ISSN: 1579-9794

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework

for fostering L2 sociolinguistic competence through

translation

Lenguaje coloquial e identidad: un marco teórico para

fomentar la competencia sociolingüística de L2 a través de

la traducción

HANNAH LEONARD

hannah.leonard22@mail.dcu.ie

Dublin City University

LUCÍA PINTADO GUTIÉRREZ

lucia.pintado@dcu.ie

Dublin City University

JENNIFER MARTYN

jennifer.martyn@dcu.ie

Dublin City University

Fecha de recepción: 14/06/2024

Fecha de aceptación: 14/03/2025

Abstract: This exploratory theoretical framework focuses on the marginal

presence of informal language in the L2 curriculum and advocates its inclusion

via translation tasks to develop student agency and sociolinguistic

competence. It also aims to facilitate the development of learners’ L2 identity,

as the ability to alternate between various styles and registers (including

informal registers) can be a means to demonstrate in-group membership

(Regan, 1996, 2010). Classroom-based learners often overuse formal

registers, which may hinder them in day-to-day interactions with native

speakers (Mougeon et al., 2010) and affect their agency and self-confidence

if they feel the language they use is inappropriate. Translation shifts the focus

onto the decisions behind the selection of certain pragmalinguistic or

sociolinguistic variants over others, and the resulting impact on the style and

message of the text. When tasked with establishing equivalence, the learners

interact with the indexical nature of language, thus enhancing their

understanding of the social and symbolic meaning of sociolinguistic variation.

This investigation therefore lies at the intersection of learner agency and the

use of informal language in the L2, the role of translation in L2 teaching as a

2 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

tool to introduce informal language, and the relationship between

sociolinguistic competence and identity in the L2.

Keywords: Sociolinguistic variation, Translation in Language Teaching

(TILT), Identity

Resumen: Este marco teórico exploratorio se centra en la presencia marginal

del lenguaje informal en el currículo de lenguas extranjeras (L2) y aboga por

su inclusión a través de tareas de traducción para desarrollar la agencia y la

competencia sociolingüística del alumnado. A la vez, pretende facilitar el

desarrollo de la identidad de los alumnos en la L2, dado que la capacidad de

alternar entre varios estilos y registros (incluso los registros informales) puede

ser una manera de demostrar la pertenencia a un determinado grupo (Regan,

1996, 2010). En el aprendizaje en el aula, los estudiantes tienden a utilizar

registros formales, lo que puede presentar desafíos comunicativos en sus

interacciones cotidianas con hablantes nativos en otros registros (Mougeon

et al., 2010), y afectar a su agencia y la confianza en sí mismos si consideran

que la lengua que utilizan no es adecuada. La traducción desplaza el centro

de atención hacia las decisiones que subyacen a la selección de

determinadas variantes pragmalingüísticas o sociolingüísticas frente a otras,

y cómo repercute en el estilo y el mensaje de dicho texto. Cuando se le

encomienda la tarea de establecer equivalencias, el estudiantado interactúa

con la indexicalidad de la lengua, mejorando así su comprensión del

significado social y simbólico de la variación sociolingüística. Por lo tanto, esta

investigación se sitúa en la intersección de la agencia del alumnado y el uso

del lenguaje informal en la L2, el papel de la traducción en la enseñanza de

la L2 como herramienta para introducir el lenguaje informal en su aprendizaje,

y la relación entre la competencia sociolingüística y su identidad en el

contexto de la L2.

Palabras clave: Variación sociolingüística, Traducción pedagógica, Identidad

INTRODUCTION

This exploratory theoretical framework proposes the use of translation

tasks as a promising approach for improving second/foreign language (L2)

learners’ sociolinguistic competence. It departs from the marginal presence of

informal language in the L2 curriculum and argues that translation raises

awareness of sociolinguistic variation in the classroom, facilitates the

development of learner agency and as a result fosters sociolinguistic

competence, while respecting the learners’ L2 identity. The objective of this

article is therefore to examine the construct of sociolinguistic competence in

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 3

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

the L2 classroom as an integral component of communicative competence;

awareness of the role of sociolinguistic variation in the L2 learner’s identity

and agency; the potential of translation to enhance colloquial language

against various frameworks, including the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the Instituto Cervantes Curricular Plan

(PCIC); and future avenues for research such as didactic audiovisual

translation (DAT), also in line with the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic

Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA) and the acquisition of

plurilingual and pluricultural competence (PPC).

Sociolinguistic competence is widely considered to consist of two core

skills: the ability to understand the sociocultural context of communication; and

the ability to use appropriate language in a given context (Canale, 1983;

Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995). As such, it is concerned

with both receptive and productive skills. More recently, (Geeslin, 2018, p.

550) has described sociolinguistic competence as “the ability to produce

variable structures according to social norms and also to interpret linguistic

and extralinguistic information”. Fundamentally, this interpretation of

sociolinguistic competence recognises the plurality of social norms—what is

appropriate according to one norm may be inappropriate according to another.

With this in mind, the present article views sociolinguistic competence as the

ability to produce and/or understand variable structures in relation to social

norms and to interpret linguistic and extralinguistic information. It is not a

siloed competence but rather forms an integral and interdependent part of

communicative competence as a whole.

Despite being a crucial component of communicative competence, it is

generally recognised that instructed learners face difficulties in developing

sociolinguistic competence and often tend towards monostylistic

communication and overuse formal variants (Mougeon et al., 2004, 2010;

Nadasdi et al., 2005; Regan, 1995, 2004). While such usage may reflect

proficiency in other areas like linguistic competence (following the terminology

used by Celce-Murcia et al., 1995), or grammatical competence/knowledge

(following Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980), a lack of focus

on developing the learner’s accompanying sociolinguistic competence can

result in difficulties in real world contexts as students are unfamiliar with more

natural, informal registers (van Compernolle & Williams, 2011). Van

Compernolle and Williams (2009) posit that advanced learners eventually

overcome the hurdle of sociolinguistic variation through increased exposure

to the target language. This stance is widely supported in the literature

documenting learners’ improved understanding and use of sociolinguistic

variants following prolonged contact, such as after a study abroad period

4 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

(Geeslin et al., 2010; Howard et al., 2006; Knouse, 2013; Ringer-Hilfinger,

2012; Salgado-Robles, 2011). Social networks, as highlighted by Milroy

(1980) are also instrumental in L2 acquisition of sociolinguistic variation during

these periods. The increased contact with informal variants afforded by

positive relationships with speakers of the target language and multiplex social

networks correlates with higher usage of such variants (Gautier & Chevrot,

2015; Isabelli-García, 2006).

Much of the research on non-native speakers’ use of sociolinguistic

variation uses the term second language/L2 as many of these studies

investigate contexts where the target language is spoken in the learners’

community (e.g. French in Canada). By contrast, foreign language (FL) refers

to contexts where the target language is not widely spoken in the community

(e.g. Spanish in Ireland), meaning many learners may have limited

extracurricular contact with the language. While these terms are not wholly

interchangeable, in line with the terminology used by many authors in this

field, the present article uses L2 as an umbrella term for the language(s)

acquired by learners other than their native language (L1), including foreign

languages. Instructed L2 learners face an additional obstacle in terms of input,

as teacher talk and learning materials are often lacking in sociolinguistic

variation, thus reducing the range of variants that learners are exposed to

(Etienne & Sax, 2009; Rehner & Mougeon, 2003; Yang & Rehner, 2015).

The framework proposed and discussed in this article draws upon

empirical research documenting improved sociolinguistic knowledge following

explicit instruction and contextualises the sociolinguistic choices that learners

may make in relation to their identity. It then presents an overview of

translation in language teaching, including its applications and benefits, with

the goal of demonstrating how and why translation can be leveraged in the

classroom to foster L2 sociolinguistic competence. This article focuses in

particular on Peninsular Spanish sociolinguistic variation.

1. SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIATION AND L2 EDUCATION

Colloquial Spanish is the term used to refer to the informal register in

Spanish (Briz, 1998; Cortés, 2002; López Serena, 2007). This variety, used

across various groups of speakers in everyday language is an area that L2

Spanish learners tend to struggle with (Albelda & Briz, 2017; Albelda &

Fernández, 2006; Azúar Bonastre, 2014). Azúar Bonastre (2014) notes that

learners report that their lack of familiarity with colloquial Spanish results in

the inability to understand certain messages, their utterances being perceived

as strange or humorous, losing their turn in a conversation and being

misinterpreted or perceived as pedantic. Hence, there have been a growing

number of calls for the inclusion of colloquial Spanish in the L2 classroom

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 5

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

(Briz, 1998, 2002; Garrido Rodríguez, 2000; Laguna & Porroche, 2006;

Pedrola, 2021).

