Translingual practices in Chinese as a second language writing: Variations across language proficiency levels

Abstract

This study investigates the variations in multilingual students’ translingual practices across language proficiency levels in the context of Chinese as a second language (CSL) writing. The case study examined multilingual students’ CSL writing across different proficiency levels at a Sino-US joint-venture university in China, with the aim to understand the variations in translingual practices across these levels. The findings revealed that as language proficiency advanced, there was a corresponding increase in the sophistication of translingual practices, which was manifested in a rise in nuanced, strategic, and culturally inclusive writing. The gradual development in language proficiency allowed students to navigate beyond lexical boundaries and embrace linguistic and cultural diversity, which indicated a change from a monolingual viewpoint to a translingual one. These findings underscore the vital role of language proficiency in both the research and implementation of translingual practices, indicating that translingual practices extend beyond mere scaffolding to involve the development of translingual and transcultural competence. This points toward the need to foster linguistic diversity and cultivate this competence within classroom environments to optimize the enactment of translingual practices for CSL writing education.

Keywords

Chinese as a second language language proficiency translingual practices writing

I Introduction

With the rapid internationalization of education, the capacity to comprehend and navigate multiple languages, as well as an intricate understanding of diverse cultures, have become essential in the fields of language and writing education. This trend has motivated scholars and practitioners to propose and enact translingual practices in writing education (Canagarajah, 2013; Horner et al., 2011; Velasco & García, 2014). Translingual practices advocate for the synergy of languages and cultures in meaning-making and place a high value on strategic, agentive, and creative engagement with linguistic and cultural resources as a means of enhancing written communication (Arnold, 2020; Bou Ayash, 2016; J.W. Lee & Jenks, 2016). This approach to writing pedagogy cultivates a distinct advantage within the landscape of multilingual educational environments. Therefore, translingual practices have been discussed in a broad range of language-related fields, encompassing applied linguistics (Canagarajah, 2018; Li, 2018), Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (Dovchin, 2021; Sun & Feng, 2024; Sun & Lan, 2021a), composition studies (J. Lee, 2016; Lu & Horner, 2016), and second language (L2) writing (Atkinson et al., 2015; Gevers, 2018; Silva & Wang, 2020; Sun & Lan, 2023; Sun et al., 2021; Zhang-Wu et al., 2023). Grounded on these studies, some recent inquiries (e.g. Cai, 2024; D. Wang, 2024) have begun to investigate the potential of translingual practices within the context of Chinese language education, with a noteworthy focus on oral communication. This shift toward the Chinese language, which is characterized by its unique script, uncovers a series of benefits and challenges. These complexities necessitate a profound understanding of language use as a dynamic and negotiated process, which underlines the significance of translingual practices and their potential influence on teaching and learning Chinese as a second language (CSL).

This study aims to explore how multilingual students’ translingual practices in the CSL writing process vary across language proficiency levels at a Sino-US joint-venture university in China. Given the rising presence of bi/multilingual learners in Chinese language classrooms, the emphasis on the variations in translingual practices across proficiency levels is of special relevance. The principal objective of this study, therefore, is to investigate how CSL students from different proficiency levels use and perceive translingual practices in their writing processes. This research holds critical significance from several perspectives. First, it contributes to the ongoing dialogue on the pedagogical viability of translingual practices in writing education. Second, it provides suggestions for teaching CSL writing at different proficiency levels, which presents considerable challenges to learners due to the distinct nature of the logographic script and syntactic structures of Chinese. Finally, by placing emphasis on translingual practices, this study reinforces the importance of respecting and integrating learners’ diverse linguistic backgrounds, thereby promoting an inclusive and dynamic approach to CSL writing education. It is necessary to note that this study is not designed to prove that language proficiency has a decisive impact on translingual practices in CSL writing. Instead, it seeks to attract more attention and discussion on how language proficiency affects translingual practices within CSL writing education.

II Translingual practices in writing education

Translingual practices in writing studies have been illustrated as the knowledge construction process with the synergy of various linguistic and semiotic resources (Canagarajah, 2013; Horner et al., 2011; Lu & Horner, 2016). Horner et al.’s (2011) proposal of a translingual approach to writing has catalysed a shift in pedagogical practices in writing education. This approach views students’ linguistic resources not just as tools for communication but as ways to make meaning, foster creativity, and promote inclusivity (Guerra, 2016). Moving away from monolingual ideologies that consider languages as static, discrete, and monolithic entities, translingual practices view language as fluid, hybrid, and negotiated (Canagarajah, 2013). They provide learners the space to enact, modify, and challenge linguistic norms and empower them to construct and negotiate meaning with their full linguistic repertoire (Canagarajah, 2018; Li, 2011). Therefore, scholars such as Canagarajah (2022), Cushman (2016), García et al. (2021), and E. Lee (2023) have proposed and developed a decolonial agenda for language and writing education. This agenda seeks to promote a more equitable educational framework that embraces diverse epistemic knowledges.

Translingual practices, with their decolonial agenda, provide a pedagogical approach to fostering equitable and inclusive learning environments. Translingual practices challenge traditional monolingual methods, which often privilege a single language, thereby marginalizing students from diverse linguistic backgrounds (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García & Li, 2014). Translingual practices, instead, empower students to draw on their entire linguistic repertoire, celebrate linguistic diversity, and foster inclusivity (Lu & Horner, 2013; Sun & Lan, 2024; Sun et al., 2023). A number of empirical studies have echoed this potential. For example, Zhang-Wu (2023), in her investigation into first-year-writing students’ translingual practices, reported initial student apprehensions toward embracing language resources other than English in their academic writing. However, she argued that the recognition and appreciation of these diverse language resources could lead to heightened student engagement and active participation. Her findings highlighted that the acknowledgment of linguistic diversity could mitigate reservations about using multiple language resources in academic settings, stimulate improved peer interactions, and enrich overall learning outcomes. Similar findings were documented by Barbour and Lickorish Quinn (2020), who studied the impact of incorporating diverse language backgrounds into the classroom. They reported that this translingual approach not only amplified student engagement but also helped them form stronger self-confidence and motivation. By enabling students to leverage their full linguistic repertoire, translingual writing practices helped create a sense of belonging and a boost in motivation and led to improved overall performance. These studies indicate the potential of translingual practices in creating equitable and inclusive classrooms.

