Translanguaging Characteristics in Portuguese Communicative Tasks: A Study of Frequency, Motivation, and Output among Chinese Learners

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7684492/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Translanguaging Characteristics in Portuguese Communicative Tasks: A Study of Frequency, Motivation, and Output among Chinese Learners

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7684492/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

To investigate the translanguaging characteristics of Chinese learners in Portuguese communicative tasks and their impact on Portuguese output quality, a study was conducted involving Chinese learners from a university in Sichuan, China, spanning three proficiency levels in Portuguese. Participants were tasked with completing an oral communicative activity in Portuguese, with their responses recorded and transcribed for analysis. The transcriptions were examined to assess various facts, including the frequency of translanguaging instances, languages employed, quantity of translanguaging word output, and the proportion of Portuguese words produced by learners at different proficiency levels. By comparing the average values of these facts, our findings indicate that Chinese learners incorporated not only their native language but also English, in their translanguaging practices. It is noteworthy that the majority of translanguaging instances were utilized to facilitate the communicative task and had minimal impact on the production of Portuguese words. Moreover, a decrease in the use of translanguaging practices was observed as learners’ proficiency in Portuguese advanced. Therefore, we recommend that educators not only refrain from prohibiting students from engaging in translanguaging during oral communicative tasks but also provide appropriate guidance and support. This approach can help learners effectively navigate language challenges and enhance their language learning experiences.

translanguaging practices

communicative tasks

Portuguese learning

linguistic repertoire

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) emerged as a significant approach in language education around the early 1980s. It is considered an evolution within Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), where communicative tasks play a central roles in planning, learning, and teaching (Nunan, 2004; Littlewood, 2011). Littlewood (1981), a pioneer of CLT, emphasizes that a fundamental principle of both CLT and TBLT is the necessity for learners to use the foreign language for communicative purposes. He believed that maximizing the use of the target language (TL) enhances Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Littlewood, 2014).

Despite this, the prevalent use of students’ first language (L1) by both teachers and students remains common in second language (L2) classrooms (East & Wang, 2024), there has been a growing interest in integrating translanguaging pedagogy in foreign language classrooms. Translanguaging, as defined by García and Li (2014, p. 28), refers to “the ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system.” This theory emphasizes that bilingual individuals do not solely rely on two separate language systems but instead utilize an integrated linguistic repertoire that encompasses all language features (García & Li, 2014). By allowing learners to draw on their existing language resources, translanguaging can enhance self-esteem (Cenoz & Santos, 2020), activate their linguistic repertoire (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022), and facilitate the acquisition of new language skills through the use of alternative language resources (García & Li, 2014).

However, language educators often express skepticism regarding the integration of translanguaging practices in communicative tasks. This skepticism arises because translanguaging involves the utilization of all language resources by learners, whereas one of the key characteristics of communicative tasks is the requirement to interact in the TL (Nunan, 1991; Zhang et al., 2021). As teachers of Portuguese language courses in Chinese universities, we share this skepticism regarding the permission of translanguaging during communicative activities. Within the Chinese educational context, classroom communicative tasks represent a critical platform for students to hone their Portuguese speaking skills, particularly considering that their linguistic repertoire encompasses three languages: Chinese, English, and Portuguese. With Chinese and English typically exerting stronger linguistic influences than Portuguese, there is a legitimate apprehension that students may overtly depend on these languages during communicative tasks, potentially impeding their Portuguese language acquisition process.

Our review of scholarly literature identifies that existing translanguaging studies predominantly highlight English as the primary TL, often within bilingual educational settings, with Spanish emerges as the second most explored language. Other languages, including Chinese, Arabic, French, German, Japanese, and a diverse range of others, are also featured, primarily as learners’ L1 (Prilutskaya, 2021), with limited attention given to Portuguese as a foreign language (PFL). Additionally, our review reveals a notable research void pertaining to the analysis of Chinese students’ translanguaging practices during Portuguese communicative tasks, especially concerning their frequency, underlying motivation, and the potential correlation between translanguaging output and Portuguese output. To address this gap, our study endeavors to empirically investigate these dimensions by scrutinizing the frequency of translanguaging, occurrences, delineating the driving factors behind their usage, and comparing the quantities of translanguaging and Portuguese output. Through delving into this under examined domain, our study seeks to provide evidence-based insights that could potentially inform language instructors on how to effectively support or manage learners’ translanguaging practices within Portuguese communicative contexts.

The present study is based on two key concepts in foreign language learning: Communicative Language Teaching and translanguaging.

2.1 Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative language teaching (CLT) emerged as a response to the limitations of earlier language teaching approaches and the increasing demand for practical communication skills in a globalized world (Littlewood, 1981). The central tenet of CLT is that language learning is most effective when learners are actively engaged in authentic communicative tasks that mirror real-world situations. These tasks are designed to elicit meaningful and genuine language use (Nunan, 2004), prompt learners to apply their developing language skills effectively, integrating various resources in a cohesive manner. Littlewood (2004) classifies communicative tasks into two primary types: functional communication activities and social interaction activities. The former emphasizes the accomplishment of specific objectives, such as giving directions or making reservations, while the latter focuses on establishing and nurturing social connections, such as engaging in small talk or exchanging personal information.

Current literature supports CLT as a method that enhances second language acquisition by improving communicative competence and language proficiency through authentic communication tasks (Krashen, 1981; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Additionally, CLT promotes learner autonomy, which is beneficial for L2 learners adapting to varied linguistic contexts (Ellis & He, 1999), and fosters cultural competence, crucial for effective intercultural communication (Byram, 1997; Nunan, 1991).

