A Transition to Multimodal Multilingual Practice: From SimCom to Translanguaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I found your manuscript both fascinating and needed. As a translanguaging scholar, I have not often seen this theory of language applied within deaf education – where, as you discuss, it is highly relevant and connected to the multimodal nature of communication. As I was reading your important work, I had some thoughts which I hope are helpful (perhaps most importantly to the connection between translanguaging and identity expression and translanguaging as a pedagogy of social justice, and sustainable translanguaging) in disseminating your message:

Theoretical background/Intro

·       It might be helpful to readers to include the questions that guided this 3-year DA study into language planning.

Acquisition Planning: Translanguaging and Multilingualism

·       I think it may be helpful to also cite Li Wei’s (2018) translanguaging as a practical theory of language; in it, he provides theoretical framing for the multimodal and multisensory nature of translanguaging.

Translanguaging in Deaf Education

·       Connect to dynamic bilingualism – beyond additive models – (Flores & Schissel, 2014; García, Rubdy & Alsagoff, 2014).

The Current Study

·       Is St. Francis de 272 Sales School for the Deaf a pseudonym? (Pseudonyms should be used to protect participants). Perkins School of the Blind?

·       Was data analyzed from lesson plans, assessments, syllabi, other outcomes created as a result of the PD?

·       Was information on the home languages of the students gathered?

Data analysis

·       It would be helpful to readers to include a summary table of themes/categories, codes, and frequencies.

·       Several scales were utilized (e.g., Critical Communication Skills Checklist, Learning Media Profile, etc.); it would be helpful to include sample questions – perhaps as an appendix.

·       “Over the last three years, I have learned that it is best practice to separate English and ASL 529 whenever possible to ensure the integrity of both languages. I also learned the term translanguaging and 530 how to incorporate and honor an individual's use of multiple languages and modes” (p. 11) – I think it is necessary to analyze this quote through the lens of translanguaging which takes a holistic approach to languaging and communication without adherence to “the integrity” of “languages.”

·       “Prelinguistic” has deficit connotations. Could a different word be utilized – multimodal communication/communication via gestures, etc.?

·       “As the school began to acknowledge and promote a 737 multilingual multimodal philosophy, they collaborated to develop communal materials” (p. 15) – Could samples of these materials be included?

Axial Coding: Community Knowledge

·       It might be helpful to connect to translanguaging space – community created and maintained by all interlocutors (Li Wei, 2011)

Community translanguaging toolkits

·       “While staff members described translanguaging as an individual trajectory based on both student needs/abilities and staff capacity, 877 they noted that the strategies were essentially similar in purpose; building meaning, facilitating comprehension, and connecting skills among modalities to expand the range of meaningful strategies among both students and staff members.” (p. 18) – I think it is also important to connect to the expression of identity translanguaging classrooms/communities offer, as well as the central focus of translanguaging as a pedagogy of social justice.

Selective Category: Facilitating a Multimodal Translingual Framework

·       “Two essential “rules'' that emerged during this process included 1. maintaining a value on language separation and 2. making language experiences meaningful through social interactions.” (p. 19). I think rule 1 needs a little more explanation; perhaps connect to literature on sustainable translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017).

Conclusions

·       It may also be helpful to connect this work to translanguaging design, stance, and shifts (García et al, 2017) when thinking of pedagogy for DDBDD populations.

Thanks for the opportunity to read your work; I hope these thoughts are helpful.

Best,

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Reviewer #1

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study attempted to contribute to translanguaging scholarship by drawing evidence from deaf education, which I believe is important and necessary given the underrepresentation of deaf education in translanguaging scholarship. While the study provided an excellent analysis of data from a deaf education context, it did not engage sufficiently with appropriate translanguaging literature. Please consider the following:

 

