I Reconciling Discourses

2

THE DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF "TRANSUNGUALISM VS. SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING"

The Discursive Construction of “Translingualism vs. Second Language Writing”: What We’ve Created and How We Might Move On

Christine M. Tardy

This is, to my count, the third time I’ve written about translingualism and second language writing with a sense of caution, even a bit of dread (see also Tardy, 2017, and Atkinson & Tardy, 2018). My personal history in this discussion dates a bit further back. Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur’s (2011) articulation of “Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach” was published in College English in 2011, and I was happy to endorse it as a signatory. I still agree with the basic principles of translingualism as laid out in the letter, such as seeing language differences as rights and resources, giving conscious and critical attention to language within writing instruction, challenging the dominance of standard language ideologies, and recognizing the linguistic diversity of all language users and writers (Horner et al., 2011). I am glad that these ideas have become a visible part of the conversation in composition studies.

Despite this agreement, I have also become part of the “translingualism vs. second language writing” discourse, cited at times as a critic of translingualism, usually in relation to my co-authorship of the Open Letter, titled “Clarifying the Relationship between L2 Writing and Translingual Writing” (Atkinson et al., 2015). Although this letter is one of the most commonly cited critiques of translingualism, it does not in fact refute its main tenets. Rather, it “call[sj attention to the distinctions between translingualism and the field of second language writing, while acknowledging overlaps as well” (Atkinson et al., 2015, p. 385).

So why is the letter so often invoked as a critique? It seems to me that many scholars have been implicated in—and even helped to construct—a rhetorical dichotomy between translingualism and second language writing. This dichotomy often positions scholars as standing on one side of a binary even when such a positioning elides their openness to the “other side.” Worse still, the rhetorical dichotomy airbrushes points of agreement and collaboration that can and should be occurring between scholars and areas of scholarship, instead creating more agonistic relationships.

This chapter is an attempt to explore how this uneasy relationship between translingualism and second language writing has arisen. I have started with the assumption that this relationship is largely discursively constructed through our publications and conference presentations, and it is then re-constructed and reenforced in subsequent academic papers. In short, we ourselves (the contributors to this volume and many of our colleagues) have called this dichotomous relationship into being through our collective use of language, oftentimes unintentionally. As a discourse analyst, I turn to the texts of our scholarship for a bit of detective work. I should note at the outset that the examples I’ve used throughout this chapter are not intended to place blame on individual scholars (though if they were, I would be one of the individuals to take to task). There is nothing wrong with debate and critique, which suggest a sense of passion and investment we bring to our work. But the language that we choose does have an effect, as it ultimately creates frames and narratives that become part of our collective discourse, shaping the ways that we view and categorize our scholarly world.

How Have We Categorized Translingualism and Second Language Writing?

I began my investigation by gathering publications that discuss the relationship between second language writing and translingualism, dating back to the publication of Horner et al.’s (2011) College English article describing and advocating for a translingual approach. After reviewing more than 35 relevant articles and book chapters, I identified 23 texts that made some direct reference to this relationship. I first noted how each categorized translingualism and second language writing—that is, were they fields of study, areas of inquiry, approaches, or something different? I wanted to know if our scholarship tended to treat the two areas as belonging to similar—and thus competing—categories (for example, both being seen as pedagogical or ideological approaches).

Categorizations of translingualism are found in Horner et al.’s (2011) essay, which boldly states: “We call for a new paradigm', a translingual approach” (p. 303, italics added). By using the term paradigm, the authors establish translingualism not as simply a new approach to teaching but as a fundamental shift in how composition studies thinks about language and about writing instruction. Other scholars, too, have characterized translingualism as a new paradigm. Canagarajah (2013a), for example, notes that “the activity of writing is now being understood differently” (p. 441) and that the new interest in translingualism reflects “the logic behind the rise and fall of intellectual paradigms”

(p. 441). The “translingual paradigm shift” is also referred to by Lee (2016, p. 176) and re-invoked with some skepticism by Gevers (2018, p. 74). In a slightly weaker version, translingualism has been referred to as a movement or intellectual movement (Atkinson & Tardy, 2018; Gevers, 2018; Matsuda, 2013, 2014; Ruecker, 2014), or, in Hall’s (2018) words, “part of a broader intellectual movement—or perhaps several movements—across all fields involved in language study, and in society at large” (p. 40).