However, CLT is not without limitations. Swain (1985) criticizes that CLT prioritizes language functionality over grammatical accuracy, potentially leaving students being deficient in the formal aspects of the language, which are frequently assessed in certification examinations. Additional researches raised concerns that CLT might overlook explicit grammar instruction and place excessive focus on fluency at the expense of accuracy, potentially leading to fossilized errors (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

Despite its limitations, the CLT approach has been widely adopted in second language classrooms worldwide, including those in China. It gained significance in English language teaching since the 2000s, when China promulgated its New Curriculum Standards (Wang, 2007), advocating Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) as part of the curriculum reform. In contrast, the teaching of Portuguese as a Foreign Language (PFL) in China started later and with less prevalence than English instruction, leading to the adoption of teaching methodologies akin to those English language education (Xu, 2020). Consequently, CLT has also found its way into Portuguese language classrooms. However, Chinese students face greater challenges in Portuguese communicative tasks compared to English tasks. Given that Chinese students typically begin learning English from as early as the 3rd grade, or even the 1st grade, they generally possess a solid foundation in English. As a result, the linguistic repertoires of PFL learners in China encompass Chinese, English, and Portuguese, with Portuguese proficiency notably lagging behind. This multilingual reality poses challenges for TBLT’s goal of nurturing real-world communicative competence in Portuguese, particularly due to the students’ comparatively weaker command of Portuguese in contrast to English and Chinese.

To better guide this cohort in communicative tasks in Portuguese and help them improve their communicative competence more effectively, it is imperative to initially understand the language usage patterns exhibited by Chinese students studying Portuguese during classroom communicative tasks. However, upon conducting a thorough literature review, it becomes apparent that the majority of existing studies center on the realm of English as a second language, deliberating on the appropriateness of allowing learners to use their L1 during communicative tasks. Opinions on this matter vary considerably within the scholarly discourse, with some maintaining a neutral standpoint (Cook, 2001), while others express opposition (Littlewood, 2014; Long, 1983; Skehan, 1998), and yet some advocating for the integration of L1 (Seals et al., 2020; Auerbach, 1993; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Neokleous, 2017; Bui & Tai, 2022; Swain, 1985; Llinares et al., 2012; Seals et al., 2020). Notably absent from the existing body of literature are studies specifically examining the multilingual practices of Chinese students during Portuguese communicative tasks. Thus, we endeavor to delve into the behaviors of Chinese students in Portuguese communicative settings by incorporating insights from recent developments in translanguaging theory.

2.2 Translanguaging in Communicative Tasks

Translanguaging, which involves the ability of multilingual individuals to switch among multiple languages, viewing linguistic resources as an integrated system (Canagarajah, 2011). Canagarajah (2011) suggests that code-meshing¹ strategies can be beneficial for language learners to master the TL in academic writing, facilitating a better understanding and mastery of grammar, vocabulary, and cultural aspects, thereby improving their academic writing skills. García and Li (2014) advocate for the use of translanguaging in education, emphasizing the use of students’ native language (NL) alongside the TL to deepen understanding and mastery of the latter. Li (2011) analyzes the multilingual practices of Chinese youths in the UK, proposing that translanguaging aids in the integration into the TL and culture, thereby promoting language and cultural exchange.

Through the lens of translanguaging, all languages in a learner’s repertoire are acknowledged and utilized (Creese and Blackledge 2010; García & Li, 2014; Otheguy et al. 2015; García & Lin, 2017; Cenoz & Gorter, 2022), thereby fostering diversity and inclusivity of the communication practices and providing new perspectives on language education. The incorporation of translanguaging in communicative tasks within TBLT has been relatively understudied, largely due to the dominance of standard language ideology in TBLT and the differing theoretical foundations of these approaches (Bui & Tai, 2022). While translanguaging emphasizes the seamless use of multiple languages, TBLT often focuses on TL use exclusively. This contrast has led to significant debate among scholars about the role of learners’ native language in foreign language communicative tasks.

Some scholars argue against the use of the NL in language learning, contending that it may hinder learners' acceptance and comprehension of the TL, potentially leading to excessive reliance on the NL. They advocate for maximizing exposure to the TL to facilitate language acquisition and development (Long, 1983; Skehan, 1998). Conversely, other scholars support the use of the NL in communicative tasks, arguing that the NL serves as a valuable tool for foreign language learners to accomplish oral tasks (Seals et al., 2020). Incorporating the NL can reduce learners’ anxiety, boost confidence (Auerbach, 1993; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Neokleous, 2017), enhance understanding of the TL (Swain, 1985), improve task performance (Bui & Tai, 2022), and enable learners to engage in more complex tasks than would be possible using only the TL. Moreover, it can facilitate language acquisition, and develop sociolinguistic competence (Llinares et al., 2012; Seals et al., 2020). However, Cook (2001) adopts a more neutral stance on the issue, neither fully endorsing nor rejecting the use of the NL in communicative tasks. He suggests that the use of the NL in the foreign language classroom should be carefully balanced and monitored to optimize learning outcomes. Cook proposes gradually reducing learners' dependence on the NL while enhancing their ability to use the TL appropriately. Beyond the debate over the advantages and disadvantages of using the NL in communicative tasks, some research has also explored the frequency and motivations behind its use. Findings indicate that speakers frequently employ the NL to facilitate task completion, maintain interaction within pairs, manage tasks, negotiate meaning, and seek or provide assistance (Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Seals et al., 2020).

However, as previously noted, most studies on pedagogical translanguaging have focused on English as a foreign language, with a focus on its relationship with various teaching methods, classroom dynamics, and student experiences. A search of academic literature using the keywords “translanguaging” “Portuguese” “Chinese” yielded only one study conducted by Pinto (2020) that investigated the attitudes of Portuguese teachers towards translanguaging in China. This highlights a significant gap in the exploration of translanguaging practices within communicative tasks in PFL. Specifically, the complex interaction between translanguaging practices and TL output within the PFL context, especially considering the multilingual backgrounds of Chinese students and their relatively lower proficiency in Portuguese compared to English and Chinese, remains underexplored.

