Jorge Pinto1 Centre of Linguistics of the University of Lisbon, Portugal Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging and Its Uses in Portuguese Foreign Language Classrooms A b s t r a c t Recent research has shown that L1 use can serve important cognitive, communicative, and social functions in communicative foreign and second language learning (Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009). In the context of Chinese universities, Meij and Zhao (2010) argue that there is widespread agreement among administrators that L1 should not be used in L2 class- rooms and that both teachers and students should follow this norm. However, in their study, they found that translanguaging practice is perceived by teachers and students as a useful approach to achieve desired learning outcomes. Other studies (Cai & Cook, 2015; Littlewood & Fang, 2011) have shown that teachers use L1 in L2 class for specific functions: addressing personal needs, giving direction in class, managing class, and ensuring student understand- ing. The aim of this paper is to present a study of university teachers’ attitudes towards and uses of translanguaging in Portuguese as foreign language classrooms. The participants were 31 Chinese teachers, all native speakers of Mandarin in mainland China. They answered a questionnaire to collect information related to the importance that teachers assign to dif- ferent uses of translanguaging. Findings indicate that the majority of the teachers believe that the use of the students’ L1 by the teacher or students could improve Portuguese learning in various ways, especially in the first levels. Keywords: translanguaging, Portuguese, foreign language, Chinese teaching context Monolingual instructional practices have long been criticized by many scholars who advocate the relevance of first language (L1) use in second lan- guage (L2) learning (Cook, 2001; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Macaro, 2001; Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, among others). The last decade has witnessed 1 The author thanks the financial support of the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UIDB / 00214/2020). Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition vol. 6 (1), 2020, pp. 11–30 https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.7742 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5583-880X https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en Jorge Pinto12 an increasing interest in the roles that the languages of the students’ linguistic repertoire play in learning a new language, as nowadays many learners have multilingual competence and are integrated in a multilingual society. Thus, the mixed and original character of the linguistic knowledge of multilingual students cannot be understood as the mere sum of the partial knowledge of each language (Grosjean, 2001; Herdina & Jessner, 2000) but as a linguistic multicompetence (Cook, 1996). Multilingualism implies the construction of a linguistic awareness that enables learners, as they incorporate new languages into their repertoire, to seek similarities between the languages already acquired and the new ones and to develop strategies to deal with differences, thus facili- tating their acquisition (González Piñeiro, Guillén Díaz, & Vez, 2010). As this knowledge is evident in bi/multilingual classrooms and should be considered in language learning, we have witnessed an increasing interest in the discursive practices of bi/multilingual speakers beyond the usual codeswitching of L1–L2. In this sense, researchers have developed the concept of translanguaging to refer to bilingual or multilingual oral interaction (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García, 2009) and to the use of different languages in written texts (Canagarajah, 2011) that require flexible instructional strategies in foreign language teaching (Wiley & Garcia, 2016). Recognizing the importance of the use of all the linguistic repertoire of learners in the Portuguese foreign language classroom, we conducted a study to survey the perceptions of university Chinese teachers in Mainland China with regard to translanguaging. The focus is to specify and understand teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards the possible functions and reasons of translanguag- ing in the classroom context. Therefore, the teachers answered a questionnaire, whose results indicated that the participant teachers are in general aware of the uses of translanguaging in the classroom and believe in its importance. Translanguaging in the Classroom The term translanguaging in education is currently widely used in differ- ent parts of the world. This concept emerged in the 1980s with the works of Williams and Whittal, and afterwards, the term itself was coined as trawsieithu (in Welsh) by Williams (1994) to refer to pedagogical practices observed in Welsh schools, where English and Welsh were used for different purposes in the same lesson. Later, the term was translated into English, initially as ‘trans- linguifying’ and then as ‘translanguaging’ (Baker, 2001). The concept was developed later by many researchers in the field, and it has assumed different perspectives and uses. From a linguistic point of Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 13 view, translanguaging is “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic rep- ertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politi- cally defined boundaries of named languages” (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, p. 281). As García (2009) indicated, language classrooms in our cen- tury are moving from monolingualism towards translingualism, encouraging the flexible use of learners’ languages rather than treating this linguistic knowledge separately, not considering it at all, or viewing it as a negative influence. Therefore, it is necessary to change the paradigm to a holistic view of language that