Somewhat more common, however, is the characterization of translingualism as a disposition, orientation, or outlook (Atkinson et al., 2015; Canagarajah, 2013b, 2015; Donahue, 2016; Ferris, 2014; Gevers, 2018; Lee, 2016). Lee (2016) draws on Horner et al. (2011) to describe translingualism as “an orientation to language” (p. 178, emphasis in original), and Atkinson et al. (2015) refer to translingualism as “a particular orientation to how language is conceptualized and implicated in the study and teaching of writing” (p. 384). This representation of translingualism seems to emphasize its underlying beliefs and values, hinting at the ideological lens it encompasses.

Among the papers I explored, it was most common to categorize translingualism as an approach (Atkinson et al., 2015; Ferris, 2014; Gevers, 2018; Hall, 2018; Horner et al., 2011; Horner, 2018; Jordan, 2015; Severino, 2017; Williams & Condon, 2016), a label used repeatedly in Horner et al.’s (2011) essay. Referring to translingualism as an approach may imply that it is one alternative among many approaches to teaching writing (others being, for example, critical approaches, genre approaches, or process approaches). Although Horner et al. clearly imply something broader (a paradigm shift), the term approach does seem to situate translingualism as a pedagogical option from which teachers may choose. Wang (2018) expressly counters this characterization, recasting “translingualism as a rhetoric rather than an orientation or approach.” Overall, however, the labeling of translingualism as an approach seems to be dominant in the literature.

In contrast, second language writing is typically categorized as a field (Atkinson et al., 2015; Wang, 2018) or a discipline (Canagarajah, 2013a; Hall, 2018; Horner, 2018). Atkinson et al. (2015) specifically draw attention to second language writing as an “international and transdisciplinary /icW of study” (p. 384, italics added). Horner (2018) distinguishes the discipline from the institution of second language writing, with the discipline referring to a dynamic and heterogeneous collection of scholars and scholarship but the institution referring to the named infrastructure and institutional designations.

Despite this more common categorization of second language writing, some scholars have described it as operating more at the level of approach, essentially situating second language writing and translingualism as two alternatives to one another. Severino (2017), for example, directly compares the two as roughly parallel entities when she describes “the translingual approach to composition, which stresses readers’ accommodations of multilingual writers, and the second language writing approach, which emphasizes writers’ second language writing development” (p. 13). She goes on to note that “transling- ual and second language writing approaches also overlap in significant ways” (p. 14). Her characterization is not novel; the Open Letter by Atkinson et al. (2015) adopts this same comparison, if only briefly, when stating, “We suggest ways of facilitating a more productive understanding of the role of both approaches to writing in writing studies organizations and journals” (p. 383, italics added). These authors may not intend to situate translingualism and second language writing as alternative approaches to writing instruction; in fact, the Open Letter later explicitly defines second language writing as a field and translingualism as an approach. Nevertheless, words matter and may also reveal implicit assumptions. When both translingualism and second language writing are referred to as approaches, they are presented as two options, implying that scholars must choose where they belong.

How Have We Characterized Translingualism and Second Language Writing?

Aside from these categorizing labels, it is instructive to see how translingualism and second language writing have characterized each other in broader ways. In academic writing, authors routinely represent various theoretical and methodological perspectives, and in doing so they set frames which are later reinforced or perhaps challenged. For example, when critiques arise repeatedly, they then must be acknowledged (and perhaps countered) in subsequent discussion, further entrenching the critical representation. This point is perhaps best illustrated through George Lakoff’s (2004) example: If I say to you, “Don’t think of an elephant,” you will quickly conjure an image of a large, floppy- eared elephant. Even by refuting an image or an idea, when we adopt the same language, we evoke the frame. As Lakoff notes, once set, frames are very difficult to dislodge, especially if they align with our broader worldview. In the 23 articles I examined, translingualism and second language writing were both framed in notable ways by their critics.

