TL;DR: The concept of translanguaging is clarified, establishing it as a particular conception of the mental grammars and linguistic practices of bilinguals and of special relevance to schools interested in the linguistic and intellectual growth of bilingual students as well as to minoritized communities involved in language maintenance and revitalization efforts.
Abstract: The concept of translanguaging is clarified, establishing it as a particular conception of the mental grammars and linguistic practices of bilinguals. Translanguaging is different from code switching. Under translanguaging, the mental grammars of bilinguals are structured but unitary collections of features, and the practices of bilinguals are acts of feature selection, not of grammar switch. A proper understanding of translanguaging requires a return to the well known but often forgotten idea that named languages are social, not linguistic, objects. Whereas the idiolect of a particular individual is a linguistic object defined in terms of lexical and structural features, the named language of a nation or social group is not; its boundaries and membership cannot be established on the basis of lexical and structural features. The two named languages of the bilingual exist only in the outsider's view. From the insider's perspective of the speaker, there is only his or her full idiolect or repertoire, which belongs only to the speaker, not to any named language. Translanguaging is the deployment of a speaker' sf ull linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages. In schools, the translanguaging of bilinguals tends to be severely restricted. In addition, schools confuse the assessment of general linguistic proficiency, which is best manifested in bilinguals while translanguaging, with the testing of profi- ciency in a named language, which insists on inhibiting translanguaging. The concept of translanguaging is of special relevance to schools interested in the linguistic and intellectual growth of bilingual students as well as to minoritized communities involved in language maintenance and revitalization efforts.
TL;DR: The authors argue that this view is oversimplistic, because they have generally considered the acquirer as a nonnative speaker of the L2, as alearner, and as someone whose L2 repertoire and underlying grammar is an "interlanguage" (the psycholinguistic L2 equivalent of an "idiolect" in sociolinguistics, a construct to which F&W presumably also object), and as a "deficient communicator, struggling to overcome an L2 competence" when interacting with an idealized native speaker.
Abstract: Its analyses are oversimplistic, F&W assert, because they have generally considered the L2 acquirer as a "nonnative speaker" of the L2, as a "learner," and as someone whose L2 repertoire and underlying grammar is an "interlanguage" (the psycholinguistic L2 equivalent of an "idiolect" in sociolinguistics, a construct to which F&W presumably also object), and as a "deficient communicator, struggling to overcome an L2 competence" when interacting with an "idealized native speaker," who is attributed elevated status by researchers. They assert that this view is "individualistic," "mechanistic," and
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a method of speech-presentation based on the Dialect and Speech and Character: Dialect - Speech and character: Idiolect - Some Case-studies - Dickens and Speech.
Abstract: Prefaces - Preliminary Considerations - Methods of Speech-presentation - Speech and Character: Dialect - Speech and Character: Idiolect - Some Case-studies - Dickens and Speech - Index
TL;DR: This paper argued that Dummett et al. run afoul of Wittgenstein's ban on private languages by promoting the primacy of the idiolect, and pointed out that by making language primary, they have misplaced the essential social element in linguistic behavior.
Abstract: Which is conceptually primary, the idiolect or the language? If the former, the apparent absence of a social norm makes it hard to account for success in communication; if the latter, the danger is that the norm has no clear relation to practice. Michael Dummett thinks that by promoting the primacy of the idiolect I run afoul of Wittgenstein’s ban on private languages; in my view Dummett, by making language primary, has misplaced the essential social element in linguistic behavior. In this paper I want to try to sort out and clarify the issues involved.
TL;DR: The authors showed that categorical linguistic features are inclined to remain categorical in the idiolect and the more equal the proportions of the rivalling variants are, the more likely it is that one of the variants will gain dominancy during the speaker's lifetime.
Abstract: This article is based on an extensive panel study wherein the real-time progress of several language changes was mapped over a period of ten years. Our study suggests that categorical linguistic features are inclined to remain categorical in the idiolect. If a speaker, as a child, “learns” a feature with little or no variation in it, no major changes are likely to take place during the speaker's lifetime. In other words, new changes rarely commence in an idiolect later in life. If, however, a speaker adopts a feature as a variable one, with two or more truly competing variants, it is possible that the balance of the variants will shift during the speaker's lifetime. The more equal the proportions of the rivalling variants are, the more likely it is that one of the variants will gain dominancy during the speaker's lifetime.The present study has been partially funded by the Academy of Finland. For assistance we thank the staff of the Virrat Project at the University of Tampere, Finland.