112 年 國立清華大學外國語文學系碩士班乙組《英文閱讀與寫作》

The following passage is taken from a journal article by Li Wei. Please (1) read the article, (2) summarize the article in 350 words (40%), and (3) write an essay in response to what you have read. You can criticize the article in general or in part, further develop the author' ideas, or apply the ideas to teaching language and language policies in Taiwan (e.g. the recent Bilingual Policy 2030) (60%).

Translanguaging as a political stance: Implications for English language education

The political naming and labelling of languages

Translanguaging as a political stance begins with an emphasis on language as a political construct, the class on bilingualism and multilingualism, I normally start by asking the students what languages they know and then ask them to define those languages. They immediately realize that one cannot define a language entirely in structural terms without making reference to its users. And the users of the same language may belong to different nation-states, come from a variety of backgrounds, and be in very different social positions. [...] Human languages as we know them do not exist simply as neat, abstractable objects, but rather are brought into being through sociopolitical forces that are part of the broader societal processes such as nation-state-building and geopolitical (re)configuration of the world that serves dominant interests. The naming of a language is a political act, as examples across the world show—the naming of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian in the former republics of Yugoslavia; Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan, and Tajik in Tajikistan, and the mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese in Chinese.

Similarly, the labelling of a language as 'native', 'foreign', 'immigrant', or 'heritage' language is also a political act and one that is more about the sociopolitical categorization of its users than about the language itself. English speakers from England, the United States, and Australia are often regarded as 'native' speakers of the language. But English originated in Anglo-Saxon dialects and was brought to the British Isles and Ireland in the mid-fifth to seventh centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon immigrants from what is now northern Germany, southern Denmark, and the Netherlands, gradually displaying the previously dominating 'Celtic languages'. The exporting of English to other parts of the world, including North America, and Australia, has been closely associated with British colonization, and in the twentieth century, globalization. Yet how often do we hear anyone calling English as an 'immigrant' language? In Britain, Ireland, the United States, or Australia, and the younger generations of English speakers in these countries as heritage language speakers? These labels—immigrant and heritage languages and speakers—are typically associated with minoritized, racialized, and/or socially stigmatized languages and speakers.

The political naming and labelling of languages

Translanguaging as a political stance begins with an emphasis on language as a political construct, the class on bilingualism and multilingualism, I normally start by asking the students what languages they know and then ask them to define those languages. They immediately realize that one cannot define a language entirely in structural terms without making reference to its users. And the users of the same language may belong to different nation-states, come from a variety of backgrounds, and be in very different social positions. [...] Human languages as we know them do not exist simply as neat, abstractable objects, but rather are brought into being through sociopolitical forces that are part of the broader societal processes such as nation-state-building and geopolitical (re)configuration of the world that serves dominant interests. The naming of a language is a political act, as examples across the world show—the naming of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian in the former republics of Yugoslavia; Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan, and Tajik in Tajikistan, and the mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese in Chinese.

Similarly, the labelling of a language as 'native', 'foreign', 'immigrant', or 'heritage' language is also a political act and one that is more about the sociopolitical categorization of its users than about the language itself. English speakers from England, the United States, and Australia are often regarded as 'native' speakers of the language. But English originated in Anglo-Saxon dialects and was brought to the British Isles and Ireland in the mid-fifth to seventh centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon immigrants from what is now northern Germany, southern Denmark, and the Netherlands, gradually displaying the previously dominating 'Celtic languages'. The exporting of English to other parts of the world, including North America, and Australia, has been closely associated with British colonization, and in the twentieth century, globalization. Yet how often do we hear anyone calling English as an 'immigrant' language? In Britain, Ireland, the United States, or Australia, and the younger generations of English speakers in these countries as heritage language speakers? These labels—immigrant and heritage languages and speakers—are typically associated with minoritized, racialized, and/or socially stigmatized languages and speakers.

