What Translingual Means to Me
The following is my understanding and interpretation of the three main positions in the debate of the role of language diversity in the L2 writing classroom.
1) The Monolingual view is an Assimilationist view that is based in Native Speakerism. An instructor or program (or government) coming from a monolingual orientation would enforce English only policies.
2) The Multilingual view can be seen as existing on a continuum from Accommodationist to Separatist. On the more conservative end, a multilingual separatist would interpret “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” as “your language is equal and all good out there, but in here (the classroom) we use Standard English. ” (Dominant American English = DAE) A multilingual accomodationist would permit code-switching as a practical pedagogical tool, as part of the writing process, and even perhaps acknowledge the inherent connection between language and identity, but would expect final products in DAE for ‘practical ’ (and perhaps ideological) purposes.
3) The Translingual view is Socio-cultural, Situated, Integrated, and Critical. I do not see a translingual orientation as accomodationist because the translingual view is more than descriptive (it does more than explain differences) and it is more than practical ( multiple codes are not only seen as a pedadogical tool, but a legitimate written product).
I see the translingual view as emerging from critical theories. A translingual position understands language as inherently tied to identity (Young). Translingual approaches accept the following as fundamental: 1) hegemonic power structures exist and are enacted and reproduced through language and 2) language is tied to identity. I don’t know if the definitions come before or after the affiliation with this orientation, but the very definitions of writing and language are different in this view than the others. Writing is more than words on a page and language is not a fixed entity.
In the translingual classroom students explore not only the differences between language varieties, but they consider what Standard English is, who it represents (or doesn’t represent) and how this form became and remains prominent. Students consider form, audience, and purpose and make language choices based on what they feel most effectively conveys their meaning in that particular context without sacrificing, relegating or stifling their voices.
I have worked under monolingual and multilingual separatist conditions (ESL programs mainly). My practice has generally been multilingual accommodationist (in ESL, Composition classrooms, and writing centers). However, lately (particularly in my current community college classrooms, I am more and more translingual in both theory and practice.
I work in a classroom with students who are White “native” speakers from rural Iowa, Latinx American born English/Spanish bilingual heritage speakers, African Americans who use a non-dominant variety of English, and African refugees who speak 4 or more languages and are emergent English learners. These students span the L1/L2 continuum, yet they have all been identified as not having a command of Written Standard English. This is mostly based on a test of DAE grammar. I reject the ‘standard’ that put them in a class labeled “Basic”. I see more than value in a translingual orientation; I see translingual practice as my responsibility.
One misconception I think many people have about a translingual orientation is that “anything goes”. This is ridiculous. Everyone wants to be understood. We negotiate meaning as an interpretive community. We consider not only what our options are, but what these options mean, and what the risks and benefits are for choosing one option over another.
Students learn about Standard English (rather than “learning Standard English” as if it is the ultimate attainment). As instructors, we are not telling students to go out in the world uncritically (unarmed) with whatever variety they feel most comfortable with. We acknowledge the potential dangers of making certain choices in certain contexts. Not giving students access to dominant codes would be unethical. Students choose how best to express themselves for their purposes. Students have agency; they decide what and how they write. This is how I, as a translingual practitioner, interpret students’ right to their own language.
1) The Monolingual view is an Assimilationist view that is based in Native Speakerism. An instructor or program (or government) coming from a monolingual orientation would enforce English only policies.
2) The Multilingual view can be seen as existing on a continuum from Accommodationist to Separatist. On the more conservative end, a multilingual separatist would interpret “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” as “your language is equal and all good out there, but in here (the classroom) we use Standard English. ” (Dominant American English = DAE) A multilingual accomodationist would permit code-switching as a practical pedagogical tool, as part of the writing process, and even perhaps acknowledge the inherent connection between language and identity, but would expect final products in DAE for ‘practical ’ (and perhaps ideological) purposes.
3) The Translingual view is Socio-cultural, Situated, Integrated, and Critical. I do not see a translingual orientation as accomodationist because the translingual view is more than descriptive (it does more than explain differences) and it is more than practical ( multiple codes are not only seen as a pedadogical tool, but a legitimate written product).
I see the translingual view as emerging from critical theories. A translingual position understands language as inherently tied to identity (Young). Translingual approaches accept the following as fundamental: 1) hegemonic power structures exist and are enacted and reproduced through language and 2) language is tied to identity. I don’t know if the definitions come before or after the affiliation with this orientation, but the very definitions of writing and language are different in this view than the others. Writing is more than words on a page and language is not a fixed entity.
In the translingual classroom students explore not only the differences between language varieties, but they consider what Standard English is, who it represents (or doesn’t represent) and how this form became and remains prominent. Students consider form, audience, and purpose and make language choices based on what they feel most effectively conveys their meaning in that particular context without sacrificing, relegating or stifling their voices.
I have worked under monolingual and multilingual separatist conditions (ESL programs mainly). My practice has generally been multilingual accommodationist (in ESL, Composition classrooms, and writing centers). However, lately (particularly in my current community college classrooms, I am more and more translingual in both theory and practice.
I work in a classroom with students who are White “native” speakers from rural Iowa, Latinx American born English/Spanish bilingual heritage speakers, African Americans who use a non-dominant variety of English, and African refugees who speak 4 or more languages and are emergent English learners. These students span the L1/L2 continuum, yet they have all been identified as not having a command of Written Standard English. This is mostly based on a test of DAE grammar. I reject the ‘standard’ that put them in a class labeled “Basic”. I see more than value in a translingual orientation; I see translingual practice as my responsibility.
One misconception I think many people have about a translingual orientation is that “anything goes”. This is ridiculous. Everyone wants to be understood. We negotiate meaning as an interpretive community. We consider not only what our options are, but what these options mean, and what the risks and benefits are for choosing one option over another.
Students learn about Standard English (rather than “learning Standard English” as if it is the ultimate attainment). As instructors, we are not telling students to go out in the world uncritically (unarmed) with whatever variety they feel most comfortable with. We acknowledge the potential dangers of making certain choices in certain contexts. Not giving students access to dominant codes would be unethical. Students choose how best to express themselves for their purposes. Students have agency; they decide what and how they write. This is how I, as a translingual practitioner, interpret students’ right to their own language.
Comments
Post a Comment