1.     There is consensus among translanguaging scholars regarding the division of the translanguaging scholarship into two domains: translanguaging as a bilingual behaviour and translanguaging as pedagogy (See, Lewis et al., 2012; Nikula & Moore, 2019; an entire PhD thesis on translanguaging pedagogies, Rafi, 2022c). While the former refers to the seamless flow of discursive practices without any named language separation ideologies, the latter refers to the strategic manipulation of those practices while accommodating language separation on the continuum (García & Kleyn, 2016). To put it another way, when we use translanguaging as a pedagogy, we utilise the entire linguistic repertoires of the students as a resource to develop them as strategic users of named language/s. Over the years, I have noticed that several studies, including the current one, focused on translanguaging as a bilingual behaviour in educational contexts but did not engage with or benefit from scholarship on translanguaging pedagogies. These studies are frequently prey to similar reporting fallacies, such as those mentioned in lines "927-928: “Two essential “rules'' that emerged during this process included 1. maintaining a value on language separation” as well as “co-construction of knowledge”, “community-based”, or culturally relevant materials etc as novel findings that are widely reported or even saturated in the existing literature on translanguaging pedagogies. To ensure proper engagement with translanguaging scholarship, I encourage the authors to engage with studies on translanguaging pedagogies. I have included a list of useful references below.

 

Response: We have expanded the exploration into translanguaging literaturein the theoretical background and discussion sections.

 

2.     Please provide full forms of DHH, and ASL. In my opinion, a thorough examination of ASL and how it interacts with translanguaging will be extremely beneficial to the manuscript. It can be difficult for readers who are new to deaf education to understand how ASL and translanguaging are related.

 

Response: The forms of DHH and ASL are expanded in the theoretical background section

 

3.     I felt the authors tried to do too much in one article. I would advise the authors to concentrate on the study's main findings and leave out the minor ones. "The Current Study:” section is overly detailed, with a few repetitions. Furthermore, the authors used a plethora of acronyms, such as ASL, SFDS, DDBDD, ACC, VCSL, ASL-RST, LCPs, and so on, which impeded the reading flow. I would suggest that you limit their use.

 

Response: We have simplified the methodology section and eliminated many acronyms. 

 

4.     St. Francis de Sales School for the Deaf (SFDS) in Brooklyn, NY; Institutional Review Board at Teachers College, Columbia University 

 

  – Do these identifying details ensure the anonymity of the data?

 

Response: We have removed all identifiers of the school. 

 

5.     “Pages 251- 251: Additional challenges teachers identified included a perception of conflict with colleagues’ or administrators’ beliefs and systemic pressures — such as through assessments or the broader education system — that privilege English only” (Deroo & Ponzio, 2019): In addition to Deroo & Ponzio (2019), more recent studies, such as Rafi and Morgan (2022a, 2022b) can strengthen these arguments. Rafi and Morgan (2022a) investigated how institutional linguistic norms and conventions and the teacher's preference for English-only practices affected students' engagement and participation in class activities while marginalising students less proficient in that language. Rafi and Morgan (2022b) demonstrated how students recognised the positive potential of translanguaging pedagogies while the teacher resisted this approach by emphasising the ideological complexities that may arise from the socio-political realities of the given context.

 

Response: we eliminated rather than expand this discussion since it was not identified as a theme

 

6.     986—987 Through separation (decapitalise)

 

Response: this was edited

 

7.     725: was to to 725 develop the individual (typo)

 

Response: this was edited

 

List of references:

 

García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. Routledge. 

 

Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718490

 

Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151 

 

Rafi, A.S.M. & Morgan, A.M. (2022a). Translanguaging and Power in Academic Writing Discourse. Classroom Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2022.2046621

 

Rafi, A.S.M., & Morgan, A.M (2022-b). Blending translanguaging and CLIL: Pedagogical benefits and ideological challenges in a Bangladeshi classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies.https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2022.2090361

 

Rafi, A. S. M. (2022c). Pedagogical benefits, ideological and practical challenges and implementational spaces of a translanguaging education policy: the case of Bangladeshi higher education. PhD Thesis, James Cook University. https://doi.org/10.25903/k2bf%2D7s18

Reviewer #3

This was an interesting and insightful read in the context of Crip Linguistics. The authors investigate an important issue of how schools and educators address linguistic diversity when it comes to sign languages and students with impaired hearing and other disabilities. The paper is very well written with a thorough literature review and a detailed methodology. However, I have to admit that the amount of terminology and acronyms as well as the attempt at combining different theories and approaches makes it a rather difficult read. Here are some points to consider:

1.     My main concern is the theoretical framework. I am aware that this is action research and that the theory emerges from it; however, it is not clear as to what your leading theory is. You’re trying to integrate translingual framework, translanguaging approaches, multilingualism, and multimodality all in one paper, which makes it awfully confusing. Some of these concepts/theories/approaches are contradictory and (as you’ve also mentioned) cannot be used in the same context. It is my understanding that you’re trying to show how translanguaging approaches can be used in multilingual contexts, but then you write about translingual framework, which is a different story. The amount of theoretical and conceptual contradiction makes this a ‘messy’ read to say the least.

