Translanguaging and multimodality as flow, agency, and a new sense of advocacy in and from the Global South

Introduction

This special issue of Pedagogies brings together six points of view, six roadmaps that each team of scholars from different corners of the world proposes for an intersection between translanguaging and multimodality. The intent behind this special issue, rather than asking the authors to align with our ideas of translanguaging or multimodality, was to have the special issue contributors wrestle with these ideas, using three guiding questions as a possible compass:

(a) What semiotic and aesthetic forms of expression best expand the communicative possibilities of multilingual learners, as they avail themselves of textual repertoires beyond written and spoken texts?

(b) What other physical and virtual spaces appear as arenas for multilingual and multilanguaged forms of expression?

(c) What can we learn from synchronous and asynchronous communication spaces to better appreciate the intersections between translanguaging and multimodality?

All six articles (and the follow-up commentary by distinguished scholar Professor Li Wei) provide potential visions to move this conversation forward. Because translanguaging and multimodality are complex fluid processes, we resist viewing them as monolithic one-size-fits-all approaches (an idea that we see once again gaining a great deal of traction to talk about text creation and reading comprehension, mind you). Instead, we see the possibilities for mixing and remixing (Serafini & Gee, 2017) translanguaging and multimodality as kaleidoscopic (Heath & Street, 2008) in nature.

Following the kaleidoscope metaphor, we did not envision these articles as taking turns twisting one kaleidoscope. We proposed giving each team a set of raw materials to build their version of this kaleidoscope. Translanguaging and multimodality became the mirrors and cylinders that make the body of the kaleidoscope, and the data from each study were the beads that make the new shapes within the kaleidoscope. So, this special issue offers six kaleidoscopes for our readers to look at and see how each team played with the conceptual framework and the data. We hope that this may inspire our readers to envision ways to engage in this interplay with theory and data, both using translanguaging and multimodality and otherwise.

In terms of finding a sense of unity across the special issue, we used three overarching threads, as highlighted in our title. The first two, flow and agency are at the core of the conceptual underpinnings of translanguaging and multimodality. The last one, advocacy, comes from the invitation to revisit what we mean by ideas such as Global South and Global North as ideological rather than geographical constructs and what it means about the voices we should hear from in the different fields that apply and play with ideas from translanguaging and multimodality (e.g. Applied Linguistics, TESOL, Literacy Studies, Language Arts, etc.).

The links between translanguaging and multimodality

We live in an increasingly multilingual world. Even if there is always a push for unitary views of language, the way humanity has operated through history tells us otherwise. Languages are in motion, and surging forms of languaging are the effect of creativity and interplay across and within cultures. As the conversations about an increasingly global and multilingual world (Blommaert, 2010) continue evolving, two key concepts have surfaced to make sense of these new spaces for literacy and languaging. As we better understand languaging as a social process, more questions about the fluid (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015) nature of languages in context have emerged. In this sense, the notion of translanguaging (Canagarajah, 2011; Fallas Escobar, 2019; García, 2009; García & Li, 2014; Lewis et al., 2012; Li, 2011; Robinson et al., 2018) provides a dynamic framework to describe and operationalize how meaning making in multilingual contexts is construed by availing of all linguistic repertoires (Alimi & Matiki, 2017; Harman & Khote, 2018; Khote & Tian, 2019; Mwaniki, 2016; Nielsen Niño, 2018; Ortega, 2019; Tian et al., 2020). Language use is not a bonded process but instead comes from purposeful meaning-making that avails of a dynamic configuration of semiotic choices for a particular audience and purpose (Matthiesen, 2018).

Now, let us return to the idea of semiotic choices. We saw at the end of the last century and the first decades of this one a much-needed call to transcend the prevalence of print-only forms of text (Kress, 1997, 2003, 2010) and look instead at the inclusion of a wide range of semiotic and modal resources as sources of meaning-making. With the integration of these resources, multimodality (Ajayi, 2015; Álvarez Valencia, 2016; Farías et al., 2007; Jewitt, 2008; Lenters, 2018; Mills, 2015; Mora, 2019; Smith & Axelrod, 2019) recognizes that today’s world demands the use of multiple semiotic texts and messages.