The decolonial agenda of translingual practices is also reflected in the recognition of the interplay between language and culture, which contributes to the development of translingual and transcultural competence. Pratt et al. (2008) laid a foundation for this idea by defining translingual and transcultural competence as ‘the multilingual ability to operate between languages’ (p. 289; emphasis in original). This understanding encapsulates an awareness and appreciation of the cultural nuances that are intertwined with language use, thereby forging a link between linguistic diversity and cultural richness. This concept was further corroborated by E. Lee and Canagarajah (2019), whose investigation of translingual practices stressed the fluid and dynamic nature of language as a cultural artifact. They called for a more refined understanding of language use that acknowledges the cultural negotiation and evolution inherent in linguistic communication. Such an approach promotes a view of language as constantly evolving and shaped by its cultural contexts. Similarly, Kunschak (2021) explored translingual and transcultural competence from three aspects: student agency, teacher guidance, and programmatic support. She argued that this competence, as a language teaching goal, has the potential to transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries and enable learners to engage with language, culture, and people in a nuanced and contextualized manner. This competence, as these studies show, can facilitate the inclusion of cultural idioms, metaphors, and phrasings from students’ full linguistic repertoire and allow for a richer expression of ideas and a deeper understanding of the cultural contexts that influence language use.

As embracing the decolonial agenda of translingual practices, it is also important to acknowledge and address the challenges that this pedagogical approach entails. One such challenge is the potential for ambiguity in written communication resulting from the fluid integration of multiple languages. Gilyard (2016) emphasized that the ‘sameness of difference’ from some translingual perspectives may hinder critical discussions on the similarities and differences among languages, their users, and contexts, which possibly leads to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Matsuda (2014) cautioned against ‘linguistic tourism’, where translingual practices might lead some researchers, instructors, or students to select attractive but unrepresentative linguistic features in second language teaching or learning. Another critical concern is the risk of marginalizing students who do not share the same language background as the majority in a writing classroom. Studies by Itoi and Mizukura (2024) and Kuteeva (2020) have underscored this issue and pointed out that the extensive use of translingual practices could potentially limit the participation of students with distinct language backgrounds. Further complexities arise from the dominance of monolingualism in writing education, the insufficient guidance for teachers implementing translingual pedagogies, and the concerns of students about enacting translingual practices in high-stakes writing tasks (Sun, 2022). These challenges highlight the need for thoughtful implementation and ongoing refinement of translingual practices in writing education to ensure both inclusivity, equality, and effectiveness.

III Translingual practices in Chinese language education

As mentioned in previous sections, the relevance and potential of translingual practices are increasingly recognized in language and writing education, including the domain of Chinese language education (Sun, 2024). Drawing from the discourses on translingual practices in writing education, similar principles have begun to find their application in the teaching and learning of Chinese as a second, foreign, additional, or heritage language. The interest in the intersection of translingual pedagogies and Chinese language education is underscored by the opportunity to leverage the diverse linguistic backgrounds of Chinese language learners. Similar to the potential observed in writing education, the incorporation of translingual practices into Chinese language education is beneficial (D. Wang, 2024). By strategically drawing upon learners’ diverse linguistic resources, educators can augment transcultural experiences, stimulate creativity, and cultivate an inclusive learning environment within the Chinese language classroom (Zhu & Gao, 2021). Thus, the principles of translingual practices (mentioned in the previous section) also extend into Chinese language education in bi/multilingual educational settings.

Translingual practices have been increasingly recognized and implemented in Chinese–English bilingual education in China and beyond. As the traditional paradigm of bilingual education, which often champions one language over the other, comes under scrutiny, there is a shift toward a more integrated and balanced approach that utilizes the strengths of both languages. This shift is reflected in a study conducted by W. Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2019), who found that Chinese–English bilingual education programs in China effectively employed translingual practices to create an academic environment in which both students and teachers could freely appropriate English and Chinese to their advantage. Their study revealed that this translingual approach could help foster positive attitudes and strengthen confidence among participants as it allowed them to fully utilize their linguistic repertoire. Tian and Lau (2023) carried out a similar study in the US. Their investigation focused on a Mandarin–English dual language program, where they noted that translingual pedagogy, including translingual stance, design, and shift, helped foster students’ metalinguistic awareness and facilitate their knowledge construction. This metalinguistic awareness, they argued, was vital in enhancing the students’ learning. Similarly, Cai’s (2024) investigation on 30 pre- and in-service Mandarin Chinese teachers’ developing language and teaching ideologies in a US context emphasized the role of translingual practices in promoting inclusivity within Chinese language teacher education and professional development. Cai argued that valuing linguistic diversity could help engender a dynamic and engaging educational experience. These studies showcase the role of translingual practices in enriching bilingual education and creating a rich, inclusive, and dynamic learning experience for both teachers and learners.

The integration of translingual practices in Chinese–English bilingual education necessitates an appreciation of the cultural elements intertwined with language learning. Han (2024) explored how Chinese teachers in Australian schools integrated cultural elements into Chinese language learning via translingual practices. She found that when encouraged to incorporate the Chinese cultural nuances into their language use, students demonstrated a more profound understanding of the Chinese language. This recognition and utilization of cultural idiosyncrasies in language use enriched the students’ linguistic repertoire and deepened their transcultural understanding. Fang and Huang (2023) further investigated the experiences and attitudes of Teochew-speaking learners – a linguistic minority in China – toward translingual practices. Their findings revealed that the dominance of Mandarin (Putonghua) in Chinese educational contexts had led to a marginalization of the minority students’ mother tongue, Teochew in that case, and its associated culture. Therefore, they called for the preservation of local dialects and cultures by enacting translingual practices within Chinese language education. These studies indicate that the integration of translingual practices in Chinese language education extends beyond enhancing language learning: it fosters a deeper comprehension and appreciation of cultural aspects that are intimately linked with language.

Despite the growing application of translingual practices, there remain underexplored areas within writing education literature, particularly the variations in translingual practices across proficiency levels, which is crucial for understanding multilingual students’ linguistic development and academic success (Ene et al., 2019; Severino, 2017). Ene et al. (2019) found that multilingual writers with varied English proficiency levels navigated linguistic and cultural boundaries in ways that reflected translingual principles, observing that translingual practices varied based on participants’ disciplines, backgrounds, and multi-literacy levels. They highlighted the need for pedagogical approaches sensitive to language proficiency differences. Similarly, Severino (2017) emphasized that while translingual practices encourage moving beyond native-speaker norms, principles of second language acquisition remain vital for writers at different proficiency levels to expand their linguistic repertoire and strengthen language control. While these studies contribute insights into language proficiency’s role in translingual practices, with one concentrating on English academic writing (Ene et al., 2019) and the other on varying proficiency levels across languages (Severino, 2017), there remains a noticeable gap in research regarding how language proficiency influences translingual practices for CSL writing.