In representing translingualism, critics tended to note its weaknesses or limitations, often discussed in relation to expertise, novelty, or staying value. One common characterization has been that proponents of translingualism in composition studies are either unfamiliar with or choose to ignore a relevant body of scholarship by applied linguists and second language writing scholars (e.g., Atkinson & Tardy, 2018; Gevers, 2018; Matsuda, 2013, 2014; Severino, 2017; Tardy, 2017). Matsuda (2013), for example, states that “since the topic opened up a new frontier in the knowledge desert, there are plenty of opportunities to stake a claim—even for those who have had little experience with language” (p. 131). Severino (2017) has noted that translingualism scholarship at times

“naively duplicates and redundantly reinvents or rediscovers . . . longstanding sociolinguistic and multilingual views of language . . . [and] aspects of critical pedagogy” (pp. 27-28). In my own work, too, I have remarked that “decades of relevant research, theory, and practice are routinely ignored or dismissed as traditional or monolingualist” (Tardy, 2017, p. 182) and stated that “I’m not convinced that translingualism is an extreme shift in paradigm” (Atkinson & Tardy, 2018, p. 88).

This characterization of translingualism as “nothing new” also emerges in representations of translingualism as a passing trend. After Matsuda (2014) described translingualism as “all the rage” (Matsuda, 2014, p. 478), translingual advocates repeated this characterization (though with disagreement), noting that critics see translingualism as a “fad” (Canagarajah, 2015, p. 420) or “buzzword” (Hall, 2018; Wang, 2018). These word choices situate translingualism as a temporary fascination rather than a new way of thinking, potentially minimizing its value.

Characterizations of second language writing are equally revealing, with critics highlighting boundary-guarding along with intellectual and pedagogical conservatism. Despite Horner’s (2018) statement that second language writing is not a monolingualist endeavor, we still see some implicit and explicit suggestions that it is, as in Wang’s (2018) assertion that “As composition studies has claimed its emancipatory agenda, it is hardly justifiable for composition- ists not to maintain that current L2 writing pedagogies serve to perpetuate the monolingualist ideology and a deficit model in its practices.”

Some of the more critical characterizations can be found in Canagarajah’s (2015) article, in which he notes that “[translingual] pedagogies may not satisfy SLW scholars, as translingualism goes against predefined pedagogies and prepackaged methods” (p. 426). He later portrays some second language writing scholars as reluctant to accept new ideas, instead firmly guarding disciplinary boundaries:

Unfortunately, the comments in the Open Letter about refusing to engage with feedback from journal reviewers outside SLW, and in Ruecker on refusing to discuss translingual scholarship, betray an isolationist and protectionist approach. There is growing realization that the disciplinary boundaries are a hangover from modernity, designed for ideological control.

(pp. 428-9, emphasis added)

Many subsequent pieces of scholarship cite and quote from these characterizations (e.g., Atkinson & Tardy, 2018; Hall, 2018; Horner, 2018), even when challenging the sentiments. Still, by reproducing these representations of SLW scholars as resistant and conservative, we re-enforce the discursive frame.

How Have We Constructed the Relationship Between Translingualism and Second Language Writing?

So far, I have not described specific references to the relationship between translingualism and second language writing, but the building blocks for a tense relationship are already apparent. The two areas have repeatedly been depicted as being in competition with one another, and critics of each have offered characterizations that imply an unwillingness or incapability to collaborate.

It is noteworthy that Horner et al.’s (2011) article offers a collaborative cross- disciplinary characterization of translingualism and second language writing, stating that translingualism “crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries separating composition studies from ESL, applied linguistics, literacy studies, ‘foreign’ language instruction, and translation studies” (pp. 309-310, emphasis added). Just two years later, however, concerns had begun to set in. In a well-cited book chapter, for example, Matsuda (2013) wrote of language specialists politely ignoring problematic discussions of language at composition conference talks on translingualism. Matsuda expressed the concern that many new advocates of translingualism lacked a grounding in language-related scholarship and that the field of composition studies did not have “a community of knowledgeable peers who can ensure intellectual accountability” (p. 132). He further cautioned that the valorization of translingualism had led some language specialists to refrain from critique “lest they appear old fashioned or ideologically suspect” (132).