Outside the classroom, L1 speakers seem to welcome the use of

colloquial Spanish by L2 speakers. Although DuBois (2019) found that L2

users were sometimes judged more harshly when using the same colloquial

variants as L1 users, the quantitative difference was not so great as to

discourage the use of these variants by L2 speakers. Many of the L1

participants acknowledged the ubiquity of colloquial language in day-to-day

communication and deemed knowledge of such variants as essential for a

holistic understanding of Spanish. Indeed, one L1 participant even

commented that not accepting L2 users’ use of slang could be taken as

“linguistic social exclusion” (DuBois, 2019, p. 120). In this regard, DuBois

(2019, p. 133) defends the use of slang by L2 users provided that they “remain

sensitive to the contextual demands of the situation”—although some users

may approve of colloquial language while others may disapprove, its usage

seems generally accepted. DuBois therefore advocates a policy of careful

consideration in the application of colloquial language in the classroom,

highlighting that particular attention must be paid to situational constraints in

relation to the level of formality required in different contexts, despite the fact

that (L1) users may have widely differing opinions on the use of colloquial

language. Likewise, L2 users may also have varying opinions regarding the

use of colloquial language in their interactions.

Thus, while caution is recommended in L2 use of informal and colloquial

language inside and outside the classroom, it is evident that it forms an

important part of the sociolinguistic landscape of Spanish, and as an area that

L2 learners tend to have difficulty with, it certainly merits inclusion in the L2

classroom. However, in reality this is not the case. According to van

Compernolle (2013), L2 classrooms tend to focus on standard language

varieties, and thus marginalise the widespread informal linguistic forms used

by native speaker communities. Furthermore, on the occasions when

sociostylistic variation does arise, it is often described in oversimplified or

narrowly empirical terms. The frequent omission of colloquial varieties from

the L2 curriculum may also stem from practical reasons, such as the limited

number of teaching hours, the fact that teachers may lack sociolinguistic

knowledge, or the quality of teaching materials available (Gutiérrez &

Fairclough, 2006).

The incorporation of sociolinguistic variation into the Spanish language

class should be done in accordance with the learners’ level of knowledge of

Spanish but ought to begin at the basic levels: instruction can incrementally

shift from awareness of linguistic variation to productive abilities, starting with

local varieties, language registers, and styles of Spanish, and then

6 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

progressing to other varieties, registers, and styles from around the world

(Gutiérrez & Fairclough, 2006). Including stylistic variation is key in teaching

language used by native speakers, or what Gutiérrez and Fairclough refer to

as “the real language” (2006, p. 185) and colloquial conversations have been

touted as rich sources for teaching such real language (Albelda & Fernández,

2006; Briz, 2002). Films, for instance, are a natural resource to teach

colloquial elements with and can increase levels of enjoyment and motivation

amongst students during class (Azúar Bonastre, 2014). This aligns with other

studies documenting improved sociolinguistic knowledge following

pedagogical interventions, as discussed in the following section.

1.1. Advances in the L2 Explicit Instruction of Colloquial Language

Much of the research indicating that explicit instruction positively

impacts sociolinguistic knowledge has focused on French (Beaulieu et al.,

2018; French & Beaulieu, 2016, 2020; Lyster, 1994; van Compernolle &

Henery, 2014; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a, 2012b, 2013), however

positive gains have also been observed in German (Lemmerich, 2010) and

Spanish (Pisabarro Sarrió, 2019; van Compernolle et al., 2016).

The majority of studies investigating the relationship between explicit

instruction and sociolinguistic competence have reported an improvement in

learners’ knowledge and/or performance. There is however some conflicting

evidence, such as the findings of Dewaele (2002), which indicated that the

amount of formal instruction in French did not correlate with increased use of

the vernacular first person pronoun on (over the standard pronoun nous)

amongst advanced L2 learners. This study echoed findings from Dewaele and

Regan (2001) who also reported that classroom instruction appeared to have

no predictive value on the use of colloquial variants in advanced French

interlanguage. Both studies, quantitative in nature, focused on performance

by centring on interlanguage corpora. Although Dewaele and Regan

suggested the absence of colloquial words may be due to a lack of linguistic

or sociopragmatic knowledge, it has also been recognised that learners may

actively choose to eschew nonstandard variants despite being familiar with

them (Dewaele & Regan, 2001; Kinginger & Farrell, 2004). Such resistance

to the use of nonstandard variation may stem from reasons related to the

learner’s identity and their imagined communities.

1.2. Language Learners’ Identity, Agency, and Informal Language

In the social sciences, identity is generally conceived of from a

poststructuralist viewpoint, where it is framed as “socially constructed, self-

conscious, ongoing narratives that individuals perform, interpret and project in

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 7

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

dress, bodily movements, actions and language” (Block, 2007, p. 27). The

crux of this stance is that identity is not fixed, but rather is something fluid,

undergoing constant (re)construction. Noting the social facet of identity,

Kiesling (2013, p. 449) explains that “identity is like language in its occupation

of space between the individual and the social, and identity represents a

negotiation of the intersubjective meanings of social practices”. Another key

component of identity is therefore its inherent relational nature: an individual

may perform or enact particular social processes or identities, but these social

processes and identities are interpreted by others through the ideological and

cultural framework in which they are embedded (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004).

Highlighting the simultaneously individual and social essence of identity,

Kiesling (2013, p. 450) defines it as “a state or process of relationship between

self and other; identity is how individuals define, create, or think of themselves

in terms of their relationships with other individuals and groups, whether these

others are real or imagined”. This notion of defining oneself in relation to others

often underpins learners’ motivations for embracing or rejecting colloquial

language. The degree to which they perceive themselves as L2 learners

(and/or “outsiders”) rather than authentic users of the L2 can greatly influence

their language choices, as can their sense of connection to genuine or

imagined communities of users of the L2.

1.2.1. The Role of Learners’ Foreign/L1 Identity

Identity and language use are closely interrelated, to the extent that L2

learners may be reluctant to use slang or colloquial terms. Kinginger and

Farrell (2004) emphasise that many learners may avoid using nonstandard

language, even if they are familiar with such forms, as “[t]he status of ‘learner’

or of ‘non-native’ language user tends to convey with it an attitude of caution

when it comes to employing the full range of available second language

resources” (p. 19). In addition to caution, learner identity can also evoke

feelings of discomfort in relation to nonstandard variation, with learners

reporting feeling “fake”, “artificial” and “embarrassed” (Soruç & Griffiths, 2015,

p. 32), or worrying that they would “sound stupid” (Fernández, 2013, p. 181).

Some students report actively avoiding L2 informal speech norms due to

perceived negative impact on their comprehensibility when interacting with L1

speakers (French & Beaulieu, 2016). Interestingly, some students in Soruç

and Griffiths’ (2015) study claimed that the status of their interlocutor (native

speaker vs non-native speaker) had the opposite effect and felt that informal

variants were of more use to them in conversation with native speakers rather

than non-native speakers.

The deliberate avoidance of L2 informal speech is therefore closely

linked to our identities, which are produced through the practices that we

engage in, as well as those which we avoid. As such, our identities are

8 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

relational, defined by both what we are as well as what we are not (Wenger,

1998). Therefore, while the learners may view themselves as part of the target

language community in that they possess a degree of competence in that

language, they might also distinguish themselves from native speakers by

choosing not to participate in certain native speaker practices of different

communities in a given language.

1.2.2. The Role of Learners’ Imagined Communities

Pursuing or rejecting certain language practices is intimately related to

the learner’s sense of identity. According to Pavlenko and Norton (2007)

language learners’ memberships in imagined communities, whether actual

and/or desired, affect their trajectories as learners and have an impact on

aspects such as their agency, motivation and endurance. Imagined

communities refer to affiliations across time and space between members who

may never have any direct dealings with one another, but who nonetheless

experience a sense of community (Anderson, 2006; Norton, 2001; Norton &

Toohey, 2011). They are the result of imagination as a social process and

membership in these communities impacts a learner’s decisions and

behaviours, including their linguistic practices such as: (a) favouring local

usage patterns when planning to remain in that community (Regan, 2014); (b)

prioritising varieties related to their actual and desired social networks

(Fernández, 2013; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a; Martyn, 2022) and;

Compernolle & Willliams, 2012a; Fernández, 2013).