involves a new vision of language, speakers, and repertoires (Cenoz, 2017). From a pedagogical perspective, translanguaging “is planned by the teacher inside the classroom and can refer to the use of different languages for input and output or to other planned strategies based on the use of students’ resources from the whole linguistic repertoire” (Cenoz, 2017, p. 194). Lewis, Jones, and Baker (2012, p. 644), referring to Williams’s (1996) consideration of translanguaging as a pedagogical theory, explained that the process of translanguaging uses various cognitive processing skills in listening and reading, the assimilation and accommodation of information, choosing and selecting from the brain storage to communicate in speaking and writing. Thus, translanguaging requires a deeper understanding than just translating as it moves from finding parallel words to processing and relaying meaning and understanding. Wei (2016, p. 8) argues that the trans- prefix in ‘translanguaging’ highlights: – the fluid practices that go beyond, that is, transcend, socially constructed language systems and structures to engage diverse multiple meaning-making systems and subjectivities; – the transformative capacity of the translanguaging process not only for language systems, but also for individuals’ cognition and social structures; – the transdisciplinary consequences of re-conceptualising language, lan- guage learning, and language use for linguistics, psychology, sociology, and education. Translanguaging has been broadly accepted as an effective approach to bilingual and multilingual education (Canagarajah, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; among others). Cenoz and Gorter (2017a, p. 904), in line with Lewis et al. (2012), also distinguish another use of the concept, namely “spontaneous translanguaging [that] is considered the more universal form of translanguaging because it can take place inside and outside the classroom.” Baker (2001, pp. 281–282) proposes four pedagogical advantages of trans- languaging: Jorge Pinto14 – It may promote a deeper and fuller understanding of the subject matter. If learners have understood the subject matter in two languages, they have re- ally understood it, which may not clearly happen in a monolingual situation. – It may help the development of the weaker language, as it may prevent learn- ers from undertaking the main part of their work in their stronger language while attempting less challenging tasks through the weaker language. – It may facilitate home-school links and cooperation. If the learner is being educated in a language that is not understood by the parents, he can use the minority language to discuss the subject matter with them and be supported by them in his schoolwork. – It may help the integration of fluent speakers with early learners. If L2 learn- ers are integrated with fluent L1 speakers, and if sensitive and strategic use is made of both languages in class, L2 ability and subject content learning can be developed concurrently. Cenoz and Gorter (2017b) claim that translanguaging can be used in differ- ent ways in language and in content classes. In this work, they present some contributions (concerning translanguaging in input and output, the use of the L1 as a resource in language and in CLIL/CBI classes, and translanguaging in writing) that demonstrate the positive effect of translanguaging involving dif- ferent languages and educational contexts, showing that teachers and learners use translanguaging in the classroom to ensure understanding, and that learners adopt identical strategies for writing in different languages. L1 and Target Language Uses in Chinese Foreign Language Classrooms Studies of the teaching of English as a foreign language in China (e.g., Hu, 2002) have shown that the traditional approach has been a combination of the grammar-translation method and audiolingualism, as with other foreign languages. However, as this approach has failed to develop an adequate level of communicative competence in learners, since the late 1980s, an effort has been made to introduce communicative language teaching into China. Nevertheless, many teachers and learners have not really changed their traditional conception of language instruction and their practices have remained the same. Recently, a new teaching model for foreign languages is being implemented, namely a combination of lecture-based teaching and interactive teaching, to ensure the students’ mastery of the target language (Jie & Keong, 2014). The majority of studies on the uses of L1 in Chinese foreign languages classrooms concern codeswitching, not translanguaging (e.g., Cai & Cook, 2015; Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 15 Cheng, 2013; Meij & Zhao, 2010; Tian & Macaro, 2012; Xie, 2017). However, more recently, a few translanguaging studies have been conducted in this con- text (e.g., Wang, 2019a, 2019b; Wei, 2016). In China, even though most foreign language teachers are at least bilin- gual, in the context of classroom formal education code-switching tends not to be allowed (Cheng, 2013). As this author states (2013, p. 1279), on the one hand, “most of the foreign language classes are language subject oriented, which makes the argument for using the L1 seem less secured”; on the other hand, national curricula hardly prescribe or suggest explicitly the classroom instructional language, more precisely, the relation between Chinese and the foreign language. For instance, in the Teaching Curriculum for English Majors (2000), just one line is devoted to the language of instruction, stating that for this purpose only English should be used. Although there is no clear official guidance in this regard, codeswitching is a reality in foreign language classrooms, with its use varying according to several factors, as we will see from the studies presented below. Meij and Zhao (2010) found that teachers’ language proficiency, students’ language