-
moment interactions and pedagogical functions achieved in the translanguaging space
to reach the interpretations offered below.

2 We also note the recent work by Tai (2023) which may provide an even more detailed framework
for analysing our data, which we aim to incorporate for our future work.
2404 Lin and Leung

3 Data analysis and discussion

Here, we present our analysis and commentary on two selected extracts. The extracts
representing different modes in the SETT framework (Walsh 2011: 113) are marked by
distinctive pedagogical goals and interactional features. Extract 1, containing 4 epi-
sodes/sections, is largely representative of the skills and systems mode where there is
attention to forms. Extended teacher turns and instructions scaffolding are some of the
interactional features involved in this mode. Extract 2, comprising two overlapping
episodes/sections, is a mixture of the materials-oriented mode and classroom context
mode where language is practised and learners express themselves. Its interactional
features include both learners’ and teachers’ turns and clarification requests. We
demonstrate that naturally flowing translanguaging practice contributed to the scaf-
folding of instructions, such as progression of lesson, clarification of misunderstanding/
confusion, stimulating (non) verbal responses and co-construction of knowledge.

3.1 Extract 1: Scaffolding of instructions

Extract 1 is a transcript of the explanation of the difference between off and away. It

came from a session that aimed at establishing a conceptual understanding of En-
glish particles on and off in phrasal verbs. Teacher-student interactions took place
multilingually and multimodally aided by verbal (L1 and L2) and non-verbal re-
sources (e.g. nods, gestures, and realia). Teacher (T) initiated the sequence by dis-
cussing a question raised by FS01 in the previous turn: how to distinguish the uses
between off and away. T’s explanation utilised a real-life object, a flask, as well as
multilingual resources including Mandarin Chinese. Detailed analyses below
demonstrate that scaffolding is achieved by translanguaging.

Extract 1: Constructing concept of off and away through a flask (i.e. realia) in a

translanguaging space.
Videorecord_UK-FS-2-20170207_00.14.38-00.15.46
Speakers: T (teacher); FS01 (student 1); FS02 (student 2); FS03 (student 3); FS04
(student 4); FS05 (student 5); FS06 (student 6); FS07 (student 7); All (all 7 students)
Extract 1.1 (turn 1–19)
Extract 1.2 (turn 20–32)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T Ok. I would like to mention it here.

 T The <differences> between <off> and <away>.
 T Most of their meanings are similar.
((raising her hands to make a circle in the air))
 ESL classroom interactions 2405

(continued)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T Just
{her right hand touching the surface of the desk} not touch {clapping both of her hands
to make a sound-emphasising not touch}
 T Lost of contact
{using her left hand touching the surface of the desk twice}
 T But:: the differences between off and away is like (.)
{moving her hands forward and backward}
 T For example::
{picking up a lid and a flask in front of students}
(.)
 T I put this {pointed at the lid}, I put the lid on the cup
{placing the lid on top of the flask}
 T This is on, right?
 All ((all students gazing at the teacher))
 T So, (.) I take it off
{removing the lid from top of the flask}
(.)
 All ((all students gazing at the teacher))
 T But:: off would be here
{indicating the surface of the desk}
(.)
 T But:: if I say, I took this away
{holding the lid to be further away from the flask}
 All ((all students gazing at the teacher))
 T Probably somewhere else
(.)
 T But:: not ready to access::
(.)
 T >Got it<?
{the right hand’s index finger indicating up}
((FS, FS, FS nodded))
 T >This is< the difference between off and away
{moving the lid forward and backward towards the direction of the flask}
(.)
 T 聽懂嗎? ((tīng dǒng ma))
Understood?
((FS nodded – continued to the next turn))
 FS Mm, Hm
((FS, FS nodding))
 T Off 的話就是 (.) 我就是分開 (.) 但是 (.) 我可能馬上又可以拿得到.
Off de huà jiù shì, wǒ jiù shì fèn kāi dàn shì wǒ kě néng mǎ shàng yòu kě yǐ ná dé dào
Off means separate but it can be retrieved immediately
{moving the lid forward and backward towards the direction of the flask}
(.)
2406 Lin and Leung

(continued)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T 但是 away (.) 是分開 (.) 但是它有距離.

dàn shì away shì fèn kāi dàn shì tā yǒu jù lí
But away, it means separate with distance.
{holding the lid to be further away from the flask}
 FS (gazing at FS and also nodding her head)
 T 而且 (.) 可能不是 (.) 我馬上 (.) 我要拿我就可以.
ér qiě kě néng bù shì wǒ mǎ shàng wǒ yào ná wǒ jiù kě yǐ
And I cannot access it immediately
{holding the lid to be further away from the flask}
 T >懂我意思嗎<?
dǒng wǒ yì sī ma?
Got what I mean?
 T <I throw things away> ::
{right hand holding the lid to be further away from the flask}
((FS nodded – continued to the next turn))
 T I throw things away
{left hand virtually grabbing motion, then throw-away motion to reinforce the held away
position of the right hand}
((FS nodded))::
 T 有距離了,
yǒu jù lí le
It has distance
(.)
 T Distance.
{waving the lid in the air}
(.)
 T And (.) not ready (.) to access.
{showing the lid}
 T And (.) that’s away.