In relation to colloquial language, a lack of knowledge of informal

variants can be perceived as an obstacle to gaining membership in these

desired communities. For example, difficulties in transmitting one’s sense of

humour or engaging in informal day-to-day conversations in the L2 often leave

learners feeling frustrated as they hamper their ability to form interpersonal

relationships in the workplace (Lazzaro-Salazar, 2013; Myles, 2009) or in

wider contexts. Furthermore, failure to introduce informal language in the

classroom may cause learners to perceive the classroom register as “artificial”

and thus a hindrance to their goal of becoming authentic members of the

target language community (Dewaele, 2004).

It is clear that L2 users’ language learning trajectories are

simultaneously unique, complex and varied, particularly in terms of the

enthusiasm or caution with which they approach slang and colloquial

language. However, it is precisely this ability to exert agency in the adoption

or eschewal of such language that transforms L2 learners into language users.

Nowadays L2 users are regarded as authentic speakers in their own right

once they are able to appropriate and adopt new linguistic forms and

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 9

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

meanings that align with their identities and “performed ideas” (Blyth & Dalola,

2020, p. 106). While an L2 learner is free to choose the variants that best

serve them, the widespread use of slang in everyday language means that at

the very least, learners should develop a receptive competence. As

summarised by Mattiello (2005):

first, a passive knowledge of slang is often vital for understanding

conversations in the media and real situations and may allow

learners to identify people’s origin and their belonging to a social

group or place; second, some active knowledge of it will also allow

learners to act in everyday life, to socialize and to create intimacy

with their peers; third, some aspects of slang will make the learners’

speech vivid, colourful and interesting, and will get them closer to

the expressive trends and styles of native speakers (p. 36).

The question then is, how do we respect learners’ autonomy but also

equip them to make informed choices about the language they use? Although

various approaches to teaching sociolinguistic variation have been explored,

there is room for further investigation in this area, with specific focus on

identity. Indeed, Blyth and Dalola (2020) go as far as to call for a shift in

language education that adopts sociolinguistically oriented teaching practices,

thereby respecting the multiple social identities of language learners-users, as

well as their cultural practices and communicative goals. In order to alert

students to the meaning making capacity of language, we need to draw their

attention to the indexical nature of sociolinguistic variation and its

interrelationship with culture, the self and intentions. Indexicality refers to the

way in which linguistic elements which are marked as pertaining to a certain

group can be used to index membership to, or characteristics or stances

associated with that group (Silverstein, 2003). One teaching practice which

allows us to work with multilayered and multifaceted aspects of language and

respects its multiplex nature is the use of translation as a pedagogical tool in

the L2 classroom (Carreres & Noriega-Sánchez, 2011; Pintado Gutiérrez,

2012).

2. TRANSLATION AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

While translation in L2 teaching has become an increasingly accepted

practice over the last two decades, to date, the use of translation to aid and/or

advance the acquisition of sociolinguistic variants and the development of

sociolinguistic competence is scarce. Without a doubt, interest in the

implementation of translation in L2 education is growing, however, there

remain many novel applications to be explored. The framework proposed in

this article departs from the idea that by problematising the equivalence of

referential meanings, the translation processes enhance the learner's

awareness of the differences between their L1 and their L2, while also

10 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

highlighting the variable relationships between form and meaning (Kramsch,

2002, p. 72). In other words, by tasking learners with exploring the

equivalence of semiotic symbols in the L1 and L2, translation draws their

attention to the meaning-making capacity of sociolinguistic variation and as

such can contribute to the development of language learners’ sociolinguistic

competence. Before continuing, it is important to first consider the place of

translation in language teaching, and what we mean by translation.

2.1. Translation and L2 Learning

Translation has experienced a somewhat rocky road in the field of

language education, due in part to its association with grammar translation, a

traditional method which focused on reading and writing skills in the form of

direct translation from the target language into the native language (for a

detailed review see Cook, 2010). Subsequent language methodologies such

as the Reform Movement and the Direct Method discouraged the use of

translation, instead advocating a focus on speech and orality. During this

period, it was also argued that learners’ L1 negatively impacted their L2

acquisition, which further contributed to the demise of translation (Bazani,

2019). Today, translation-related activities are increasingly accepted, by

scholars, teachers and L2 students as being of pedagogical value (Carreres,

2006; Fernández Guerra, 2014; Kelly & Bruen, 2015; Laviosa, 2014; Leonardi,

2010). Indeed, the debate has shifted, as illustrated by Carreres and Noriega-

Sánchez (2011) who posit that “the focus of reflection and research is now not

so much on whether translation has a place in language teaching, but on how

best to use it in the classroom” (p. 282).

2.2. Defining Translation and its Place in L2 Education

Translation is a complex process which often involves the use and/or

knowledge of multiple skills simultaneously. This communicative activity,

according to Malmkjær, is clearly not independent of the other skills, but it is

in fact “dependent on and inclusive of them” (1998, p. 8). Translation

enhances learners’ awareness of language in terms of both meaning in

context and form, and it improves the learners’ skills, particularly reading and

writing in the L2 (Machida, 2011). It also allows learners to practise with other

areas such as language discourse, text analysis, etc (Pintado Gutiérrez,

2012). While Malmkjær referred to the four traditional skills (reading, writing,

listening, and speaking), the CEFR suggests that the same is true for the

communicative language activities (reception, production, mediation, and

interaction) (Council of Europe, 2001).

Although translation in relation to professional practice and translation

in L2 teaching are distinct areas, they do have important points of contact that

make translation in language pedagogy a rich and complex practice. In the

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 11

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

first type, the goal is to produce a translated (or target) text; the latter involves

the use of translation for specific purposes in L2 education (Carreres, 2014;

Carreres & Noriega-Sánchez, 2011; Klaudy, 2003; Vermes, 2010). One

example of where these fields intersect is in Kelly’s (2014, pp. 83-84) list of

the subcompetences that a translator may need to develop:

● Communicative and textual competence (in at least two languages

and cultures)

● Cultural and intercultural competence

● Subject area competence

● Professional and instrumental competence

● Attitudinal or psycho-physiological competence (self-concept, self-

confidence, attention/concentration, memory, initiative)

● Interpersonal competence

● Strategic competence

Many of these are competences which we also hope to inculcate in the

L2 learner, which in turn contributes to the argument for translation’s inclusion

in L2 education. However, one issue which continues to obfuscate

translation’s role is the variety of constructs of translation in L2 teaching,

causing substantial confusion in the terminology used. The impact of the

terminology on the understanding of what translation in L2 education is, and

its acceptance or rejection, is problematised by Pintado Gutiérrez (2018) who

revisits a plethora of terms and concepts associated with the construct.

Building on conceptualisations of pedagogical translation in various

theoretical and empirical frameworks, she proposes the use of Cook’s (2010)

term Translation in Language Teaching (TILT) as an umbrella term for the

various uses of L1/L2 and/or additional languages in the language classroom.

These uses include “translating per se, translation in relation to linguistic skills,

translation and language alternation, and also translation as a cognitive

strategy” (Pintado Gutiérrez, 2018, p. 234). Elsewhere, González-Davies

(2020, p. 434) refers to translation in L2 as Translation for Other Learning

Contexts (TOLC), that is “translation to acquire linguistic and intercultural

mediation skills in fields other than translator training”. The same author also

posits that translation is both a translanguaging scaffolding activity and a

“dynamic process of communication” (Hatim and Mason, 1990 cited in

González-Davies, 2017, p. 129). Both Pintado Gutiérrez’ and González-

Davies’ conceptualisations of translation stress the broad scope of the

construct, where the focus of translation is not necessarily purely linguistic,

and it can relate to a range of mediation skills, in line with other frameworks

12 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

(see also Pintado Gutiérrez & Torralba, 2022; Torralba & Pintado Gutiérrez,

2024).

Indeed, as the value of translation in language teaching has

increasingly been recognised in academic circles, so too has its place in

institutional frameworks. Translation was included under mediation as one of

the four principal communicative activities in the CEFR (Council of Europe,

2001) (the others being reception, production and interaction). Although this

early conceptualisation of mediation primarily related to the processing and

production of written and spoken texts, nowadays, under the umbrella of

mediation, translation requires language users to interact with other language

users/texts/ideas/forms of input and draw upon receptive and productive skills.

