Advancing the communicative language teaching agenda: what place for translanguaging in task-based language teaching?

ABSTRACT

Littlewood’s early stance on the use of students’ first language (L1) in the foreign language (L2) classroom was that maximum use of the target language (TL) enhances language acquisition. He suggested that this precept has been pervasive in every communicatively-oriented language teaching method and has also been widely accepted in official curricula in a range of contexts due to an understanding that TL use should be normative in classroom interactions. A strong rationale for advocating this ‘monolingual principle’ has been that, for many students, the L2 classroom provides the only opportunity to be exposed to the TL. Littlewood and Yu (2011. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching 44, no. 1: 64–77) recognised, however, that teachers and students do make use of students’ L1 in L2 classrooms and suggested several ways in which teachers might do this legitimately. Furthermore, Littlewood (e.g. 2014. Communication-oriented language teaching: where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching 47, no. 3: 349–362) conceded that exclusive TL use has become subject to active questioning in recent years. The phenomenon of translanguaging takes arguments that support L1 use beyond Littlewood’s earlier suggestions. There are also implications for TBLT where extensive L2/TL use is the default position but where translanguaging practices are not necessarily at odds with the central task construct. This paper explores translanguaging in the contexts of TBLT and the monolingual principle.

KEYWORDS:

• Task-based language teaching
• communicative language teaching
• translanguaging
• interaction
• use of L1

Introduction

It is beyond question that William Littlewood’s work has had strong influence on contemporary understandings of communicative approaches to language teaching and learning. His text introducing the core concepts of communicative language teaching or CLT (Littlewood 1981) was significant for the field. His aim was a practical one, ‘to help teachers broaden their repertoire of techniques, so that they can enable learners to communicate more effectively in the foreign language … [and] communicate meanings in real situations’ (ix, our emphases).

It was around the early 1980s (that is, coinciding with the publication of Littlewood’s book) that task-based language teaching (TBLT) began to appear as a phenomenon of interest in the language teaching and learning community. It was conceptualised as a distinct operationalisation or sub-set of CLT that might helpfully meet the communicative goals that Littlewood (1981) had underscored. As East (2024) acknowledged, it is difficult to determine an actual commencement to the phenomenon of TBLT since its broader antecedents in educational theory and research extend further back in time (Bygate 2016). However, Long’s (1981) focus on the roles of input and interaction in second language acquisition (SLA) represents a significant stimulus for TBLT theorising and research, and Prabhu’s (1982) articulation of three archetypal task types – information gap, reasoning gap and opinion gap – represents an important forerunner to TBLT in practice.

An essential component of both CLT and TBLT is that (in Littlewood’s CLT theorising) ‘the learner should need to use the foreign language for communicative purposes’ (Littlewood 1981: 92, our emphasis) because (in Nunan’s TBLT theorising) ‘learners learn to communicate by communicating’ (Nunan 2004: 8). Implicit here is the ‘monolingual principle’ that exclusive (or virtually exclusive) interactional use of the target language (TL) is the ideal condition for effective SLA and the development of communicative proficiency. Littlewood’s stance on the use of students’ first language (L1) in the foreign language (L2) classroom was therefore that maximum use of the TL enhances SLA (see e.g. Littlewood 2014).

Particularly in the instructed L2 context (in contrast to the immersion context) where exposure to the TL may be limited to the classroom, the monolingual principle is important as a means of maximising TL exposure. Nonetheless, a classroom reality – which teachers will recognise all too commonly – is that teachers and students do make use of students’ L1 in L2 classrooms. From a practical point of view, therefore, its use must be acknowledged. Indeed, Littlewood (e.g. 2014) conceded that exclusive TL use has become subject to active questioning in recent years. The concept of translanguaging pushes the boundaries of L1 use in L2 classrooms and therefore raises legitimate questions for L2 classroom practice.

Translanguaging is the phenomenon whereby users of language draw on linguistic and non-linguistic resources both in and beyond the TL to sustain or enhance the communicative effectiveness of what they are trying to communicate (East 2024; Wang and East 2023). That is, translanguaging comprises but is not limited to elements of learners’ L1 and may include drawing on extra-linguistic resources such as body language and visuals. Translanguaging is not intrinsically a newly emerged process. It is in fact a strategy that individuals of different language backgrounds have frequently utilised, to varying extents, to maintain interaction in the face of potential communication breakdowns (Bonacina-Pugh, da Costa Cabral, and Huang 2021). What is relatively recent, however, is academic interest in translanguaging. It has been labelled, for example, as ‘an emerging concept’ in the field of applied linguistics (Nagashima and Lawrence 2022: 736), a ‘new and developing term’ (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012a: 641), and a ‘new linguistic reality’ (García and Li 2014: 29).