The same year, in a symposium-style article in the Journal of Second Language Writing, Canagarajah (2013a) invoked an image of second language writing as resistant to new concepts or paradigms like translingualism:

If the activity of writing is now being understood differently, and new concepts define this activity beyond separate languages, we have to ask if there is any benefit in keeping alive the discipline “second language writing.”

(p. 441)

The relationship suggested here (in which translingualism is new and second language writing is outdated) is also articulated—and challenged—in a subsequent article by Matsuda (2014), which argues against the “false binary” that has been constructed between “second language acquisition versus translingual writing, code-switching versus code-meshing, and multilingual versus translingual” (p. 480).

Despite Matsuda’s (2014) challenge of such binaries, distinctions between translingualism and second language writing are later asserted and re-asserted in several publications, potentially invoking a dichotomy even when not intended. Atkinson et al. (2015) state that “there seems to be a tendency to conflate L2

writing and translingual writing, and view the latter as a replacement for or improved version of L2 writing” (p. 384); the authors go on to identify several differences between translingualism and second language writing “while acknowledging that [second language writing] shares some common foci with translingual writing” (p. 385). In Canagarajah’s (2015) article, the distinctions are outlined in sharper focus, as he states that “the most explicit resistance to translingualism so far has come from the professional community labeled ‘Second Language Writing’” (p. 424), and he highlights second language writing’s concern for retaining disciplinary territory.

By 2015, the seeds for a somewhat competitive relationship between translingualism and second language writing appear to be firmly rooted. That year, Jordan (2015) notes, “I am aware of emerging controversies about the translingual approach, especially among some scholars of second language writing” (p. 380), and just one year later Williams and Condon (2016) write extensively of this relationship, stating that “translingualism has unfortunately been interpreted as a replacement for L2 writing” (p. 4) and that “if this interpretation of translingualism continues to offer a view of ESL classes as prescriptive and discriminatory, any collaboration amongst composition studies, translingual, and second language writing scholars is likely to be uneasy at best, unwelcome at worst” (p. 12).

In 2017, Horner and Tetreault (2017) published an edited collection titled Crossing Divides: Exploring Translingual Writing Pedagogies and Programs and note in their introduction that “those attempting to explore translingual writing pedagogies and programs by crossing institutional disciplinary divides have their work cut out for them” (p. 7). My own chapter in that book articulates my concerns that “rather than crossing divides, current discussions of translingualism may be exacerbating the disciplinary division of labor that Paul Matsuda (1999) wrote about years ago” (p. 182). This discourse of division appears to be entrenched by 2018, during which time numerous publications describe the relationship of translingualism and second language writing as divisive and even hostile:

To advance translingualism in composition studies and its related language studies, and to consolidate its theoretical foundation as a legitimate approach, we should be cautious not to leave the resistance unaddressed, and we should by no means intensify the hostility or broaden the divide.

(Wang, 2018, emphasis added)

the basic contention of the open letter is that translingualism is threatening to absorb the territory that SLW has meticulously and with great effort claimed for itself over the past couple of decades.

(Hall, 2018, pp. 36-37, emphasis added)

Through reading Gevers’ article, and in other cross-disciplinary discussions about the divide between L2 and translingual writing.

(Scltreiber & Watson, 2018, p. 94, emphasis added)

So let’s start with translingualism: How do we see it, and how does it help us locate SLW? I don’t think we’re trying to build walls here exactly, but SLW is a small field with larger-than-life parent figures, and sometimes they feel threatening.

(Atkinson & Tardy, 2018, p. 87, emphasis added)

I do not mean to suggest that authors have only referred to this relationship in rancorous terms. Indeed, many scholars (including those already quoted here) have called attention to the overlapping areas of agreement between translingualism and second language writing (e.g., Atkinson et al., 2015; Hall, 2018; Sch- reiber & Watson, 2018; Williams & Condon, 2016), and Ferris (2014) has referred to the “translingual conversation” as a “productive and constructive discussion” (p. 74). It may be Donahue (2016) who most vehemently dismisses the rhetorical dichotomy between translingualism and second language writing, as she writes:

The translingual model has been discussed frequently in relation to L2 writing research and teaching models. But the discipline of L2 writing and the translingual model do not so much intersect as run parallel; to entwine L2 writing in oppositional translingual discussions or vice versa is to misunderstand both L2 work and the translingual model.