The 2020 CEFR Companion Volume (CEFRCV, Council of Europe, 2020),

key in developing a framework solely dedicated to mediation with specific

descriptors that define this activity/strategy, was followed by the publication of

Enriching 21st-Century Language Education: The CEFR Companion volume

in practice (Council of Europe, 2022) where a variety of case studies present

best pedagogical practices focusing on mediation, plurilingualism and the

user/learner as a social agent. Thus, the value of mediation and translation as

tasks that embrace cultural and linguistic diversity is recognised across these

three fundamental publications, which are cornerstones in L2 education

guidelines throughout Europe and beyond.

In expanding mediation into a much more developed construct, the

CEFRCV (Council of Europe, 2020) also highlighted the vast range of

activities which mediation encompasses (see North & Piccardo, 2016, pp.

17-20), including the use of idiolects, sociolects and the relationships between

styles and textual genres; linking and transferring between different

components and spaces, where the individual and their social world meet and;

appropriating language as a semiotic tool in order to facilitate cognitive

processes. Furthermore, the first descriptor in the sociolinguistic

appropriateness scale in the CEFRCV (Council of Europe, 2020, p. 137)

states that a C2 user “can mediate effectively and naturally between users of

the target language and members of their own community, taking account of

sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences”. Thus, it is evident that mediation

often constitutes a social activity in and of itself and is also a key component

of advanced sociolinguistic competence. This sociolinguistic role of mediation

lends weight to the argument that translation is a helpful tool to facilitate the

development of sociolinguistic knowledge. Indeed, many of the other

descriptors in the sociolinguistic appropriateness scale, particularly those for

B2 and above, reference receptive and productive skills which are drawn upon

when translating colloquial language. Examples include recognising register

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 13

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

shifts and colloquialisms; understanding humour and nuanced meaning; use

language for social purposes such as emotional, allusive and joking usage;

adjusting their level of formality and recognising and interpreting

sociolinguistic and sociocultural cues.

Two other frameworks worth mentioning are FREPA and the PCIC. The

Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and

Cultures (FREPA, Candelier et. al., 2012) is an important tool from a

sociolinguistic perspective because it emphasizes the role of language and

culture diversity in education. By promoting a pluralistic approach, it

acknowledges the complex social dynamics of multilingual and multicultural

societies and encourages an understanding of how language practices

intersect with social identities, power dynamics, and cultural values, which are

central in sociolinguistics fostering intercultural communication, essential for

bridging linguistic and sociocultural divides in education.

Finally, the Instituto Cervantes Curricular Plan (or PCIC, Instituto

Cervantes, 2006) covers key aspects of language education of Spanish as L2.

It includes content on cultural references, sociocultural behaviours and

intercultural skills and attitudes, although sociolinguistics appears to be an

informative element, rather than an explicit part of the curricular content to

help learners grasp the social dimensions of language. In other words, the

PCIC does not specifically focus on translation, but it does address aspects

related to the teaching of the Spanish language and the training of teachers

of Spanish as a L2, which could indirectly touch on issues related to

translation, particularly in terms of pedagogical approaches and

understanding language in diverse contexts and looking at the development

of communicative competence and an understanding of the cultural and

linguistic nuances of the language. The PCIC, on the other hand, touches on

sociolinguistic competence as a key aspect of language learning. While the

PCIC’s primary aim is to develop overall communicative competence, it

integrates sociolinguistic elements to help learners understand the social and

cultural contexts in which Spanish is used, such as recognising language

usage in different situations, through a variety of registers and adjusting

speech based on factors like formality and social status.

14 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

2.3. Applications and Benefits of Translation in Language Education: The

Development of Pragmatic Competence and Sociolinguistic Agency in

Language Education

While research on language education and translation studies or

language education and sociolinguistics is extensive, work at the intersection

of translation, sociolinguistics and language learning is less common. There

are, however, a number of studies of note in relation to language education,

translation and pragmatic competence. Given the entwined nature of

sociolinguistics and pragmatics, these works are included in this section’s

review of studies which make a case for the role of translation in the

development of sociolinguistic competence.

A good starting point is Elorza’s study (2008), which identifies

translation as a useful tool for enhancing learners’ metacognitive awareness

of themselves as language users and members of a culture or community.

Fois (2020) advocates the use of translation as a task-based approach for

fostering intercultural competence, where the learner communicates between

different linguistic communities. These linguistic communities are not just

monolithic L1/L2 communities, but rather multiple overlapping

subcommunities of language users. In light of this, translation constitutes a

literacy practice which draws on relationships “between text and reader,

student and teacher, classroom and community, in local, regional and

transnational sites” (Norton, 2013, p. 116). Reflecting on these relationships,

Norton (2013) argues that when language learners invest in literacy practices,

they simultaneously invest in various possible and imagined identities. Thus,

by bringing learners’ attention to their own and alternate linguistic

communities, translation activities highlight existing, potential and future

affiliations to various real and imagined communities.

In mediating between such linguistic communities, translation also

provides the opportunity to understand and experience the cultural pragmatics

of one’s own community and that of the L2 (Fois, 2020), which can in turn

enhance pragmatic competence. Kim (2013) demonstrates learners’ reliance

on naturally occurring translation to develop their conceptual and functional

understanding of the pragmatic feature of sarcasm. While this study used

concept-based instruction rather than translation as the pedagogical method,

it demonstrated that Korean adult learners of English as a foreign language

(EFL) relied on translation and their L1 cultural schema to process sarcasm in

the L2. By translating from the L2 to the L1, the learners drew on L1 semantic

knowledge to help detect and understand L2 sarcasm. In addition, learners

incorporated their L1 perceptual knowledge of appropriate intensity and

politeness when using sarcasm, which on occasion differed from that of native

speakers with regard to level of formality or register. Therefore, while the use

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 15

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

of the L1 cultural schema was occasionally problematic when there was a lack

of conceptual equivalence between the L1 and L2, translation was

nonetheless heavily relied on during the development of a feature of pragmatic

competence, and provided a natural form of scaffolding for the learners.

Other studies that focus specifically on translation in language teaching

include Guzman and Alcón (2009), who make a case specifically for the use

of translation as a communicative-pragmatic practice in the EFL classroom.

The authors propose translation as an act of communication which spans

cultures, emphasising the role of linguistic resources in expressing

interpersonal meaning and communicative acts “while paying attention to the

social perceptions underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of

communicative acts” (p. 239). Contextual knowledge and linguistic ability are

therefore understood as complementing variables which come together in the

comprehension of L2 culture. This stance forms the basis of their rationale for

the use of translation in the L2 classroom as a means to raise learners’

sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic awareness. Guzman and Alcón’s

intervention focuses on the requests through contextualised examples in

translation making a case for the use of translation evaluation used as a form

of guided observation which draws learners’ attention to the connections

between linguistic forms and pragmatic functions as well as the impact of

sociopragmatic factors.

More recent studies present promising results for the use of translation

to foster pragmatic competence. Lertola and Mariotti (2017), report positive

gains in pragmatic awareness following their quasi-experiment on the effects

of (a) reverse dubbing, (b) subtitling and (c) traditional translation tasks in an

Italian English as a Second Language class. While no statistically significant

differences were found, the reverse dubbing and subtitling groups

outperformed the traditional translation tasks and control groups in both the

post-test and the delayed post-test. The authors argue that this, coupled with

the learners’ reported enjoyment of the activities, suggest that the relationship

between L2 pragmatic awareness and the interactive use of audiovisual

translation materials merits further investigation. Aydin’s (2023) study on the

effects of implicit and explicit form-focused instruction on the development of

L2 pragmatic competence also made use of translation-related activities—

either translation exercises using target forms or asking learners to compare

role play scripts that they had written with role play scripts written by native

speakers. While explicit instruction was deemed to be more effective than

implicit, both methods and sets of activities resulted in improved pragmatic

performance. One of the few studies that includes sociolinguistics, translation

and language teaching is that by Kargar and Ahmadi (2021), who reveal an

improvement in learners’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge

16 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

following collaborative translation tasks either from or to the target language,

in a supportive expert-novice environment.