Bui and Tai (2022) reviewed the potential interface between TBLT and translanguaging and the theories of both these contemporary pedagogical approaches in the specific context of the so-called Greater Bay Area which includes Guangdong (South China), Hong Kong and Macau. Their review laid important groundwork for further exploration of the interface. The present paper builds on the issues presented by Bui and Tai, in particular by exploring translanguaging in relation to TBLT and the monolingual principle against the background of Littlewood’s communicative legacy and the pedagogical reality of L1-L2 use that Littlewood acknowledged. It thus takes arguments that support L1 use beyond Littlewood’s earlier suggestions. The paper begins with an outline of parallels and differences between the CLT ideas proposed by Littlewood and TBLT practices. It then presents an overview of translanguaging, placing the phenomenon within its historical context and charting its key pedagogical principles and benefits. The paper then returns to TBLT, presenting its theoretical foundations and exploring how translanguaging might fit within a TBLT framework. It also considers reasons why the implementation of translanguaging in the TBLT context might be problematic. The concluding section brings us back to Littlewood’s communicative legacy and how debates about translanguaging move that legacy forward.

Synergy and divergence between CLT and TBLT

East (2017: 412) maintained that TBLT ‘has been developing over several decades as a learner-centred and experiential pedagogical approach arising from the tradition of communicative language teaching (CLT).’ When comparing the CLT ideas put forward by Littlewood (e.g. 1981) with core TBLT principles emerging in the task-based literature, it is immediately apparent that close early synergies existed. This caused Littlewood to acknowledge that, essentially, ‘there is not any discontinuity between CLT and TBLT’ (Littlewood 2007: 243), with TBLT being seen as ‘a development within the communicative approach’ (Littlewood 2004: 324, our emphasis).

An example of CLT/TBLT synergy is found in the assertion of the prominent TBLT advocates Willis and Willis (2007: 1) that ‘the most effective way to teach a language is by engaging learners in real language use in the classroom.’ This emphasis accords with the key principles underscored by Littlewood (1981). Willis and Willis went on to focus this assertion by suggesting that the communicative emphasis is ‘done by designing tasks – discussions, problems, games, and so on – which require learners to use language for themselves.’ Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of TBLT, as the name suggests, is that TBLT ‘places the construct of “task” at the center of curricular planning’ (Robinson 2011: 4).

It is at this point that TBLT diverges somewhat from CLT. The CLT model put forward by Littlewood (1981) resembles a weak TBLT approach in several key respects. Its focus, as acknowledged by Littlewood, was on the development of oral skills. This focus would align with Long’s (1981) emphasis on the importance of input and interaction for SLA.¹ Many supporters of TBLT would feel comfortable with including several of Littlewood’s ‘functional communicative’ and ‘social interaction’ activities as tasks. Indeed, the driver behind a number of these activities is that the communicative interaction can become ‘less controlled by artificial conventions’ and can ‘bear greater resemblance’ to authentic communicative situations in the real world (Littlewood 1981: 38), components that are essential to the practice of TBLT.

TBLT advocates would, however, likely view some of Littlewood’s suggested activities as too structured or form-focused to be viewed as tasks. In TBLT theorising, it is necessary to draw a line between tasks, for which the focus is on communicative language use, and other activities that may or may not form part of the repertoires of practice of TBLT-oriented teachers but are not tasks (at least as defined by TBLT theory – see later in this paper). However, for Littlewood, a key dimension of his own conceptualisation of valid CLT activities was on a ‘communicative continuum’ that could range from very structured to very unstructured. The tensions that emerge led Littlewood to identify a particular and genuine challenge for TBLT – coming to consensus on ‘the definition of the central concept of “task” itself and what activities are (or are not) included in it’ (Littlewood 2007: 247).