3.1.1 Episode 1: Similar concept of “off” and “away”

In turn 1–2, T responded to FS01’s question by uttering “OK. I would like to mention it here.
The differences between off and away” and by raising her hands to make a circle in the air
(turn 3). In turn 3–5, T first discussed the shared concepts between off and away by saying
“Most of their meanings are similar. Just not touch. Loss of contact.” Simultaneously, T
clapped her hands (turn 4) and used her left hand to tap the desk twice to attract students’
attention. After the similarity was introduced, T continued by offering an account of the
conceptual difference between off and away (turn 6–17). To clarify students’ under-
standing, T had an extended turn while holding a flask with its lid on hand to demonstrate
 ESL classroom interactions 2407

the different spatial configuration of off and away. Initially, T placed the lid on top of the
flask to remind students of the spatial concept of on and said “I put this, I put the lid on the
cup” (turn 8). T recapitulated the concept of on (i.e. confirmation check) by saying “This is
on, right?” (turn 9). All students responded to T’s question by gazing at the teacher (turn
10) to confirm their understanding. T moved on to off in turn 11 by uttering “So I take it off”
to contrast its opposite spatial relationship with on while simultaneously removing the lid
from top of the flask. Joint-attention and common understanding are achieved, signalled
by students’ gaze at the teacher’s direction (turn 12).

3.1.2 Episode 2: Different concept of “off” and “away”

In turn 13, T directed students’ attention back to off by using her finger to point to the
surface of the desk. These verbal and gestural resources provided the setup for
explaining the spatial concept of away in turn 14 which is accompanied by visual and
semiotic references, i.e. holding the lid further away from the flask. Again, all stu-
dents gazed at the teacher as joint-attention is achieved (turn 15). T then provided
further explanations of the spatial concept of away in turn 16–17 by uttering
“probably somewhere else” and “but not ready to access”. After an extended teacher
turn, T attempted to check students’ understanding by the confirmation check, “Got
it?” (turn 18) and holding up her right index finger. In response to T’s initiation, FS01,
FS03 and FS06 nodded (turn 18). In turn 19, T complemented the spatial meaning
difference between off and away previously established by verbalising, “This is the
difference between off and away” and reinforcing through referencing semiotic
resources, i.e. moving the lid backward and forward towards the flask (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The teacher is using a flask to demonstrate the concept of off and away and indicate the
movement of directions.
2408 Lin and Leung

3.1.3 Episode 3: 聽懂嗎? (tīng dǒng ma)/understood?

In turn 20, T attempted to concept check by asking “聽懂嗎 (tīng dǒng ma)? (un-
derstood?)” in Mandarin to invite students’ responses. FS06 nodded in response.
Others responded in the subsequent turn to confirm their understanding (FS02’s
“Mm Hm”, FS01’s and FS02’s nod, and FS06’s nod continued from the previous turn).
tīng dǒng ma (understood?) functions to open up the floor for learners’ contributions
and clarification requests, and it also serves as a discourse marker that focuses/grabs
students’ attention on the content/explanation to follow.

3.1.4 Episode 4: Translanguaging practice: multimodality

After the concept check question, T reiterated the spatial concept of off in Man-
darin by uttering “Off 的話就是, 我就是分開但是我可能馬上又可以拿得到 (Off
means separate but then the thing can be retrieved immediately)” in turn 22 and
concurrently moving the lid back and forth towards the direction of the flask. In
turn 23, T restated that away is different from off by saying “但是away是分開但是
它有距離 (but away, it means separated with distance)” in Mandarin and holding
the lid further away from the flask. Upon hearing T’s explanation, FS01 gazed at
FS04 to seek confirmation. FS04 nodded in response to confirm her understanding
(turn 24). T elaborated on away by uttering “而且可能不是我馬上, 我要拿我就可
以 (and I cannot access it immediately)” in Mandarin while continuing to hold the
lid away from the flask to highlight the distance (turn 25). T added “懂我意思?”
(Got what I mean?) in turn 26 as a gap-filler and a concept check question to allow
students to ask questions if they do not follow. It also acts as a bridge for a further
illustrative verbal example in turn 27, “I throw things away”. It is noteworthy that
T continued to deploy spatial resource to supplement/complement her verbal
explanations by maintaining the position of the far-away held lid. FS01 nodded and
continued doing so till the next turn to acknowledge her understanding. T
repeated her verbal explanation in turn 28, but reconfigured her semiotic re-
sources by virtually grabbing with her left hand and then performing a throw-
away motion to reinforce the “away” position of the right hand. FS03 confirmed
her understanding by nodding. Finally, T uttered “有距離了 (It has distance)” in
turn 29 and “distance” in turn 30 while waving the lid in the air with her right hand
to complete her response/explanation to FS01’s question regarding the use of off
and away.
Through the four episodes above we saw how scaffolding is carried out in the
translanguaging space (sub-RQ1). It can be seen that instructions progressed
 ESL classroom interactions 2409

naturally and understanding is achieved through the meaningful “orchestration” (Li

2018; Zhu et al. 2020) of linguistic and semiotic repertoires (i.e. linguistic cues, ges-
tures, hand movements, pointing, eye contact, and realia) in the translanguaging
space (see also Tai 2022 for teacher’s translanguaging in dealing with contingencies
or lack of student response). Importantly, the deployment and coordination of
multimodal and multisensory resources are not simply an act of “translation”
(translating L2 into L1), but a progressive scaffolding act that adds different layers of
meaning to the overall explanation, thereby creating the opportunity for potentially
engaging learners in deeper processing and learning through the activation of
various cognitive functions (i.e. visual, spatial, (para-)linguistic). This resonates with
the perceived benefits of multimodal practices including retaining and deepening
knowledge reported by M. Li (2020).