House (2008) delves into the specific strengths and characteristics of

translation which lend themselves to development of L2 pragmatic

competence, and discusses how to incorporate translation-related activities in

the L2 curriculum. The author stresses the importance of the bidirectionality

of translation, where the two-way relationship affects both the meaning of the

message and how it is presented, e.g. its style. House perceives translation

as communication across cultures, where the social and historical layers of

culture form the sociocultural context anchoring both original and translated

texts. This context includes the physical environment, but also the cognitive,

which manifests itself in the expectations, norms, and values of members of a

given linguistic-cultural group. As well as the macro context of culture, there

is also the micro context of a given situation, which House (2008, p. 138) refers

to as “the pragmatic embeddedness of a text”. Her argument departs from the

assumption that the original text and translation must be equivalent in

meaning and function, where the function is the application or use of a text in

a specific context of situation. Thus, rather than being two distinct entities, the

context of situation is ingrained in the text through the language used and the

social environment. Therefore, textual analysis must include an analysis of the

situation in which it is nested. It is in this situational and contextual emphasis,

House argues, where the pedagogical value of translation as a complex cross

linguistic activity lies:

If translation is used in a way that its pragmatic potential is fully

exploited, it would be carried out as an exercise in establishing

functional, pragmatic equivalence by relating linguistic forms to their

communicative functions as utterances in a context of situation and

culture as described above. Translation would thus play an

eminently useful role in developing learners’ communicative

competence. (House, 2008, p. 147)

The idea of relating linguistic forms to their communicative functions as

utterances essentially explores the use of pragmalinguistic devices to enact

sociopragmatic concepts. While House advocates the use of translation as a

means to improve pragmatic competence, it is interesting that many of the

translation activities she proposes involve reproducing a text in accordance

with altered sociolinguistic constraints such as the register or geographic

context, that is, exploring intralinguistic variables in the L1 and/or L2.

Knowledge of the correlation between form and function allows the learner to

make informed choices in terms of the language that they use. Such

knowledge aligns with the premise of the CEFRCV to present the language

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 17

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

user/learner as a social agent who interacts in the social world, wielding their

agency in the learning process (Council of Europe, 2020).

This equation of the language learner to a social agent coincides with

van Compernolle and Williams’ (2012a) understanding of self, identity and

agency as being inextricably intertwined. Rather than referring simply to the

ability to act, agency also encompasses “the ability to assign relevance and

significance to things and events” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 143). Thus, van

Compernolle and Williams define sociolinguistic agency as:

the socioculturally mediated act of recognizing, interpreting, and

using the social and symbolic meaning-making possibilities of

language. It consists of an understanding of how the use of one

linguistic variant or another simultaneously reﬂects and creates the

context in which it is used, is a performance of one’s social identity

at the time of utterance and affects one’s environment and

interlocutor(s). (van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a, p. 237)

According to the authors, sociolinguistic agency is not a characteristic

nor a property of a speaker but rather something which is enacted in the

moment at a micro-level between interlocutors. Therefore, it can be argued

that a sociolinguistically competent language user is someone who is able to

exert sociolinguistic agency: in addition to being aware of appropriate

language use in context, they are also aware of how the language they use

can (co)construct this context.

Although the empirical studies discussed in this section evidence the

impact of the use of translation in language teaching and learners’ naturally

occurring translation mostly with regard to language learning and identity, or

translation and pragmatic development, an as yet underexplored avenue is

that of translation for the development of sociolinguistic competence. The lack

of studies in this area is not due to a lack of potential but rather the

implementation problem, which McLaughlin (2022, p. 3) refers to as the

discrepancy between scholarly literature, where translation is now highly

valued, and classroom practice, where it often remains overlooked. Pintado

Gutiérrez (2022) echoes this sentiment stating “[w]hile the advocacy of

integrating the use of translation in L2 teaching and learning seems to be

gaining ground in the last decade, specific ways of introducing translation into

the L2 curriculum by means of examples are still scarce” (p. 47). Schaffner

(1998) identified the development of the students’ L2 style as a benefit of

pedagogical translation. A broader sense of the relevance of pragmatics and

translation in L2 education, was enhanced by Pintado Gutiérrez (2022), for

whom the nature of translation tasks is to enhance the development of specific

language but also translation skills grounded in various aspects including key

pragmatic issues in the L2 classroom, such as “language awareness,

18 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

accuracy, pragmatic and intercultural competence, creativity, problem-

solving, autonomy, and collaboration, among others” (p. 234). However, this

relationship has yet to be fully investigated.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE AVENUES: A PLACE FOR TRANSLATION AND

SOCIOLINGUISTIC AGENCY IN L2 EDUCATION

As illustrated above, translation has not yet been fully proposed with a

view to developing sociolinguistic competence. However, given the

interrelated nature of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, works which have

explored the use of translation in developing pragmatic competence can

provide the basis from which to develop a case for the use of translation in the

development of sociolinguistic awareness and competence in the L2

classroom.

Resources available at present are also limited. It is Carreres, Noriega-

Sánchez and Calduch’s Mundos en palabras (2018) that best highlights the

role of translation and [Spanish] sociolinguistic variation within the overall field

of translation in language teaching. This manual, aimed at advanced L2

Spanish students, dedicates a full chapter (chapter 12) to linguistic variation

and translation through a rich variety of practical tasks and focused discussion

of key points.

Reflecting on what are the future avenues that will help develop the field

of sociolinguistics and translation in L2 teaching and learning, we can look to

Kasper (1997, p. 1), who argues that “competence, whether linguistic or

pragmatic, is not teachable”. His argument is based on the fact that

competence is a kind of knowledge that learners may have, but which they

may also acquire, develop, or lose. The challenge for L2 teaching lies

therefore on whether we can provide opportunities for learners so as to

facilitate the development of their pragmatic competence in their L2. Although

Kasper refers to pragmatic competence, the same can easily be said of

sociolinguistic competence. As evidenced in this article, translation can

positively impact the development of pragmatic competence, including

sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge, suggesting that the same

may be true for sociolinguistic competence. Translation in L2 teaching and

learning is presented as an optimal tool that challenges the learners’ tendency

towards a more standard use of the language. This tool creates a plethora of

learning opportunities that helps the language user shift the focus onto the

underlying decisions behind the use of certain pragmalinguistic or

sociolinguistic variants over others and the resulting impact on the style and

message of the text. When tasked with establishing equivalence, the learners

are required to interact with the indexical nature of language itself and thus

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 19

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

fulfil “the socioculturally mediated act of recognizing, interpreting, and using

the social and symbolic meaning-making possibilities of language” that

constitutes sociolinguistic agency (van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a, p.

237). In addition, although learners may choose to embrace or eschew

informal sociolinguistic variants for a wide range of reasons, at a minimum

they will need to develop a receptive competence to be able to interact with

native speakers/text(s) of the L2 or L2 media. As a form of pushed output,

translation respects the fact that they may not necessarily choose to use these

variants themselves but still allows them to engage with and become familiar

with the sociolinguistic or sociopragmatic connotations of a given term or

expression. Thus, they can then make an informed decision about whether to

incorporate these terms into their sociolinguistic repertoire rather than simply

avoid them with caution for fear of making a sociolinguistic blunder.

An emerging area which has significant potential to enhance

sociolinguistics is didactic audiovisual translation, or DAT. This emerging,

innovative field refers to the practice of translating audiovisual content (such

as films, TV shows, or video materials) with the primary goal of educational

purposes supporting learning processes such as language learning (Talaván,

2020; Talaván et al., 2023). Some of the studies in DAT could indeed become

key to the development of sociolinguistic competence in the L2 classroom,

particularly those that explore sociolinguistic variation and colloquial or taboo

language (see Ogea Pozo & Hidalgo Bujalance, 2022) since offensive and

taboo language, as Ávila-Cabrera (2015, 2016a, 2016b) explores, serves as

a linguistic tool that conveys information about the speakers' emotions, social

status, and cultural background and has a certain impact on the audience.

While we acknowledge that sociolinguistic variation is not typically part

of the L2 curriculum, we make a case for using a theoretical framework that

challenges the lack of informal or colloquial input in the classroom, whether

because of learning materials, teachers’ input, or lack of time. Translation

allows teachers and students to interact with an endless and varied array of

authentic language samples through intralingual, interlingual, or intersemiotic

tasks, demonstrating sociolinguistic variation in all its diversity.

REFERENCES

Albelda, M., & Briz, A. (2017). Teaching Spanish Pragmatics Through

Colloquial Conversations. MarcoELE, 25, 1-22.

https://marcoele.com/teaching-spanish-pragmatics/

Albelda, M., & Fernández, M. J. (2006). La enseñanza de los registros

lingüísticos en E/LE. Una aplicación a la conversación coloquial.