In addition, while there has been an increased emphasis on implementing translingual practices in teaching oral Chinese communication, there is a dearth of exploration regarding their application in written Chinese communication, which carries distinct characteristics compared to its oral counterpart (Wu et al., 2022). To bridge these gaps, the present study seeks to explore how multilingual students’ translingual practices in the CSL writing process vary across proficiency levels. This endeavor is guided by two primary research questions.

• Research question 1: How did CSL students from different proficiency levels use translingual practices?

• Research question 2: How did CSL students from different proficiency levels perceive translingual practices?

IV The study

To explore the utilization and perception of translingual practices by CSL students from different proficiency levels, a case study (Creswell, 2013) was adopted as the primary research method. This selection was informed by the fluid nature of translingual practices: their feature for emergence and adaptability contingent on their specific contexts. This inherent dynamism demanded a research approach that could provide an intensive and context-specific examination, which makes a case study an appropriate research method for our investigation. By employing a case study approach, we were able to delve into a deep exploration of participants’ experiences, practices, and perspectives within their unique context. This method allowed us to avoid overgeneralization and extract broader pedagogical implications that are relevant to the field of CSL writing education while concurrently preserving the specificity of individual participants’ experiences. This twofold benefit resulted in an exploration of participants’ unique experiences while contributing to the understanding of how translingual practices vary across proficiency levels in the context of CSL writing education.

1 Contexts and participants

This study was conducted within the context of a liberal arts and science university in southeastern China, a collaboration between a US university and a Chinese university. Comprising 70% Chinese domestic students and 30% international students from across the globe, this university’s multicultural and multilingual composition provided a suitable milieu for exploring the variations in translingual practices across proficiency levels of CSL writing. The university’s vibrant exchange of languages and cultural perspectives is foundational to its identity and is instrumental to our study. The curriculum, grounded in liberal arts and science education, encourages an environment for intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, collaborative work, and self-exploration. Within this academic setting, all international students are enrolled in the Chinese program, which places an emphasis on linguistic and intercultural competency. Moreover, cultural concepts such as ‘cultural comparison’ and ‘intercultural communication’ are integrated into the curriculum across various levels, from 100 to 400. The linguistic and cultural diversity of this academic community provides a real-life context and an appropriate backdrop for unraveling the variations in translingual practices across proficiency levels of CSL writing.

A group of international students from this academic setting were recruited for this research. These participants, representing a cohort from over 60 countries worldwide, were from countries such as the US, Morocco, Italy, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, and Vietnam. These international students enrolled in Chinese language courses were placed in courses organized by proficiency level – 200 (beginning level with essay writing tasks), 300, and 400 – based on their initial university entrance assessments, which followed the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language’s (ACTFL, 2012) proficiency guidelines. In terms of language requirements, all international students at this university need to acquire at least eight credits from Chinese language courses, typically equating to four 2-credit courses, and pass a Chinese course at the 200 level or higher. This university context provided an in-depth and informative backdrop for our investigation into the variations in translingual practices across proficiency levels. Upon circulating our research project among the university’s international student population, we received participation from 23 students who submitted their essays for our research. Furthermore, 14 students from this group (see Table 1) voluntarily participated in our interviews, which helped enrich our study with their experiential insights into their language proficiencies and translingual practices in CSL writing.

Table 1.

Interview participants’ background information.

Student	Gender	Country(ies)	Main language(s) speak other than Chinese	Years of learning/using Chinese	Proficiency level	Course(s) essays from
A	Female	Morocco	Arabic and English	2	200	201A&B
B	Female	US	English	3	300	301A&B, 302A
C	Female	Vietnam	Vietnamese and English	2	200	201A&B, 202A&B
D	Female	Russia	Russian and English	2	200	201A
E	Female	Vietnam	Vietnamese and English	2	300	201A&B, 202A&B, 301A
F	Male	Vietnam	Vietnamese and English	1.5	200	201A&B, 202A
G	Female	US	English	Since childhood (heritage language)	300	301A&B
H	Female	Vietnam	Vietnamese and English	1.5	200	202A&B
I	Female	Mongolia	Mongolian and English	3	200	201A & 202A
J	Female	US	English	10	300	301A&B
K	Male	Malaysia	Malay and English	Since childhood (heritage language)	400	406, 409
L	Female	Malaysia	English and Malay	Since childhood (heritage language)	400	406, 409, 415
M	Male	Italy	Italian and English	2.5	300	301A&B, 302A
N	Female	US and Japan	English and Japanese	7	200	232A

Note. In this table and article, the course levels are used to indicate proficiency levels because the Chinese as a second language (CSL) learners are placed into different courses based on their CSL proficiency.

2 Data collection

Data collection for this study included two pivotal sources: student essays and semi-structured interviews. Specifically, essays were collected from three levels of Chinese language courses, namely the 200, 300, and 400 levels (see Table 1). After introducing this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved project via email or in class, students were invited to voluntarily participate in the study and were informed that they could withdraw at any time during the research. Participated students were instructed to submit their course essays regardless of their specific topics. To ensure objectivity and avoid collecting biased data, we did not reveal that we were specifically interested in essays with translingual practices. Instead, we told them that their submissions would contribute to a broader study on writing development in CSL. Each student was instructed to deposit their essays from their respective Chinese language courses directly into assigned Box folders. This process was designed to maintain a clear and organized repository of submissions. To illustrate the diversity in essay submissions, consider a particularly committed student who provided 16 essays from five Chinese courses across 200 and 300 levels. Cumulatively, the research team was able to gather a volume of 182 essays (86 200-level essays, 73 300-level essays, and 23 400-level essays) submitted by 23 international students. This collection represented different proficiency levels, from the intermediate 200 level to the high-intermediate 300 level and then to the advanced 400 level. These proficiency levels have been adapted from the ACTFL proficiency guidelines to suit the specific context. The collected essays facilitated a comprehensive exploration of linguistic features, patterns, and instances of translingual practices evident in students’ written work. The breadth and depth of this collection allowed for a thorough and detailed investigation into the use of translingual practices in written text by CSL students from different proficiency levels.

Writing activities for these essays across 200, 300, and 400-level courses employed an intercultural approach that focused on cultural themes. Specifically, the 200-level courses were designed to facilitate students’ ability to produce linked sentences or sentence clusters on their familiar topics. Thus, students were encouraged to compose texts on topics within their personal experiences and familiar contexts, such as descriptions of their hometowns (see Figures 1 –3). In contrast, the 300-level courses advanced student engagement by focusing on learning a diverse array of essays characterized by sophisticated vocabulary reflecting abstract concepts, complex grammatical structures, and formal written language applications. These essays explored various facets of Chinese culture, including norms of courtesy, familial relationships, and ethical values (see Figures 4 –6). At the 400 level, the emphasis of the writing activities was on the composition of succinct papers in Chinese, examining a specific cultural element such as the Mongolian calendar, the movie ‘Shang-Chi’, and the literary work ‘The little prince’ (see Figures 7 –9).