(p. 148)

Unfortunately, discussions of complementarity or overlap generally occur as a corollary to noting a negative relationship. In other words, it seems to have become a convention of our discourse to acknowledge (and thus re-enforce) the tensions between translingualism and second language writing, even as we strive to move beyond those tensions.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The spirit of this collection is to begin a move forward—or, as the editors stated in their author invitation, “to reset this relationship so that these two camps can, on an equal footing, work together constructively or, at least, coexist peacefully and respectfully.” It is an admirable goal, which I suspect many of us are eager to move toward. Yet we are all caught in somewhat of a rhetorical bind here. This collection itself—promising reconciliation—is premised on the notion of a divide. In order to move ahead, we must acknowledge the presence of a “frayed” relationship (to again adopt the words from the editors’ invitation), yet in acknowledging past tensions, we reinforce and reify them. It is perhaps revealing that many of the chapter titles in this collection similarly invoke some kind of dichotomy or binary.

One useful rhetorical strategy is to avoid creating or re-creating dichotomies in our future scholarship. If we consider second language writing to be, broadly, a name for an area of study of writing in an additional language, it should reasonably co-exist with translingualism just as it co-exists with critical pedagogy, genre studies, or sociocultural theory. In other words, one should be able to (and, indeed, people do) bring a translingual lens to the study and teaching of second language writing. Similarly, one need not necessarily bring such a lens, and there may be legitimate work in composition studies or applied linguistics that focuses on supporting additional-language writers without a strong translingual approach. A recent paper by McIntosh, Connor, and Gokpinar- Shelton (2017) considers the potential of bringing together the frameworks of translingualism, English as a lingua franca (ELF), and intercultural rhetoric (IR) within English for academic purposes scholarship; in considering productive junctures, the authors are able the avoid the reproduction of a discourse of division. In the end, the disciplinary marketplace will eventually determine which orientations to scholarship—if any—gain widespread use and which do not. Fields evolve, and healthy debate is important for our disciplinary vitality (Atkinson, 2013). As Horner (2018) notes:

It is not just possible but likely that the disciplinary field of Second Language Writing will accept the challenges to second language writing Canagarajah has identified and yet remain the field of Second Language Writing, just as, for much of its history, the disciplinary field known as “College Composition and Communication” (represented by its flagship journal of the same name) has until recently largely ignored communication (see George & Trimbur, 1999) while keeping the term.

(p. 82)

It may also be helpful to acknowledge more overtly in our scholarly writing the diversity of viewpoints within translingualism and within second language writing, as well as the complex viewpoints and ideological positions that individual scholars hold. It is easy to characterize whole areas of scholarship in relation to one or two examples found in published literature; indeed, it is a necessity given the constraints and conventions of scholarly writing. But doing so also masks the complex viewpoints and backgrounds that exist within those areas of scholarship and even within individual scholars. Our genre conventions may encourage simple characterizations of opposing views, but as scholars hoping to engage one another productively, we may need to consciously avoid setting up easy, straw-man arguments. In fact, a similar issue exists in the field of genre studies, where dividing genre approaches into “three traditions” (based on an article by Hyon, 1996) has become a common way to categorize scholarship. My own quiet resistance to this division has been to consciously avoid the tripartite framework or labeling scholars as “belonging” to one tradition or another. Of course, there are times when we need to acknowledge distinctions, but we do not need to pigeonhole scholars into particular orientations or to re-invoke divisions that we find problematic or counter-productive. We can all surely find examples of “translingual scholars” who have strong backgrounds in second language writing and “second language writing scholars” who incorporate a multi- or translingual perspective into their research and pedagogy. Given our shared goal of supporting students, it may behoove us to avoid simple characterizations when we can.