MarcoELE, 3, 1-31. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/921/92152372001.pdf

20  Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […] 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Anderson, B. R. O. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin 
and spread of nationalism (Revised edition). Verso. 
Ávila-Cabrera, J.  J.  (2015).  Propuesta  de  modelo  de  análisis  del  lenguaje 
ofensivo  y  tabú  en  la  subtitulación.  VERBEIA.  Revista  de  Estudios 
Filológicos.  Journal  of  English  and  Spanish  Studies,  1,  8-27. 
https://doi.org/10.57087/Verbeia.2015.4067 
Ávila-Cabrera, J. J. (2016a). The subtitling of offensive and taboo language 
into Spanish of Inglourious Basterds: A case study. Babel, 62(2), 211-
232. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.2.03avi  
Ávila-Cabrera, J. J. (2016b). The treatment of offensive and taboo terms in 
the  subtitling  of  Resevoir  Dogs  into  Spanish.  TRANS.  Revista  de 
Traductología,  20,  24-40. 
https://doi.org/10.24310/trans.2016.v0i20.3145  
Aydin, F. (2023). Effects of Implicit and Explicit Form-Focused Instruction on 
the  Development  of  L2  Pragmatic  Competence.  TESOL 
Communications,  2(1),  27-45. 
https://avesis.anadolu.edu.tr/yayin/d7ec6b52-1872-469c-a1c8-
d5932cbf98af/effects-of-implicit-and-explicit-form-focused-instruction-
on-the-development-of-l2-pragmatic-competence 
Azúar  Bonastre,  C.  (2014).  La  enseñanza  del  español  coloquial 
conversacional a través del cine en el aula de ELE intermedio. Tejuelo, 
20, 27-56. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5302037 
Bachman,  L.  F.,  &  Palmer,  A.  S.  (1996).  Language  Testing  in  Practice: 
Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford University 
Press. 
Bazani, A. (2019). Translation and L2 Teaching’s Relationship Status: From 
Former “Friends” and “Enemies” to Current “Strangers”. In M. Koletnik 
& N. Frœliger (Eds.), Translation and Language Teaching: Continuing 
the  Dialogue  (pp.  3-22).  Cambridge  Scholars  Publishing. 
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-5275-3462-
9-sample.pdf 
Beaulieu,  S.,  Woll,  N.,  French,  L.  M.,  &  Duchemin,  M.  (2018).  Language 
learners’  metasociolinguistic  reflections:  A  window  into  developing 
sociolinguistic  repertoires.  System,  76,  210-218. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.07.001 
Block,  D.  (2007).  Second  Language  Identities.  Bloomsbury  Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212342  

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn  21 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Blyth,  C.  S.,  &  Dalola,  A.  (2020).  Redefining  speakership:  Implications  for 
language program direction. Second Language Research & Practice, 
1(1), 99-123. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69843 
Briz,  A.  (1998).  El  español  coloquial  en  la  conversación.  Esbozo  de 
pragmagramática. Ariel. 
Briz, A. (2002). El español coloquial en la clase de E/LE un recorrido a través 
de los textos. SGEL. 
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A 
Companion  to  Linguistic  Anthropology  (pp.  369-394).  Blackwell 
Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996522.ch16 
Canale,  M.  (1983).  From  communicative  competence  to  communicative 
language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language 
and communication (pp. 2-27). Longman. 
Canale,  M.,  &  Swain,  M.  (1980).  Theoretical  bases  of  communicative 
approaches  to  second  language  teaching  and  testing.  Applied 
Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1 
Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.F., Lőrincz, I., 
Meißner,  F.J.,  Noguerol,  A.  &  Schröder-Sura,  A.  (2012).  Frepa:  A 
framework  of  reference  for  pluralistic  approaches  to  languages  and 
culture;  competences  and  resources.  Council  of  Europe  Publishing. 
https://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/documents/ECML-resources/CARAP-
EN.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-120658-443 
Carreres, Á. (2006). Strange bedfellows: Translation and Language teaching. 
Sixth  Symposium  on  Translation,  Terminology  and  Interpretation  in 
Cuba  and  Canada,  1-21. 
http://www.cttic.org/publications_06Symposium.asp 
Carreres, Á. (2014). Translation as a means and as an end: Reassessing the 
divide.  The  Interpreter  and  Translator  Trainer,  8(1),  123-135. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908561 
Carreres,  Á.,  &  Noriega-Sánchez,  M.  (2011).  Translation  in  language 
teaching: Insights from professional translator training. The Language 
Learning  Journal,  39(3),  281-297. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2011.567356 
Carreres,  Á.,  Noriega-Sánchez,  M.,  &  Calduch,  C.  (2018).  Mundos  en 
Palabras. Learning Advanced Spanish Through Translation (1st ed.). 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162379  

22  Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […] 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Celce-Murcia,  M.,  Dörnyei,  Z.,  &  Thurrell,  S.  (1995).  Communicative 
Competence:  A  Pedagogically  Motivated  Model  with  Content 
Specifications.  Issues  in  Applied  Linguistics,  6(2),  5-35. 
https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005216 
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. 
Cortés, L. (2002). Español coloquial: Concepto y status quaestionis. Español 
Actual,  77-78,  27-41.  http://www.luiscortesrodriguez.es/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/Status.pdf 
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for 
Languages.  Council  of  Europe  Publishing. 
https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97 
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for 
Languages:  Learning,  teaching,  assessment  -  Companion  volume. 
Council  of  Europe  Publishing.  https://rm.coe.int/common-european-
framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4 
Council of Europe. (2022). Enriching 21st-Century Language Education: The 
CEFR  Companion  volume  in  practice  (B.  North,  E.  Piccardo,  T. 
Goodier,  D.  Fasoglio,  R.  Margonis-Pasinetti,  &  B.  Rüschoff,  Eds.). 
Council of Europe Publishing. 
Dewaele,  J.-M.  (2002).  Using  sociostylistic  variants  in  advanced  French 
interlanguage: The case of nous/on? EUROSLA Yearbook, 2(1), 205-
226. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.2.13dew 
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). Retention or omission of the ne in advanced French 
interlanguage: The variable effect of extralinguistic factors. Journal of 
Sociolinguistics,  8(3),  433-450.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9841.2004.00268.x 
Dewaele, J.-M., & Regan, V. (2001). The use of colloquial words in advanced 
French  Interlanguage.  EUROSLA  Yearbook,  1,  51-67. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.1.07dew 
DuBois, S. K. (2019). Are L2 Speakers Allowed to Use Colloquialisms? L1 
Attitudes Toward Spanish L2 Speakers’ Use of Informal Lexical Items 
[PhD  Thesis,  University  of  California]. 
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/72k575tc 
Elorza,  I.  (2008).  Promoting  Intercultural  Competence  in  the  FL/SL 
Classroom:  Translations  as  Sources  of  Data.  Language  and 
Intercultural  Communication,  8(4),  261-277. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470802303090 

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn  23 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Etienne, C., & Sax, K. (2009). Stylistic Variation in French: Bridging the Gap 
Between  Research  and  Textbooks.  The  Modern  Language  Journal, 
93(4), 584-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00931.x 
Fernández  Guerra,  A.  (2014).  The  Usefulness  of  Translation  in  Foreign 
Language  Learning:  Students’  Attitudes.  International  Journal  of 
English  Language  &  Translation  Studies,  2(1),  153-170. 
http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/134505/62499.pdf
?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
Fernández,  J.  (2013).  Social  Networks  and  Youngspeak  in  Study  Abroad. 
[PhD  Thesis,  Pennsylvania  State  University]. 
https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/19851 
Fois,  E.  (2020).  ELT  and  the  role  of  translation  in  developing  intercultural 
competence. Language and Intercultural Communication, 20(6), 561-
571. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2020.1800025 
French, L. M., & Beaulieu, S. (2016). Effects of sociolinguistic awareness on 
French L2 learners’ planned and unplanned oral production of stylistic 
variation.  Language  Awareness,  25(1-2),  55-71. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1122024 
French, L. M., & Beaulieu, S. (2020). Can beginner L2 learners handle explicit 
instruction  about  language  variation?  A  proof-of-concept  study  of 
French  negation.  Language  Awareness,  29(3-4),  272–285. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1782417 
Garrido Rodríguez, M. del C. (2000). ¿Qué español coloquial enseñar en las 
clases  de  E/LE?  365-374. 
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=608273 
Gautier,  R.,  &  Chevrot,  J.-P.  (2015).  Social  networks  and  acquisition  of 
sociolinguistic variation in a study abroad context: A preliminary study. 
In  R.  Mitchell,  N.  Tracy-Ventura,  &  K.  McManus  (Eds.),  Social 
interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 
169-184). https://hal.science/hal-01970426 
Geeslin, K. L. (2018). Variable Structures and Sociolinguistic Variation. In P. 
A.  Malovrh  &  A.  G.  Benati  (Eds.),  The  Handbook  of  Advanced 
Proficiency in Second  Language Acquisition (1st  ed., pp. 547–-565). 
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch28 
Geeslin, K. L., García-Amaya, L. J., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N. C., & 
Killam, J. (2010). The SLA of Direct Object Pronouns in a Study Abroad 
Immersion Environment Where Use Is Variable. In C. Borgonovo, M. 