Nevertheless, leaving aside the contentions raised by Littlewood (and indeed others) over what is and what is not a task for the purposes of TBLT, a line of consensus for adherents of both CLT and TBLT is on the communicative focus of the L2 classroom for which, by implication, TL use is required. Littlewood acknowledged (e.g. Littlewood and Yu 2011) that the monolingual principle – that students’ L1 use should be constrained because maximum TL use enhances SLA – has ‘permeated every language teaching method.’ Furthermore, it has ‘found widespread official support’ due to ‘an emphasis on the importance of using the TL as the normal means of classroom communication’ (66). This makes any use of the students’ L1 in the L2 classroom ‘controversial’ (64).

Littlewood (2014) argued nonetheless that L1 use can be beneficial at several stages within a lesson. Indeed, Littlewood and Yu (2011) suggested several ways in which teachers might draw on the L1 legitimately. Translanguaging has emerged in recent times as a phenomenon that takes L1 use in the L2 classroom beyond the suggestions proposed by Littlewood and also has implications for TBLT. Below we outline in more detail what translanguaging is as well as arguments in favour of its use in L2 classrooms.

Translanguaging – its emergence and emphases

As we stated earlier, the phenomenon of translanguaging is not itself new. However, the term itself reflects a relatively modern concept that has gained increasing significance over time through ongoing theoretical development. Originally introduced as trawsieithu by Cen Williams in an unpublished doctoral thesis (Williams 1994), it marked a novel but controversial approach to bilingual education within a secondary school in Wales. As ‘a reaction against the historic separation of two “monolingualisms” (Welsh and English) with a difference in prestige’ (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012a: 642), the term was coined to describe the practice of using both English and Welsh concurrently and seamlessly to maximise learning efficiency in the classroom. Williams’ supervisor, Colin Baker, went on to introduce both the term and the approach to the English-speaking world (Baker 2001).

Translanguaging originally arose as a pedagogical response to a traditional approach to bilingual education which segregates the two languages either by class or by day, often in an immersion model where only the TL can be used (Cummins 1998). This traditional approach to teaching in a bilingual context is based on the assumption that there exists a boundary between each language and one’s L1 will interfere negatively with L2 learning. In some cases, educational organisations have introduced penalty systems to prevent students from using their L1 in the classroom (Auerbach 1993). Such approaches to bilingualism have inadvertently perpetuated what may be termed ‘parallel monolingualism’ (García and Li 2014).

Baker (2011: 288) defined translanguaging as ‘the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages.’ This definition emerged in a context where scholars were beginning to acknowledge the potentially positive role of the L1 in the teaching of an additional language, considering L2 learning as a process that integrates existing and new linguistic resources. Translanguaging emphasises using both the L2 and the L1 so that students’ understanding and achievement can be maximised.

It is important to clarify that translanguaging should not be confused with mere code-switching or the alternation between L1 and L2 (Li and García 2022). Translanguaging signifies a change in ideology and a paradigm shift away from the traditional view of languages as separate codes, towards a more holistic understanding of language as a unified repertoire inherent in each individual (García and Li 2014). According to Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012b: 659), the introduction of translanguaging has rendered code-switching outdated due to its link with the separation of languages, whereas translanguaging ‘celebrates and approves flexibility in language use and the permeability of learning through two or more languages.’ Although translanguaging and code-switching often describe similar language use phenomena, they have distinct theoretical foundations (Li and García 2022). As Lin (2013) pointed out, numerous studies have examined the negative connotations of code-switching vis à vis the monolingual ideology in which it is rooted, which primarily focuses on L2 speakers’ inability to express themselves in a single, pure language. In this context, translanguaging challenges rigid target-language-only policies and questions their underlying monolingual mindset and ideology.

Being inherently more than code-switching, translanguaging operates as ‘a trans-semiotic system with numerous meaning-making signs, primarily linguistic, that come together to form a person’s semiotic repertoire’ (García and Li 2014: 42). Wu and Lin (2019) highlighted the concept of ‘trans-semiotising’, which places a strong emphasis on multimodality. This concept acknowledges that effective multilingual interactions encompass various modes of communication beyond verbal language, including gestures, visual cues, tactile elements, intonation and other non-verbal forms (García and Li 2014). Lin (2013) stands among the prominent advocates of the trans-semiotising dimension, broadening the scope of these theories to explore the intricate interplay of language with a wide array of semiotic components, all of which contribute to the complex process of meaning construction.