3.2 Extract 2: Co-construction of learning through discussion

Unlike the previous extract involving extended teacher turns, Extract 2 involves
multi-directional exchanges, therefore it provides opportunities for us to illustrate
how the teacher and students co-construct learning (sub-RQ2) and how students
share their perspective to challenge the classroom power structure (sub-RQ3). The
extract was taken from the exercise phase of the class when students tackled the
worksheet assigned which targets the adverbial particles/prepositions taught. The
analyses below illustrate how students are empowered to contribute and cross-
validate their understanding with their teacher and/or their peers to co-construct
understanding. It is also useful to note that the horseshoe seating arrangement
which conveys a more egalitarian stance contributed to opening up the possibility
for students to “challenge” authority, thereby reinforcing the idea that a trans-
languaging space affords the utilisation of linguistic (i.e., linguistic repertoires)
and non-linguistic resources (e.g. spatial repertoires, semiotic resources) in the
meaning making process.
Extract 2 compromises two overlapping episodes. The first episode involves
CG01’s contributions to cross-check her understanding of the ego perspective and
container metaphor with the teacher. Concurrently, CG05 was disputing 退 (tuì) as
down with his peers, foregrounding the horizontal dimension of 退去 (tuì qù),
i.e. out. As opposed to classroom discourse work that largely focuses on in-
teractions where turn-taking is relatively smooth, the extend overlaps or rather
multiplicity of interactions this extract features and captures reflect the “messi-
ness” of classroom, something with which research have not always honestly
engaged (Jones 2020: 536).
2410 Lin and Leung

Extract 2: Co-construction of learning through discussion of coming in and out.

Videorocors_UK-CG-1-20170203_00.34.57-00.36.21
Speakers: T (teacher); CG01 (student 8); CG02 (student 9); CG03 (student 10); CG04
(student 11); CG05 (student 12); CG06 (student 13); All (all 6 students)
Extract 2.1 (turn 1–13); Extract 2.2 (turn 14–27); Extract 2.3 (turn 28–43);
Extract 2.4 (turn 44–55)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T 你看我們中文是退, >對不對<?
nǐ kàn wǒ men zhōng wén shì tuì, duì bù duì?
You see in Mandarin Chinese it means decline, right?
 CG Mm, hm!
((nodding her head))
 T 退反而是 down.
tuì fǎn ér shì down
In other words, decline is down.
 T 但是英文不是哦!
dàn shì yīng wén bù shì ò!
But it does not mean the same in English!
 CG/CG/CG ((looking at the direction of the teacher))
T 英文是,
yīng wén shì
In English is
(.)
 T 我剛剛跟你講 <come in>
wǒ gāng gāng gēn nǐ jiǎng come in
I just told you about come in
 T 所以當然是 <go>=
suǒ yǐ dāng rán shì go
Of course! It means go
 CG 可是你不是說那個
kě shì nǐ bù shì shuō nà gè
But you just said
((raising and waving her right hand and pointing at the teacher))
 CG 那個叫什麼東西! Come out
nà gè jiào shí me dōng xī come out
What is it! Come out
CG/CG (({CG is raising her right hand and CG is paying attention to her}))
 CG [沒有啊!]
méi yǒu ā!
No
 CG [Come in]
CG [退是往後走]
tuì shì wǎng hòu zǒu
 ESL classroom interactions 2411

(continued)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

Retreat is moving back

{moving his both hands towards himself and looking at the direction of
the teacher at the same time}
CG/CG [((looking at CG))]
 T Come in那個 waves
Come in nà gè waves
Particularly waves come in
 CG [>對對對<]
duì duì duì
Yes yes yes
CG/CG/CG [((looking at each other))]
CG [退回去嗎?]
tuì huí qù ma?
Moving back?
 CG [可是 (.) 它是進入那個地方]
kě shì tā shì jìn rù nà gè dì fang
But it enters that place
CG [對啊! 退不就是回去嗎?]
duì ā! tuì bù jiù shì huí qù ma?
Yes! Isn’t retreat moving back?
 CG 可是 (.) 對它來說, 它是出去啊!
kě shì duì tā lái shuō tā shì chū qù ā
But for it, it means going out!
 T 對它?
duì tā
For whom?
CG ()
{moving his hands towards himself}
 CG [對於 wave 本身來說]
duì yú wave běn shēn lái shuō
From the wave’s perspective
CG [回漲 {looking at CG}]
huí zhǎng
Move back and go up
 CG [就是退啊!]
jiù shì tuì ā!
That is retreat!
[{gradually raising his right hand up and left hand below}]
 T 喔! 對.
wō! duì
Oh! Yes.
2412 Lin and Leung

(continued)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T 可是你要看你對應的.
kě shì nǐ yào kàn nǐ duì yīng de
It depends on what you compare and contrast
 T Because we say (.) big waves come in where?
 T 這有個 container.
zhè yǒu gè container
There is a container
 CG 就是要看它後面那個-
jiù shì yào kàn tā hòu miàn nà gè
Look at what is behind that
{using her right hand drawing a circle in the air}
 T 對, 就是它的 container
duì jiù shì tā de container
Yes, then it would be the container
 T 你要看誰是 container?
nǐ yào kàn shuí shì container?
You have to check what the container is?
 T 所以(.) container是 <海岸線>
suǒ yǐ container shì hǎi àn xiàn
So the container is the shoreline
 CG 所以對它來說 (.) 它是 in.
suǒ yǐ duì tā lái shuō tā shì in
So it means that waves are moving into the container
 T 對.
duì
Yes
 T 它是進來有沒有?
tā shì jìn lái yǒu méi yǒu?
They are coming in, right?
 T 就是我懂 =
jiù shì wǒ dǒng
I got it
 T = 你是覺得 big wave 是一個 container.
nǐ shì jiào dé big wave shì yī gè container
So you think big wave is considered as a container
 T 但是 (.) no
dàn shì no
But no
 T In here (.) in this sentence
 T We say (.) it’s coming in.
(.)
 ESL classroom interactions 2413