Finally, we might consider the possibility that the “frayed relationship” that is the focus of this book may in actuality be between composition studies and second language writing, with translingualism offering a kind of catalyst for the long- present tensions. Leki (2006) described these tensions in some depth, writing that “there is a sense in which the needs of L2 composition have been subordinated to the interests and concerns of LI composition, a domination the LI writer literature displays little awareness of” (p. 69). Notably, in the articles that I examined, I found no critiques of translingual or translanguaging scholarship in applied linguistics or education, both closely allied fields of second language writing in which translingualism has also garnered attention; disagreements instead seem to be directed toward composition scholarship.1 Hall’s (2018) and Horner’s (2018) recent articles highlight how increased attention to translingualism (and thus language) in composition studies has dissolved previous disciplinary boundaries in ways that pose somewhat of a threat to second language writing. As Hall (2018) notes, composition studies can be viewed as a “big ship [that] threatens to swamp all smaller boats” (p. 37). We would all do well to consider what a diminished role for second language writing in the “big ship” of composition studies might mean for writing instruction in U.S. composition classrooms. We should also consider what a more productive relationship between composition studies, translingualism, and second language writing might look like. Both translingualism (as a paradigm, orientation, or approach) and second language writing (as a disciplinary area of inquiry into writing in an additional language) have much to contribute to composition studies and to each other.

Note

1. Kubota's (2016) critique of the “multi/plural turn” in applied linguistics might appear to be one exception, but she writes from the perspective of applied linguistics more broadly rather than tying her critiques to second language writing.

References

Atkinson, D. (2013). Introduction [disciplinary dialogue]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 425.

Atkinson, D., Crusan, D., Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., Rucker, T,, Simpson, S., & Tardy, C. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and trans- lingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English, 77(4), 383-386.

Atkinson, D., & Tardy, С. M. (2018). SLW at the crossroads: Finding a way in the field. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 86-93.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013a). The end of second language writing? Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 440-441.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013b). Introduction. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as trans- lingualpractice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 1-10). New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between translingual practice and L2 writing: Addressing learner identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(4), 415-440.

Donahue, C. (2016). The “trans” in transnational-translingual: Rhetorical and linguistic flexibility as new norms. Composition Studies, 44(1), 147-150.

Ferris, D. R. (2014). “English only” and multilingualism in composition studies: Policy, philosophy, and practice. College English, 77(1), 73-83.

George, D., & Trimbur, J. (1999). The “communication battle,” or whatever happened to the 4th C? College Composition and Communication, 50(4), 682—698.

Gevers, J. (2018). Translingualism revisited: Language difference and hybridity in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 73-83.

Hall, J. (2018). The translingual challenge: Boundary work in rhetoric and composition, second language writing, and WAC/WID. Across the Disciplines, 15(3), 28-47.

Horner, B. (2018). Translinguality and disciplinary reinvention. Across the Disciplines, 15(3), 76-88.

Horner, B., Lu, M.-Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303-321.

Horner, B., & Tetreault, L. (Eds.). (2017). Crossing divides: Exploring translingual writing pedagogies and programs. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.

Jordan, J. (2015). Material translingual ecologies. College English, 77(4), 364-382.

Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multi- culturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 474-494.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lee, J. W. (2016). Beyond translingual writing. College English, 79(2), 174-195.

Leki, I. (2006). The legacy of first-year composition. In P. K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier- Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 59-74). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50(4), 699-721.

Matsuda, P. K. (2013). It’s the wild west out there: A new linguistic frontier in U.S. college composition. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 128-138). New York: Routledge.

Matsuda, P. K. (2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA, 129(3), 478-483.

McIntosh, K., Connor, U., & Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 12-20.

Ruecker, T. (2014). Here they do this, there they do that: Latinas/Latinos writing across institutions. College Composition and Communication, 66(1), 91-119.

Schreiber, 13.. & Watson, M. (2018). Translingualism * codemeshing: A respone to Gevers’ “translingualism revisited” (2018). Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 94-97.

Severino, C. (2017). “Multilingualizing” composition: A diary self-study of learning Spanish and Chinese. Composition Studies, 45(2), 12-31.

Tardy, С. M. (2017). Crossing, or creating, divides? A plea for transdisciplinary scholarship. In B. Horner & L. Tetreault (Eds.), Crossing divides: Exploring translingual writing pedagogies and programs (pp. 181-189). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Wang, Z. (2018). Rethinking translingual as a transdisciplinary rhetoric: Broadening the dialogic space. Composition Forum, 40.

Williams, J., & Condon, F. (2016). Translingualism in composition studies and second language writing: An uneasy alliance. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 33(2), 1-18.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >