Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing in English-medium classrooms: Upholding university’s policies or constructing knowledge?

IF 1.6 2区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Mohammad Mosiur Rahman , Guangwei Hu
{"title":"Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing in English-medium classrooms: Upholding university’s policies or constructing knowledge?","authors":"Mohammad Mosiur Rahman ,&nbsp;Guangwei Hu","doi":"10.1016/j.linged.2025.101424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Universities worldwide adopt English-medium instruction (EMI) due to the global role and status of English. However, policies advocating for EMI often overlook the importance of other languages, semiotic resources, and modalities in communication. Such oversight underscores the necessity of examining the adoption and implementation processes of both English and other languages. Building on an expanded language policy framework as well as translanguaging and trans-semiotizing perspectives, we investigated the language ideologies and classroom language practices of educators and students as micro-level responses to a private Bangladeshi university's English-only policy. To gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon, we employed a case study design and gathered data from various sources, including semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and stimulated recall interviews. A thematic analysis of the data revealed that both educators and students held favorable beliefs about English, the adoption of EMI, and translanguaging in classroom teaching. In their language practices, translanguaging and trans-semiotizing were an integral part of instruction for various epistemological and pedagogical reasons, and EMI was used mostly in written discourse. Thus, EMI was more of an ideological manifestation and involved languages other than English. In this light, there is a need for a policy shift from an English-only to a bi/multilingual focus in Bangladeshi higher education.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47468,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics and Education","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 101424"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics and Education","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898589825000427","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Universities worldwide adopt English-medium instruction (EMI) due to the global role and status of English. However, policies advocating for EMI often overlook the importance of other languages, semiotic resources, and modalities in communication. Such oversight underscores the necessity of examining the adoption and implementation processes of both English and other languages. Building on an expanded language policy framework as well as translanguaging and trans-semiotizing perspectives, we investigated the language ideologies and classroom language practices of educators and students as micro-level responses to a private Bangladeshi university's English-only policy. To gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon, we employed a case study design and gathered data from various sources, including semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and stimulated recall interviews. A thematic analysis of the data revealed that both educators and students held favorable beliefs about English, the adoption of EMI, and translanguaging in classroom teaching. In their language practices, translanguaging and trans-semiotizing were an integral part of instruction for various epistemological and pedagogical reasons, and EMI was used mostly in written discourse. Thus, EMI was more of an ideological manifestation and involved languages other than English. In this light, there is a need for a policy shift from an English-only to a bi/multilingual focus in Bangladeshi higher education.
英语课堂中的跨语言与跨符号化:维护大学政策还是建构知识?
由于英语的全球角色和地位,世界各地的大学都采用英语教学。然而,提倡EMI的政策往往忽视了其他语言、符号学资源和交流方式的重要性。这种监督强调有必要审查英语和其他语文的采用和执行过程。基于一个扩展的语言政策框架以及跨语言和跨符号化的视角,我们调查了教育工作者和学生的语言意识形态和课堂语言实践,作为对孟加拉国一所私立大学只讲英语政策的微观反应。为了深入了解这一现象,我们采用了案例研究设计,并从各种来源收集数据,包括半结构化访谈、课堂观察和刺激回忆访谈。对数据的专题分析显示,教育工作者和学生都对英语、EMI的采用和课堂教学中的语言转换持积极态度。在他们的语言实践中,由于各种认识论和教学的原因,跨语言和跨符号化是教学的一个组成部分,EMI主要用于书面话语。因此,EMI更多的是一种意识形态的表现,涉及英语以外的语言。有鉴于此,孟加拉国高等教育有必要将政策重心从只讲英语转向双语/多语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Linguistics and Education encourages submissions that apply theory and method from all areas of linguistics to the study of education. Areas of linguistic study include, but are not limited to: text/corpus linguistics, sociolinguistics, functional grammar, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, conversational analysis, linguistic anthropology/ethnography, language acquisition, language socialization, narrative studies, gesture/ sign /visual forms of communication, cognitive linguistics, literacy studies, language policy, and language ideology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信