Figure 1.

Use of Vietnamese in a Chinese essay.

Figure 2.

Use of English transliterations for Mongolian words in a Chinese essay.

Figure 3.

Use of English words in a Chinese essay.

Figure 4.

Use of ‘polite’ in a Chinese essay.

Figure 5.

Use of ‘fake’ in a Chinese essay.

Figure 6.

Use of English words in a Chinese essay.

Figure 7.

Use of an English transliteration of a Mongolian term in a Chinese essay.

Figure 8.

Use of ‘The Mandarin’ in a Chinese essay.

Figure 9.

Use of the English title of a book in a Chinese essay.

While instructors promoted the production of Chinese texts, the incorporation of non-Chinese resources remained permissible, particularly for culturally specific elements. An informal communication with instructors of these courses indicated that they primarily used Chinese for teaching; however, when misunderstandings arose, English was employed for clarification. Students – especially those at lower proficiency levels – tended to use English when asking questions after class to ensure clearer mutual understanding. In addition, while instructors did not prohibit the use of other language resources in student essays, they would comment on the appropriate use of these sources in Chinese language and cultural contexts. It is important to note that these courses did not integrate translanguaging or translingual pedagogies; thus, no related terminologies or connotations were introduced or planned in the instructional design. The present study incorporated an analysis of students’ written outputs and included semi-structured interviews to examine how language proficiency influenced their translingual practices for these CSL outputs.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to complement the essay collection. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the translingual practices students employed in their writing processes and to explore their perceptions of these practices. Serving as an open platform for discussion, these interviews facilitated a profound understanding of students’ personal narratives and insights, which reflected their diverse language backgrounds and practices. These interviews enabled us to closely examine the language choices students made and their correspondence with their respective Chinese language proficiency levels (seven interview participants were from the 200 level, five from the 300 level, and two from the 400 level; see Table 1). Of particular note is the categorization of students who had participated in both the 200-level and 300-level courses. Their classification was determined by their present academic level, which means these students were recognized as 300-level learners. To ensure the connection between their writing and the corresponding interviews, we specifically examined the essays they submitted for their 300-level courses. Each interview, typically lasting between 35 and 50 minutes, was conducted in a manner that encouraged participants to share their thoughts openly and in detail. To ensure that all participants felt comfortable and were able to articulate their experiences and thoughts effectively, interviews were conducted in English, as suggested by several participants. Two research assistants and one colleague helped with the data collection and organization. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, then securely stored in the password-protected university Box folders, accessible exclusively to the research team. In adhering to ethical guidelines, each participant was asked to provide their informed consent by signing a university IRB-approved consent form before their essay and interview data were collected. We also anonymized all potentially identifiable information of participants, such as their names and majors, to ensure confidentiality.

3 Data analysis

The principal approach for interpreting the collected data was thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method, frequently employed in qualitative research, can facilitate a nuanced and in-depth dissection of data, help summarize salient features across various data sets, and aid researchers in reporting extensive, organized, and explicit findings (King, 2004; Lapadat, 2012). Despite its utility, thematic analysis has been associated with concerns of potential inconsistency and incoherence during the theme development process (Nowell et al., 2017). In order to address these concerns and ensure a rigorous and reliable analysis, we integrated a dual-method approach involving both deductive and inductive coding to triangulate the findings. The research questions guided our deductive coding process, which focused on the usage and perception of translingual practices among CSL students of varying proficiency levels. This process involved a detailed examination of how these students utilized and perceived different language and cultural resources in their essays. Additionally, we analysed their personal understandings and portrayals of these resources based on the interviews. The inductive coding was applied to identify emergent themes from the data sets, such as the negotiation of meaning across languages and cultures and the awareness of linguistic diversity. The analysis process commenced with deductive coding, during which we immersed ourselves in the entire data set, from reading the essays and transcribing the semi-structured interviews to scrutinizing the participants’ written works and interview transcriptions according to their proficiency levels. We made pertinent notes relating to the research questions during the process. Following the deductive phase, we proceeded with inductive coding, which focused on the themes that surfaced from the collected data. This approach helped ensure reliable findings.

Specifically, we commenced with deductive coding to examine the essays by pinpointing the employment of different language resources. This process entailed recognizing instances where terms such as ‘Pho’ (a kind of Vietnamese soup) and cultural idioms such as ‘Trick or Treat’ were woven into Chinese essays. Subsequently, we aligned these textual examples with insights from the interviews to explore whether different language proficiency levels influenced CSL students’ translingual practices. Complementing this, inductive coding was utilized to extract emergent themes from both texts and interviews, which allowed us to delve into the rationale behind language choices and how language proficiency influenced their translingual practices. For example, some students articulated a strategic use of non-Chinese words for unfamiliar Chinese expressions, while others described writing in English first to achieve coherence before translating into Chinese. Through this bidirectional analytical approach, we discerned recurrent themes and patterns. For instance, CSL students at beginner proficiency levels (such as the 200 level) often preferred a monolingual approach, while their more advanced counterparts (such as the 400 level) demonstrated an appreciation for linguistic diversity. These findings were then refined through iterative analysis. By combining analyses of written essays and interview insights, we illuminated variations in students’ translingual practices in CSL writing across proficiency levels.

V Results

Research question 1: How did CSL students from different proficiency levels use translingual practices?

The investigation into the translingual practices of CSL students across different proficiency levels uncovered a progressive sophistication in their use of different language and cultural resources. As students progressed from the 200 to the 400 level, their translingual practices became more strategic and nuanced. This development indicates their ability to use different language and cultural resources in their full linguistic repertoire purposefully and effectively to enhance their written communication.

While different languages such as Vietnamese, Mongolian, and Italian could potentially enrich the students’ CSL writing, a predominant preference for incorporating English resources to express culture-related concepts was observed. This trend was consistent across proficiency levels, with only one exception, Student H, who incorporated Vietnamese directly into her CSL writing (see Figure 1). In discussing their language choices during interviews, the students uniformly acknowledged that English as the primary medium of communication in this particular Chinese language learning context could facilitate their oral and written communication with their audience. For example, Student F stated, ‘English is actually helpful because only by using English could I communicate with my Chinese tutors, teachers, and friends.’ Student C echoed this by saying, ‘I know that not a lot of people speak my native language [Vietnamese], so it’s okay to use English.’ These findings underscore the importance of understanding and implementing translingual practices in CSL writing education based on rhetorical situations (such as purpose, audience, context, and topic). In the following paragraphs, we will illustrate how students used translingual practices in their CSL writing based on their proficiency levels.

