Pedagogical translanguaging: Examining the credibility of unitary versus crosslinguistic translanguaging theory

This article analyzes the credibility of two conceptions of pedagogical translanguaging theory, namely, unitary translanguaging theory (UTT) and crosslinguistic translanguaging theory (CTT). I argue that there is no difference in pedagogical implications between UTT and CTT, but there are significant differences in the way UTT and CTT pedagogies are framed theoretically. UTT claims that the bilingual’s linguistic system is unitary and undifferentiated and that languages have no cognitive or linguistic reality. Based on this claim, UTT rejects several theoretical concepts including the notion of academic language, additive (approaches to) bilingualism, the common underlying proficiency (CUP) and the pedagogical importance of teaching for transfer across languages. CTT, by contrast, affirms the legitimacy of these theoretical concepts, which are fully consistent with dynamic or heteroglossic orientations to bilingual cognitive processing. Within CTT, bilinguals actually do speak languages, involving multiple registers and fluid boundaries, and teaching for transfer across these boundaries is a prime function of pedagogical translanguaging.