(continued)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T 所以 (.) 它如果退潮呢?
suǒ yǐ tā rú guǒ tuì cháo ne?
What if the tide is moving away from the shore?
 CG/CG ((looking at the direction of the teacher))
 CG Coming out
 T Or (.) going out
 CG/CG/CG/ [((looking at the direction of the teacher; CG and CG nodding))]
CG/CG
 T [不是 up and down].
bù shì up and down
It’s not up and down
 T [這跟中文的<漲>和<退>是不一樣的]
zhè gēn zhōng wén de zhǎng hé tuì shì bù yī yàng de
In and out are different from what we use up and down in Mandarin Chinese
 T 因為中文的漲和退是 up and down
yīn wéi zhōng wén de zhǎng hé tuì shì up and down
Waves coming in and out is described as up and down in Mandarin
 T 它講的是 中間
tā jiǎng de shì zhōng jiān
In Mandarin the meaning is based on the middle of the wave motion
 T 可是英文 (.) 反而講的是 (.) <最前面> 的這個動作.
kě shì yīng wén fǎn ér jiǎng de shì zuì qián miàn de zhè gè dòng zuò
But in English the meaning relies on the beginning of the wave motion
(.)
 T Yeh?
 CG 退不是指 <前後的退> 嗎?
tuì bù shì zhǐ qián hòu de tuì ma?
Doesn’t retreat mean moving back and forth in the horizontal sense?
 CG ((moving two hands back and forth))
 T Ya! So <in> and <out> can be horizontal.
 T [有沒有?]
yǒu méi yǒu?
Right?
CG [對].
duì
Yes.
 T 平衡的.
píng héng de
Balanced motion
 CG/CG/CG [((looking at the direction of the teacher))]
T [那個直線的]
nà gè zhí xiàn de
That is linear
2414 Lin and Leung

(continued)

Turn Speaker Verbal/non-verbal action

 T 移動.
yí dòng
Movement
 T 直線的移動.
zhí xiàn de yí dòng
Linear movement
 T Yeh.
(.)
 All ((looking back to the teaching materials))

Transcription conventions
The video-recorded interactions were transcribed according to the list below. It
mainly follows the Jefferson’s (2004) transcription system, and the notation for
multimodal transcription were adapted from Matsumoto (2019).

Symbol Representation

(.) Timed pause

(.) Brief pause, less than . s
[] Overlapping speech/non-vocal actions
= The break and subsequent continuation of an interrupted utterance
- Interruption in utterance
. Falling intonation
, Continuing intonation
? Rising intonation
! Exclamatory pitch
:: Prolongation
>text< Speech delivered more rapidly than usual for the speaker
<text> Speech delivered more slowly than usual for the speaker
underline Emphasis
italics Transliteration of Mandarin Chinese in pinyin & broad translation in English
((moving hands)) Non-verbal action that is not synchronised with speech; transcriber’s descriptions
{moving hands} Non-verbal action that is synchronised with speech
() The ungotten talk; unintelligible speech

3.2.1 Episode 1: Cross-checking ego perspective and container metaphor

Prior to this stream of interactions, T introduced an English particle, in, as a

container metaphor that can be used to describe waves coming onshore with the
 ESL classroom interactions 2415

shoreline being the boundary of the container. In turn 1, T attempted to contrast the
representation of the wave movement in English and Mandarin by a display question
“你看我們中文是退, 對不對? (i.e. You see in Mandarin Chinese it means decline,
right it?)” and sought agreement/confirmation in the following turns. However, in
turn 8, 9, and 11, CG01 raised and clarified her question in English and Mandarin as
“那個叫什麼東西! (What is it!) Come out, come in.” T rephrased CG01’s question in
turn 12: “Come in那個 (particularly) waves.” CG01 confirmed that her question was
understood in turn 13 by saying 對 (yes) thrice. CG01 continued her utterance in turn
14: “可是它是進入那個地方 (But it enters that place)” and turn 15 (see Figure 2):
“可是對它來說它是出去啊! (But for it, it means going out). It was unclear for T what
the pronoun (i.e. 它it) referred to, so she asked: “對它? (i.e. For whom?)” in turn 16.
CG01 clarified her question: “對於wave本身來說 (i.e., from the wave’s perspective)”
in turn 17. T responded to CG01’s question by uttering: “可是你要看你對應的 (It
depends on what you compare and contrast)” in Mandarin (turn 20). T repeated her
explanation in English: “Because we say big waves come in where?” (turn 21) and
added in a combination of Mandarin and English: “這有個 container (There is a
container)” (turn 22). Also in turn 26, T briefly emphasised that the shoreline is
considered as the boundary of the container in Mandarin and English: “所以
container是海岸線 (So the container is the shoreline), which illustrated that T aimed
to ensure the student’s uptake of the container concept. CG01 checked her under-
standing by uttering in English and Mandarin: “所以對它來說它是 in (So it means
that waves are moving into the container)” in turn 27. As soon as T realised CG01’s
previous ego perspective on the container concept, she said: “就是我懂 (I got it) in
turn 30 and then went back to the student’s previous opinion about the container
concept by uttering in English and Mandarin: “你是覺得 big wave 是一個 container
(So you think the big wave is a container)” in turn 31. In this episode, both the teacher
and CG01 were translanguaging in formulating the clarification request and subse-
quent scaffolding acts in lockstep. At the same time, real-world knowledge about the
movement of waves was drawn upon to aid understanding and establish common
ground, in manner similar to how out-of-school knowledge was called upon to un-
derstand mathematical concepts in an EMI maths class in Hong Kong (Tai and Li 2020).