The findings showed that students at the 200 level commonly inserted non-Chinese resources in their CSL writing with limited adaptation. This was reflected by students’ insertion of direct translations (see Figure 2) and well-recognized non-Chinese concepts (see Figure 3) in Chinese sentences. For example, Student I from Mongolia included the English transliterations of the Mongolian words ‘Gandan’ and ‘Zaisan’ in a sentence, ‘我们会参观三个景点：Gandan寺、国家历史博物馆和Zaisan纪念馆。’ (We will visit three attractions: Gandan Monastery, the National Museum of History, and the Zaisan Memorial.). Similarly, a Vietnamese student wrote, ‘早上, 试一试越南全世界有名的特色牛肉河粉, 叫 “Pho”。’ (In the morning, try the famous Vietnamese specialty beef noodle soup called ‘Pho’). These linguistic expressions can be viewed as translingual practices, as they not only interweave Chinese with English but also incorporate elements from the students’ Mongolian and Vietnamese cultures in their CSL writing. Interview feedback further substantiated these translingual practices. For example, Student F from Vietnam said, ‘Vietnamese plays quite an important role [in his CSL writing]. We have similar vocabulary. We have similar grammar organization, sometimes even style of writing as well. So, it plays quite an important role.’ This perspective was also shared by other students, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds. These translingual practices indicated that, for these 200-level students, language and cultural resources from their full linguistic repertoire were integral to their CSL writing, even if these resources may not be textually evident. These findings also revealed that non-Chinese resources were typically employed within a Chinese narrative framework with limited adaptation by the 200-level CSL students. This use of translingual practices was also exemplified by the students’ direct incorporation of English words for cultural references, as well as when the cultural terms lacked direct equivalents in Chinese or were not within the students’ current scope of Chinese vocabulary knowledge (see Figures 2 and 3).

The investigation into CSL students’ translingual practices revealed variations in their linguistic and cultural applications as their language proficiency increased. At the 200 level, students typically incorporated straightforward translations and familiar non-Chinese terms into their Chinese sentences with little adaptation. At the 300 level, their translingual practices became more strategic and nuanced. For instance, Student J from the US wrote, ‘首先, 你需要记得最重点就是这个: 中国人的‘客气’不就是西方人的 ‘polite’。’ (First of all, you need to remember the most important point: the Chinese ‘courtesy’ is not equivalent to the Western ‘polite’). This sentence (see Figure 4) reflected a more sophisticated use of her language and cultural resources than her 200-level counterparts, as she did not merely translate or insert words from another language but considered the rhetorical effect of the term ‘polite’ on her audience by highlighting the cultural nuances between Chinese courtesy and Western politeness. Other 300-level student examples included, ‘不过, 中国人用谦虚两三次推辞夸奖, 那西方人能感觉有点尴尬, 能觉得这所不受夸奖的人有点 ‘fake’。’ (However, when Chinese people modestly decline compliments two or three times, Westerners might feel a bit awkward and might think that the person who refuses the compliments is a bit ‘fake’.) and ‘WeChat 和WhatsApp最大的差别是 WeChat 不单是一个交往的应用，而是一个人际交互工具。’ (The main distinction between WeChat and WhatsApp is that WeChat is not just a networking app, but an interpersonal interaction tool.) (see Figures 5 and 6). These linguistic expressions revealed that the 300-level students’ translingual practices became more strategic and nuanced in that they utilized different language resources (e.g. ‘polite’, ‘fake’, ‘WeChat’, and ‘WhatsApp’) to convey cultural meanings rather than simply inserting translated or familiar English words into Chinese sentences. In the interview, Student M from Italy said, ‘I write the [CSL essay] outline in English, and then I say, how can I explain this? Then, I would say I will just use the Italian word for that. So, they have different roles.’ Similarly, other 300-level students articulated a conscious and deliberate approach to their translingual practices, which emphasized their strategic selection and nuanced application of non-Chinese resources based on the rhetorical demands of their written communication in Chinese.

At the 400 level, students showed an advanced capacity for translingual and transcultural communication in their CSL writing. They orchestrated different language and cultural resources to foster a dialogue that deepened their translingual engagement with the content and enriched transcultural understanding. For example, a Mongolian CSL student wrote, ‘这样蒙古佛教学者创造了一个不同的历法，叫 “Tugsbayasgalant”, 这在文化上是蒙古人独有的。’ (Mongolian Buddhist scholars have created a unique calendar called ‘Tugsbayasgalant’, which is culturally exclusive to Mongolians.) (see Figure 7). This linguistic expression did more than translation; it situated a culturally significant Mongolian concept within the context of CSL writing, thereby inviting readers to engage with Mongolian cultural identity. Similarly, the incorporation of cultural references such as ‘《尚气》的辱华争议出自于文武(梁朝伟饰)和满大人(The Mandarin)的联系。’ (The controversy over ‘Shang-Chi’ stems from the connection between Wenwu (played by Tony Leung) and The Mandarin.) and ‘《小王子》 (The Little Prince) 是一部在儿童文学界很经典的作品。’ (‘The Little Prince’ is a classic work in the realm of children’s literature.) (see Figures 8 and 9) extended beyond language integration to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of cultural interplay. The use of ‘The Mandarin’ and ‘The Little Prince’ was not just to provide an equivalent English translation but to connect their CSL content with the original English work. Student L, in the interview, stated, ‘Since they [her audience] understand English really well too, I think it [incorporating some English terms for cultural references] helps me communicate with them faster.’ This perspective resonated with Student K. Their linguistic expressions and illustrations reflected their translingual and transcultural competence to orchestrate different resources for meaning-making.

In sum, the exploration of CSL students’ writing across different proficiency levels has illuminated a trajectory of increasing sophistication in translingual practices. Beginning at the 200 level, students integrated direct translations and familiar concepts from different language resources with minimal adaptation to express their ideas within a predominantly Chinese narrative framework. At the 300 level, students’ translingual practices became more strategic by employing different language resources to highlight cultural nuances. At the 400 level, students exhibited a high degree of linguistic dexterity and cultural sensitivity, which was showcased by their translingual and transcultural competence in constructing knowledge and meaning. These variations underscore the critical role of language proficiency in translingual practices for CSL writing.