The political naming and labelling of languages

Translanguaging as a political stance begins with an emphasis on language as a political construct, the class on bilingualism and multilingualism, I normally start by asking the students what languages they know and then ask them to define those languages. They immediately realize that one cannot define a language entirely in structural terms without making reference to its users. And the users of the same language may belong to different nation-states, come from a variety of backgrounds, and be in very different social positions. [...] Human languages as we know them do not exist simply as neat, abstractable objects, but rather are brought into being through sociopolitical forces that are part of the broader societal processes such as nation-state-building and geopolitical (re)configuration of the world that serves dominant interests. The naming of a language is a political act, as examples across the world show—the naming of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian in the former republics of Yugoslavia; Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan, and Tajik in Tajikistan, and the mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese in Chinese.

Similarly, the labelling of a language as 'native', 'foreign', 'immigrant', or 'heritage' language is also a political act and one that is more about the sociopolitical categorization of its users than about the language itself. English speakers from England, the United States, and Australia are often regarded as 'native' speakers of the language. But English originated in Anglo-Saxon dialects and was brought to the British Isles and Ireland in the mid-fifth to seventh centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon immigrants from what is now northern Germany, southern Denmark, and the Netherlands, gradually displaying the previously dominating 'Celtic languages'. The exporting of English to the other parts of the world, including North America, and Australia, has been closely associated with British colonization, and in the twentieth century, globalization. Yet how often do we hear anyone calling English as an 'immigrant' language? In Britain, Ireland, the United States, or Australia, and the younger generations of English speakers in these countries as heritage language speakers? These labels—immigrant and heritage languages and speakers—are typically associated with minoritized, racialized, and/or socially stigmatized languages and speakers.

Another consequence of the political naming and labelling of languages is that different languages are assigned different sociopolitical status, and by extension, the users of the different languages are put into different social categories. Languages that have been designated as 'immigrant language' have little chance of being used as the language of instruction in formal education contexts in any country. The social consequences of the labelling of privilege and prestige are, firstly, how they are languages of law, business, health, and education, the designation of minority or immigrant language can bring disadvantage, even discrimination, to their users.

The translanguaging stance

As García has argued, translanguaging as a political stance has 'the potential to decolonize our concept of language' (García 2019: 162). This is not simply about respecting the existence of different named languages or paying more attention to the fluid and dynamic multilingual practices that characterize all of our lives in the twenty-first century; it is about challenging the nationalistic assumptions of named languages and raciolinguistic ideologies that contribute to the institutionalization of linguistic and social inequalities. Translanguaging seeks to interrogate and critique the normative framing of language and language practices of «minoritized» and racialized bilingual and multilingual users, especially in the education system, and promote policies and practices that bring forth the experiences, subjectivities, and agencies of these language users. Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging is fundamentally reconstitutive in at least three senses: (1) reconstitutive of language structures, through dynamic mixing of features and styles that linguists have classified as different named languages, or genres; (2) reconstitutive of language status imposed by the nation-state and by raciolinguistic ideologies; and (3) reconstitutive of power relations between groups of language users with «differentiated» access to symbolic capital through entitlement/non-entitlement.

The

The political naming and labelling of languages

Translanguaging as a political stance begins with an emphasis on language as a political construct, the class on bilingualism and multilingualism, I normally start by asking the students what languages they know and then ask them to define those languages. They immediately realize that one cannot define a language entirely in structural terms without making reference to its users. And the users of the same language may belong to different nation-states, come from a variety of backgrounds, and be in very different social positions. [...] Human languages as we know them do not exist simply as neat, abstractable objects, but rather are brought into being through sociopolitical forces that are part of the broader societal processes such as nation-state-building and geopolitical (re)configuration of the world that serves dominant interests. The naming of a language is a political act, as examples across the world show—the naming of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian in the former republics of Yugoslavia; Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan, and Tajik in Tajikistan, and the mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese in Chinese.