To address this gap, our study will empirically investigate these aspects by analyzing the frequency of translanguaging, categorizing the underlying motivations, and comparing the output in translanguaging and Portuguese. By exploring this relatively uncharted area, particularly within the context of Chinese students learning Portuguese, our research aims to provide evidence-based insights that could guide language instructors in effectively managing learners' translanguaging practices within Portuguese communicative contexts.

In order to explore the translanguaging characteristics of Chinese PFL students in Portuguese communicative tasks, the following research questions were formulated:

1. What is the frequency of translanguaging among Chinese PFL students during Portuguese communicative tasks?

What are the motivations for translanguaging among Chinese PFL students during Portuguese communicative tasks?

How do the linguistic outputs in languages other than Portuguese by Chinese students interact with their outputs in Portuguese during communicative tasks, and what is the dynamic interplay between these two types of outputs?

3.1 Methods

Research Design

To address the research questions previously outlined, we designed a Portuguese communicative task following Littlewood’s (1981, 2004) framework for communicative tasks and Skehan’s (1998) defining characteristics of tasks. Undergraduate students majoring in Portuguese at a university in Sichuan were invited to participate. We employed qualitative analysis methods to rigorously examine the recorded dialogue data from the task, with the aim of observing and analyzing the frequency and motivations behind translanguaging, as well as exploring the potential relationship between translanguaging output and Portuguese output.

Participants

The research involved a sample of 56 Chinese undergraduate students majoring in Portuguese at a university in Sichuan, consisting of 7 males and 47 females aged 18 to 21. All participants were native Chinese speakers who had received over 6 years of English education at the secondary level but had not prior exposure to Portuguese learning before they entered the university. Consequently, their linguistic repertoire includes three languages: Chinese, English, and Portuguese, with their proficiency levels decreasing in that order.

Participants were distributed across academic years, including 28 freshmen, 22 sophomores, and 6 juniors. They were grouped based on their academic year and performance in the subject “Listening and Speaking”. A total of 28 pairs were formed, with higher-performing pairs assigned lower pair numbers. On the experiment day, one sophomore was absent due to illness, reducing the final number of participating pairs to 27. Specifically, pairs 1–3 were juniors with Portuguese proficiency level equivalent to the CAPLE² level B2; pairs 4–14 were sophomores with proficiency at CAPLE level B1; and pairs 15–27 consisted of freshmen with proficiency at CAPLE A2.

Communicative Task

The communicative task, titled “Planning Your Travel”, requires that students work together to plan a detailed travel itinerary using Portuguese, with the objective of putting their language skills into practice within a practical and contextually relevant setting. The task is structured around several key components:

Destination selection: Students are tasked with selecting a destination, considering factors such as travel distance, cultural significance, and personal preferences.

Transportation Planning: Students engage in discussion to select the appropriate mode of transportation, taking into account the factors like budget, convenience, and travel duration.

Accommodation Arrangements: Students conduct research to determine the suitable accommodations, focusing on aspects such as cost, location, and amenities.

Activity Scheduling: The task entails planning daily activities, including visits to local attractions, participation in cultural events, and other recreational activities.

Budgeting: Students are required to create a comprehensive budget for the trip, encompassing expenses for transportation, accommodations, meals, and activities.

This task aligns with Skehan’s defining features of tasks (1998) by prioritizing task completion, ensuring meaningful engagement, and creating a connection to real-life situations. By linking the task content with the students’ current interests, such as their upcoming summer vacation break, the task not only gains relevance but also enhances motivation and engagement. This approach enables us to collect data in authentic communicative contexts, providing substantial backing for the in-depth analysis of the translanguaging characteristics of Chinese PFL students in Portuguese communicative tasks.

3.2 Data Collection and Processing

The communicative task was conducted in a language laboratory. Prior to the experiment, participants received instruction on relevant sentence patterns and vocabulary related to the topic. On the day of the experiment, participants were seated according to a predetermined pair list and informed that the task would be recorded for academic research purposes. They were also given the autonomy to decide whether to participate in the study. Before initiating the communicative task, they watched an authentic Portuguese-language video titled “5 Tips for Planning Your Trip” to familiarize themselves with travel-related vocabulary and sentence patterns.

Subsequently, the participants were provided with the following instructions: “Today’s oral communication task is centered around ‘Planning your trip’, please engage in a ten-minute conversation with your partner in Portuguese to discuss and decide the destination, duration of travel, transportation options, budget considerations, preferred accommodations, attractions to visit, activities to partake in, and any other relevant information related to your trip.” The entire communicative process was recorded, and upon task completion, the recordings of all 27 pairs were downloaded and preserved for subsequent analysis.

The TL for this communicative task was Portuguese. To identify translanguaging instances, we highlighted in red any language other than Portuguese in the transcriptions of each audio recording. These documents were sent to the respective participants, who were asked to provide written explanations for each marked instance of translanguaging. By verifying the reasons behind each instance with the participants, we categorized the motivations, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the translanguaging practices and their implications for language learning and communication.

Finally, we compiled an Excel spreadsheet containing the communicative data for each pair. This spreadsheet includes essential information, such as the total number of words and sentences exchanged in Portuguese, the language requested by the instructor, and the additional languages employed during translanguaging instances, namely Chinese and English. The spreadsheet also documents the various types of translanguaging motivations observed during the communicative task.

Following the compilation of the spreadsheet, the data was systematically analyzed to examine translanguaging practices, translanguaging motivations, translanguaging output, and Portuguese learning output during the communicative task. The primary objective of this data analysis is to address the research questions pertaining to translanguaging practices within the communicative task.

3.3 Data Analysis

The audio recordings of the communicative task were imported into Adobe Premiere Pro for automatic transcription and segmentation. The generated transcripts were meticulously reviewed and manually verified word-by-word to ensure accuracy and reliability. Subsequently, 27 individual Word documents were created, each corresponding to a specific pair's transcription data.