Research question 2: How did CSL students from different proficiency levels perceive translingual practices?

The investigation of students’ perceptions of translingual practices in CSL writing uncovered that the 200-level students adopted a cautious approach, while the 300-level and 400-level learners took a more inclusive and sophisticated orientation.

The 200-level CSL students showed a complex relationship with their translingual practices. They used non-Chinese resources for practical purposes (as revealed in the previous subsection); however, they viewed these resources as hindrances to writing ‘accurately’ in Chinese. The interviews reflected their preference for an immersive Chinese language experience while grappling with the ‘constraints’ of their existing linguistic knowledge, which indicated a monolingual orientation to CSL writing. For instance, Student A from Morocco said, ‘No’, when asked about the incorporation of non-Chinese resources in CSL writing, and explained, ‘I’m learning Chinese, so why do I use other languages? I want to learn Chinese.’ This sentiment resonated with Student I from Mongolia, who answered, ‘No, because, like, when I look up what I want to express in Chinese. I feel like I learn a lot of Chinese. I think they [non-Chinese resources] would hinder me because I would just use them as a crutch. I wouldn’t like, look up like, what is the way to properly convey this in Chinese.’ Similarly, Student D from Russia stated, ‘No, because those [who] grade it [her CSL writing] will not understand.’ This perspective was common among their peers at the 200 level, which reflected their understanding of non-Chinese resources as distractions from their goal of learning CSL writing. These students used non-Chinese resources as a scaffold in their learning process; however, they expressed a concern that over-reliance on these resources could lead to ‘improper’ language use and misunderstandings. Their aim was to learn Chinese in a way that respects its unique linguistic and cultural norms and writing conventions, which led them to favor strategies that would immerse themselves more fully in the ‘pure’ language. The 200-level students’ views suggested that while they utilized translingual practices for practical reasons, they were concerned about their constraints on the goal of achieving proficiency in CSL writing.

As the 200-level CSL students, the 300-level students both used and were concerned about translingual practices, but they showed a more inclusive orientation to translingual practices. They recognized the practical roles the non-Chinese resources played in their CSL writing processes while also being aware of the potential drawbacks of over-reliance on them. For example, Student G from the US used Google Translate to check grammar mistakes. She exemplified, ‘I like to say 干点东西’ [do something] instead of 做’ [make]. But and then I think there’s also like 一般’ [generally] versus 平常’ [usually]. Mostly, it’s just small things that people won’t correct you if I’m wrong.’ Acknowledging the benefits of English for her CSL writing, she also recognized the ease of falling back on English structures, which may not align with Chinese linguistic norms. She stated, ‘I think the way I write [CSL] essays is the English style’, which suggested that her English language background could complicate her ability to write in a Chinese style. Similarly, Student M from Italy said, ‘In writing Chinese, I write the outline in English first, and I explain and articulate it in Chinese.’ He also admitted, ‘My main obstacle is my native language. Italian is a language where we can write very, very long sentences by just using different prepositions. It’s like a puzzle in Chinese. That doesn’t really work.’ His strategy of writing outlines in English before constructing sentences in Chinese showed an active use of non-Chinese resources as a scaffold for CSL writing; however, his Italian background was viewed as a challenge for CSL writing. Student J from the US said that English helped her to keep ideas flowing smoothly; however, she also acknowledged that translating thought processes from English to Chinese could lead to broken grammar in her CSL writing. These findings revealed a contrast between the 200-level students, who typically rejected the incorporation of non-Chinese resources in their CSL writing, and those at the 300-level, who not only employed but also appreciated the benefits of translingual practices as a foundation and enhancement for their CSL writing. Nevertheless, concerns remained regarding applying rhetorical methods derived from non-Chinese sources within their CSL writing, as this could result in ‘inauthentic’ CSL writing.

The 400-level CSL students’ insights reflected a more nuanced engagement with translingual practices, which emphasized integration over translation. Student K stated, ‘I wouldn’t say translation, or maybe it’s a mix of both [English and Chinese], like, if I think about a topic, the terms will usually be in English, but then this description with some might be English and some might be Chinese.’ Student L echoed this sentiment and said, ‘I think it’s more like the latter [mixing English and Chinese] because I don’t think it’s like a translation, is more like I’m using the ideas from English, and I try to express it in a way to write Chinese.’ Their reflections indicated their understanding of translingual practices as a synthesis of ideas across languages rather than a translation between them. Both students acknowledged the cognitive benefits of these translingual practices for effective communication. In addition, they also emphasized the important role that grammar plays in their translingual practices. Student K said, ‘We should follow the basic ones [grammatical rules]. A very basic one, like the places, the place where the subject should be working to be. Beyond that, I think, as long as the readers can understand, as long as the things that the other wanna say is able to deliver to the readers, I think it doesn’t matter.’ Student L agreed and commented, ‘If your grammar is not good, it’s really hard for people to understand what you’re trying to say . . . So, perhaps we need to balance like between grammatical accuracy and creativity.’ These findings indicated the 400-level students’ understanding of translingual practices in their CSL writing, where the interplay of languages and cultures enriched their knowledge construction and improved their communicative capacity. They considered translingual practices as a strategy to create meaning and enhance communication rather than strict adherence to monolingual norms. Their emphasis on grammar underscores the crucial role that language proficiency plays in making translingual practices both meaningful and effective, while also hinting at a somewhat static perception of language norms and writing conventions.

To summarize, our examination of CSL students’ perceptions across different language proficiency levels revealed varying stances on translingual practices. Across proficiency levels, students’ perceptions reflected some notable differences – ranging from viewing translingual practices as challenges to recognizing them as valuable resources for deeper linguistic insight and cultural comprehension. The 400-level students exemplified this variation by not viewing translingual practices as translation but as a way to cultivate a richer and more nuanced form of communication. Thus, translingual practices enhanced the construction of meaning and the articulation of individual voices within their CSL writing. To a certain extent, these variations underscore the influence of language proficiency on translingual practices and suggest a balance between navigating linguistic norms and writing conventions and exercising agency for creative exploration.