24  Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […] 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Español-Echevarría, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 
12th  Hispanic  Linguistics  Symposium  (pp.  246-259).  Cascadilla 
Proceedings  Project. 
https://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/12/paper2421.pdf 
González-Davies,  M.  (2017).  The  use  of  translation  in  an  Integrated 
Plurilingual  Approach  to  language  learning:  Teacher  strategies  and 
best practices. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 4(2), 124-135. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2017.1407168 
González-Davies,  M.  (2020).  Developing  mediation  competence  through 
translation. In S. Laviosa & M. González-Davies (Eds.), The Routledge 
Handbook  of  Translation  and  Education  (pp.  434-450).  Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367854850-27 
Gutiérrez, M. J., &  Fairclough, M.  (2006). Incorporating  Linguistic Variation 
into the Classroom. In R. Salaberry & B. A. Lafford (Eds.), The Art of 
Teaching  Spanish:  Second  Language  Acquisition  from  Research  to 
Praxis (pp. 173-191). Georgetown University Press. https://www-jstor-
org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt2tt6vd.13 
Guzman,  J.  R.,  &  Alcón,  E.  (2009).  Translation  and  language  learning: 
AlfraCovalt  as  a  tool  for  raising  learners’  pragmalinguistic  and 
sociopragmatic  awareness  of  the  speech  act  of  requesting.  Revista 
Horizontes  de  Linguistica  Aplicada,  8(2),  238-254. 
https://doi.org/10.26512/rhla.v8i2.772 
House, J. (2008). Using Translation to Improve Pragmatic Competence. In E. 
Alcón  Soler  &  A.  Martínez-Flor  (Eds.),  Investigating  Pragmatics  in 
Foreign  Language  Learning,  Teaching  and  Testing  (pp.  135-152). 
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690869-009 
Howard,  M.,  Lemee,  I.,  &  Regan,  V.  (2006).  The  L2  acquisition  of  a 
phonological  variable:  The  case  of  /l/  deletion  in  French.  Journal  of 
French  Language  Studies,  16,  1-24. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269506002298 
Instituto Cervantes. (2006). Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Niveles de 
referencia  para  el  español.  Biblioteca  Nueva. 
https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/plan_curricular/ 
Isabelli-García,  C.  (2006).  Study  abroad  social  networks,  motivation  and 
attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In M. A. DuFon 
& E. E. Churchill (Eds.), Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts 
(pp.  231-258).  Multilingual  Matters. 
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598531-013 

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn  25 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Kargar, A., & Ahmadi, A. (2021). The effect of a collaborative translation task 
on the learning and retention of pragmatic knowledge. The Language 
Learning  Journal,  51(1),  78-93. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1957989 
Kasper,  G.  (1997).  Can  Pragmatic  Competence  be  Taught?  Honolulu: 
University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. 
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/ 
Kelly,  D.  (2014).  A  handbook  for  translator  trainers:  A  guide  to  reflective 
practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760292  
Kelly, N., & Bruen, J. (2015). Translation as a pedagogical tool in the foreign 
language classroom: A  qualitative study of attitudes and behaviours. 
Language  Teaching  Research,  19(2),  150-168. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541720 
Kiesling, S. F. (2013). Constructing Identity. In J. K. Chambers & N. Schilling 
(Eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (2nd ed., pp. 
448-467).  John  Wiley  &  Sons,  Incorporated. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118335598.ch21  
Kim,  J.  (2013).  Developing  Conceptual  Understanding  of  Sarcasm  in  a 
Second  Language  through  Concept-Based  Instruction  [PhD  Thesis, 
The  Pennsylvania  State  University]. 
https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/8734 
Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing Development of Meta-Pragmatic 
Awareness in Study Abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of 
Study Abroad, 10, 19-42. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.131  
Klaudy, K. (2003). Languages in Translation: Lectures on the theory, teaching 
and practice of translation. Scholastica. 
Knouse,  S.  M.  (2013).  The  Acquisition  of  Dialectal  Phonemes  in  a  Study 
Abroad Context: The Case of the Castilian Theta. Foreign Language 
Annals,  45(4),  512-542.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2013.12003.x 
Kramsch, C. (2002). Standard, norm, and variability in language learning: A 
view from foreign language research. In S. M. Gass, K. Bardovi-Harlig, 
S. Sieloff Magnan, & J. Walz (Eds.), Pedagogical norms for second and 
foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 59-79). John Benjamins. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.5.05kra 
Laguna,  J.,  &  Porroche,  M.  (2006).  Gramática  del  español  coloquial  para 
estudiantes  de  EL2.  Las  Destrezas  Orales  En  La  Enseñanza  Del 

26  Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […] 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Español  L2-LE,  2,  691-704. 
https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/pdf/17/17_06
91.pdf 
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and Genesis of 
Second Language Development. Oxford University Press. 
Laviosa,  S.  (2014).  Translation  and  language  education:  Pedagogic 
approaches  explored.  Routledge,  Taylor  &  Francis  Group. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315764542  
Lazzaro-Salazar, M. (2013). Diving into the depths of identity construction and 
motivation of a foreign language learner. Argentinian Journal of Applied 
Linguistics,  1,  6-23.  https://ajal.faapi.org.ar/ojs-3.3.0-
5/index.php/AJAL/article/view/215 
Lemmerich,  E.  (2010).  An  Explicit  Awareness-Raising  Approach  to  the 
Teaching  of  Sociopragmatic  Variation  in  Early  Foreign  Language 
Learning  [PhD  Thesis,  The  University  of  Utah]. 
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=194720 
Leonardi, V. (2010). The role of pedagogical translation in second language 
acquisition  from  theory  to  practice.  Peter  Lang. 
https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0071-6  
Lertola,  J.,  & Mariotti,  C.  (2017).  Reverse  Dubbing  and  Subtitling:  Raising 
Pragmatic Awareness in Italian English as a Second Language (ESL) 
Learners.  The  Journal  of  Specialised  Translation,  28,  103-121. 
https://www.academia.edu/download/91068796/art_lertola.pdf 
López  Serena,  A.  (2007).  El  concepto  de  ‘español  coloquial’:  Vacilación 
terminológica e indefinición del objeto de estudio. Oralia, 10, 161-191. 
https://doi.org/10.25115/oralia.v10i.8154 
Lyster, R. (1994). The Effect of Functional-Analytic Teaching on Aspects of 
French  Immersion  Students’  Sociolinguistic  Competence.  Applied 
Linguistics, 15(3), 263-287. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.3.263 
Machida, S. (2011). Translation in Teaching a Foreign (Second) Language: A 
Methodological  Perspective.  Journal  of  Language  Teaching  and 
Research, 2(4), 740-746. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.740-746 
Malmkjær, K. (1998). Translation and Language Teaching. St. Jerome. 
Martyn,  J.  Discourses,  Identities  and  Investment  in  Foreign  Language 
Learning. Multilingual Matters. 