However, upon closer examination, it was discovered that the recordings of group pairs 25, 26, and 27 deviated significantly from the assigned topic, consisting predominantly of conversations in their first language, Chinese. Consequently, these pairs were excluded from the analysis as they did not meet the task's specific requirements and were classified as invalid experimental pairs. The transcripts of pairs 1–24 were deemed suitable for inclusion in the study's database, forming the basis for subsequent analysis and findings.

The data analysis followed a structured approach. First, the proportion of pairs utilizing Chinese and/or English during the communicative tasks was calculated using the SUM function. Next, the QUOTIENT function was employed to determine the ratio of Chinese and/or English usage to overall communication frequency for each pair, providing insights into language use patterns and preferences. Subsequently, the transcriptions were analyzed to identify and quantify different translanguaging motivations. The CORREL function was then used to assess the correlation between translanguaging instances and Portuguese output, with scatter plots generated for visualization. Finally, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare translanguaging frequency and motivation across different proficiency levels. These analytical steps provided a comprehensive examination of the data, deepening our understanding of the research questions.

Our study demonstrates that all participant pairs utilized languages other than Portuguese during the communicative tasks. Specifically, 96.67% of the pairs employed Chinese, while 70.83% used English. Additionally, 62.5% of the pairs incorporated both Chinese and English. Notably, despite Chinese being their first language, participants also employed English—a language in which they have lower proficiency—to facilitate communication in Portuguese. This observation highlights the learners’ tendency to draw upon their entire linguistic repertoire during communicative activities, instinctively utilizing all available language resources rather than relying exclusively on their most proficient or commonly shared language to effectively complete the assigned tasks. In the following sections, we will present a detailed analysis of the experimental findings in relation to our research questions.

4.1 Question 1: What is the frequency of translanguaging among Chinese PFL students during Portuguese communicative tasks?

To gain a comprehensive understanding of students' language choices and preferences during communicative interactions, we analyzed the number of words and instances in which students utilized Chinese, English, and Portuguese during the tasks. The data on translanguaging frequency indicates that 100% of the pairs engaged in translanguaging practices. In addition to the TL, Portuguese, all 24 pairs employed other languages from their linguistic repertoire to complete the tasks. Specifically, 96.67% used Chinese, 70.83% used English, and 62.5% used both Chinese and English. These findings suggest that both Chinese and English play a significant role in the cross-linguistic communication of Chinese students (see Fig. 1).

Given that English is a compulsory and core subject in Mainland China’s primary and secondary education, Chinese students typically receive at least six consecutive years of systematic English instruction before entering university. Consequently, English has become an integral part of their linguistic repertoire as a foreign language. When faced with communicative challenges, students spontaneously resort to English to resolve issues. As Chinese is their mother tongue, it is more frequently used than English in the observed translanguaging practices.

4.2 Question 2: What are the motivations for translanguaging among Chinese PFL students during Portuguese communicative tasks?

Understanding the underlying motivations that prompt students to engage in translanguaging practices is crucial for comprehending their role in language learning. Motivation, characterized by internal forces, impulses, emotions, or desires, is a critical factor that drives individuals to undertake specific actions (Hoque, 2017). Behaviors linked to mental states can be broadly categorized into two types: “intentional actions”, driven by the agent’s intentions and decisions, and “unintentional behaviors”, which occur due to internal or external events without deliberate decision-making (Heider, 1958).

In this study, we identified six distinct motivations based on 18 explanations provided by the participants. Of these, five motivations were classified as “intentional”, driven by conscious decisions, while one was categorized as “unintentional”, arising from actions that occurred without deliberate intent.

Motivation 1 (M1) - Overcoming language obstacles: Participants used translanguaging to overcome language barriers and effectively communicate their ideas and intentions.

Motivation 2 (M2) - Overcoming imagined language obstacles: Participants employed translanguaging even in the absence of actual language barriers, indicating a perceived need for linguistic support or clarification.

Motivation 3 (M3) - Negotiating the direction of the conversation: Translanguaging was used to steer the conversation, allowing participants to express their viewpoints and maintain active engagement.

Motivation 4 (M4) - Overcoming task-related general knowledge: Translanguaging was employed to address gaps in task-related knowledge, enabling participants to navigate unfamiliar concepts or information.

Motivation 5 (M5) - Off-topic chatting: Participants engaged in off-topic conversations using translanguaging, potentially as a means of building rapport or socializing during the task.

Motivation 6 (M6) - Unintentional behavior: Translanguaging occurred unintentionally, without specific motivation or purpose.

Motivations M1 through M5 are associated with intentional translanguaging, where participants consciously chose to employ translanguaging strategies to enhance communication. In contrast, M6 represents unintentional translanguaging, occurring without deliberate intent or purpose. By examining these motivations, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of the factors driving participants’ translanguaging practices during communicative tasks and their implications for language learning and communication (see Table 1).