Similarly, the labelling of a language as 'native', 'foreign', 'immigrant', or 'heritage' language is also a political act and one that is more about the sociopolitical categorization of its users than about the language itself. English speakers from England, the United States, and Australia are often regarded as 'native' speakers of the language. But English originated in Anglo-Saxon dialects and was brought to the British Isles and Ireland in the mid-fifth to seventh centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon immigrants from what is now northern Germany, southern Denmark, and the Netherlands, gradually displaying the previously dominating 'Celtic languages'. The exporting of English to the other parts of the world, including North America, and Australia, has been closely associated with British colonization, and in the twentieth century, globalization. Yet how often do we hear anyone calling English as an 'immigrant' language? In Britain, Ireland, the United States, or Australia, and the younger generations of English speakers in these countries as heritage language speakers? These labels—immigrant and heritage languages and speakers—are typically associated with minoritized, racialized, and/or socially stigmatized languages and speakers.

Another consequence of the political naming and labelling of languages is that different languages are assigned different sociopolitical status, and by extension, the users of the different languages are put into different social categories. Languages that have been designated as 'immigrant language' have little chance of being used as the language of instruction in formal education contexts in any country. The social consequences of the labelling of privilege and prestige are, firstly, how they are languages of law, business, health, and education, the designation of minority or immigrant language can bring disadvantage, even discrimination, to their users.

The translanguaging stance

As García has argued, translanguaging as a political stance has 'the potential to decolonize our concept of language' (García 2019: 162). This is not simply about respecting the existence of different named languages or paying more attention to the fluid and dynamic multilingual practices that characterize all of our lives in the twenty-first century; it is about challenging the nationalistic assumptions of named languages and raciolinguistic ideologies that contribute to the institutionalization of linguistic and social inequalities. Translanguaging seeks to interrogate and critique the normative framing of language and language practices of «minoritized» and racialized bilingual and multilingual users, especially in the education system, and promote policies and practices that bring forth the experiences, subjectivities, and agencies of these language users. Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging is fundamentally reconstitutive in at least three senses: (1) reconstitutive of language structures, through dynamic mixing of features and styles that linguists have classified as different named languages, or genres; (2) reconstitutive of language status imposed by the nation-state and by raciolinguistic ideologies; and (3) reconstitutive of power relations between groups of language users with «differentiated» access to symbolic capital through entitlement/non-entitlement.

The

The political naming and labelling of languages

Translanguaging as a political stance begins with an emphasis on language as a political construct, the class on bilingualism and multilingualism, I normally start by asking the students what languages they know and then ask them to define those languages. They immediately realize that one cannot define a language entirely in structural terms without making reference to its users. And the users of the same language may belong to different nation-states, come from a variety of backgrounds, and be in very different social positions. [...] Human languages as we know them do not exist simply as neat, abstractable objects, but rather are brought into being through sociopolitical forces that are part of the broader societal processes such as nation-state-building and geopolitical (re)configuration of the world that serves dominant interests. The naming of a language is a political act, as examples across the world show—the naming of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian in the former republics of Yugoslavia; Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan, and Tajik in Tajikistan, and the mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese in Chinese.

Similarly, the labelling of a language as 'native', 'foreign', 'immigrant', or 'heritage' language is also a political act and one that is more about the sociopolitical categorization of its users than about the language itself. English speakers from England, the United States, and Australia are often regarded as 'native' speakers of the language. But English originated in Anglo-Saxon dialects and was brought to the British Isles and Ireland in the mid-fifth to seventh centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon immigrants from what is now northern Germany, southern Denmark, and the Netherlands, gradually displaying the previously dominating 'Celtic languages'. The exporting of English to the other parts of the world, including North America, and Australia, has been closely associated with British colonization, and in the twentieth century, globalization. Yet how often do we hear anyone calling English as an 'immigrant' language? In Britain, Ireland, the United States, or Australia, and the younger generations of English speakers in these countries as heritage language speakers? These labels—immigrant and heritage languages and speakers—are typically associated with minoritized, racialized, and/or socially stigmatized languages and speakers.