3.2.2 Episode 2: Disputing the concepts between “down” and “out”

While CG01 was interacting with T on the left side of the room, CG05 was disputing
the contrast previously set up by T (i.e. the equivalent of 退 (tuì) is down) with his
peers on the right. In turn 11, while CG01 was asking a question to T, CG05 initiated his
query/dispute by verbalising a declarative sentence in Mandarin: “退是往後走
(Retreat is moving back).” Acknowledging the potential validity of CG05’s contribu-
tion, CG03 and CG06 exchanged eye-gaze with each other and CG05 without attending
2416 Lin and Leung

Figure 2: The students are gazing at the teacher during a clarification sequence.

to the exchange between CG01 and T that was happening concurrently. CG06
responded to CG05 in Mandarin: “退回去嗎? (Moving back?)” (turn 13). CG05 replied
in Mandarin: “對啊! 退不就是回去嗎? (Yes! Isn’t retreat moving back?)” (turn 14).
CG05 had an unintelligible utterance and moved his hands toward himself in turn 16.
Later in turn 17 while gazing at CG05, CG06 offered her elaborated interpretation by
saying: “回漲 (huí zhǎng) (Move back and go up)” in Mandarin (see Figure 3). CG05
insisted on his opinion by saying: “就是退啊! (That is retreat!)” in Mandarin and
gradually raising his right hand and lowering his left (turn 18) (see Figure 4). At that
point, CG05 and CG06 tried to establish eye-contact with T and CG01 to bid for
attention, potentially attempting to bring in T to resolve the dispute/debate (see
Figure 5), but T and CG01 were still engrossed in their discussion until turn 34, so that
bid for attention was not successful.
Upon the completion of the interaction between T and CG01 in turn 34, T then
bid for the attention of the entire class by asking another display question “所以它
如果退潮呢? (What if the tide is moving away from the shore?)” (turn 35) in an
attempt to direct their attention back to the similarities and differences of using in
and out as well as up and down in English and Mandarin. T regained the whole
class’s attention between turn 37 and 39. Following T’s question, some students
looked at her to show their awareness and CG05 responded: “coming out” (turn 37)
and T added: “Or going out” (turn 38). Most students acknowledged their under-
standing by gazing at T or nodding. T further clarified the use of up and down in
English, distinguishing them from the ones used in Mandarin, so she uttered in
 ESL classroom interactions 2417

Figure 3: The student is disputing the use of 退 (tuì) with his peer.

Figure 4: The student is using hand movements to express his opinion.

2418 Lin and Leung

Figure 5: CG05 and CG06 are trying to bid for T’s attention through eye contact.

Mandarin and English: “因為中文的漲和退是 up and down (Waves coming in and

out is described as up and down in Mandarin)” (turn 42) and added: “它講的是中間
(The meaning is based on the middle of the wave motion)” (turn 43). She then
contrasted that with English where the attention of the motion is given to the
beginning of the process in her Mandarin utterance, “可是英文反而講的是最前面
的這個動作 (But in English the meaning relies on the beginning of the wave mo-
tion.)” in turn 44. CG05 latched onto the opportunity in turn 46 to raise his query “退
不是指前後的退嗎? (Doesn’t retreat mean moving back and forth [in the horizontal
sense]?)” in Mandarin and moving his hands back and forth (turn 46–47). T agreed
by responding in English: “Ya! So in and out can be horizontal” (turn 48) and
continued to utter in Mandarin (turn 49): “有沒有? (Right?)”; simultaneously, CG05
responded in Mandarin: “對 (Yes)”. T realised that the student might have been
confused over the polysemous Mandarin Chinese character “退 (tuì)” as it can refer
to declining (the concept of down) or retreating (the concept of out). Thus, T high-
lighted the spatial sense of in and out in terms of linear movement in Mandarin
(turn 53): “直線的移動 (zhí xiàn de yí dòng)” when she finally attempted to resolve
CG05’s dispute between 退 (tuì) as down and 退 (tuì) as out.
In this episode, we saw that students are actively engaging in multi-lingual and
multi-modal translanguaging to clarify understanding and dispute concepts pre-
sented in class, and in turn co-construct knowledge with both their peers and the
 ESL classroom interactions 2419

teacher. We noted above that the seating arrangement might have facilitated the
disruption of the traditional power structure (i.e. high-power, teacher dominated
classroom). GG05’s vocal and gestural contributions could have been viewed as face-
threatening, but arguably the “translanguaging stance” (Zhu et al. 2020) adopted by
the teacher verbally as well as spatially has transpired. This signalled to students that
this classroom is a safe space for them to question or even challenge in order to reach
common understanding. Thus, in a translanguaging space, students are able to take
advantage and truly engage with/initiate knowledge co-construction instead of being
a passive learner merely “receiving” knowledge. The learners’ deeper engagement is
reflected through the multi-directional flow of interactions and the heavy overlap of
turn-taking (i.e. the messiness of the classroom). Similar practice has been observed
in other classrooms where learners are empowered to actively engage in the co-
construction of knowledge afforded in the translanguaging space (e.g. Tai and Li
2021a) as well as in linguistic field work where the power imbalance between
“researcher” and “the researched” can be redressed through translanguaging
practices (e.g. Nemouchi and Holmes 2022).