Table 1
Motivations for Translanguaging Practices
Category	Subcategory	Translanguaging Motivations Reported by Students
Intentional	M1-Overcoming language obstacles	1) Confirming the meaning of a Portuguese word with a peer in Chinese 2) Confirming the meaning of a Portuguese sentence with a peer in Chinese 3) Asking how to say a Portuguese word in Chinese 4) Asking how to say a Portuguese sentence in Chinese 5) Substituting an unknown Portuguese word with Chinese or English 6) Substituting an unknown Portuguese sentence with Chinese or English 7) Asking about verb conjugation in Chinese 8) Confirming a word that a partner is struggling with in Chinese
	M2-Overcoming imagined language obstacles	9) Translating one's own Portuguese sentence into Chinese out of concern that the other person might not understand 10) Translating one's own Portuguese sentence into Chinese out of concern that one's own expression is unclear
	M3-Negotiating the direction of the conversation	11) Guiding the direction of the conversation in Chinese 12) Negotiating communication content in Chinese
	M4-Overcoming task-related general knowledge	13) Asking for information related to the communication task in Chinese for subsequent use. Examples include: What are popular attractions in Chongqing? Where is the capital of Yunnan?
	M5-Off-topic chatting	14) Chatting about topics unrelated to the task. Examples include: That pair has already completed the task.
Unintentional	M6-Unintentional behavior	15) Habitual response to Chinese questions from others 16) Use of transitional words in Chinese or English, such as “Ok” “So” “Also” “Then” “Regarding”... 17) Occurrence of slips of the tongue: Unintentionally using Chinese or English, then correcting oneself and switching to Portuguese 18) Expression of thought process in Chinese

In our study, we found that 85% of the translanguaging practices observed during the communicative tasks were intentional actions by the participants. Specifically, 52% of these actions were aimed at overcoming language barriers (M1), 16% at negotiating the direction of the conversation (M3), 9% at addressing imagined language barriers (M2), and 7% at bridging gaps in task-related knowledge (M4). Only 1% of the translanguaging practices were attributed to off-topic chatting (M5). Additionally, 15% of the translanguaging instances were unintentional (M6), including slips of the tongue, think-aloud processes in Chinese, and habitual use of other languages (see Fig. 2).

Participants also displayed diverse patterns in their use of Chinese and English during translanguaging practices. Given that Chinese is their L1, participants exhibited a high level of fluency in using Chinese to convey complete ideas, frequently resorting to it for expressing thoughts. The motivations for using Chinese spanned all categories from M1 to M6, as illustrated in Fig. 3. In contrast, participants demonstrated stronger proficiency in English reading and writing compared to speaking and listening, leading to the more common use of English in translanguaging practices to substitute specific words rather than to express entire sentences or paragraphs. The motivations for using English primarily involved M1 (Overcoming language barriers) (65%) and M6 (Unintentional behavior) (35%), as shown in Fig. 4.

4.3 Question 3: How do the linguistic outputs in languages other than Portuguese by Chinese students interact with their outputs in Portuguese during communicative tasks, and what is the dynamic interplay between these two types of outputs?

In order to elucidate the dynamics between Chinese students’ translanguaging output and the Portuguese output, we conducted a correlation analysis and a simple linear regression analysis on the counts of non-Portuguese and Portuguese words across 24 pairs, accompanied by a scatter plot. As shown in Fig. 5, the non-Portuguese word counts are primarily concentrated within the range of 0-100 words, whereas the Portuguese word counts exhibit a broader distribution, ranging from 263 to 640 words. The correlation coefficient (r) between the non-Portuguese and Portuguese words counts is − 0.34, indicating a weak negative correlation. A simple linear regression analysis further revealed that while non-Portuguese output has a statistically significant negative impact on Portuguese output. This suggests that while there is some influence of non-Portuguese output on Portuguese production, it is relatively minor in the context of these communicative tasks.

We calculated the correlation coefficients (r) between the counts of non-Portuguese and Portuguese words for participants at proficiency levels A2, B1 and B2. As shown in Table 2, the correlation coefficient for level B2 participants is 0.05, indicating a very weak or negligible correlation. For level B1 students, the correlation coefficient is -0.09, suggesting a very weak negative or no significant correlation. However, for level A2 students, the correlation coefficient is 0.28, indicating a weak positive correlation.

Overall, these results suggest that translanguaging practices have a negligible effect on Portuguese output for students at levels B1 and B2, while for level A2 students, translanguaging practices have a weak positive effect on the Portuguese output. Moreover, translanguaging does not significantly impact Portuguese output across all proficiency levels, and thus, it does not reduce opportunities for students to practice the TL. On the contrary, the data suggests that for students with lower TL proficiency, translanguaging practices can be constructive during communicative tasks.

Table 2
Correlation (r) Between Non-Portuguese and Portuguese Words Counts
Pair	1–24	1–3 (level B2)	4–14 (level B1)	15–24 (level A2)
Correlation Coefficient(r)	-0.34	0.05	-0.09	0.28

We conducted the mean values of translanguaging frequency and word output rate for the 24 pairs during their communicative tasks. (see Table 3), and similarly analyzed the data for students at proficiency levels A2, B1 and B2. The overall mean value for translanguaging frequency and output rate were 23.64% and 13.80%, respectively. For students at level B2, the mean translanguaging frequency was 8.28%, with an output rate of 2.43%. For students at level B1, these values were 16.60% and 8.82%, respectively. For students at level A2, the mean translanguaging frequency was 35.99%, with an output rate of 8.82%. The data indicates that Portuguese proficiency is negatively correlated with translanguaging frequency and output rate, suggesting that higher language proficiency leads to more stable Portuguese output and reduced translanguaging frequency and output rate.

Table 3
Translanguaging Frequency and Output Rate by Portuguese Proficiency Level
Portuguese Proficiency Level	Translanguaging frequency (translanguaging instances/total instances				Translanguaging words output (Non-Portuguese words/ total words)
Portuguese Proficiency Level	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD
B2	1.82%	11.76%	8.28%	5.60%	0.59%	4.42%	2.43%	1.92%
B1	2.00%	42.35%	16.60%	13.24%	0.23%	28.37%	8.82%	9.22%
A2	12.12%	68.42%	35.99%	16.88%	5.05%	45.09%	22.69%	15.51%
Total	1.82%	68.42%	23.64%	17.43%	0.23%	45.09%	13.80%	13.95%

We further compared the frequency and word output rate of Chinese and English in translanguaging practices among students with different levels of Portuguese proficiency. Setting α = 0.05, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the use of Chinese in translanguaging practices among students at level A2, B1 and B2. The results show significant inter-group differences, with P = 0.014 for Chinese output rate and P = 0.001 for Chinese frequency, both below the 0.05 threshold. Similarly, we conducted a one-way ANOVA on the use of English in translanguaging practices among participants of these three proficiency levels, setting α = 0.05. The inter-group difference for English output rate i (P = 0.553) and English frequency (P = 0.607) were not significant, as both values exceed the 0.05 threshold.