Taking a psycholinguistic or cognitive perspective, Li (2018) emphasised that the prefix trans- in the term translanguaging encompasses three dimensions. The prefix:

1. signifies transcendence, that is, involving the act of transcending ‘socially constructed language systems and structures to engage diverse multiple meaning-making systems and subjectivities’ (Li 2018: 27). Translanguaging aims to break down the ideological divisions between named languages (e.g. English and Chinese), majority versus minority languages, and TL versus L1

2. represents transformation, that is, highlighting the transformative potential inherent in the practice of translanguaging. This transformation extends beyond linguistic abilities to influence the identities and worldviews of language users. As Li (2018: 23) noted, translanguaging creates a social space for multilingual language users by ‘bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experience, and environment; their attitude, belief, and ideology; their cognitive and physical capacity, into one coordinated and meaningful performance', making it a lived experience

3. underscores a transdisciplinary approach to human communication and learning, challenging the conventional boundaries that separate fields such as linguistics, psychology, sociology and education. It encourages increased collaboration among research and academic disciplines, as well as broader modes of communication.

Translanguaging and pedagogy

After its establishment within the realm of bilingual education, translanguaging has captured the interest of L2 educators seeking to navigate its potential across various language teaching domains, among them home, heritage, second and foreign. In the L2 classroom, translanguaging is a pedagogical approach that employs both the TL and at least one other language in an active and functionally integrated manner. Thus, departing from the traditional view of bilingualism that regards languages as separate entities with rigid boundaries, the translanguaging approach may be framed as ‘dynamic bilingualism’ (García 2009). According to Cenoz and Gorter (2021: 1), such pedagogical translanguaging is described as ‘a theoretical and instructional approach that aims at improving language and content competencies ... by using resources from the learner’s whole linguistic repertoire.’ Thus, it involves utilising the full range of lexical and structural resources available to speakers, regardless of their field of study. It takes a multilingual pedagogical stance that accepts all resourceful semiotic inventions of teachers and students (Cenoz and Gorter 2021).

The introduction of translanguaging into L2 pedagogy research has profoundly transformed the static, structuralist perspective on language boundaries and dispelled the stigmatisation of students’ prior language knowledge in L2 classrooms (Li 2018). Furthermore, its incorporation into pedagogy aims to shift the pedagogical emphasis from isolated sentence-level and grammatical considerations towards a deeper exploration of discourse and the communicative aspects of L2 use. In theorising translanguaging, Li (2018: 24) emphasised that the concept centralises the ‘interconnectedness between traditionally and conventionally understood languages and other human communication systems.’ Translanguaging aims to accentuate the relationship between language structures and the human individuals who acquire, employ and inhabit these linguistic structures. Within the framework of translanguaging, this signifies a transition from dominant attention to grammatical form to a stronger focus on meaning.

Translanguaging as a pedagogy empowers both learners and teachers, transforms power relations and dynamics, and centres the process of teaching and learning on meaning-making, enhancing experience and developing identity. Cenoz and Gorter (2020: 307) defined spontaneous translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy used by teachers to ‘develop students’ awareness about the way languages are used in natural communication.’ Therefore, as long as language teachers are aware that the process of language learning and use may be described (and experienced) as messy, creative and open-ended in nature (Jones 2018), they are able to develop translanguaging pedagogies, both planned and intuitive, to respond to their translanguaging stance (García et al. 2017). For example, in a study with learners of Chinese as L2, Wang (2019: 8) found that students were in favour of ‘meaningful dialogue powered by spontaneous translanguaging’ to facilitate a more in-depth understanding of the target language and culture, rather than leaving the deeper level of communication for students to figure out.

Finally, as we acknowledged earlier in this paper, it is important to recognise that translanguaging is not only a language ideology or a pedagogy. It also represents a linguistic reality that reflects and acknowledges the authentic complexities of multilingual and superdiverse social contexts (Wang 2020). Translanguaging manifests the reality of what teachers and students often do with language in authentic L2 classroom settings. That is, existing research shows that both teachers and students use their L1 or familiar languages in the process of teaching and learning a new language. For example, Wang (2019) and Liu and Fang (2022) both identified a disparity between the monolingual L2-only principle that has directed practice in L2 classrooms over the years and the dynamic language use that actually occurs in real classrooms.