4 Conclusion and implications

Our study set out to address the question: how does a translanguaging space facilitate
scaffolding in an ESL classroom in higher education in the UK? It is among the first to
answer the plead by Lin (2022) who calls for much needed empirical evidence based
on analyses of actual classroom interactions. Our paper has demonstrated how
“flexible multilingual practice” (Li and Zhu 2013) is naturally employed in L2 class-
rooms. In addition to documenting the translanguaging episodes, we have identified
and analysed the pedagogical functions translanguaging helped perform. Our ana-
lyses show that the teacher and learners utilise both linguistic and non-linguistic
resources at their disposal to make sense of the learning content and co-construct
knowledge in situ. On that basis, we argue that opening up the translanguaging space
aids the scaffolding of instructions and understanding, which in turn helps achieve
the pedagogical goal, i.e. enhancing understanding of the phrasal verbs/multi-word
constructions. By providing excerpts and analyses that illustrate the facilitative
functions of a translanguaging space and translingual practices, we are calling for
the acknowledgement and acceptance of the power of translanguaging pedagogies.
Educators who subscribe to such a view can help unlock the potentials afforded by
such practices (García and Kleifgen 2010; Jones and Lewis 2014).
As seen through our analyses, translanguaging encourages and empowers all
participants (students and teachers) to share their knowledge and experience, co-
construct knowledge, and even challenge authority in a classroom (e.g. Extract 2),
2420 Lin and Leung

which in turn allows participants to embrace the beauty of linguistic diversity

(García and Li 2014). The spontaneous and smooth-flowing translanguaging practices
analysed above supported various pedagogical goals, such as scaffolding in-
structions, seeking clarifications/validation (e.g. Extract 1). The translanguaging
stance empowers students to break the cultural stereotype of the “reticent Asian/
Chinese student” and take ownership of their learning. Learners and the teacher in
our study did not follow a script (cf. Tai 2022), but are nonetheless able to reach
common ground in the translanguaging space. Therefore, once we are able to see
past the straitjacket of monolingual pedagogy/(mono)lingual bias, it becomes obvious
that these seemingly “innovative” deployment of and seamless shuffle between
linguistic (various named languages) and non-linguistics resources are simply the
normal day-to-day reality of multilingual communications and situated sense-
making inside the classroom (see literature review) and beyond (Canagarajah
2022; W. Li 2020; see also Danjo 2018 on Japanese-English multilingual family in-
teractions; Li 2018 for examples of multilingual exchanges among Singaporeans).
That said, one should also recognise that although research on translanguaging
has made great strides in recent years, in some contexts a translanguaging space is
not always available if not outright prohibited due to constraints imposed by the
national/local policy, for instance, in target-language-only EMI schools. That is not to
say that translanguaging does not take place in those contexts, but whether or not
teachers and students have the agency to decide how they can benefit from trans-
languaging might be more restricted than in a setting such as the present study
where participation was voluntary and the stake was low (i.e. non-credit bearing).
Arguably, this discrepancy and disconnect between policy and practice is what led to
the imbalanced status of and values attached to different communicative resources
(cf. Canagarajah 2022) which in turn lead to some of the dilemmas that teachers face
(see introduction). This divide is something that teacher educators and applied lin-
guists must attempt to confront and tackle.
The data we presented help illustrate that there is much to be gained from
adopting a translanguaging classroom vis-à-vis enhancing participation and depth of
learning. These, in our view, provide a strong pedagogical rationale to support the
opening up of a translanguaging space in the teaching and learning context. Through
contributing more empirical evidence that supports the normalcy and facilitative
functions of a translanguaging space, we hope to help turn the tide and reframe the
utilisation of all resources (including the L1) in a more positive light. In fact, Tai and
Dai (2023) have recently argued that translanguaging or the ability to be able to
translanguage and utilise one’s full communication repertoire constitute an integral
element to a person’s interactional competence. By advocating the translanguaging
stance, we hope to help relieve teachers from the sense of guilt for “deviating” from
the strict monolingual education policy (Hall 2020; Macaro 2006). Acknowledging
 ESL classroom interactions 2421

opportunities that translanguaging offers in the classroom and the realities of

translanguaging embedded in many TESOL classrooms can not only help narrow the
gap between theory and practice in TESOL but also challenge the perpetuation of the
monolingual ideology. This “unlearning” of entrenched ideologies can in turn
contribute to a more equitable and socially just teaching and learning environment
(Li 2023), one of the goals we should all aim for as the field of language learning &
teaching and applied linguistics is attempting to “decentre” and “decolonialise”
(Kumaravadivelu 2016; Ortaçtepe Hart 2023; Phipps 2021). It is encouraging to see
recent development of teacher training materials with a translanguaging/pluri-
lingual orientation (e.g. Galante et al. 2022). Emerging research which targets policy
changes/rethink in both pedagogy and assessments (e.g. Cenoz and Gorter 2020, 2022;
Wang 2022), we believe, is the next logical endeavour towards fruitfully embracing
translanguaging practices.

Acknowledgment: We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers
for their kind comments which help enhance the clarity of our paper. We would also
like to thank Billy Clark, Graham Hall, and Ann-Marie Einhaus for kindly offering
their comments on our earlier draft.