Based on these findings, we infer a significant correlation between translanguaging practices in Chinese and Portuguese proficiency levels: higher proficiency in Portuguese corresponds to a reduced use of Chinese in translanguaging practices. Conversely, no significant correlation was found between translanguaging practices in English and Portuguese proficiency levels (see Tables 4, 5, 6).

Table 4
Chinese and English Frequency by Portuguese Proficiency Level
Portuguese Proficiency Level	Chinese frequency (Chinese instances /Total instances)				English frequency (English instances /Total instances)
Portuguese Proficiency Level	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD
B2	0.00%	5.88%	2.57%	3.01%	0.00%	11.25%	5.71%	5.63%
B1	0.00%	38.82%	12.43%	12.10%	0.00%	15.00%	4.17%	4.81%
A2	12.12%	45.24%	29.12%	12.17%	0.00%	24.56%	6.88%	7.61%
Total	0.00%	45.24%	18.15%	14.62%	0.00%	24.56%	5.49%	6.00%

Table 5
Chinese and English Output Rates by Portuguese Proficiency Level
Portuguese Proficiency Level	Chinese output rate (Chinese words / total words)				English output rate (English words / total words)
Portuguese Proficiency Level	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD
B2	0.00%	2.88%	1.16%	1.52%	0.00%	2.29%	1.28%	1.17%
B1	0.00%	27.74%	8.21%	9.10%	0.00%	1.96%	0.60%	0.61%
A2	5.05%	43.05%	20.88%	13.98%	0.00%	12.28%	1.80%	3.72%
Total	5.05%	43.05%	20.88%	13.98%	0.00%	12.28%	1.19%	2.45%

Table 6
One-way ANOVA of Pairs by Portuguese Proficiency Level
One-way ANOVA	Chinese output rate	Chinese frequency	English output rate	English frequency
P-value	0.014	0.001	0.553	0.607

We also conducted a one-way ANOVA to explore the relationship between Portuguese proficiency levels and translanguaging motivations. When α was set to 0.05, we analyzed the differences in Chinese instances during the communicative task, prompted by M1, M2, M3, M4 and M5, among participants with varying levels of Portuguese proficiency. The results shows that P > 0.05, indicating no significant difference across these groups. However, the analysis of the inter-group differences in Chinese usage prompted by M6 reveals a significant difference with P < 0.05. The mean values of Chinese instances were 0 for the B2 group, 0.3 for the B1 group, and 2 for the A2 group.

These results suggest the Portuguese proficiency does not significantly influence intentional Chinese instances in translanguaging practices, but it does have a notable impact on unintentional Chinese instances, such as slips of the tongue and idiomatic expressions, which decreases as Portuguese proficiency increases. The motivations for using English in translanguaging practices were observed only in M1 and M6. Using α = 0.05, we performed a one-way ANOVA on the English instances prompted by these two motivations and found no significant differences (P > 0.05). Thus, it can be concluded the Portuguese proficiency level does not significantly affect the motivation for using English in communicative tasks (see Table 7).

Table 7
Chinese and English Motivations by Portuguese Proficiency Level
One-way ANOVA		Motivations for using Chinese						Motivations for using English
One-way ANOVA		M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M1	M6
Translanguaging instances Mean	B2	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	3.7
	B1	3.7	1.4	2.1	0.5	0.4	0.3	1.8	0.6
	A2	8.2	1.7	3.3	1.7	0	2	2.9	0.7
P-value		0.104	0.187	0.271	0.146	0.186	0.008	0.432	0.060

Our research offers compelling evidence that challenges the reservations held by some educators regarding the integration of translanguaging practices during communicative tasks. The study findings suggest that translanguaging often occur organically, echoing the perspectives of Cnanagarajah and Wurr (2011) and Li (2016) that it is a fundamental human instinct. Our study further supports this notion by demonstrating that learners exhibit a selective use of their complete linguistic repertoire rather than solely depending on their native language to navigate challenges. Furthermore, our results show that these practices do not hinder TL output or lead to an excessive reliance on alternative languages. Instead, translanguaging practices play a beneficial role, particularly for learners with lower proficiency in the TL, aligning with prior studies highlighting the positive impacts of translanguaging in communicative tasks (Seals et al., 2020; Auerbach, 1993; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Neokleous, 2017; Swain, 1985; Bui & Tai, 2022; Llinares et al., 2012). Nevertheless, it remains imperative for students to employ these practices strategically. By encouraging a deliberate and controlled use of translanguaging, educators can assist students to leverage their full linguistic repertoire, thus enhancing their efficiency in learning the TL.

5.1 The Instinctive Nature of Translanguaging Practices

The students’ translanguaging practices in communicative tasks can be instinctive. Canagarajah and Wurr (2011) argue that utilizing all available language resources in classroom communicative tasks is a natural phenomenon. Li (2016) concurs with this view, considering translanguaging practices as an inherent human instinct. A recent research conducted by Fang et al. (2023) further reinforces this perspective, as their study discovered frequent translanguaging instances in English-medium instructional settings, despite both educators and students generally preferring to use English exclusively. Our empirical research not only provides additional support for these viewpoints but also reveals that learners who share a native language do not always rely on their native language to overcome difficulties encountered in communicative tasks in foreign language. Instead, they selectively choose the language to use from their entire linguistic repertoire based on their own preferences.

