1. The article discusses the development of Translanguaging as a language theory and its value in understanding dynamic language practices that go beyond traditional language boundaries.
2. The author emphasizes the contribution of Translanguaging as a theoretical concept to debates on language, thought, and modular thinking, as well as the importance of considering the multimodal and multisensory nature of social interactions among multilingual users.
3. The article also introduces related concepts such as Translingual Space and Translingual Instinct to bridge gaps between social-cultural and cognitive approaches, and highlights the added value of Translanguaging in applied linguistics as a practical language theory.
The article "Translanguaging as a Language Practice Theory: Theoretical Motivations and Added Values" by Li Wei aims to develop the concept of translanguaging into a language theory and discuss its theoretical motivations and added values. However, the article suffers from several biases and shortcomings.
Firstly, the author seems to have a personal bias towards the concept of translanguaging, which is evident in their statement that "translanguaging is a good candidate for language practice theory." This bias may have influenced their analysis of the concept's potential benefits and limitations.
Secondly, the article presents a one-sided view of translanguaging as an all-encompassing term for various multilingual and multimodal practices. The author fails to acknowledge that there are other terms such as code-switching, code-mixing, hybrid language practices, etc., that describe similar phenomena. This one-sided reporting may lead readers to believe that translanguaging is the only relevant term in this context.
Thirdly, the author makes unsupported claims about translanguaging's contribution to language and thought modularity debates without providing any evidence or examples. This lack of evidence weakens their argument and raises questions about the validity of their claims.
Fourthly, while discussing cross-linguistic spaces and instincts, the author fails to consider potential risks associated with these practices such as linguistic marginalization or exclusion. This omission suggests partiality towards promoting translanguaging without considering its potential negative consequences.
Finally, the article lacks exploration of counterarguments against translanguaging as a language practice theory. For instance, some scholars argue that it reinforces monolingual norms by emphasizing dominant languages over minoritized ones. Ignoring such counterarguments weakens the author's position and undermines their credibility.
In conclusion, while Li Wei's article provides valuable insights into translanguaging as a language practice theory, it suffers from several biases and shortcomings that limit its effectiveness in presenting a balanced view on this topic. Future research should address these issues to provide a more comprehensive understanding of translanguaging's potential benefits and limitations.