VI Discussion and conclusions

This study’s findings substantiate translingual practices in CSL writing education. The approaches that multilingual students used and perceived translingual practices emphasize the crucial role of language proficiency in the adept use of diverse language and cultural resources, which, in turn, can influence pedagogical dynamics in multilingual educational settings (Ene et al., 2019; Severino, 2017). The lower to higher proficiency levels corresponds with an increasingly sophisticated use of language and cultural resources, which indicates that as multilingual students’ linguistic competencies expand, so too does their ability to engage in more strategic and nuanced translingual practices. This development in learners’ abilities can help foster a comprehensive and inclusive approach to language pedagogy (Canagarajah, 2013; García & Li, 2014; Horner et al., 2011). In light of the growing emphasis on translingual pedagogies (Sun, 2022; Sun & Lan, 2021b), it becomes crucial to take students’ language proficiency into account when implementing them in the classroom. As Halliday (1978) argues, language proficiency is more than a communicative tool; it includes an in-depth comprehension of the language’s nuances and its use in various cultural contexts. Therefore, the improvement of language proficiency can enable multilingual learners to handle language complexities with enhanced cultural sensitivities. Such enhancement is imperative to meet students’ diverse academic demands and to facilitate appropriate applications of translingual practices across varied rhetorical situations.

While the importance of language proficiency in translingual practices for multilingual education is recognized, the study reveals that students with lower proficiency tend to prefer an ‘authentic’ language learning experience, which could result in a deficit approach to non-target language resources in their learning process. This approach, which essentially views additional language resources as deficiencies, has been widely criticized across language and writing-related fields (Canagarajah, 2013; García et al., 2021; Sun, 2023); however, it remains pervasive in language and writing education (Horner et al., 2010; Sun & Feng, 2024). Such a stance might stem from these students’ limited metalinguistic knowledge and a corresponding lack of confidence in creatively utilizing different language and cultural resources. The 200-level students’ cautious approach in this study is rooted in their desire to adhere closely to what they perceive as the ‘authentic’ linguistic norms, which suggests an underlying influence of monolingual ideologies (Bou Ayash, 2016; Lu & Horner, 2013; Xie & Sun, 2023, 2024). To address this, pedagogical strategies are needed to raise students’ awareness of the legitimacy of translingual practices, even at the initial stages of language learning. Instruction could clearly articulate the benefits of drawing upon one’s entire linguistic repertoire and show how translingual practices can facilitate the learning process without undermining the learning of target language norms and writing conventions.

The findings also show that multilingual students’ higher proficiency levels tend to lead to a more inclusive approach to translingual practices. This development is showcased by a more strategic use of different language and cultural resources, which reflects an enhanced metalinguistic awareness that allows students to draw on various languages and cultures to construct meaning in more complex and nuanced ways. Nevertheless, these students did not critically reflect on this awareness; they regarded linguistic norms and writing conventions as somewhat static, even while recognizing their benefits in learning CSL writing. As Li (2023) contends, the goal of translingual pedagogies should be ‘to raise critical metalinguistic awareness, or critical sociolinguistic sensitivities as I would prefer to call, about such historically rooted and ideologically driven tensions in the community’ (p. 301). Thus, it is essential to foster a critical metalinguistic awareness among multilingual students to help them understand language as fluid, hybrid, and negotiated rather than fixed, discrete, and monolithic (Horner et al., 2011; Li, 2018). Such a critical perspective is vital for guiding students to perceive translingual practices not merely as scaffolding but as integral parts of their linguistic repertoire, which can empower them to articulate their identities, convey cultural subtleties, and enhance overall communication.

The findings of this research underscore the importance of fostering students’ translingual and transcultural competence (Pratt et al., 2008). To cultivate this translingual and transcultural competence, it is necessary to enhance both language proficiency and a critical understanding of linguistic norms and writing conventions. For language and writing educators aiming to promote this competency, it is crucial to extend beyond merely advocating for the use of translingual practices. They also need to guide students to enact translingual practices effectively and critically (E. Lee & Canagarajah, 2019; Kunschak, 2021). This pedagogical strategy aligns with a decolonial approach that values linguistic and cultural diversity as enriching educational resources and challenges the conventional perspective that views them as impediments (Canagarajah, 2022; Cushman, 2016; García et al., 2021). Educators need to create a translingual space (Li, 2011) to encourage students to reflect on their language use and to understand the influence of their linguistic choices on their writing (Lu & Horner, 2016). Such reflective practices are essential in developing the translingual and transcultural competence that empowers students to adeptly orchestrate diverse language and cultural resources within their written communication.

In conclusion, this study elucidates the variations in translingual practices across proficiency levels in CSL writing education. The findings underscore the imperative for educators to create a translingual space that values the diversity of multilingual students’ linguistic repertoire and emphasizes the role of translingual practices in fostering inclusive, culturally sensitive, and communicatively effective writing activities. The findings also reveal that translingual practices go beyond mere scaffolding; they are fundamental components of students’ linguistic and writing development. By recognizing translingual practices as integral rather than supplementary, educators can better support students in leveraging their full linguistic repertoire. Even at lower proficiency levels, integrating translingual practices enriches the learning experience by legitimizing students’ existing linguistic and cultural knowledge, while monolingual approaches may limit their ability to make meaningful connections between languages and hinder the development of critical metalinguistic awareness. To achieve this, improving students’ language proficiency is important for making translingual practices meaningful and effective. This research contributes to translingual literature that advocates for the integration of linguistic and cultural diversity as vital educational resources. These resources can not only enhance the learning experience but also support a decolonial approach by raising multilingual students’ critical metalinguistic awareness and encouraging their innovation in linguistic practices. As the globalization of higher education advances, it becomes increasingly important for educators and researchers to adapt to the various linguistic landscapes of their classrooms. Institutions, programs, and educators need to work together to foster learning environments that not only allow but also encourage the use of students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Such an approach will enable students to develop into proficient, confident, and creative writers and prepare them to navigate and contribute to the global academic community.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by the General Program of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province, Jiangsu Education Department, China. (Project number: 23KJSED057).

ORCID iD

Yachao Sun

References

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. https://www.actfl.org/educator-resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines

Arnold

L.R.

(2020). ‘Now I don’t use it at all . . . It’s gone’: Monolingual ideology, multilingual students, and (failed) translingual negotiation strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 54, 318–341.

Atkinson

Crusan

Matsuda

P.K.

, et al. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English, 77, 383–386.

Barbour

Lickorish Quinn

(2020). ‘Los pájaros are feliz and are dreaming about gwiazdy’: Facilitating translingual creative writing in the primary classroom. English in Education, 54, 6–26.

Bou Ayash

. (2016). Conditions of (im)possibility: Postmonolingual language representations in academic literacies. College English, 78(6), 555–577.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Cai

(2024). ‘I will be more inclusive towards students from different backgrounds’: Exploring Chinese teachers’ language ideologies and views about teaching Mandarin. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45, 337–357.

Canagarajah

A.S.

(2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.

Canagarajah

A.S.

(2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39, 31–54.

10.

Canagarajah

A.S.

(2022). Challenges in decolonizing linguistics: The politics of enregisterment and the divergent uptakes of translingualism. Educational Linguistics, 1, 25–55.

11.

Creese

Blackledge

(2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.

12.

Creswell

J.W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

13.

Cushman

(2016). Translingual and decolonial approaches to meaning making. College English, 78, 234–242.

14.

Dovchin

(2021). Translanguaging, emotionality, and English as a second language immigrants: Mongolian background women in Australia. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 839–865.

15.

Ene

McIntosh

Connor

(2019). Using intercultural rhetoric to examine translingual practices of postgraduate L2 writers of English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 105–110.

16.

Fang

Huang

(2023). Exploring the complexity of linguistic minority students’ use of and attitudes toward everyday translanguaging practices. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 46, 233–252.

17.

García

Flores

Seltzer

Otheguy

Rosa

(2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18, 203–228.

18.

García

(2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Pivot.

19.

Gevers

(2018). Translingualism revisited: Language difference and hybridity in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 73–83.

20.

Gilyard

(2016). The rhetoric of translingualism. College English, 78, 284–289.

21.

Guerra

J.C.

(2016). Cultivating a rhetorical sensibility in the translingual writing classroom. College English, 78, 228–233.

22.

Halliday

M.A.K.

(1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

23.

Han

(2024). Translanguaging as a pedagogy: Exploring the use of teachers’ and students’ bilingual repertoires in Chinese language education. Applied Linguistics Review, 15, 1433–1451.

24.

Horner

M.-Z.

Jones Royster

Trimbur

(2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73, 303–321.

25.

Horner

M.-Z.

Matsuda

P.K.

(Eds.). (2010). Cross-language relations in composition. Southern Illinois University Press.

26.

Itoi

Mizukura

(2024). Experience of Japanese exchange students in EMI programmes: Benefits and issues of translanguaging. International Journal of Multilingualism, 21, 1434–1453.

27.

King

(2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassell

Symon

(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257–270). Sage.

28.

Kunschak

(2021). Translingual transcultural competence: Student agency, teacher guidance, and program support. Language Learning in Higher Education, 11, 343–358.

29.

Kuteeva

(2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: Students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 287–300.

30.

Lapadat

J.C.

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Mills

A.J.

Durepos

Weibe

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 926–927). Sage.

31.

Lee

(2023). Writing toward a decolonial option: A bilingual Student’s multimodal composing as a site of translingual activism and justice. Written Communication, 40, 59–89.

32.

Lee

Canagarajah

(2019). The connection between transcultural dispositions and translingual practices in academic writing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 14, 14–28.

33.

Lee

(2016). Beyond translingual writing. College English, 79, 174–195.

34.

Lee

J.W.

Jenks

(2016). Doing translingual dispositions. College Composition and Communication, 68, 317–344.

35.

(2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222–1235.

36.

(2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30.

37.

(2023). Towards critical translanguaging pedagogy – new ways of raising and answering questions from a global south perspective. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 20, 298–303.

38.

M.-Z.

Horner

(2013). Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75, 582–611.

39.

M.-Z.

Horner

(2016). Introduction: Translingual work. College English, 78, 207–218.

40.

Matsuda

P.K.

(2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 129, 478–483.

41.

Nowell

L.S.

Norris

J.M.

White

D.E.

Moules

N.J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13.

42.

Pratt

M.L.

Geisler

Kramsch

, et al. (2008). Transforming college and university foreign language departments. Modern Language Journal, 92, 287–293.

43.

Severino

(2017). ‘Multilingualizing’ composition: A diary self-study of learning Spanish and Chinese. Composition Studies, 45, 12–31.

44.

Silva

Wang

(2020). Reconciling translingualism and second language writing. Routledge.

45.

Sun

(2022). Implementation of translingual pedagogies in EAL writing: A systematic review. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221090665

46.

Sun

(2023). Increasing critical language awareness through translingual practices in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62, Article 101229.

47.

Sun

(2024). Power dynamics in translingual practices for Chinese as a second language writing education. Language Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000089

48.

Sun

Feng

(2024). Translingual practices for EAL writing education in non-EMI contexts. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3352

49.

Sun

Lan

(2021a). Enactment of a translingual approach to writing. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 398–426.

50.

Sun

Lan

(2021b). Research trends in ‘trans-’ studies on writing: A bibliometric analysis. System, 103, Article 102640.

51.

Sun

Lan

(2023). A bibliometric analysis on L2 writing in the first 20 years of the 21st century: Research impacts and research trends. Journal of Second Language Writing, 59, Article 100963.

52.

Sun

Lan

(2024). Trans-studies on writing for English as an additional language. Cambridge University Press.

53.

Sun

Lan

Zhang

(2023). Pedagogical values of translingual practices in improving student feedback literacy in academic writing. Assessing Writing, 56, Article 100715.

54.

Sun

Yang

Silva

(2021) Multimodality in L2 writing: Intellectual roots and contemporary developments. In Shin

Cimasko

(Eds.), Multimodal composing in K-16 ESL and EFL education (pp. 3–16). Springer.

55.

Tian

Lau

S.M.C.

(2023). Translanguaging pedagogies in a Mandarin–English dual language bilingual education classroom: Contextualised learning from teacher–researcher collaboration. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26, 960–974.

56.

Velasco

García

(2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37, 6–23.

57.

Wang

(2024). Translanguaging as a decolonising approach: Students’ perspectives towards integrating indigenous epistemology in language teaching. Applied Linguistics Review, 15, 1385–1406.

58.

Wang

Curdt-Christiansen

X.L.

(2019). Translanguaging in a Chinese–English bilingual education programme: A university-classroom ethnography. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 322–337.

59.

(2022). Effects of production modalities on syntactic complexity in intermediate level CSL learners. Chinese Teaching in the World, 36, 399–415.

60.

Xie

Sun

(2023). Pedagogical implications of translingual practices for content and language integrated learning. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2023-0057

61.

Xie

Sun

(2024). Decolonizing English academic writing education through translingual practices. Linguistics and Education, 81, Article 101307.

62.

Zhang-Wu

(2023). Rethinking translingualism in college composition classrooms: A digital ethnographic study of multilingual students’ written communication across contexts. Written Communication, 40, 145–174.

63.

Zhang-Wu

Wang

Shapiro

(2023). CLA and translingualism: A (literal) scholarly conversation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, Article 100996.

64.

Zhu

Gao

(2021). Language, culture and curriculum: Lived intercultural experience of international students. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 34, 458–465.