From this perspective, it makes total sense that we envision translanguaging and multimodality as complementary constructs, an idea that is not unprecedented at all. For instance, García and Li (2014) point out that “bilingual students perform bilingually in the myriad multimodal ways in the classrooms – reading, writing, taking notes, discussing, signing, etc.” (p. 65). Both García and Kleyn (2016) and Vogel et al. (2018) call for adopting an expansive view of translanguaging practices to include physical and modal expression (e.g. gestures, posture), as well as embodied resources that become part of the bodily memory (e.g. computer technology – machine translation software).

Likewise, Li (2017) views translanguaging practices from a social semiotic perspective (Kress, 2010) in which languages are seen as linguistic signs that “are part of a wider repertoire of modal resources” and multilingual speakers are “sign makers [who] employ, create, and interpret different kinds of signs to communicate across contexts and participants and perform their subjectivities” (p. 14). One of our contributors to this issue, Angel Lin (2015, 2018) has coined the term “trans-semiotizing” to provide an overarching framework to analyse language as entangled with other semiotics (e.g. visuals, gestures, bodily movement) in meaning-making practices. Canagarajah (2013a, 2013b) proposed “translingual practice” as an umbrella term to focus on creative improvisation in social practices by re-mixing languages, modes, and symbol systems adapted to the needs of the context and the local situations.

Flow and agency as elements of this (Re)Mix

Bringing together translanguaging and multimodality, as we have argued so far, is less about trying to coin yet another term (Marshall & Moore, 2018) for an already cluttered conceptual space (Oxford, 2008). It is about thinking of the possibilities of mixing and remixing definitions, epistemological standpoints, and methodological options. In this space, we find two salient elements that our six articles tackled throughout their studies. The first idea is that of flow. Both translanguaging and multimodality aim for a flow between language and the spaces wherein it operates. Language and its forms of expression shift, as do societies and the world. In this sense, linking translanguaging and multimodality entails recognizing that today’s world increasingly recognizes multilingual and multimodal resourcing as the new norm to create global and glocal meanings (May, 2014; Mora et al., 2018).

In this sense, we need to revisit more significant questions about new linguistic and literacy scenarios, spaces where the multilingual and multimodal turns are not only simultaneous but also overlapping (Mora & Tian, 2018). We must recognize that we are (re)framing language use in a world where the public and private (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), the physical and virtual (Blommaert & Rampton, 2015; Mora, 2019; Mora et al., 2018) and the verbal and the iconic (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Mills, 2015) come together to create complex worlds and text designs (Harman, 2018; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

The second idea is that of agency. Revisiting Santos’ notion of “abyssal thinking” (Santos, 2007), Ofelia García has long advocated for a view of translanguaging as defiance of the traditional abyssal mindset that has long plagued linguistic initiatives for students in the margins. As García and colleagues recently stated in their manifesto (García et al., 2021),

As teachers we have witnessed the absurdity of trying to teach only in English according to a curriculum formulated for the most part in narrow, white-Eurocentric terms, when in fact our bilingual students were much more developed linguistically, but also historically, philosophically, geographically, politically, and scientifically […] As teacher educators we have also been challenged with the lack of attention to racialized bilingual students, whom teachers evaluate only through what they can do in English. And we have witnessed the stigmatizing effects of language policies in schools that work against the students’ bilingualism, policies that are found even in bilingual and heritage language education programs. (p. 207)

The three editors of this special issue (Raúl, Zhongfeng, and Ruth) and all our other contributors agree with the reality that García and colleagues stated. However, we have lived it as teachers and teacher educators in different corners of the globe. All of us in this special issue have dealt with these practices that the vignette above denounces. Many of us second-language users of English have lived them from our multiple positions as teachers, teacher educators, and students, and we are still facing them in our current work. When we talk about translanguaging and multimodality as agency, we are calling for breaking these traditional boundaries of what languages, writing, and research look like. Agency entails considering that enforcing these dominant views is a disservice to our communities, students, and colleagues.