Another consequence of the political naming and labelling of languages is that different languages are assigned different sociopolitical status, and by extension, the users of the different languages are put into different social categories. Languages that have been designated as 'immigrant language' have little chance of being used as the language of instruction in formal education contexts in any country. The social consequences of the labelling of privilege and prestige are, firstly, how they are languages of law, business, health, and education, the designation of minority or immigrant language can bring disadvantage, even discrimination, to their users.

The translanguaging stance

As García has argued, translanguaging as a political stance has 'the potential to decolonize our concept of language' (García 2019: 162). This is not simply about respecting the existence of different named languages or paying more attention to the fluid and dynamic multilingual practices that characterize all of our lives in the twenty-first century; it is about challenging the nationalistic assumptions of named languages and raciolinguistic ideologies that contribute to the institutionalization of linguistic and social inequalities. Translanguaging seeks to interrogate and critique the normative framing of language and language practices of «minoritized» and racialized bilingual and multilingual users, especially in the education system, and promote policies and practices that bring forth the experiences, subjectivities, and agencies of these language users. Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging is fundamentally reconstitutive in at least three senses: (1) reconstitutive of language structures, through dynamic mixing of features and styles that linguists have classified as different named languages, or genres; (2) reconstitutive of language status imposed by the nation-state and by raciolinguistic ideologies; and (3) reconstitutive of power relations between groups of language users with «differentiated» access to symbolic capital through entitlement/non-entitlement.

The translanguaging stance on language as a sociopolitical construct

The translanguaging stance on language as a sociopolitical construct has serious implications in English medium education, which is increasingly popular in certain parts of the world, especially as a value-laden process. I.e. a conditioned experience where knowledge is produced and reproduced in specific ways that have a lasting impact on the learners' worldview, including value judgement, as well as their social behaviour. If it is accepted that languages construct, then the choices of the medium of instruction cannot be value neutral. In fact, the institutions that promote English medium education typically do not claim that their choice of language of instruction is value neutral because they typically promote the benefits of English medium education in terms of better employment prospect, financial gains, and social and global mobility. In this context, the translanguaging stance urges all of us to resist neocolonialism through the soft power of English. Specifically, it wants us to reject the raciolinguistic framing of language norms and standards.

The choice of language as education is a political act. In English medium education, as paraphrased Hall (1992: 277), 'is a structure of knowledge, a framework used to categorize people and societies, and a series of images that form a system of representation that connects with other concepts', e.g. English speakers—metropolitan, educated, knowledgeable, desirable, and progressive, versus the non- or poor English-speakers—uneducated and underdeveloped whose existing knowledge acquired through other languages is backward and disposable.

The political naming and labelling of languages

Translanguaging as a political stance begins with an emphasis on language as a political construct, the class on bilingualism and multilingualism, I normally start by asking the students what languages they know and then ask them to define those languages. They immediately realize that one cannot define a language entirely in structural terms without making reference to its users. And the users of the same language may belong to different nation-states, come from a variety of backgrounds, and be in very different social positions. [...] Human languages as we know them do not exist simply as neat, abstractable objects, but rather are brought into being through sociopolitical forces that are part of the broader societal processes such as nation-state-building and geopolitical (re)configuration of the world that serves dominant interests. The naming of a language is a political act, as examples across the world show—the naming of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian in the former republics of Yugoslavia; Farsi in Iran, Dari in Afghanistan, and Tajik in Tajikistan, and the mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese in Chinese.

Similarly, the labelling of a language as 'native', 'foreign', 'immigrant', or 'heritage' language is also a political act and one that is more about the sociopolitical categorization of its users than about the language itself. English speakers from England, the United States, and Australia are often regarded as 'native' speakers of the language. But English originated in Anglo-Saxon dialects and was brought to the British Isles and Ireland in the mid-fifth to seventh centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon immigrants from what is now northern Germany, southern Denmark, and the Netherlands, gradually displaying the previously dominating 'Celtic languages'. The exporting of English to the other parts of the world, including North America, and Australia, has been closely associated with British colonization, and in the twentieth century, globalization. Yet how often do we hear anyone calling English as an 'immigrant' language? In Britain, Ireland, the United States, or Australia, and the younger generations of English speakers in these countries as heritage language speakers? These labels—immigrant and heritage languages and speakers—are typically associated with minoritized, racialized, and/or socially stigmatized languages and speakers.