Several very recent studies, typically drawing on data such as observations and interviews, have explored the potential and actual role of translanguaging in different pedagogical contexts. These have included: the virtual translanguaging space created for learning English as a Second Language through synchronous online teaching, an approach that has become more ubiquitous as a consequence of COVID 19 (Tai 2023); Bangla-English translanguaging in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Anthropology classroom in a Bangladeshi public university (Rafi and Morgan 2022); and largely Mandarin–Cantonese–English translanguaging integrated into an English Medium Instruction (EMI) secondary school history classroom in Hong Kong (Tai 2024; Tai and Li 2023). It was often apparent that fluid and impromptu opportunities for translanguaging – what Tai and Li referred to as ‘translanguaging sub-spaces’ – were naturally created as students bridged their real-life experiences with the learning environment. This reality was generally seen as positive and beneficial for learning, and reflects the observation of Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012a: 643) that ‘the tide is slowly moving away from separating languages in the classroom to the use of two or more languages in the same lesson’ due to the reality that young learners may pragmatically use more than one language to ‘maximise understanding and performance in the home, street, and school.’

The above presentation leads to the conclusion that translanguaging would seem to have a lot to offer to the L2 classroom. In what follows, we return to TBLT. We outline the theoretical underpinnings of TBLT and relate these to what translanguaging as a pedagogical practice might contribute to the task-oriented classroom. Nonetheless, seen in the light of the monolingual principle, translanguaging in L2 classrooms remains a contentious issue. We go on to consider the barriers to fuller embracing of the practice of translanguaging in the context of TBLT.

The theoretical underpinnings of TBLT

The TBLT emphasis on learners using language for themselves through tasks (Willis and Willis 2007) or learning to communicate by communicating (Nunan 2004) finds its roots in interactionist educational theories (e.g. Long 1981). These theories inform the learner-centred collaborative and experiential learning on which TBLT is founded (e.g. East 2017), in contrast to a behaviourist-informed pedagogy which has influenced a top-down, teacher-led, grammar-oriented approach.

East (2021: 10) succinctly outlined the kinds of interactionist theorising that have come to inform TBLT. He differentiated between the cognitive-interactionist stance – a psycholinguistic perspective that ‘focuses on the classroom activities in which learners engage collaboratively, and the cognitive demands these activities place on learners’ – and the sociocultural-interactionist position that ‘places emphasis on opportunities for learner-teacher and learner-learner collaborations that will foster SLA.’ East concluded that although both interactionist perspectives (cognitive and sociocultural) are built on different understandings about their influence on L2 learning, both place emphasis on advancing SLA through learner-learner and teacher-learner interactions.

As has already been stated, in TBLT meaningful interactions and inter-learner exchanges are facilitated through communicative tasks. Despite ongoing debate in the literature about exactly what is and what is not a task for the purposes of TBLT (as we acknowledged earlier), East (2021: 46) suggested that ‘definitions that began to appear in the late 1990s and beyond started to crystallise thinking around particular core elements of the task construct for communicative purposes’ (our emphasis). Ellis and Shintani (2014: 135–136) provided a four-fold classification that neatly encapsulates the core elements that had emerged:

1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (i.e. learners should be mainly concerned with encoding and decoding messages not with focusing on linguistic form).

2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion or to infer meaning).

3. Learners should largely rely on their own resources (linguistic and non­linguistic) in order to complete the activity. That is, learners are not ‘taught’ the language they will need to perform a task, although they may be able to ‘borrow’ from the input the task provides to help them perform it.

4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right).

Seen in the broader context of interactionist theories of learning, at one level Ellis and Shintani’s (2014) definition implies an emphasis on using the TL to complete the task. As Ellis and Shintani put it, their task characteristics are ‘directed at ensuring that a task results in language use where learners treat the language as a “tool” for achieving a communicative outcome rather than as an “object” to be studied, analysed and displayed’ (136). Thus, tasks as defined, for example, by Ellis and Shintani both encourage and demand TL use for their completion with a view to enhancing SLA. In this context, the monolingual principle makes sense.