 

Response: This is good feedback, thank you. We have attempted to simplify the framework and discussion focus to highlight the theory that emerged

 

2.     Another suggestion is to be consistent with the use of acronyms. You have to be aware that all of your readers will not know the meaning of your acronyms, so make sure to provide full versions first and then stick to the acronyms. There was a lack of consistency with DHH. In some cases it was used as an acronym and in some the full version was provided.

 

Response: we maintained use of DHH through the introduction and background, then switched to DDBDD in the context of the school environment

 

Some other points that need clarification:

 

1.     “the multilingual process of translanguaging” – this doesn’t sound right particularly because the two are belonging to two contradicting frameworks. Multi- predicates countability of languages, while translanguaging is a practice that overcomes linguistic separability.

 

Response: we addressed the concept of separability in the introduction and expanded a description of how language recognition was described in tandem with dynamic language use by the school 

 

2.     Code-switching is a part of a multilingual framework, not a translingual one.

 

Response: We referred to Swanwick’s description of code-switching as a process of mixing, blending, and switching between languages

 

Dovchin, S., & Lee, J. W. (2019). Introduction to special issue:‘ The ordinariness of translinguistics’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 105-111.

 

3.     “In corpus planning–or the description and standardization of language–the school began to shape the foundation of a translingual framework for teaching and using a multimodal and multilingual approach.”

 

Response:

 

 

 

 

Generally, authors seem to be well-informed about the topic and this is an important research that I’d very much like to see published; however, I do believe that some things need to be clarified to make this a publishable paper.

A side note: This paper gives the impression that it came out of a thesis. It’s perhaps a bit too detailed in some parts of the literature review and methodology. It needs to be shorter, clearer, and straight to the point. Research aims should not be mentioned at the end of almost each section, and they should be clearly stated at the beginning.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study attempted to contribute to translanguaging scholarship by drawing evidence from deaf education, which I believe is important and necessary given the underrepresentation of deaf education in translanguaging scholarship. While the study provided an excellent analysis of data from a deaf education context, it did not engage sufficiently with appropriate translanguaging literature. Please consider the following:

1.     There is consensus among translanguaging scholars regarding the division of the translanguaging scholarship into two domains: translanguaging as a bilingual behaviour and translanguaging as pedagogy (See, Lewis et al., 2012; Nikula & Moore, 2019; an entire PhD thesis on translanguaging pedagogies, Rafi, 2022c). While the former refers to the seamless flow of discursive practices without any named language separation ideologies, the latter refers to the strategic manipulation of those practices while accommodating language separation on the continuum (García & Kleyn, 2016). To put it another way, when we use translanguaging as a pedagogy, we utilise the entire linguistic repertoires of the students as a resource to develop them as strategic users of named language/s. Over the years, I have noticed that several studies, including the current one, focused on translanguaging as a bilingual behaviour in educational contexts but did not engage with or benefit from scholarship on translanguaging pedagogies. These studies are frequently prey to similar reporting fallacies, such as those mentioned in lines "927-928: “Two essential “rules'' that emerged during this process included 1. maintaining a value on language separation” as well as “co-construction of knowledge”, “community-based”, or culturally relevant materials etc as novel findings that are widely reported or even saturated in the existing literature on translanguaging pedagogies. To ensure proper engagement with translanguaging scholarship, I encourage the authors to engage with studies on translanguaging pedagogies. I have included a list of useful references below.

2.     Please provide full forms of DHH, and ASL. In my opinion, a thorough examination of ASL and how it interacts with translanguaging will be extremely beneficial to the manuscript. It can be difficult for readers who are new to deaf education to understand how ASL and translanguaging are related.