Another consequence of the political naming and labelling of languages is that different languages are assigned different sociopolitical status, and by extension, the users of the different languages are put into different social categories. Languages that have been designated as 'immigrant language' have little chance of being used as the language of instruction in formal education contexts in any country. The social consequences of the labelling of privilege and prestige are, firstly, how they are languages of law, business, health, and education, the designation of minority or immigrant language can bring disadvantage, even discrimination, to their users.

The translanguaging stance

As García has argued, translanguaging as a political stance has 'the potential to decolonize our concept of language' (García 2019: 162). This is not simply about respecting the existence of different named languages or paying more attention to the fluid and dynamic multilingual practices that characterize all of our lives in the twenty-first century; it is about challenging the nationalistic assumptions of named languages and raciolinguistic ideologies that contribute to the institutionalization of linguistic and social inequalities. Translanguaging seeks to interrogate and critique the normative framing of language and language practices of «minoritized» and racialized bilingual and multilingual users, especially in the education system, and promote policies and practices that bring forth the experiences, subjectivities, and agencies of these language users. Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging therefore is not additive; it is not about allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual in as many ELT cases. It is about not allowing other named languages to be used in contexts where the norm is monolingual as in many ELT cases.

Translanguaging is fundamentally reconstitutive in at least three senses: (1) reconstitutive of language structures, through dynamic mixing of features and styles that linguists have classified as different named languages, or genres; (2) reconstitutive of language status imposed by the nation-state and by raciolinguistic ideologies; and (3) reconstitutive of power relations between groups of language users with «differentiated» access to symbolic capital through entitlement/non-entitlement.

The translanguaging stance on language as a sociopolitical construct

The translanguaging stance on language as a sociopolitical construct has serious implications in English medium education, which is increasingly popular in certain parts of the world, especially as a value-laden process. I.e. a conditioned experience where knowledge is produced and reproduced in specific ways that have a lasting impact on the learners' worldview, including value judgement, as well as their social behaviour. If it is accepted that languages construct, then the choices of the medium of instruction cannot be value neutral. In fact, the institutions that promote English medium education typically do not claim that their choice of language of instruction is value neutral because they typically promote the benefits of English medium education in terms of better employment prospect, financial gains, and social and global mobility. In this context, the translanguaging stance urges all of us to resist neocolonialism through the soft power of English. Specifically, it wants us to reject the raciolinguistic framing of language norms and standards.

The choice of language as education is a political act. In English medium education, as paraphrased Hall (1992: 277), 'is a structure of knowledge, a framework used to categorize people and societies, and a series of images that form a system of representation that connects with other concepts', e.g. English speakers—metropolitan, educated, knowledgeable, desirable, and progressive, versus the non- or poor English-speakers—uneducated and underdeveloped whose existing knowledge acquired through other languages is backward and disposable.

Following the argument that named languages are political and ideological constructs, the translanguaging stance considers the concept of academic English political construct, too. Framed by a raciolinguistic ideology that grants an elite group of English speakers the authority and ownership of this peculiar variety of the language. This elite group is typically people of the dominant racial group and with institutional power through which they can determine the ways in which language is used by people of minoritized social groups and in positions of no social influence. What is more, this elite group has its own racial background and social position. Translanguaging challenges the raciolinguist framing of language and the socially constructed educational systems, structures, and practices by engaging diverse students' creating, multiple, and dynamic meaning-making systems, knowledge, and subjectivities, thus destabilizing the hegemonic power relations between the so-called monolingual native speakers and the othered users of other languages.