At another level, it may be speculated that Ellis and Shintani’s (2014) definition does not preclude translanguaging practices. A primary focus on meaning which incorporates encoding and decoding messages, and the need to convey information, express an opinion or infer meaning, can arguably be enhanced through translanguaging. Furthermore, translanguaging can be seen as a legitimate component of a repertoire of linguistic and non­linguistic resources beyond TL/L2 use on which learners might count to reach the defined task outcome. This would suggest that task completion can go beyond relying solely on the TL or postponing meaningful interactions until speakers have developed a particular level of competence in the L2 and can become more dependent on the flexible and dynamic use of the full range of language that is at the speaker’s disposal. Thus, both translanguaging and tasks can encourage learners to draw upon their personal backgrounds and resources as part of the learning process, and both translanguaging and tasks can encourage meaningful interactions that utilise learners’ entire linguistic repertoires, encompassing their life experiences and worldviews.

Stepping beyond the task construct itself to the interactionist theories that inform a task-based approach, it may again be argued that translanguaging practices are compatible with TBLT. Molway, Arcos, and Macaro (2022), for example, suggested the following: from a cognitive perspective, it is increasingly asserted that the L1 and the L2 are not separately located in learners’ brains, but are interconnected and continuously interacting, both in the learning process and in actual use; from a sociocultural perspective, learners’ private/inner L1 speech plays a crucial part in developing and organising conceptual understanding of the L2 and how it operates, thereby playing a scaffolding role.

Bui and Tai (2022) suggested that, in the face of both the cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural-interactionist theoretical frameworks that inform TBLT, an examination of TBLT using a translanguaging lens would be a beneficial line of enquiry when it comes to advancing language teaching and learning practice. They argued in particular that ‘adopting translanguaging in TBLT may help enhance functional adequacy in task-based performance and acquisition’ (2). Viewed from this perspective, therefore, translanguaging may be seen as a legitimate means to communicate more effectively in real-world situations.

Molway, Arcos, and Macaro (2022) further argued that, particularly in time-limited contexts, learners may not know enough of the L2 to learn it through the medium of the L2, and teachers find themselves either having to draw on the L1 to ensure that learning is taking place or do not themselves have sufficient expertise in sustaining a strongly or exclusively TL dominated teaching approach. In this regard, Bui and Tai (2022) made the assertion that the purpose of learning an L2 is not to become monolingual in that language; it is, rather, to become bilingual/multilingual as the L2 adds to the repertoire of languages available to the language user. They continued that switching and mixing between languages (including translanguaging) for communicative purposes is a reality for most bilingual/multilingual speakers.

Translanguaging in the TBLT classroom – an opportunity for language users?

Despite an implied emphasis on TL use for the completion of communicative tasks, arguments in favour of strategic L1 use in the task context have not been absent in the task-based literature.

Several early task-oriented studies have explored learners’ use of L1 as a scaffolding mechanism when undertaking collaborative tasks, in line with both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural-interactionist perspectives (Anton and DiCamilla 1998; Brooks and Donato 1994). This use has been justified on the basis that ‘an L1 shared by learners provides cognitive support that allows them to work at a higher level than that which would be possible if they were just using the L2’ (Alegría de la Colina and García Mayo 2009: 326). On this basis, it can be asserted that ‘[t]o insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an important cognitive tool’ (Swain and Lapkin 2000: 269).

In the above light, East (2024) acknowledged that it is no surprise that the phenomenon of translanguaging is beginning to make an appearance in the TBLT literature. For example, Seals et al. (2020) attempted to bring translanguaging and TBLT together so as to examine their co-relationship and co-existence in L2 classrooms. Data were collected from Vietnamese learners of English as a Foreign Language who were observed while carrying out speaking tasks in class and were subsequently interviewed about their experiences. Observations identified three reasons for translanguaging (in this case in the form of drawing on the L1): to help with task management; to enable collaboration when needing support; to negotiate meaning. Interviews uncovered that the learners found being able to draw on their L1 in the context of task planning and task completion was useful, necessary and empowering. This was particularly so in the task preparation phase. Although the study might be critiqued on the basis that it appeared to represent little more than L1 use in the L2 context, rather than a genuine translanguaging experience, Seals et al. concluded that ‘actively making and maintaining space for translanguaging in TBLT will both enrich TBLT’s research agenda and extend the impact of TBLT beyond its typical second/foreign language education sphere of influence’ (276). Their study and its conclusions open opportunities for other researchers to explore the interface between translanguaging and TBLT.