Global South and Global North as spaces for Glocal advocacy

There is a growing recognition that accepting the traditional flow of knowledge (mainly when we look at knowledge in English) is highly problematic: We have a cluster we call Global North that produces knowledge, and another cluster we call Global South that just consumes said knowledge. That view of knowledge creation, besides being lopsided against the South (Banegas, 2018), fails to acknowledge the wealth of approaches developed in this region of the world. Recent discussions among literacy and language scholars have faced this ongoing concern, showing the conceptualization of language and literacy across and between these multilingual spaces (Mora, 2016; Rogers, 2018; Trigos-Carrillo & Rogers, 2017). These attempts, inspired in no small part by the idea of “Epistemologies of the South” (Santos, 2018), seek to decentre the gaze of theorization from traditional Anglo centres and shift to a more global view (Guilherme & de Souza, 2019) that considers equity (Rogers, 2018) and the ways that the South reinvents conceptual frameworks (Mora, 2016; Trigos-Carrillo & Rogers, 2017).

During our editorial meetings, we had a long-standing discussion about the meaning of Global South and Global North. We noticed that, alas, most contributors from this special issue were at Global North institutions and what that meant for our argument. This discussion made us rethink whether even those of us advocating for the Global South had fallen prey to seeing these two ideas as full-fledged binary oppositions or as absolutes. In the case of the special issue, yes, it is true that five articles hailed from institutions in the U.S. (Harman, et al; Medina-Riveros, et al., Pacheco, et al.), Canada (Chen & Lin) or both (Tian & Lau) and only one hailed from Hong Kong (Ho & Feng). It is also true that two of the three editors (Zhongfeng and Ruth) teach in US higher education institutions, and the other (Raúl), although still affiliated with his university in Colombia, has relocated to Norway. If we went for this binary view of the Global South/North divide, then, sure, it would be moot for this special issue to talk about the Global South at all. However, once we move past this initial institutional distribution, a more nuanced reality comes to play. In all six articles, we find that all authors have and maintain strong ties to the Global South, reflected in their origins and their research efforts. All special issue editors and contributors are recognized in different arenas as vigorous advocates for voices from the margins, particularly those not classified as “native speakers” of English. Five of the six articles feature data from and in the Global South, and their studies’ implications also call for recognizing these voices.

At this point, it is also necessary to recognize that talking about Global North and Global South does not necessarily relate to geography, but ideology, with varying flows and modes of communication. Making a blanket, monolithic claim that the Northern Hemisphere equals Global North and Southern Hemisphere equals Global South fails to acknowledge global knowledge and language dynamics. Not every country in the Northern Hemisphere would claim to be part of that Global North, nor does every country in the Southern Hemisphere adhere to the idea of belonging to the Global South. We have witnessed Global North dynamics across social groups in Latin America, Asia, and Africa; we have seen Global South dynamics of resistance in social groups in Europe and North America. A blanket Global South-Global North binary also fails to account for issues of physical and digital mobility and migration, as well as how scholars worldwide participate in moments of glocal advocacy (Mora, 2016b).

A closer look at the articles from this special issue

As we stated before, this issue brings together six articles sharing multiple experiences with translanguaging and multimodality. Three articles (Tian & Lau; Harman, et al.; Medina-Riveros, et al.) explore translanguaging and multimodality experiences in school settings, all dealing with multilingual/multicultural learners. Tian and Lau look at the translanguaging practices in a Mandarin-English dual language bilingual education programme in a public school; Harman, Bui, Cardozo-Gaibisso, Buxton, Velasquez Dominguez, and Fu study an afterschool program; and Medina-Riveros, Botelho, Austin, and Parra Pérez explore the implementation of translanguaging and multimodality in Colombian public schools. Two of the articles (Chen & Lin; Ho & Feng) inquire about the nature of online education and what the nexus between translanguaging and multimodality means in this growing (albeit not so recent) trend. In Chen and Lin’s case, they revisit their online teaching experiences; Ho and Feng analyse online English teaching videos. The last article by Pacheco, Smith, Combs, and Amgott engages in a systematic review of the literature on emergent bilinguals vis-à-vis the links between translanguaging and multimodality.