proficiency, and course types influence the frequency and length of classroom codeswitching practices that are considered useful approaches in the context of Chinese universities to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Littlewood and Fang (2011) found variations of mother tongue use in dif- ferent mainland China and Hong Kong school contexts. This comparative study showed that the main functions of the learners’ mother tongue include address- ing personal needs, managing classroom discipline, and guaranteeing learner understanding. Nevertheless, their study indicates that foreign language use should be maximized to provide a conducive learning environment by exposing students to appropriate language input. Cai and Cook (2015) present a list of pedagogical functions of learners’ L1 (Chinese) in tertiary English language teaching, which includes explaining difficult language, giving direction in class, and managing the class and in- teractions between teachers and students. Both teachers and learners use both languages for specific purposes. Another study conducted by Yan, Fung, Liu, and Huang (2016) in seven secondary schools and four universities in southern China showed that learn- ers tended to use more foreign language in course content-related activities and less in discussions on administrative subjects such as assignments and exams. Wang (2019b) carried out research in 27 countries on students’ and teachers’ attitudes and practices related to translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms. She concluded that “translanguaging in foreign language class- rooms has by and large contributed to giving voice to students for meaning Jorge Pinto16 negotiation at different levels. This has all helped to acknowledging students’ input and the importance of rapport among all classroom participants” (p. 145). Wang (p. 146) pointed to some relevant aspects that should be considered in language teacher education for the development of translanguaging theories and practices: – Renew knowledge on language learning: the integration of translanguaging in foreign language teaching requires the reconstitution of teachers’ knowledge of languages and their teaching. – Facilitate structured translanguaging strategies: it is important to give ex- plicit guidance to teachers; otherwise, their translanguaging pedagogy will continue to develop by trial and error. Only through teachable translanguag- ing strategies can language teachers meet the challenges posed by the ever- increasing diversity in multilingual foreign language classrooms. – Develop a transformative teacher-student role: teachers leave the role that traditional teaching has given them and take on the role of facilitators who organize learning situations in collaboration with students. The new roles of teacher and student blend and identify by acquiring joint responsibility. In a multilingual classroom, teachers should create an environment that allows students to bring to the classroom the languages they know and see them as legitimate and valued as important inputs. Wei (2016) conducted a study of “new Chinglish” from a translanguaging perspective. He argues that new Chinglish originated in a new translanguag- ing space in China that defies the traditional boundaries of languages. As Wei says, “It is a Post-Multilingualism phenomenon that transcends language and languages. It is Translanguaging at its best” (p. 20). In his perspective, post-multilingualism does not refer to the co-existence or co-use of multiple languages, but to the promotion of translanguaging practices while protecting the identity and integrity of individual languages, and to the expression of “one’s cultural values and sociopolitical views through a language or multiple languages that are traditionally associated with the Other or Others” (p. 20). The Study Methodology The aim of the present study is not to contend whether the L1 can be used or not in classroom, but to determine Chinese-university Portuguese teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards the possible functions, reasons, and rationales of translanguaging in the context of foreign language teaching. Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 17 The study considered the following research questions: (1) What attitudes do Chinese teachers have towards teachers’ use of stu- dents’ L1? (2) What attitudes do Chinese teachers have towards the students’ use of their L1? (3) What do teachers think are the benefits and detriments of using stu- dents’ L1 in the classroom? Thirty-one Chinese teachers, all native speakers of Mandarin from main- land China universities, took part in this study. These subjects constitute a non-probabilistic convenience sampling. The participants completed an on- line survey (based on McMillan & Rivers, 2011, and on Nambisan, 2014) that allowed us to gather information concerning the importance that teachers place on several uses of translanguaging. We expected that the anonymity of an online survey would encourage teachers to answer honestly accord- ing to their beliefs. The survey included ten questions (nine closed-ended ones, some of them scored on a Likert scale, and one open-ended question). The open-ended question sought more personal and relevant answers about the benefits and harms of translanguaging. The teachers were also asked to indicate their mother tongue (since there are also Portuguese and Brazilian teachers teaching Portuguese as a foreign language in China) and how many years of teaching experience they had as a foreign language teacher. This research included the use of both quantitative and qualita- tive methods; as Gass and Mackey (2011) emphasise, when applied for data collection, questionnaires can provide both quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Findings and Discussion First, we sought to determine the primary language of instruction in Portuguese Foreign Language classes. Most participants (70.97%, 22 teach- ers) selected the option ‘Portuguese and Mandarin’ as the two languages used equally in the classroom. Of the remaining teachers, five (16.13%) taught us- ing Mandarin as the main language of instruction and four (12.90%) using Portuguese. In an English classroom context in China, Cheng (2013) obtained different results: 60% of the teachers claimed to use more than 80% English in class, and only 6.3% of the participants used less than 60% English. In this case, the foreign language is almost always the predominant language in the classroom. Jorge Pinto18 12,90% 16,13% 70,97% Main language of instruction in class Portuguese Mandar in Portuguese and Mandarin Figure 1. Main language of instruction in class. Figure 1 shows that these teachers are aware of the benefits of using learn- ers’ L1 along with Portuguese, as it assists them in developing their communica- tive competence in the latter. These results accord with those obtained in other studies, such as Bernard (2013) and Liu (2011). The choices of the languages of instruction of these teachers reflect Cook’s (1992) perspective when he argues that the L2 develops alongside and interacts with the learner L1 rather than developing separately from it. When asked if they believe that use of students L1 in the classroom is im- portant for learning Portuguese, 87.10% of the teachers in question said ‘Yes’ and 12.90% ‘No,’ as shown in Figure 2. This is in line with the answers to the first question. As Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) claim, L1 could be a useful tool for gaining control over the task and working at a higher cognitive level. 87,10% 12,90% Do you believe that the use of the students' L1 in the classroom is important for learning Portuguese? Yes No Figure 2. The importance of the use of students’ L1 in the classroom for learn- ing Portuguese. Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 19 Therefore, “[t]o insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an impor- tant cognitive tool” (Swain & Lapkin, 2000, pp. 268–269). The first question asked participants to indicate the frequency with which they observed or stimulated the use of the students’ L1 in the classroom. The items of the questions appear in three groups of uses for data description and discussion. The first group comprises situations that are related to discussing content in class: “to discuss content or tasks in small groups’ and ‘to answer teachers’ questions” (Table 1). Table 1 Uses of translanguaging: Teachers How often do you observe or stimulate the use of your students’ L1 for the following purposes? Never Not often Somewhat often Often Very often [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] To discuss content or tasks in small groups 3.23 22.58 38.71 25.81 9.68 To answer a teacher’s question 12.90 29.03 45.16 3.23 9.68 The use of the students’ L1 in events related to discussing content in class are encouraged or observed ‘somewhat often’ in the classrooms by the par- ticipants. Only a smaller percentage of teachers ‘never’ or ‘not often’ observe, or encourage the use of L1 in these situations. Other studies (e.g., Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003) support this use of translanguaging to discuss content or tasks in class. This means that L1 could be a useful tool for having control over tasks and contents. The second group involves the participation of the students. The translan- guaging uses included in this group are ‘to assist peers during tasks’ and ‘to enable participation by lower proficiency students.’ As shown in Table 2, teachers use translanguaging frequently to help stu- dents participate, since the majority of them answer the first item ‘Somewhat often’ (41.94%) and ‘Often’ (32.26%) and the second ‘Somewhat often’ (45.16%) and ‘Often’ (32.26%). Comparison of Tables 1 and 2 shows that these uses are roughly as common as those related to discussing content in class, and are in line with the results of McMillan and Rivers (2011). The third group of uses refers to the treatment of subjects unrelated to class content, comprising ‘to explain problems not related to content’ and ‘to ask permission to do something.’ Jorge Pinto20 Table 2 Uses of translanguaging: Teachers How often do you observe or stimulate the use of your students’ L1 for the following purposes? Never Not often Somewhat often Often Very often [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] To assist peers during tasks 0.00 19.35 41.94 32.26 6.45 To enable participation by lower proficiency students 0.00 12.90 45.16 32.26 9.68 Table 3 Uses of translanguaging: Teachers How often do you observe or stimulate the use of your students’ L1 for the following purposes? Never Not often Somewhat often Often Very often [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] To explain problems not related to content 0.00 9.68 54.84 29.03 6.45 To ask permission to do something 3.23 22.58 58.06 12.90 3.23 Table 3 indicates that the use ‘to ask permission’ is more common than the use ‘to explain problems not related to content,’ but there is not a significant difference between them. For the first item, teachers answered ‘Somewhat of- ten’ (54.84%), ‘Often’ (29.03%), and ‘Very Often’ (6.45%), and for the second item, ‘Somewhat often’ (58.06%), ‘Often’ (12.90%), and ‘Very Often’ (3.23%). The percentages of the answers ‘Never’ and ‘Not often’ are much lower for both items, especially the first. From the two last tables we see that these uses of translanguaging are observed and stimulated more often than those related to classroom content and involve student participation. The next question asked how important they rated the possible use of translanguaging by students for certain purposes. The majority of teachers think (see Table 4) that the use of the students’ L1 ‘to discuss content or tasks in small groups’ is important (54.84%), but the second item in this group, ‘to answer to teacher’s question,’ was generally considered not important (54.84%) by teachers. These results reveal a disparity between teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning translanguaging. In the first question, which asked participants the frequency with which they observed or stimulated this second use, the major- ity of the participants indicated frequencies of ‘somewhat often’. Nevertheless, Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 21 although they observe or stimulate this use in their classrooms, they found it to be ‘Not important.’ Table 4 Uses of translanguaging: Students How important do you believe it is for students to use their L1 in the classroom within the following situations? Not important Important Very important [%] [%] [%] To discuss content or tasks in small groups 35.48 54.84 9.68 To answer to teacher’s question 54.84 38.71 6.45 Table 5 Uses of translanguaging: Students How important do you believe it is for students to use their L1 in the classroom within the following situations? Not important Important Very important [%] [%] [%] To assist peers during tasks 16.13 77.42 6.45 To translate for a lower- proficiency student 3.23 48.39 48.39 To enable participation by lower-proficiency students 3.23 54.84 41.94 The first item in the second group (see Table 5) is ‘to assist peers during tasks’; this use of the students’ L1 in the classroom was considered impor- tant by participants (77.42%). This is in line with the teachers’ answers to the previous question regarding the frequency of use in the classroom. The second use of translanguaging in this group is the use of the students’ L1 ‘to translate for lower proficiency students.’ Almost all the teachers thought it important (48.39%) or very important (48.39%) in their classrooms. This is in line with the importance given to translation in the teaching and learning of Portuguese in China, where we still see teachers emphasize grammar, transla- tion, vocabulary, and rote memorization (Cai & Cook, 2015; Hu, 2002). The next use of translanguaging in this second group is ‘to enable participation by lower proficiency students,’ which was considered ‘important’ (54.84%) and ‘very important’ (41.94%) by the teachers; only 3.23% of the participants Jorge Pinto22 rated it ‘not important.’ The number of times teachers observed and stimu- lated this use in the classroom corresponds to the importance they give it (see Table 2). Table 6 Uses of translanguaging: Students How important do you believe it is for students to use their L1 in the classroom within the following situations? Not important Important Very important [%] [%] [%] To explain problems not related to content 29.03 77.42 6.45 To ask permission to do something 61.29 35.48 3.23 The first item of the third group of the second question (see Table 6), ‘to explain problems not related to content,’ was rated ‘important’ by a majority of participants (77.42%). However, the second use in this group, ‘to ask permis- sion,’ was classified by the majority of the teachers as ‘not important’ (61.29%), which was the highest rate of ‘not important’ given by teachers to any use of translanguaging by students. The high number of ‘not important’ answers does not match the frequency of ‘somewhat often’ (58.06%) shown in Table 3 with which it is observed or stimulated in the classroom. With the third question, we sought to determine how often teachers use their students’ L1 in several classroom situations so as to obtain informa- tion concerning which classroom translanguaging practices teachers use most frequently. As in the previous questions, we separated the items into three groups to facilitate analysis and comprehension. Following the three-dimensional frame- work proposed by Cook (2001) to analyse the role of the L1 in the classroom (teachers use L1 to convey meaning; teachers use L1 to organize the class; and students use L1 within the class) and the two types of translanguaging strate- gies proposed by García and Wei (2014)—“teacher-directed translanguaging” to give voice, clarity, and support, and to organize the classroom and ask ques- tions; and “student-directed translanguaging” to participate, elaborate ideas, and ask questions—we applied the following division: student-oriented purposes, content-oriented purposes, and classroom-oriented purposes. The first group, student-oriented purposes, comprises ‘to give feedback to students,’ ‘to praise to students,’ ‘to build bonds with students,’ and ‘to help low proficiency students.’ As shown in Table 7, a high frequency of uses of students’ L1 in the classroom is ‘to help low proficiency students,’ with 51.61% of teachers stating that they use it often and only 3.23% stating that they never Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 23 make this use of translanguaging. This is followed by the use ‘to build bonds with students,’ for which 35.48% of teachers use it often and 19.35% very often; less than 20% of responders state that they never or not often use students’ L1 in this situation. Some teachers also used translanguaging ‘to give feedback to students’ ‘somewhat often’ (45.16%) and ‘often’ (35.48%), and ‘to praise stu- dents’ ‘somewhat often’ (48.39%) and ‘often’ (19.35%). These last results are in line with the results of previous studies (e.g., Qian, Tian, & Wang, 2009), demonstrating the importance of using students’ L1 to praise students, as it develops positive attitudes in students and motivates them. Table 7 Uses of translanguaging in different situations: Teachers How often do you use students’ L1 in the classroom for the following situations? Never Not often Somewhat often Often Very often [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] To give feedback to students 3.23 6.45 45.16 35.48 9.68 To praise students 9.68 16.13 48.39 19.35 6.45 To build bonds with students 3.23 16.13 25.81 35.48 19.35 To help low- proficiency students 3.23 0.00 25.81 51.61 19.35 Table 8 Uses of translanguaging in different situations: Teachers How often do you use students’ L1 in the classroom for the following situations? Never Not often Somewhat often Often Very often [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] To explain concepts 0.00 12.90 45.16 35.48 6.45 To describe vocabulary 3.23 12.90 54.84 25.81 3.23 To quickly clarify during class tasks 0.00 6.45 35.48 51.61 6,45 The second group (see Table 8), content-oriented purposes, includes the use of the students’ L1 ‘to explain concepts,’ ‘to describe vocabulary,’ and ‘to quickly clarify during class tasks.’ In this group, the use of translanguaging which is the most observed and stimulated is ‘to quickly clarify during class tasks,’ with 51.61% of the teachers indicating that they use L1 in this situation ‘often.’ Translanguaging was also used ‘somewhat often’ in order ‘to explain concepts’ (45.16%) and ‘to describe vocabulary’ (54.84%). These uses of trans- languaging are clearly present in these teachers’ classrooms since for each item Jorge Pinto24 the percentages for ‘never’ and ‘not often’ are below 20%. As found in previ- ous studies regarding these uses of translanguaging (e.g., McMillan & Rivers, 2011; Qian et al., 2009; Tian & Macaro, 2012; Yan et al., 2016), the majority of participants make use of translanguaging in these situations in their classrooms. Table 9 Uses of translanguaging in different situations: Teachers How often do you use students’ L1 in the classroom for the following situations? Never Not often Somewhat often Often Very often [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] To give directions 0.00 38.71 41.94 16.13 3.23 For classroom management 0.00 25.81 41.94 22.58 9.68 The third group, classroom-oriented purposes, includes ‘to give directions’ and ‘for classroom management.’ In this group, both practices are popular among the teachers in this study (see Table 9). Although more teachers use the students’ L1 ‘for classroom management’ than ‘to give directions,’ the majority of the participants engaged frequently in either use, as shown by a majority of frequent-use percentages (‘somewhat often,’ ‘often,’ and ‘very often’), confirm- ing the results of earlier studies (e.g., McMillan & Rivers, 2011). The next question seeks to determine the importance that the teachers assign to each use of translanguaging. We will follow the organization of the uses of translanguaging used in the previous question to present and discuss the data. The answers of the teachers to this question reveal that they consider their uses of translanguaging for student-oriented purposes generally to be ‘impor- tant’ or ‘very important’ (see Table 10). Table 10 Uses of translanguaging: Teachers How important is it for teachers to use their students’ L1 in the following situations? Not important Important Very important [%] [%] [%] To give feedback to students 19.35 64.52 16.13 To praise students 45.16 35.48 19.35 To build bonds with students 25.81 48.39 25.81 To help low-proficiency students 6.45 48.39 45.16 Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 25 We can infer that teachers see these as relevant uses of the students’ L1 in the classroom. The use considered the most important is ‘to help low proficiency students,’ followed by ‘to give feedback to students.’ However, a high percent- age of teachers consider the use ‘to praise students’ not important (45.16%). However, this does not correspond to their practice, since teachers indicated that they do it in their classes frequently (see Table 7). There is thus a mismatch here between practices and beliefs, which could be related to the pedagogical envi- ronment predominant in China. The affirmation of the communicative approach in foreign language teaching is unstable and the traditional approach is still dominant (Cheng, 2013; Hu, 2002); therefore, teachers are equivocal between the two approaches and their practices and beliefs do not always correspond. As we can see in Table 11, the uses of translanguaging in the second group, content-oriented purposes, are considered important by the majority of participants. The use to which teachers attached most importance was ‘to ex- plain concepts,’ followed by ‘to quickly clarify during class activities’ and ‘to describe vocabulary.’ These results are in line with the frequency with which teachers promote these uses in their classrooms. However, it is interesting to note that the use for ‘describing vocabulary’ is given no higher importance since the methodology of foreign language teaching in China remains focused on learning grammar and vocabulary, as “Chinese classrooms are more teacher- centred and form-focused” (Wang, 2019, p. 140). The results of this study show that methodological changes are underway in the teaching of Portuguese as a foreign language. The majority of Chinese teachers of Portuguese are very young, recent graduates or postgraduates. Even if they were taught at univer- sity following a traditional approach, many of them completed or are receiving their postgraduate education in Portugal and Brazil, where the conception and practice of language teaching is very different. We are witnessing changes in teaching practices and thus find some discrepancies between teachers’ practices and beliefs. However, overall, for the reasons already given, there is consist- ency between the answers about the frequency of translanguaging uses and the importance that teachers assign to each of them. Table 11 Uses of translanguaging: Teachers How important is it for teachers to use their students’ L1 in the following situations? Not important Important Very important [%] [%] [%] To explain concepts 6.45 70.97 22.58 To describe vocabulary 25.81 61.29 12.90 To quickly clarify during class activities 12.90 67.74 19.35 Jorge Pinto26 The majority of the participants consider the use of translanguaging for classroom-oriented purposes important, which again is in line with the uses frequently practiced in their classrooms. As the results show (Table 12), both uses are equally important, as they have the same percentage when we add the results for ‘important’ and ‘very important.’ The number of ‘not important’ answers corresponds to the frequency of use indicated in Table 9. Table 12 Uses of translanguaging: Teachers How important is it for teachers to use their students’ L1 in the following situations? Not important Important Very important [%] [%] [%] To give directions 35.48 51.61 12.90 For classroom management 35.48 54.84 9.68 In the last question of the survey, participants had the opportunity to express more openly what they think about the uses of translanguaging and to describe in which situations they consider the use of the student’s L1 as beneficial or detrimental. We present below some of the teachers’ answers, which are in line globally with the answers to the close-ended questions. T02: “Beneficial: in the first year, as they still do not learn much. Detrimental: for other years, if everything is in the mother tongue, they will not gain mastery of the logic of the Portuguese language.” T04: “In translation classes, it is very important to take advantage of the students’ mother tongue. When learning Portuguese as a language of communication, the influence of the mother tongue is usually nega- tive.” T06: “At the elementary level it can be beneficial to use it, but at advanced levels it becomes detrimental.” T14: “The contrastive analysis between two languages, cultures, uses of words, is important. But the inclination to use L1 in class can be detrimental to learning.” T18: “Beneficial in the clarification of complicated contents, progress of students in the initial phase of learning, understanding of the dif- ferences between the L1 and the target language, improvement of translation capacity, effective organization of classes and others; and detrimental in developing oral comprehension and speaking.” As we can see, there is a tendency to think that the uses of translanguag- ing at advanced levels are detrimental, unlike its use at elementary levels. This is the opposite of what Cook (2001) argues, that initially L1 use is to be Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 27 avoided in order to maximize the learners’ exposure to the target language, but later different teaching methods can be adopted to more effectively make use of L1. Another point apparent in the answers relates to the quantity of L1 used in the classroom; teachers believe that excessive use could be detrimental to learning Portuguese. These results are somewhat in consonance with Littlewood and Fang’s (2011) proposal to maximize target language use to provide an appropriate learning environment in which students are exposed to rich and suitable language input. Another interesting issue regarding these answers is to note that teach- ers believe that the use of translanguaging is fruitful in translations tasks but detrimental in communicative tasks. This suggests that teachers may not be fully aware of the concept of translanguaging or its contexts of use. As Deng (2011) argues, the Chinese learning culture can make teachers’ awareness of the multilingual reality inside a communicative classroom difficult. However, as translanguaging is a recent concept in language learning and there is a lack of explicit taxonomic structures within translanguaging pedagogies, this makes it difficult to apprehend and presents a challenge to teachers seeking to imple- ment these strategies (Canagarajah, 2011). Conclusions Overall, the teachers’ answers to the questionnaire showed that their practices include all uses of translanguaging in the classroom and that most of them consider these uses to be important or even very important. The findings indicate further that only a few teachers rated some of these uses as not important. The results also demonstrate that most of the participants consider the use of students’ L1 for the different purposes indicated in the questionnaire important. While almost all teachers considered the majority of the uses of translanguaging involving the students’ L1 in the classroom important, some of them considered some uses less important, such as the use of stu- dents’ L1 ‘to respond to the teacher’s question’ and ‘to ask permission to do something.’ Concerning the benefits and detriments of using the students’ L1 in the classroom, teachers answered the close-ended questions fairly coherently. They indicated accessing content in Portuguese that students already know in their L1 as a benefit of the uses of translanguaging by using this language to discuss content and tasks. Using L1 also helps some students, particularly Jorge Pinto28 lower proficiency students, to keep up in class, which ultimately helps them to acquire the L2. Other benefits adduced by teachers included improved ability to present clarification. The use of the L1 for this purpose increases students’ comprehension of the content being taught in class or the develop- ment of a task. References Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barnard, R. (2013). Codeswitching in English Asian university EFL classrooms: Ref lecting teachers’ voices. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 396(12), 73–81. Cai, G. Z., & Cook, G. (2015). Extensive own-language use: A case study of tertiary English language teaching in China. Classroom Discourse, 6(3), 242–266. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school contexts: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 193–198. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017a). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901– 912. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017b). Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool in multilingual educa- tion. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 309–321). Switzerland: Springer. Cheng, X. (2013). Research on Chinese college English teachers’ classroom code-switching: Beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1277–1284. Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591. Cook, V. (1996). Competence and multi-competence. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp. 57– 69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Language Review, 57(3), 399–423. Creese, A., &. Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115. Deng, Z. (2011). Confucianism, modernization and Chinese pedagogy: An introduction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 561–568. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2011). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. New York: Routledge. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Basil Blackwell. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. González Piñeiro, M., Guillén Díaz, C., & Vez, J. M. (2010). Didáctica de las lenguas modernas. Competencia plurilingüe e intercultural. Madrid: Editorial Sintesis. Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Translanguaging… 29 Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two lan- guages: Bilingual languages processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). The dynamics of a third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe—The acquisition of a third language (pp. 84–98). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105. Jie, Y., & Keong, Y. (2014). College English teaching methodology and language planning: A pilot study in Hefei, China. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 495–502. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 18, 641–654. Littlewood, W., & Fang, S. (2011). Teachers’ use of the mother tongue in English language classrooms in China’s mainland and Hong Kong. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools (Middle Version), 34(8), 45–48. Liu, Y. (2011). Code-switching in bilingual teaching of business English courses. Journal of Shanghai Business School, 12(6), 94–97. Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531–548. McMillan, B., & Rivers, D. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only.” System, 39, 251–263. Meij, H. V. D., & Zhao, X. G. (2010). Codeswitching in English courses in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 396–411. Nambisan, K. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards and uses of translanguaging in English lan- guage classrooms in Iowa (Master Dissertation). Iowa State University, Iowa. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281– 307. Qian, X., Tian, G., & Wang, Q. (2009). Codeswitching in the primary EFL classroom in China – Two case studies. System, 37, 719–730. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–769. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The Uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. Tian, L., & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with English- only explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university students: A lexical focus-on-form study. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 367–391. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.). (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. UK: Multilingual Matters. Wang, D. (2019a). Multilingualism and translanguaging in Chinese language classrooms. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Wang, D. (2019b). Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: Students and teach- ers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 138–149. Wei, L. (2016). New Chinglish and the Post-Multilingualism challenge: Translanguaging ELF in China. JELF, 5(1), 1–25. Wiley, T., & Garcia, O. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 48–63. Jorge Pinto30 Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Wales, Bangor, UK. Williams, C. (1996). Secondary education: Teaching in the bilingual situation. In C. Williams, G. Lewis, & C. Baker (Eds.), The language policy: Taking stock (pp. 39–78). Llangefni, UK: CAI. Xie, Q. (2017). Investigating the target language usage in and outside business English class- rooms for non-English major undergraduates at a Chinese university. Cogent Education, 4, 1–16. Yan, E., Fung, I., Liu, L., & Huang, X. (2016). Perceived target-language-use survey in the English classrooms in China: Investigation of classroom related and institutional factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(1), 75–96. Jorge Pinto Das Phänomen des Translingualismus im Portugiesisch-als-Fremdsprache- Unterricht aus der Sicht der chinesischen Lehrenden Z u s a m m e n f a s s u n g Die neuesten Studien zeigen, dass der Gebrauch der Erstsprache eine wichtige kognitive, kommunikative und soziale Rolle im Zweit- und Fremdsprachenunterricht spielt (Turnbull & Dailey-O‘Cain, 2009). Meij und Zhao (2010) weisen jedoch darauf hin, dass ein ungeschriebe- nes Gesetz für sowohl Lehrende als auch Studierende an chinesischen Universitäten gilt, das die Notwendigkeit der Beseitigung der Erstsprache im Fremdsprachenunterricht betrifft. Die Ergebnisse ihrer Studie zeigen allerdings, dass der Gebrauch der Erstsprache sowohl von aka- demischen Lehrenden als auch von Studierenden als begründet und hilfreich angesehen wird. Andere Studien (Cai & Cook, 2015; Littlewood & Fang, 2011) bestätigen die verschiedenen Rollen der Erstsprache als Kommunikationsmittel im Klassenzimmer, um Inhalte zu verste- hen, den Lernprozess zu steuern und an die Studierenden individuell heranzugehen. Die vor- liegende Studie zeigt die Herangehensweise von 31 chinesischen Lehrenden an das Phänomen des Translingualismus und dessen Funktion im Portugiesisch-als-Fremdsprache-Unterricht. Die Ergebnisse des Fragebogens beweisen eindeutig, dass die Verwendung der Erstsprache den Lernprozess beim Erlernen des Portugiesischen, insbesondere in den Anfangsstadien, unterstützt. Schlüsselwörter: Translingualismus, Portugiesisch als Fremdsprache, chinesische Lehrende, chinesischer Kontext