3.     I felt the authors tried to do too much in one article. I would advise the authors to concentrate on the study's main findings and leave out the minor ones. "The Current Study:” section is overly detailed, with a few repetitions. Furthermore, the authors used a plethora of acronyms, such as ASL, SFDS, DDBDD, ACC, VCSL, ASL-RST, LCPs, and so on, which impeded the reading flow. I would suggest that you limit their use.

4.     St. Francis de Sales School for the Deaf (SFDS) in Brooklyn, NY; Institutional Review Board at Teachers College, Columbia University 

  – Do these identifying details ensure the anonymity of the data?

5.     “Pages 251- 251: Additional challenges teachers identified included a perception of conflict with colleagues’ or administrators’ beliefs and systemic pressures — such as through assessments or the broader education system — that privilege English only” (Deroo & Ponzio, 2019): In addition to Deroo & Ponzio (2019), more recent studies, such as Rafi and Morgan (2022a, 2022b) can strengthen these arguments. Rafi and Morgan (2022a) investigated how institutional linguistic norms and conventions and the teacher's preference for English-only practices affected students' engagement and participation in class activities while marginalising students less proficient in that language. Rafi and Morgan (2022b) demonstrated how students recognised the positive potential of translanguaging pedagogies while the teacher resisted this approach by emphasising the ideological complexities that may arise from the socio-political realities of the given context.

6.     986—987 Through separation (decapitalise)

7.     725: was to to 725 develop the individual (typo)

List of references:

García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. Routledge. 

Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718490

Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151 

Rafi, A.S.M. & Morgan, A.M. (2022a). Translanguaging and Power in Academic Writing Discourse. Classroom Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2022.2046621

Rafi, A.S.M., & Morgan, A.M (2022-b). Blending translanguaging and CLIL: Pedagogical benefits and ideological challenges in a Bangladeshi classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies.https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2022.2090361

Rafi, A. S. M. (2022c). Pedagogical benefits, ideological and practical challenges and implementational spaces of a translanguaging education policy: the case of Bangladeshi higher education. PhD Thesis, James Cook University. https://doi.org/10.25903/k2bf%2D7s18

Author Response

Reviewer 2: 

 

I found your manuscript both fascinating and needed. As a translanguaging scholar, I have not often seen this theory of language applied within deaf education – where, as you discuss, it is highly relevant and connected to the multimodal nature of communication. As I was reading your important work, I had some thoughts which I hope are helpful (perhaps most importantly to the connection between translanguaging and identity expression and translanguaging as a pedagogy of social justice, and sustainable translanguaging) in disseminating your message:

 

Theoretical background/Intro

 

•       It might be helpful to readers to include the questions that guided this 3-year DA study into language planning.

 

Response: The inquiry questions were included in the description of current study “the themes that emerged regarding a three year period of language planning and professional development in multimodal communication at SFDS and how these themes shaped the foundation of a translingual framework for Deaf, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled students.”

Acquisition Planning: Translanguaging and Multilingualism

 

•       I think it may be helpful to also cite Li Wei’s (2018) translanguaging as a practical theory of language; in it, he provides theoretical framing for the multimodal and multisensory nature of translanguaging.

 

Response: This was added to the theoretical framework

Translanguaging in Deaf Education

 

•       Connect to dynamic bilingualism – beyond additive models – (Flores & Schissel, 2014; García, Rubdy & Alsagoff, 2014).

 

Response: We elaborated on dynamic bilingualism in the theoretical framework and discussion sections.

 

The Current Study

 

•       Is St. Francis de 272 Sales School for the Deaf a pseudonym? (Pseudonyms should be used to protect participants). Perkins School of the Blind?

 

Response: We removed all identifiers of the school and location.

•       Was data analyzed from lesson plans, assessments, syllabi, other outcomes created as a result of the PD?

 

Response: This data was not collected or analyzed as this was outside the scope and constraints of the study, but would certainly make for an interesting further exploration. 

 

•       Was information on the home languages of the students gathered?

 

Response: While this information was gathered by the school in the language profiles, it was not used as a data point in the study–which focused primarily on staff perceptions and conceptions of translanguaging. 