Six conceptual kaleidoscopes come into play

As we look at the articles conceptually, we would like to return to the kaleidoscope metaphor we introduced earlier in the editorial. We invited authors to play with the ideas around translanguaging and multimodality, mixing their considerable expertise, scholarship, and teaching experience. Each team provided new visions for this conceptual play. Tian and Lau introduced their trans-systemic vision, where they carefully weave interactions, indexicalities, and semiotic modes. Meaning-making through languages becomes a sensory experience that crosses linguistic and non-linguistic markers. Harman and colleagues revisit Halliday’s (1978) ideas of systemic functional linguistics to adapt a systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis model to explore youth civic identities, which reinforces the idea that meaning-making and languaging are contextual, dynamic, and experiential. Medina-Riveros and colleagues add a third conceptual layer to this (re)mix by using Barad’s (2007) idea of entanglements to emphasize how meaning-making through languaging entails interrelational moments within people, places, and semiotic resources that lead to different changes in our communities. Chen and Lin revisit Lin’s idea of trans-semiotizing (Lin, 2018) as an analytical lens to reconceptualize language education and to look more deeply at online teaching as a nuanced eco-social system (Lemke, 2000). Ho and Feng remix translanguaging and multimodality and their principles of social justice and diversity of linguistic and semiotic repertoires to rethink the creation and use of online teaching videos. Finally, Pacheco and colleagues’ review revisits multimodal composition through the translanguaging/multimodality remix to discuss how the literature understands how students integrate linguistic and semiotic resources in their collective composition processes.

Challenges and provocations as Global South-North flux

The six articles in this special issue are not just research reports. They are also provocations to our readers to reconsider the ideas behind translanguaging and multimodality and what we understand as language, education, and meaning-making. Tian and Lau provide a counter-narrative to the conventional discourses in dual language bilingual education. They suggest that translanguaging and multimodality flow in classroom instruction might significantly benefit students’ learning by exposing them to new ways of thinking about and approaching content. They also invite language teachers to adopt a new paradigm where they see themselves as teachers of languages and communication and not just a target language, developing a meta-awareness of how they and their students might utilize languages in conjunction with other semiotic resources to convey ideas and engage in communication.

Harman and colleagues suggest that the Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) framework may enable teacher educators to detect some of the oblique and agentic ways in which youth participants stage their multimodal and multilingual meaning production and civic leadership. The authors contribute to the discussion on the value of SF-pedagogical MDA by highlighting how SF-MDA can be used to highlight the semiotic repertoires of teenagers engaged in civic engagement activities in and out of school.

Through their critical posthumanist lens, Medina-Riveros and colleagues challenge traditional examinations of the social circumstances of instructors and students in the Global South. Their translanguaging and multimodality work intertwined with semiotics (entanglements and vignettes) becomes a viable alternative to promote contextualized and rhizomatic research on translanguaging and multimodality.

Chen and Lin show us how re-imagining online language teaching as a fluid, trans-semiotic, and social activity is possible through the lens of eco-social systems theory as an alternative theoretical framework. The authors claim that the process encompasses activities occurring on various time spans and platforms, illustrating how important it is to consider these various points of view when looking into online language instruction.

Through their remixed theoretical framework that incorporates multimodality and translanguaging, Ho and Feng delve into the topic of online English teaching videos, a relatively new approach to online language learning. The authors demonstrate how examining these films from a dual multimodal and translinguistic perspective might shed light on the educational adjustments needed to make them responsive to the diverse needs of a global audience with diverse linguacultural backgrounds.

Finally, in their comprehensive analysis, Pacheco and colleagues show that students can benefit from learning about language and translingual competence, or the effective use of multiple languages and cultures in each communication context (Canagarajah, 2014), through multimodal composition. Their review illustrates the possibilities of using translanguaging to establish writing communities that keep composers and communities (Graham, 2018) and the potential of writing for audiences outside of the classroom.