References
Baker, Colin. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Blackledge, Adrian & Angela Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: A critical perspectives. London: Continuum.
Block, David. 2014. Moving beyond “Lingualism”: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in SLA. In
Stephen May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education, 54–57.
London: Routledge.
Brooks, Emma. 2022. Translanguaging and the shifting sands of language education. ELT Journal 76(1).
129–146.
Bruner, Jerome. 1983. Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2022. Challenges in decolonizing linguistics: The politics of enregisterment and the
divergent uptakes of translingualism. Educational Linguistics 1(1). 25–55.
Cenoz, Jasone & Durk Gorter. 2020. Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World
Englishes 39. 300–311.
Cenoz, Jasone & Durk Gorter. 2022. Pedagogical translanguaging: Cambridge elements. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Coffey, Simon & Constant Leung. 2020. Understanding agency and constraints in the conception of
creativity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics Review 11(4). 607–623.
Council of Europe. 2020. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available at: www.coe.
int/lang-cefr.
2422 Lin and Leung

Danjo, Chisato. 2018. Making sense of family language policy: Japanese-English bilingual children’s
creative and strategic translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 24(2). 292–304.
Feller, Nayalin Pinho. 2022. Translanguaging and scaffolding as pedagogical strategies in a primary
bilingual classroom. Classroom Discourse 13(3). 312–335.
Galante, Angelica, Maria Chiras, John Wayne N. dela Cruz & Lana F. Zeaiter. 2022. Plurilingual guide:
Implementing critical plurilingual pedagogy in language education. Canada: Plurilingual Lab
Publishing. Available at: https://www.mcgill.ca/plurilinguallab/files/plurilinguallab/plurilingual_
guide.pdf.
García, Ofelia & Jo Ann Kleifgen. 2010. Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for
English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.
García, Ofelia & Ricardo Otheguy. 2020. Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and
divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23(1). 17–35.
García, Ofelia & Wei Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hall, Graham. 2020. Framing the realities of TESOL practice through a translanguaging lens. In
Zhongfeng Tian, Laila Aghai, Peter Sayer & Jamie L. Schissel (eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a
translanguaging lens: Global perspectives, 67–90. Cham: Springer.
Hall, Graham & Guy Cook. 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching
45(3). 271–308.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene Lerner (ed.),
Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 14–31. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jones, Bryn & Gwyn Lewis. 2014. Language arrangements within bilingual education in Wales. In
Enlli Môn Thomas & Ineke Mennen (eds.), Unravelling bilingualism: A cross-disciplinary perspective,
141–170. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Jones, Rodney H. 2020. Creativity in language learning and teaching: Translingual practices and
transcultural identities. Applied Linguistics Review 11(4). 535–550.
Kao, Yu-Ting. 2022. Exploring translanguaging in Taiwanese CLIL classes: An analysis of teachers’
perceptions and practices. Language, Culture and Curriculum 36. 100–121.
Kumaravadivelu, Bala. 2016. The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL
Quarterly 50(1). 66–85.
Lewis, Gwyn, Bryn Jones & Colin Baker. 2012a. Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to
street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(7). 641–654.
Lewis, Gwyn, Bryn Jones & Colin Baker. 2012b. Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and
contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(7). 655–670.
Li, Mimi. 2020. Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: Students’ perspectives. System 94.
102337.
Lin, Angel M. Y. 2020. From deficit-based teaching to asset-based teaching in higher education in BANA
countries: Cutting through ‘either-or’ binaries with a heteroglossic plurilingual lens. Language,
Culture and Curriculum 33(2). 203–212.
Lin, Sarah Hui-Ching. 2024. Exploring crosslinguistic influence on learning particles in phrasal verbs
through a cognitive linguistic approach. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 38. 402–439.
Lin, Angel M. Y. & Peichang He. 2017. Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal
of Language, Identity & Education 16(4). 228–244.
Lin, Angel M. Y. & Peter W. Martin (eds.). 2005. Decolonisation, globalization: Language-in-education policy
and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
 ESL classroom interactions 2423

Lin, Shumin. 2022. Negotiating language choice in multilingual lab meetings: Voices from domestic and
international students in Taiwan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25(1).
117–130.
Liu, Jiajia Eve, Yuen Yi Lo & Angel M. Y. Lin. 2020. Translanguaging pedagogy in teaching English for
Academic Purposes: Researcher-teacher collaboration as a professional development model. System
92. 102276.
Li, Wei. 2011. Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by
multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1222–1235.
Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1). 9–30.
Li, Wei. 2020. Multilingual English users’ linguistic innovation. World Englishes 39. 236–248.
Li, Wei. 2023. Transformative pedagogy for inclusion and social justice through translanguaging, co-
learning, and transpositioning. Language Teaching. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0261444823000186.
Li, Wei & Angel M. Y. Lin. 2019. Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking
boundaries. Classroom Discourse 10(3–4). 209–215.
Li, Wei & Hua Zhu. 2013. Translanguaging identities and ideologies: Creating transnational space through
flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Linguistics
34(5). 516–535.
Lovell, Alexander. 2019. Wales wants to make the Welsh language part of every lesson under new
curriculum. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/wales-wants-to-make-the-welsh-
language-part-of-every-lesson-under-new-curriculum-120312 (accessed 3 April 2022).
Macaro, Ernesto. 2006. Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In
Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the
profession, 63–84. Amsterdam: Springer.
Martin, Peter. 2005. Safe language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions between policy and
practice. In Angel M. Y. Lin & Peter W. Martin (eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-
education policy and practice, 74–97. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Matsumoto, Yumi. 2019. Material moments: Teacher and student use of materials in multilingual writing
classroom interactions. The Modern Language Journal 103(1). 179–204.
Maybin, Janet, Neil Mercer & Barry Stierer. 1992. Scaffolding: Learning in the classroom. In Kate Norman
(ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the national oracy project, 186–195. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Moore, Emilee, Jessica Bradley & James Simpson (eds.). 2020. Translanguaging as transformation: The
collaborative construction of new linguistic realities. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Development Council Ministry of Education. 2021. Bilingual 2030. https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/
Content_List.aspx?n=BF21AB4041BB5255 (accessed 1 December 2021).
Nemouchi, Lamia & Prue Holmes. 2022. Multilingual researching, translanguaging and credibility in
qualitative research: A reflexive account. In Prue Holmes, Judith Reynolds & Sara Ganassin (eds.), The
politics of researching multilingually, 70–89. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ortaçtepe Hart, Deniz. 2023. Social justice and language classroom: Reflection, action, and transformation.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Payant, Caroline & Angelica Galante. 2022. A word from the guest editors. Plurilingualism and
translanguaging: Pedagogical approaches for empowerment and validation – An introduction. TESL
Canada 38(2). v–xxii.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1989. The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly 23(4). 589–618.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2008. Translingual English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31(3). 30.1–30.9.
2424 Lin and Leung

