Capítulo 4 ANÁLISIS DE RESULTADOS
4.3 Conclusiones de la aplicación
The three concepts that I have discussed, translanguaging, multimodality, and multilingualism are interrelated concepts, although they came from different theoretical perspectives. Each of them contributes to the thesis in different ways.
Translanguaging is the starting point of the thesis. It gives me a lens to examine how exactly did the learners make use of their multilingual and multimodal repertoires to scaffold their learning of Chinese, and how they interacted between modalities and transcended the boundaries of language in this process. Furthermore, translanguaging, used as an analytical tool, adds value
to the data. Not only is there a focus on the structures, patterns and the languages used, but there is also emphasis on how learners bring fluid
resources with them to the learning context, which could result in temporary or permanent learning. Instead of focusing on the different languages used, translanguaging focuses on the learners.
Translanguaging refers to the strategic employment of linguistic and semiotic resources in a multilingual speakers’ repertoire to make meaning (García and Li Wei, 2014). It challenges the traditional understanding of bilingualism and multilingualism. Traditional notions of language learning are based on a model in which two or more languages exist separately in a person’s repertoire and they operate as two or more distinct linguistic systems, that is, “two
monolinguals in one person” (Grosjean, 1985, 1989), or the “two solitudes” assumption (Cummins, 2005, 2008). Translanguaging problematises these views. Instead, it is a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond different linguistic structures and systems and different modalities (Li Wei, 2018). This is in line with a social semiotic understanding of meaning-making in a way that both of them acknowledges the value of semiotic resources in addition to language. This view of translanguaging includes the dimension of multilingualism and multimodality, which is well documented in the
translanguaging literature. New concepts such as ‘multimodal translanguaging’ (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015; García-Sánchez, 2017), ‘multimodal languaging’ (Busch, 2014; Gynne and Bagga-Gupta, 2015; Joutsenlahti and Kulju, 2017), or ‘transmodal translanguaging’ (Hong and Chan, 2017) start to appear in the literature, however, not without criticism, for they are seen to be implicitly
perpetuating the view that language is the superordinate of all forms of semiosis (see Adami, 2017), and therefore we must be cautious when using these new terms and understand the connotations that they carry. Similar to social semiotic multimodality, a translanguaging perspective emphasises the
orchestration of modes, but translanguaging goes beyond that; the process of translanguaging goes beyond modes. While there is an explicit connection between translanguaging and multilingualism, and between translanguaging and multimodality, the link between multilingualism and multimodality remains to be made explicit in the existing literature. This is a gap that this thesis aims to
fill. In addition, this thesis would also like to strengthen the connections between language learning and multilingualism research.
The languages that multilingual learners possess are resources for learning. At first glance, it seemed that social semiotic multimodality could provide the toolkit to analyse the relations between modes, including language. However, for the purpose of discussing the meaning-making process demonstrated by
multilingual learners in online language learning platforms, I find it necessary to make the distinction between the linguistic and the semiotic, and to demarcate language from the semiotic as a whole. The reason for doing so is that for the purpose of this research, I would like to demonstrate, in particular, how multilingual learners use different bits of languages that they have in their repertoires as resources for learning. Nevertheless, this stance does not
suggest the centrality of language. As mentioned in Li Wei (2018:22), language is a “multisensory and multimodal semiotic system interconnected with other identifiable but inseparable cognitive systems”. By examining the linguistic, I aim to highlight precisely the creativity and criticality that language learners possess, to examine how they play around with the boundaries of language systems and writing systems. In other words, the separation of linguistic and the semiotic is done out of methodological concern. I recognise that in reality, language is part of the semiotic system, and that language is part of the
multimodal ensemble which has equal status with other modes. To sum up, this approach does not imply the superiority of language, as it is inseparable from the semiotic system.
Social semiotic multimodality is a helpful tool to understand the affordances of the platform. Without this knowledge, it would be difficult to comprehend what kind of resources were provided to the learners, and how learners adopted these resources in their own way. It provides a framework for me to
systematically analyse the pedagogic work that each mode does in the platform. This analysis is presented in Chapter Five of the thesis.
To sum up, multilingualism, multimodality and translanguaging are interconnected concepts which form the pillars of this thesis. The relation
between these three fields of study, and their central assumptions are illustrated in Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.1: Relationship between multilingualism, multimodality and translanguaging
3.6 Summary
In this chapter I have explained the conceptual framework of the study, which is made up of three concepts: translanguaging, multimodality, and multilingualism, with reference to language learning. I have given a detailed review of
translanguaging, in particular from a languaging perspective, and I discussed how the trans prefix added to the discussion of languaging by incorporating multimodality and multilingulaism. Afterwards, I have explained the social semiotic approach to multimodality to argue that all learning is multimodal. I have reviewed studies on multilingualism to illustrate the need to see it not as a deficit, but as a resource for learning. I have also attempted to demonstrate two
Translanguaging
•strategic deployment of resources in a person's repertoire to make meaningMultilingualism
•The knowledge of multiple languages is a resource for learningMultimodality
•All learning is multimodal in naturefeatures of repertoires: 1) repertoire is mobile and multimodal, 2) repertoire is truncated. I have concluded the chapter by connecting these three concepts and presenting how they can contribute to the thesis in different ways. The next chapter presents the methodological approaches that I have used for the thesis.
Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 Chapter synopsisThis chapter presents in detail the methodological framework of the study. First, I present the perspectives which influence my data collection and data analysis process, namely ethnography and social semiotic multimodality. Then I explain the criteria which were used to select the focal online language learning
platform and the participants featured in the study. I then explain the data collection procedures, the types of data that was obtained and the method of data analysis. I also present an overview of the participants featured in the study. At the end of the chapter I discuss the reflexivity as a researcher, challenges that I faced, and the ethical issues that I encountered in the research.
The overall methodological framework I am using in the study on which this thesis is based is informed by ethnography. In particular, I adopt a case study design (Yin, 2009) by following 11 individual learners through a period of four weeks. Four cases are isolated for detailed analysis, featuring four learners. For each of the 11 learners, I conducted screen-mediated observation, pre and post study semi-structured interviews with the use of thinking-aloud protocols.