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn  27 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Mattiello, E. (2005). The pervasiveness of slang in standard and non-standard 
English.  Mots,  Palabras,  Words,  6,  7-41. 
https://www.ledonline.it/mpw/allegati/mpw0506Mattiello.pdf 
McLaughlin,  M.  (2022).  The  Future  of  Translation  in  Higher  Education: 
Introduction  to  the  Special  Issue.  L2  Journal,  14(2). 
https://doi.org/10.5070/L214256595 
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Blackwell. 
Mougeon,  R.,  Nadasdi,  T.,  &  Rehner,  K.  (2010).  The  Sociolinguistic 
Competence of Immersion  Students.  Multilingual  Matters.  https://doi-
org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.21832/9781847692405 
Mougeon,  R.,  Rehner,  K.,  &  Nadasdi,  T.  (2004).  The  Learning  of  Spoken 
French  Variation  by  Immersion  Students  from  Toronto,  Canada. 
Journal  of  Sociolinguistics,  8(3),  408–432. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00267.x 
Myles, J. (2009). Oral Competency of ESL Technical Students in Workplace 
Internships.  TESL-EJ,  13(1),  1-24. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898196.pdf 
Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2005). Learning to Speak Everyday 
(Canadian) French. The Canadian  Modern Language Review, 61(4), 
543-563. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.4.543 
North, B., & Piccardo, E. (2016). Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects 
of mediation for the CEFR. Education and Policy Division, Council of 
Europe. https://rm.coe.int/168073ff31 
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language 
classroom.  In  M.  Breen  (Ed.),  Learner  Contributions  to  Language 
Learning:  New  Directions  in  Research  (pp.  159-171). 
Longman/Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838465-
17 
Norton, B. (2013). Identity, Literacy, and the Multilingual Classroom. In The 
Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education 
(pp.  103-122).  Routledge. 
https://faculty.educ.ubc.ca/norton/Norton%20in%20May%202013.pdf 
Norton,  B.,  &  Toohey,  K.  (2011).  Identity,  language  learning,  and  social 
change.  Language  Teaching,  44(4),  412-446. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000309 

28 Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […]

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

Ogea Pozo, M. D. M., & Hidalgo Bujalance, L. (2022). La traducción del argot

sexual en series juveniles: El doblaje de Sex Education. SERIARTE.

Revista Científica de Series Televisivas y Arte Audiovisual, 1, 90-114.

https://doi.org/10.21071/seriarte.v1i.13596

Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined Communities, Identity, and

English Language Learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.),

International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 669-680).

Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_43

Pedrola, E. A. (2021). La enseñanza del español coloquial en clase de ELE:

sobre rasgos y niveles. Tonos Digital, 41.

http://hdl.handle.net/10201/111062

Pintado Gutiérrez, L. (2012). The Use of Translation Towards Foreign

Language Autonomous Learning. In P. Alderete-Díez, L. Incalcaterra

McLoughlin & L. Ni Dhonnchadha (Eds.), Translation, Technology and

Autonomy in Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 175-195). Peter

Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0353-0340-7/11

Pintado Gutiérrez, L. (2018). Translation in language teaching, pedagogical

translation, and code-Switching: restructuring the boundaries. The

Language Learning Journal. 49(2), 32-50.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09571736.2018.1534260

Pintado Gutiérrez, L. (2022). Current Practices in Translation and L2 Learning

in Higher Education: Lessons Learned. L2 Journal. 14(2), 219-239.

https://doi.org/10.5070/L214251728

Pintado Gutiérrez, L. & Torralba, G. (2022). New landscapes in higher

education: audio description as a multilayered task in FL teaching. The

Language Learning Journal. 52(3), 320-335.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2158209

Pisabarro Sarrió, S. (2019). Developing sociolinguistic competence through

explicit instruction: The case of future-time expression in L2 Spanish

[PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh]. http://d-

scholarship.pitt.edu/36472/1/Pisabarro_Silvia_final_ETD_2019revised

_1.pdf

Regan, V. (1995). The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Native Speech Norms. In

B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad

context (pp. 245-268). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.9.15reg

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn  29 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Regan, V. (1996). Variation in French Interlanguage: A Longitudinal Study of 
Sociolinguistic Competence. In R. Bayley & D. Preston (Eds.), Second 
Language  Acquisition  and  Linguistic  Variation.  John  Benjamins. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.10.08reg 
Regan, V. (2004). The relationship between the group and the individual and 
the acquisition of native speaker variation patterns: A preliminary study. 
IRAL  -  International  Review  of  Applied  Linguistics  in  Language 
Teaching, 42(4), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2004.42.4.335 
Regan, V. (2010). Sociolinguistic Competence, Variation Patterns and Identity 
Construction in L2 and Multilingual Speakers. Eurosla Yearbook, 10(1), 
21–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.10.04reg 
Regan, V. (2014, November 21). What your speaking style, like, says about 
you  [Online  video].  Tedx,  Dublin. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAGgKE82034 
Rehner, K., & Mougeon, R. (2003). The Effect of Educational Input on the 
Development  of  Sociolinguistic  Competence  by  French  Immersion 
Students: The Case of Expressions of Consequence in Spoken French. 
The  Journal  of  Educational  Thought  (JET)  /  Revue  de  La  Pensée 
Éducative, 37(3), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.11575/jet.v37i3.52668 
Ringer-Hilfinger, K. (2012). Learner Acquisition of Dialect Variation in a Study 
Abroad  Context:  The  Case  of  the  Spanish  [θ].  Foreign  Language 
Annals,  45(3),  430-446.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2012.01201.x 
Salgado-Robles,  F.  (2011).  The  Acquisition  of  Sociolinguistic  Variation  by 
Learners of Spanish in a Study Abroad Context [PhD Thesis, University 
of  Florida]. 
https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/31/09/00001/salgadorobles_
f.pdf 
Schaffner, C. (1998). Qualification for Professional Translators. Translation in 
Language  Teaching  Versus  Teaching  Translation.  St.  Jerome 
publishing. 
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. 
Language  &  Communication,  23(3-4),  193-229. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 
Soruç, A., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Identity and the spoken grammar dilemma. 
System, 50, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.03.007 

30  Colloquial Language and Identity: A theoretical framework […] 
Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31 
Talaván,  N.  (2020).  The  Didactic  Value  of  AVT  in  Foreign  Language 
Education. In Ł. Bogucki & M. Deckert (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook 
of  Audiovisual  Translation  and  Media  Accessibility  (pp.  567-591). 
Palgrave  Macmillan  Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42105-
2_28  
Talaván,  N.,  Lertola,  J.,  &  Fernández-Costales,  A.  (2023).  Didactic 
Audiovisual Translation and Foreign Language Education. Routledge. 
https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781003293958 
Torralba,  G.  &  Pintado  Gutiérrez,  L.  (2024).  Integración  curricular  de  la 
audiodescripción y la mediación en la enseñanza del español. Journal 
of  Spanish  Language  Teaching.  11(1),  101-118. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2024.2342046  
van Compernolle, R. A. (2013). Concept appropriation and the emergence of 
L2 sociostylistic variation. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 343-
362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482937 
van Compernolle, R. A., Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Weber, A. (2016). Teaching 
L2 Spanish Sociopragmatics Through Concepts: A Classroom-Based 
Study.  The  Modern  Language  Journal,  100(1),  341-361. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12318 
van  Compernolle,  R.  A.,  &  Henery,  A.  (2014).  Instructed  Concept 
Appropriation  and  L2  Pragmatic  Development  in  the  Classroom. 
Language  Learning,  64(3),  549-578. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12054 
van Compernolle, R. A., &  Williams, L. (2009). Learner  versus non-learner 
patterns  of  stylistic  variation  in  synchronous  computer-mediated 
French:  Yes/no  questions  and  nous  versus  on.  Studies  in  Second 
Language  Acquisition,  31(3),  471-500. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090378 
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2011). Metalinguistic explanations and 
self-reports  as  triangulation  data  for  interpreting  L2  sociolinguistic 
performance.  International  Journal  of  Applied  Linguistics,  21,  26-50. 
https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00256.x 
van  Compernolle,  R.  A.,  &  Williams,  L.  (2012a).  Reconceptualizing 
Sociolinguistic  Competence  as  Mediated  Action:  Identity,  Meaning-
Making,  Agency.  The  Modern  Language  Journal,  96(2),  234-250. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01334.x 

Hannah Leonard, Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez and Jennifer Martyn 31

Hikma 24 (2) (2025), 1 - 31

van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012b). Teaching, Learning, and

Developing L2 French Sociolinguistic Competence: A Sociocultural

Perspective. Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 184-205.

https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr048

van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). The effect of instruction on

language learners’ sociolinguistic awareness: An empirical study with

pedagogical implications. System, 41(2), 298–-306.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.001

Vermes, A. (2010). Translation in Foreign Language Teaching: A Brief

Overview of Pros and Cons. Eger Journal of English Studies, 10, 83–

93. https://ojs.uni-eszterhazy.hu/index.php/ejes/article/view/571

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge University Press.

Yang, J., & Rehner, K. (2015). Learner beliefs about sociolinguistic

competence: A qualitative case study of four university second

language learners. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 157-

180. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2015-0008