Pennycook, Alastair & Emi Otsuji. 2014. Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: ‘Pizza mo two
minutes coming’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 161–184.
Phipps, Alison. 2021. Decolonising the languages curriculum: Linguistic justice for linguistic ecologies. In
Tita Beaven & Fernando Rosell-Aguilar (eds.), Innovative language pedagogy report, 5–10. France:
Research-Publishing.net.
Piccardo, Enrica, Aline Germain-Rutherford & Geoff Lawrence (eds.). 2021. The Routledge handbook of
plurilingual language education. London: Routledge.
Prilutskaya, Marina. 2021. Examining pedagogical translanguaging: A systematic review of the literature.
Languages 6. 180.
Probyn, Margie. 2009. ‘Smuggling the vernacular into the classroom’: Conflicts and tensions in classroom
codeswitching in township/rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 12(2). 123–136.
Smith, Richard (ed.). 2003. Teaching English as a foreign language 1912–36: Volume 1 Wren and Wyatt.
London: Routledge.
Spada, Nina. 2015. SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications and questions of relevance. Language
Teaching 48(1). 69–81.
Tai, Kevin W. H. 2022. A translanguaging perspective on teacher contingency in Hong Kong English
medium instruction history classrooms. Applied Linguistics 44. amac039.
Tai, Kevin W. H. 2023. Multimodal conversation analysis and interpretative phenomenological analysis: A
methodological framework for researching translanguaging in multilingual classrooms. London: Routledge.
Tai, Kevin W. H. & David W. Dai. 2024. Observing a teacher’s interactional competence in an ESOL
classroom: A translanguaging perspective. Applied Linguistics Review 15. 2061–2096.
Tai, Kevin W. H. & Wei Li. 2020. Bringing the outside in: Connecting students’ out-of-school knowledge and
experience through translanguaging in Hong Kong English medium instruction mathematics
classes. System 95. 102364.
Tai, Kevin W. H. & Wei Li. 2021a. Co-learning in Hong Kong English medium instruction mathematics
secondary classrooms: A translanguaging perspective. Language and Education 35(3). 241–267.
Tai, Kevin W. H. & Wei Li. 2021b. Constructing playful talk through translanguaging in the English medium
instruction mathematics classrooms. Applied Linguistics 42(4). 607–640.
Tian, Zhongfeng, Laila Aghai, Peter Sayer & Jamie L. Schissel (eds.). 2020. Envisioning TESOL through a
translanguaging lens: Global perspectives. Cham: Springer.
Tian, Zhongfeng & Leah Shepard-Carey. 2020. (Re)imagining the future of translanguaging pedagogies in
TESOL through teacher–researcher collaboration. TESOL Quarterly 54(4). 1131–1143.
Vallejo, Claudia & Melinda Dooly. 2020. Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Emergent approaches and
shared concerns. Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 23(1). 1–16.
Walsh, Steve. 2011. Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.
Wang, Danping. 2024. Translanguaging as a decolonising approach: Students’ perspectives towards
integrating indigenous epistemology in language teaching. Applied Linguistics Review 1385–1406.
Wicaksono, Rachel & Christopher J. Hall. 2019. Using ontologies of English. In Christopher J. Hall &
Rachel Wicaksono (eds.), Ontologies of English conceptualising the language for learning, teaching, and
assessment, 368–375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Cen. 1994. Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog
[An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education].
Bangor: University of Wales, Bangor Doctoral thesis.
Wood, David, Jerome S. Bruner & Gail Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 17(2). 89–100.
 ESL classroom interactions 2425

Zhu, Hua, Emi Otsuji & Alastair Pennycook. 2017a. Multilingual, multisensory and multimodal repertories
in corner shops, streets and markets. A Special Issue of Social Semiotics 27(4). 383–543.
Zhu, Hua, Wei Li & Agnieszka Lyons. 2017b. Polish shop(ping) as translanguaging space. Social Semiotics
27(4). 411–433.
Zhu, Hua, Wei Li & Daria Jankowicz-Pytel. 2020. Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning:
Lessons from a multilingual karate club in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 23(1). 65–80.

Supplementary Material: This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/

applirev-2022-0202).