 

Data analysis

 

•       It would be helpful to readers to include a summary table of themes/categories, codes, and frequencies.

 

Response: A summary table of the codes are included in the appendix.

 

•       Several scales were utilized (e.g., Critical Communication Skills Checklist, Learning Media Profile, etc.); it would be helpful to include sample questions – perhaps as an appendix.

 

Response: Two language planning forms were included in the appendix, but the length of the manuscript prevented a longer list of sample items.

 

•       “Over the last three years, I have learned that it is best practice to separate English and ASL 529 whenever possible to ensure the integrity of both languages. I also learned the term translanguaging and 530 how to incorporate and honor an individual's use of multiple languages and modes” (p. 11) – I think it is necessary to analyze this quote through the lens of translanguaging which takes a holistic approach to languaging and communication without adherence to “the integrity” of “languages.”

 

Response: we address these statements in the discussion of a shift from ASL recognition towards a more dynamic use of multiple languages

 

•       “Prelinguistic” has deficit connotations. Could a different word be utilized – multimodal communication/communication via gestures, etc.?

 

Response: Communication behaviors was used in replacement of prelinguistic skills.

 

•       “As the school began to acknowledge and promote a 737 multilingual multimodal philosophy, they collaborated to develop communal materials” (p. 15) – Could samples of these materials be included?

 

Response: Two samples of language planning materials were included in the appendix 

 

Axial Coding: Community Knowledge

 

•       It might be helpful to connect to translanguaging space – community created and maintained by all interlocutors (Li Wei, 2011)

 

Response: We related this to Swanwick’s concept of deaf translanguaging spaces

 

Community translanguaging toolkits

 

•       “While staff members described translanguaging as an individual trajectory based on both student needs/abilities and staff capacity, 877 they noted that the strategies were essentially similar in purpose; building meaning, facilitating comprehension, and connecting skills among modalities to expand the range of meaningful strategies among both students and staff members.” (p. 18) – I think it is also important to connect to the expression of identity translanguaging classrooms/communities offer, as well as the central focus of translanguaging as a pedagogy of social justice.

 

Response: While we agree that identity is an important connection, it did not emerge as a topic within the artifacts or survey responses

 

Selective Category: Facilitating a Multimodal Translingual Framework

 

•       “Two essential “rules'' that emerged during this process included 1. maintaining a value on language separation and 2. making language experiences meaningful through social interactions.” (p. 19). I think rule 1 needs a little more explanation; perhaps connect to literature on sustainable translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017).

 

Response: This section was revised to describe the shift from language recognition to dynamic translanguaging

 

Conclusions

 

•       It may also be helpful to connect this work to translanguaging design, stance, and shifts (García et al, 2017) when thinking of pedagogy for DDBDD populations.

Response: This was helpful feedback and we connected the discussion section to literature by Garcia and others specializing in deaf translanguaging.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review: Three Year Transition to Multimodal Multilingual Practice for DDBDD, NOW WHAT? - A balancing act of language separation and translanguaging without reverting back to SimCom

 

This was an interesting and insightful read in the context of Crip Linguistics. The authors investigate an important issue of how schools and educators address linguistic diversity when it comes to sign languages and students with impaired hearing and other disabilities. The paper is very well written with a thorough literature review and a detailed methodology. However, I have to admit that the amount of terminology and acronyms as well as the attempt at combining different theories and approaches makes it a rather difficult read. Here are some points to consider:

 

1.     My main concern is the theoretical framework. I am aware that this is action research and that the theory emerges from it; however, it is not clear as to what your leading theory is. You’re trying to integrate translingual framework, translanguaging approaches, multilingualism, and multimodality all in one paper, which makes it awfully confusing. Some of these concepts/theories/approaches are contradictory and (as you’ve also mentioned) cannot be used in the same context. It is my understanding that you’re trying to show how translanguaging approaches can be used in multilingual contexts, but then you write about translingual framework, which is a different story. The amount of theoretical and conceptual contradiction makes this a ‘messy’ read to say the least.