Seals et al. (2020: 281–282) identified six areas where TBLT and translanguaging arguably coincide. Both translanguaging and TBLT:

1. emphasise student collaboration and meaning negotiation

2. highlight the importance of content-language integration

3. advocate for experiential learning

4. are learner-centred in orientation

5. recognise learner diversity

6. focus on functional, communicative language use.

Bui and Tai (2022: 8) commented that these six overlapping features ‘demonstrate the potential of translanguaging in enhancing task-based performance, especially in achieving proper functional adequacy with learners’ full linguistic repertoire.’

Translanguaging in the TBLT classroom – a problem for L2 teaching practice?

The arguments we have presented so far would seem to suggest that translanguaging has a legitimate role to play in the enactment of TBLT. That is, the theory of translanguaging attempts to normalise multilingual behaviour to the extent that it arguably has a rightful place in any L2 classroom. However, for Seals et al. (2020: 276), the coexistence between translanguaging and TBLT was built on the acknowledgment that whereas, in relative terms, TBLT is now ‘well-established’, a ‘translanguaging paradigm shift’ is just beginning. Although the notion that TBLT is well-established (and therefore arguably mainstream) is open to critique (see, e.g. East 2024), the coexistence between translanguaging as innovative practice and TBLT as (comparatively) more conventional practice may well help open up new opportunities to explore translanguaging in the TBLT context. It also opens up considerable critique, just as L1 use in the L2 classroom has faced critique.

East (2012) brought out the tensions from a TBLT perspective. He argued, on the one hand, that drawing on the L1 whilst undertaking a communicative task should not necessarily be seen as problematic. He cited Philp and Tognini (2009: 260) who noted that ‘interaction in FL classrooms is often characterized by code-switching between L1 and L2’ since ‘a shared L1 in many FL classrooms is one aspect that differentiates FL learning from many second language (SL) learning contexts, and impacts on the nature of interaction.’ On the other hand, East recognised the importance of L2/TL use for the development of communicative proficiency in the TL. In this regard, he quoted Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) who argued that ‘the ultimate goal of a second or foreign language classroom remains the learning of the target language’ such that ‘practices that undermine this ultimate goal must be avoided’ (Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009: 2).

Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain’s (2009) unequivocal stance (even if written in the context of a volume that explores the phenomenon of L1 use in L2 classrooms) is underscored by Bui and Tai (2022) who acknowledged that few stakeholders in L2 education currently take the bilingual/multilingual speaker position as a model for language learning. On the contrary, the L1 monolingual speaker has too often been idealised as the ultimate standard, such that activities like code-mixing and code-switching (e.g. Philp and Tognini 2009) are perceived as language deficits.

A further issue to be owned in the translanguaging/TBLT debates is the tension that needs to be recognised between ‘an emphasis on a plurilingual repertoire as a consequence of translanguaging practice (and therefore fluid boundaries between named languages) and the importance of language naming in efforts to reclaim indigenous languages (and therefore boundary-setting)’ (East 2024: 8). East acknowledged the attempts that have been made to resolve the tension (e.g. Cenoz and Gorter 2017; Seals and Olsen-Reeder 2020) but noted that the issue persists as a legitimate concern. Martínez-Roldán (2015: 56), for example, argued that translanguaging practices ‘may jeopardize language separation policies that can protect the minority language.’ She consequently advised ‘caution regarding the incorporation of translanguaging in bilingual classrooms.’

Translanguaging raises further questions when we take into account the skills and proficiencies we traditionally wish to measure as a consequence of learning an L2 (i.e. language testing). Some educators have started to explore approaches to incorporating translanguaging as a creative and transformative assessment strategy to genuinely engage beginning learners in meaningful tasks, in particular when their proficiency level is limited (see, e.g. Wang and East 2023). Language testing remains nonetheless effectively focused on ‘learners’ conformity to the norms in the target language, rather than their creative and flexible use of their multilingual repertoire for communicative use in the real world’ (Bui and Tai 2022: 9). The practice of translanguaging is therefore not part of the mainstream dialogue when it comes to language testing and assessment (Schissel, Leung, and Chalhoub-Deville 2019).