5.2 No Negative Impact of Translanguaging Practices on Students' Target Language Output

Translanguaging practices do not have a negative impact on students’ TL output. Previous research has indeed provided substantial support for the use of translanguaging practices in communicative tasks. This support is rooted in the belief that the learners’ L1 can greatly assist in task completion and the development of social language skills (Auerbach, 1993; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Bui & Tai, 2022; Llinares et al., 2012; Neokleous, 2017; Seals et al., 2020; Swain, 1985). However, it is important to note that these studies simply equate translanguaging with the mere acknowledgment or use of multilingual students' first language (Bui, 2022).

To leverage this limitation, our study surpasses the mere exploration of the influence of the learners’ L1 on communicative tasks in foreign language. We recorded and analyzed instances of non-target languages’ influence on the TL during communicative tasks. By conducting a correlation analysis of non-Portuguese and Portuguese words’ number in 24 pairs, we concluded that translanguaging practices do not yield a significantly influential impact on the Portuguese output of students at all proficiency levels. Therefore, translanguaging practices do not curtail the students’ opportunities for engaging in the TL practice. In fact, the empirical evidence suggests that translanguaging practices plays a constructive role, particularly for students with lower level of proficiency in TL during communicative tasks.

5.3 No Dependency Induced by Translanguaging Practices

Translanguaging practices do not result in an excessive reliance on other languages during communicative tasks. Previous studies have indicated that L2 learners, particularly those with lower proficiency, may excessively rely on their L1 and engage in off-task conversations during communicative tasks (Bruton, 2005; Carless, 2008; Li, 1998; Seedhouse, 1999). However, our analysis of data comparing the Chinese, English and Portuguese output at different levels of Portuguese proficiency (A2, B1, and B2) demonstrates that as students' Portuguese proficiency improves, there is a reduction in translanguaging frequency and a more stable output in Portuguese. Additionally, we observed a significant correlation between Chinese instances and Portuguese proficiency levels, indicating that higher proficiency in Portuguese corresponds to a diminished intervention of Chinese during communicative tasks. Meanwhile, no significant correlation was found between English instances and Portuguese proficiency levels. Importantly, participants were never explicitly instructed to use only Portuguese in previous communicative tasks in Portuguese. Based on these findings, we can conclude that learners' proficiency in the TL is negatively correlated with L1 usage frequency, while showing no significant relationship with the other L2 usage frequency. As learners' proficiency in the TL increases, their reliance on the L1 naturally decreases, and no intentional dependency on either the L1 or other L2 is observed.

5.4 Management of Translanguaging Practices

While there is no need for concern regarding the adverse effects of translanguaging practices on foreign language acquisition in communicative tasks, it remains crucial to offer appropriate guidance in managing learners' translanguaging practices to optimize their TL learning efficiency. Previous studies (Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Seals et al., 2020) have acknowledged that students primarily use their L1 to aid task completion in the foreign language classroom, yet specific recommendations for managing translanguaging practices have not been provided. In this study, we have further refined the categorization of translanguaging motivations and identified certain translanguaging practices that may impact task completion. Consequently, we propose the prohibition of translanguaging practices unrelated to communicative tasks, the allowance of translanguaging practices that facilitate communicative tasks, and the reduction of unintentional translanguaging practices.

This study explored the frequency, motivations, and dynamics of translanguaging practices among Chinese PFL students during communicative tasks. Our findings suggest that all participants engaged in translanguaging, with the majority of instances being deliberate. Translanguaging did not impede TL output or foster a dependency on non-target languages. Instead, it bolstered communicative tasks, especially benefiting learners with lower proficiency levels by enabling them to tap into their entire linguistic repertoire. These outcomes resonate with prior research, underscoring the potential of translanguaging to enrich language acquisition and facilitate effective communication.

Theoretically, our study reinforces the idea that translanguaging is an innate and beneficial practice in language learning, particularly within multilingual contexts. The findings suggest that translanguaging serves not only as a natural response to communicative challenges but also as a supportive method capable of enhancing language acquisition.

Pedagogically, these insights provide valuable implications for language educators. Recognizing that students benefit from utilizing their entire linguistic repertoire, which includes their first language and other non-target languages, educators should strategically incorporate translanguaging practices into their teaching methodologies. The strategic incorporation can cultivate inclusive and supportive learning settings that encourage effective communication and intercultural competence among students.

However, the limitations of our research should be acknowledged. The study was conducted with a restricted sample size from a particular university, potentially impacting the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should encompass a broader and more diverse range of student groups to obtain more comprehensive and robust outcomes.

In addition, further investigation is needed to explore how educators can effectively guide students in utilizing translanguaging practices to enhance their communicative abilities. This would provide valuable insights into instructional strategies that promote proficiency in the TL. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that translanguaging extends beyond traditional linguistic boundaries and encompasses non-linguistic cognitive and semiotic systems (Li, 2018). While our study focused primarily on the language aspect of translanguaging, future research should adopt a more holistic approach. This entails delving deeper into both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of translanguaging practices to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its potential benefits.

Considering these limitations, there are significant implications for language educators. Firstly, educators can rest assured that students' use of non-native languages or reliance on their first language during communicative tasks is a natural and advantageous behavior that can enrich language learning and facilitate effective communication. Embracing translanguaging practices allows educators to tap into students' linguistic resources and create a more inclusive learning environment that promotes intercultural understanding. Additionally, educators can utilize the insights from our research to identify areas where students may face difficulties and enhance their language proficiency. By teaching appropriate sentence patterns and providing support to build confidence in the TL, educators can facilitate more proficient translanguaging practices and contribute to students' overall language development.

In conclusion, while remaining aware of the limitations of our study, language educators can capitalize on the benefits of translanguaging practices to enhance students' language learning experience and promote effective communication in diverse linguistic contexts. By embracing translanguaging practices and considering the implications of our findings, educators can empower students, foster intercultural competence, and facilitate their success in real-world communication.

CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

first language

second language

native language

PFL

Portuguese as a foreign language

SLA

Second Language Acquisition

TBLT

Task-based language teaching

target language

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study, which include audio recordings and transcriptions of oral communicative tasks performed by Chinese learners of Portuguese, are not publicly available due to participant privacy and ethical restrictions. However, they are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Not applicable

Authors’ contributions

XY designed and conducted the study, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. HLL provided overall guidance, contributed to the methodological framework, critically revised the manuscript, and served as the corresponding author. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations

This research is part of the project RP/FLT-11/2022，which was approved by the MPU Research Committee in 2022, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent to Publish declaration

not applicable

Authors' information (optional)

Xue Yan (Ph.D. candidate) is lecturer of Portuguese at Sichuan University of Science & Engineering. She has extensive experience in teaching and research in the field of Portuguese as a foreign language. Her research interests include innovative approaches to teaching Portuguese as a foreign language, the teaching of Portuguese language variants, and applied linguistics. [email protected]

Han Lili (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor of the Faculty of Applied Sciences of Macao Polytechnic University, Macau. Over the last decade, Dr. Han has lectured and conducted research in translation and interpreting studies. Her research interests include translation and interpreting studies, intercultural studies, language and translation policy studies, testing & assessment, and computer-aided translation and interpreting, all from a translanguaging perspective. [email protected]

Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–32. 10.2307/3586949
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied linguistics, 30(2), 216–235. 10.1093/applin/amn051
Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom? Language learning journal, 31(1), 55–68. 10.1080/09571730585200091
Bui, G., & Tai, K. W. (2022). Revisiting functional adequacy and task-based language teaching in the GBA: insights from translanguaging. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(40). 10.1186/s40862-022-008160-7
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S., & Wurr, A. J. (2011). Multilingual communication and language acquisition: New research directions. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(1), 1–15.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm090
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical translanguaging and its application to language classes. RELC Journal, 53(2), 342–354. 10.1177/00336882221082751
Cenoz, J., & Santos, A. (2020). Implementing pedagogical translanguaging in trilingual schools. System 92. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102273
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian modern language review, 57(3), 402–423. 10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
East, M., & Wang, D. (2024). Advancing the communicative language teaching agenda: What place for translanguaging in task-based language teaching? The Language Learning Journal. 10.1080/09571736.2024.2380278
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285–301.
Fang, F., Jiang, L., & Yang, J. (2023). To impart knowledge or to adhere to policy: Unpacking language ideologies and practices in Chinese EMI courses through a translanguaging lens. Language Teaching Research. 10.1177/13621688231183771
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
García, O., & Lin, A. M. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and multilingual education, 117–130.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
Hoque, E. (2017). An introduction to the second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 1–23.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning, 3(7), 19–39.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Second language acquisition and applied linguistics. Annual review of applied linguistics, 20, 165–181.
Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL quarterly, 32(4), 677–703.
Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235.
Li, W. (2016). New Chinglish and the post-multilingualism challenge: Translanguaging ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1), 1–25.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–326.
Littlewood, W. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77.
Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching, 47(3), 349–362.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.
Neokleous, G. (2017). Closing the gap: Student attitudes toward first language use in monolingual EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 314–341.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279–295.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.
Pinto, J. (2020). Chinese teachers’ attitudes towards translanguaging and its uses in Portuguese foreign language classrooms. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 1(6), 11–30.
Prilutskaya, M. (2021). Examining pedagogical translanguaging: A systematic review of the literature. Languages, 6(4), 180.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). I Major language trends in twentieth-century language teaching. Approaches and methods in language teaching, 1–2.
Seals, C. A., Newton, J., Ash, M., & Nguyen, B. T. T. (2020). Translanguaging and task based language teaching: Crossovers and challenges. Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens: Global perspectives, 275–292.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149–156.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355–375.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 165–179). Newbury House.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.
Wang, Q. (2007). The National Curriculum changes and their effects on English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 87–105). Springer.
Zhang, H., Diaz, M. T., Guo, T., & Kroll, J. F. (2021). Language immersion and language training: Two paths to enhanced language regulation and cognitive control. Brain and Language, 223, 105043.

Code-meshing and translanguaging are both ways of using multiple languages in communication. Canagarajah (2011, p403) uses translanguaging for the general communicative competence of multilinguals and uses codemeshing for the realization of translanguaging in texts.
CAPLE (Centre for Evaluation of Portuguese as a Foreign Language), affiliated with the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon, is the only official institution in Portugal that evaluates and certifies Portuguese proficiency for non-native speakers. The Exam has five 5 levels: A2 (Initial Certificate of Portuguese foreign language), B1 (Elementary Diploma of Portuguese Language), B2 (Intermediate Diploma of Portuguese Language), C1 (Advanced Diploma of Portuguese Language) and C2 (University Diploma of Portuguese Language).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
19 Nov, 2025
Reviews received at journal
18 Nov, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
06 Nov, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
05 Nov, 2025
Reviews received at journal
26 Oct, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 Oct, 2025
Reviewers invited by journal
29 Sep, 2025
Editor assigned by journal
24 Sep, 2025
Submission checks completed at journal
24 Sep, 2025
First submitted to journal
22 Sep, 2025

You are reading this latest preprint version

Translanguaging Characteristics in Portuguese Communicative Tasks: A Study of Frequency, Motivation, and Output among Chinese Learners

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Literature Review

2.1 Communicative Language Teaching

2.2 Translanguaging in Communicative Tasks

3 The Current Study

3.1 Methods

3.2 Data Collection and Processing

3.3 Data Analysis

4. Results

5. Discussion

5.1 The Instinctive Nature of Translanguaging Practices

5.2 No Negative Impact of Translanguaging Practices on Students' Target Language Output

5.3 No Dependency Induced by Translanguaging Practices

5.4 Management of Translanguaging Practices

6. Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Footnotes

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1