Coda one: future directions

The six articles in this special issue, featuring six proposals from different corners of the world, mixing physical and online contexts, are an invitation to reframe the intersections between translanguaging and multimodality, as pedagogical possibilities and ways to disrupt knowledge creation. As the articles show, any work (re)mixing translanguaging and multimodality must move past traditional, prescriptive forms of theory interplay, which usually place some communities as producers and others as mere consumers. We invite our readers to use these articles to create pathways and even new metaphors to embrace conceptual and methodological diversity, where the Global North and Global South disrupt how we share and create knowledge, as the “pursuit of truth” is only possible through equitable knowledge trade and conversations.

Through these six different roadmaps into translanguaging and multimodality, we hope our readers can appreciate the variation and innovation of the proposals from scholars in the Global North and the Global South. Instead of highlighting one particular approach as the most effective, the articles disrupt the canonical and push towards meaning-making frontiers that bring together translanguaging and multimodality.

Coda two: a final word of appreciation

Editing special issues always has particular challenges: finding/inviting authors, selecting reviewers, and ensuring a proper flow in the process so that the issue is out in a timely fashion. There are, in fact, quite a few moving pieces that make such an endeavour possible. When the editors first thought of this special issue early in 2019, we aimed to welcome the new decade with this contribution. Around early 2020, the pandemic that engulfed us had other plans, thus disrupting our flow. We had to face issues with reviewers, some authors who initially had accepted had to withdraw, and we had to stretch our timelines. We introduce our special issue with these thoughts (more like an overall reflection than a caveat) because we need to have these conversations. We need to address how the pandemic changed the game and how we need to rethink this process moving forward. We also want to take a moment to express infinite gratitude to all these “moving pieces” that were part of this journey:

• To all the authors for your patience and commitment. We know that the wait can be frustrating (exasperating even), so we appreciate you for not giving up on this special issue.

• To all the reviewers who provided valuable feedback throughout the review process. We understand that these are challenging times, so we appreciate your cooperation. To those who we were only able to help us through one round and those who had to decline, that is an option too and we honour it.

• To the journal editors for you support and flexibility. That enabled us to reach this point where we can open the editorial and welcome this special issue.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Raúl Alberto Mora

Raúl Alberto Mora is Associate Professor at the School of Education and Pedagogy at Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana in Medellín, Colombia (currently teaching remotely from Norway). His current research explores second-language literacies in urban spaces and gaming communities, the pedagogical implementation of alternative literacies in second-language education, and the need for critical frameworks for language education and plurilingualism in and from the Global South, topics he develops with his researchers at the award-winning Literacies in Second Languages Project (LSLP) Research Lab. He has published his work in peer-reviewed such as Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, The ALAN Review, International Journal of Cultural Studies, Educational Media International, Journal of Language and Literacy Education, and The Elementary School Journal, to name a few. He co-edited The Handbook of Critical Literacies (Routledge, 2021) and is editing the forthcoming volume Understanding Second Language Users as Gamers: Language-as-Victory (under contract with Routledge).

Zhongfeng Tian

Zhongfeng Tian is Assistant Professor of TESOL/Applied Linguistics at the University of Texas at San Antonio, USA. He holds a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Boston College. Theoretically grounded in translanguaging, his research centers on working with classroom teachers to provide bi/multilingual students with equitable and inclusive learning environments in ESL and dual language bilingual education contexts, and preparing culturally and linguistically competent teachers with social justice orientations. He has published articles in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, TESOL Quarterly, System, Applied Linguistics Review, and Language and Education, to name a few. He is also the co-editor of two books: Envisioning TESOL through a Translanguaging Lens: Global Perspectives (Springer, 2020) and English-Medium Instruction and Translanguaging (Multilingual Matters, 2021).

Ruth Harman

Ruth Harman is a professor in the department of Language and Literacy Education and an adjunct faculty in the Linguistics Department at the University of Georgia. Her research has focused on innovative pedagogical and research practices that promote disciplinary literacy development, youth civic engagement, and critical semiotic awareness. She has written extensively in peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and encyclopedias such as Journal of Second Language Writing, Linguistics and Education, Language and Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, and TESOL Quarterly.