When Multilingual Meets Translingual
Feat. Suresh Canagarajah, Pennsylvania State University
In second language education pedagogy, various theorists have advocated for the conversion approach or crossing model to learning a language. With the conversion approach, multilingual students must seek to fully converse as often as possible in English, which is viewed as the superior language. The crossing model aims to more carefully transition students to voicing clear opinions in English for academic purposes.
In 1974, the CCCC adopted the “Students' Right to Their Own Language” statement, granting students the right to “their own patterns and varieties of language.” This means that it would be acceptable for students to speak and even write in the dialects they felt comfortable with. How could this idea change the way instructors taught English composition to second language students?
In light of this, a new mode of writing that could be beneficial is called the negotiation model, which allows students to work actively with languages in order to create unique multilingual discourses. In this way, students can effectively shuttle between languages, in a process called translanguaging—which comes naturally to multilinguals. The realization of these mental translanguaging processes in a text is a phenomenon called codemeshing.
Drawing upon Roz Ivanic’s research, students could use multiple languages to convey an argument that exemplifies their own, multilingual voice. In this way, the students are not only writing in order to convey meaning. They are negotiating with their different languages to create an effective voice. This would not necessarily mean creating a voice that alienates readers of a certain language and privileges others. As Jessica Williams also notes, the negotiation of meaning and language aims to engage others, rather than isolate them.
Although Barbara Kroll draws attention to the rhetoric/syntax split in composition, these commonly understood issues might appear different in the translingual mode. A multilingual student, referred to here as Buthainah, used translanguaging to compose an academic work that included a great deal of complexity, as well as a few clichés (i.e. the use of “adore”) and nonidiomatic phrases (i.e. the use of “shunt”). One might say that these are rhetorical and/or syntactical errors, but Buthainah manages to give these word fresh, renewed meanings in her work. This is because these words have a different significance in her mother-tongue language than they do in English, which is something she indicates in her work. She was also diligent in revising sessions to separate error from intended uses of nonidiomatic word choices, which underscores the fact that improved English composition skills are still a primary goal of translanguaging. Thus, to supplement Ann Raimes’ ideas on correctness, we should consider “error” not necessarily as a fault, but more importantly as the negotiation of linguistic choices.
Translanguaging poses unique possibilities for second language students, although it is clear that this is still somewhat of a beta model. Though dominant discourse ideologies persist in the writing classroom, can college composition embrace more hybrid models? Slowly encouraging students and instructors to be more playful with language might lead to more engaging writing experiences, even though rhetorical and syntactical competency would still be primary objectives of the class.
In 1974, the CCCC adopted the “Students' Right to Their Own Language” statement, granting students the right to “their own patterns and varieties of language.” This means that it would be acceptable for students to speak and even write in the dialects they felt comfortable with. How could this idea change the way instructors taught English composition to second language students?
In light of this, a new mode of writing that could be beneficial is called the negotiation model, which allows students to work actively with languages in order to create unique multilingual discourses. In this way, students can effectively shuttle between languages, in a process called translanguaging—which comes naturally to multilinguals. The realization of these mental translanguaging processes in a text is a phenomenon called codemeshing.
Drawing upon Roz Ivanic’s research, students could use multiple languages to convey an argument that exemplifies their own, multilingual voice. In this way, the students are not only writing in order to convey meaning. They are negotiating with their different languages to create an effective voice. This would not necessarily mean creating a voice that alienates readers of a certain language and privileges others. As Jessica Williams also notes, the negotiation of meaning and language aims to engage others, rather than isolate them.
Although Barbara Kroll draws attention to the rhetoric/syntax split in composition, these commonly understood issues might appear different in the translingual mode. A multilingual student, referred to here as Buthainah, used translanguaging to compose an academic work that included a great deal of complexity, as well as a few clichés (i.e. the use of “adore”) and nonidiomatic phrases (i.e. the use of “shunt”). One might say that these are rhetorical and/or syntactical errors, but Buthainah manages to give these word fresh, renewed meanings in her work. This is because these words have a different significance in her mother-tongue language than they do in English, which is something she indicates in her work. She was also diligent in revising sessions to separate error from intended uses of nonidiomatic word choices, which underscores the fact that improved English composition skills are still a primary goal of translanguaging. Thus, to supplement Ann Raimes’ ideas on correctness, we should consider “error” not necessarily as a fault, but more importantly as the negotiation of linguistic choices.
Translanguaging poses unique possibilities for second language students, although it is clear that this is still somewhat of a beta model. Though dominant discourse ideologies persist in the writing classroom, can college composition embrace more hybrid models? Slowly encouraging students and instructors to be more playful with language might lead to more engaging writing experiences, even though rhetorical and syntactical competency would still be primary objectives of the class.