2.     Another suggestion is to be consistent with the use of acronyms. You have to be aware that all of your readers will not know the meaning of your acronyms, so make sure to provide full versions first and then stick to the acronyms. There was a lack of consistency with DHH. In some cases it was used as an acronym and in some the full version was provided.

 

Some other points that need clarification:

 

1.     “the multilingual process of translanguaging” – this doesn’t sound right particularly because the two are belonging to two contradicting frameworks. Multi- predicates countability of languages, while translanguaging is a practice that overcomes linguistic separability.

2.     Code-switching is a part of multilingual framework, not translingual one.

 

Dovchin, S., & Lee, J. W. (2019). Introduction to special issue:‘ The ordinariness of translinguistics’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 105-111.

 

3.     “In corpus planning–or the description and standardization of language–the school began to shape the foundation of a translingual framework for teaching and using a multimodal and multilingual approach.”

 

 

Generally, authors seem to be well-informed about the topic and this is an important research that I’d very much like to see published; however, I do believe that some things need to be clarified to make this a publishable paper.

 

A side note: This paper gives the impression that it came out of a thesis. It’s perhaps a bit too detailed in some parts of the literature review and methodology. It needs to be shorter, clearer, and straight to the point. Research aims should not be mentioned at the end of almost each section, and they should be clearly stated at the beginning.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3

 

This was an interesting and insightful read in the context of Crip Linguistics. The authors investigate an important issue of how schools and educators address linguistic diversity when it comes to sign languages and students with impaired hearing and other disabilities. The paper is very well written with a thorough literature review and a detailed methodology. However, I have to admit that the amount of terminology and acronyms as well as the attempt at combining different theories and approaches makes it a rather difficult read. Here are some points to consider:

 

1.     My main concern is the theoretical framework. I am aware that this is action research and that the theory emerges from it; however, it is not clear as to what your leading theory is. You’re trying to integrate translingual framework, translanguaging approaches, multilingualism, and multimodality all in one paper, which makes it awfully confusing. Some of these concepts/theories/approaches are contradictory and (as you’ve also mentioned) cannot be used in the same context. It is my understanding that you’re trying to show how translanguaging approaches can be used in multilingual contexts, but then you write about translingual framework, which is a different story. The amount of theoretical and conceptual contradiction makes this a ‘messy’ read to say the least.

 

Response: We have attempted to simplify the framework to discuss translanguaging and the impact of professional development while highlighting the theory that emerged about constructing language ideology through these trainings and deaf-centered perspectives.

 

2.     Another suggestion is to be consistent with the use of acronyms. You have to be aware that all of your readers will not know the meaning of your acronyms, so make sure to provide full versions first and then stick to the acronyms. There was a lack of consistency with DHH. In some cases it was used as an acronym and in some the full version was provided.

 

Response: we revised this to be consistent with either DHH or DDBDD

 

Some other points that need clarification:

 

1.     “the multilingual process of translanguaging” – this doesn’t sound right particularly because the two are belonging to two contradicting frameworks. Multi- predicates countability of languages, while translanguaging is a practice that overcomes linguistic separability.

 

Response: we addressed the concept of separability in the introduction and expanded a description of how language recognition was described in tandem with dynamic language use by the school 

 

2.     Code-switching is a part of a multilingual framework, not a translingual one.

 

Response: We referred to Swanwick’s description of code-switching as a process of mixing, blending, and switching between languages

 

Dovchin, S., & Lee, J. W. (2019). Introduction to special issue:‘ The ordinariness of translinguistics’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 105-111.

 

3.     “In corpus planning–or the description and standardization of language–the school began to shape the foundation of a translingual framework for teaching and using a multimodal and multilingual approach.”

 

 

Generally, authors seem to be well-informed about the topic and this is an important research that I’d very much like to see published; however, I do believe that some things need to be clarified to make this a publishable paper.

 

A side note: This paper gives the impression that it came out of a thesis. It’s perhaps a bit too detailed in some parts of the literature review and methodology. It needs to be shorter, clearer, and straight to the point. Research aims should not be mentioned at the end of almost each section, and they should be clearly stated at the beginning.

Response: thank you for the suggestions, we attempted to shorten and refocus the background and discussion sections, and shorten the methodology sections

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe the paper is ready to be published