The focus on measuring L2 use in language assessments is pervasive because, in the words of Shohamy (2011), who was writing in defence of a multilingual stance, such assessments are based on ‘a monolingual, homogenous, and often still native-like construct’ (419) that ‘forbid[s] any other languages to “smuggle in”’ (421). From this standpoint, if we were to allow translanguaging practice into the assessment, we would be undermining our ability to gather evidence of proficiency in the L2. Thus, there remains ‘reluctance among test developers to engage in ML [multilingual] assessment’ (Chalhoub-Deville 2019: 472) precisely because ‘standardised assessments are usually administered in one language only’ (García and Li 2014: 133). The washback effects of these kinds of L2 assessment into classroom teaching and learning contexts are clear.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to build on Littlewood’s communicative legacy by presenting a case for translanguaging in the context of TBLT. That is, early insistence on TL use in the communicative classroom (the monolingual principle) has become balanced by acknowledgment that students’ L1 may have a beneficial scaffolding role to play (e.g. Littlewood 1981, 2014; Littlewood and Yu 2011). In this concluding section, we explore the tensions that have arisen as the monolingual principle has been brought into question.

Some of the arguments for embracing pedagogical translanguaging in the task-oriented classroom are strong. For example, an emphasis on pragmatic and real-world language use (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012a) accords with the essential drivers for TBLT. Translanguaging also takes us back to Littlewood’s (1981) practical aim of helping teachers to enhance their students’ communicative competence through broadening their repertoire of techniques. It is also clear that, when mapped against Ellis and Shintani’s (2014) four-fold task definition, translanguaging practices can make a contribution in each component of the definition. Translanguaging also arguably aligns with both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural-interactionist theoretical frameworks (see e.g. Molway, Arcos, and Macaro 2022). Seen from the perspective of translanguaging space, that is, ‘a space that is created by and for Translanguaging practices’ (Li 2018: 23), TBLT as a whole may potentially be regarded as such a space. Within this overarching framework, different tasks and different phases of a task-based lesson such as pre-task and post-task (Willis and Willis 2007) may be considered as translanguaging sub-spaces (Tai and Li 2023). The overarching space and the different sub-spaces allow translanguaging to occur in the TBLT context in ways that may transform current target-language-oriented task-based practices.²

However, the case for translanguaging is not without controversy. Drawing on the arguments of others, Littlewood and Yu (2011) conceded that the jury was still very much out with regard to how and to what extent L1 use can be legitimised in L2 classrooms. On the one hand, and citing Atkinson (1993: 13), Littlewood and Yu acknowledged that when L1 use undermines the predominance of the TL, it can be ‘the single biggest danger’ in such classrooms. On the other hand, they cited Butzkamm (2003: 30, 36) who maintained that L1 use may be ‘the most important ally a foreign language can have’ if used ‘systematically, selectively and in judicious doses.’ Littlewood and Yu went on to problematise notions such as ‘systematic, selective and judicious’, claiming that thus far their interpretation seemed to be down to individual teachers’ intuition. They suggested that greater attention to these notions in research would help clarify the boundaries.

By implication and extension, the above contradictions (danger or ally) might also be applied to translanguaging within TBLT. As Bui and Tai (2022: 6, 8) put it, translanguaging stands in contrast to the traditional understanding of ‘the target-language-only or one language-at-a-time’ as ‘the dominant ideology that guides many language teaching and learning practices’, an ideology that they acknowledged has ‘long dominated the TBLT field.’ Thus, the monolingual principle still holds sway in TBLT (for arguably justifiable reasons). Nevertheless, as this paper has demonstrated, this principle does not necessarily have to be exclusively applied.

What is clear is that more work is needed (in theory, research and practice) to determine what place translanguaging should have in the task-oriented L2 classroom. Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012a: 649–650) acknowledged that the effectiveness of translanguaging as a classroom practice ‘is still only beginning to be understood’, and the effectiveness of translanguaging strategies ‘yet to be researched, evaluated, and critiqued.’ Concerns and questions persist into the present (see e.g. MacSwan 2022). The ongoing work that is required to research, evaluate and critique pedagogical translanguaging will, in several respects, continue to build on the communicative legacy initiated by William Littlewood and will continue to have implications for TBLT practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Littlewood was not suggesting that the development of other skills (i.e., writing, listening and reading) was not required within CLT. Nor are we suggesting that TBLT is exclusively focused on spoken interaction. However, for the purpose of this paper, spoken communication is foregrounded.

2 We are grateful to one reviewer who helpfully highlighted this dynamic.