(Code) Meshing Second Language Writing with Translingualism

John Hill

Department of English, Arizona State University

ENG 501 – Research Studies

Dr. Melissa Lee

October 8, 2021

INTRODUCTION

     This project is a composition process, rhetoric, and pedagogy study that examines code meshing in L2 English writers. Through a Critical Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Genre Studies approach, I examine the theoretical divide between the two main branches currently in L2 writing - Second Language Writing (SLW) and Translingualism. One particular area of divergence motivates my study: 1) SLW constraints on L2 expression at the expense of emerging L1 forms and 2) the extreme ideological resistance of Translingualism to L1 forms at the expense of L2 expression and agency. Both approaches in my view focus on the target language over learner needs.  

     Here I attempt to bridge the ideological gap by providing a practical writing praxis for L2 writers. In focusing on rhetoric, I use as a foundation the second language writing work of Corcoran and Lee regarding L2 communicative effect. I attempt to build on the works of Alexander and Gonzales that demonstrated how both L1 and L2 rhetorical affordances in one mode of writing, multimodal writing, are associated with writing that is judged rhetorically effective. I attempt to fill the gaps in the research by examining how additional modes of expressive writing, specifically by L2 writers through code meshing, can achieve rhetorical affordances that are judged rhetorically effective by L1 evaluators. 

     Here I argue that by focusing on the rhetorical effectiveness of writers we can in effect bridge the gap between SLW and Translingualism. By focusing on rhetorical process and effectiveness, I argue that the dual aims of both SLW (end product proficiency aligning with L1) and Translingualism (writer voice, personal agency) can be achieved. Through modes of writing that increase expressions of agency and voice, and through which that voice is most likely to be afforded and judged effective, we can take a step toward a progressive view of composition pedagogy that is equitable and accommodates the needs of individual writers. 

LITERATURE REVIEW

     Within the field of L2 writing research, much debate centers on how we should teach writing in relation to notions of a particular L1 standard. While it is agreed that rejection of absolute adherence to the dominant, monolingual L1 form is desired (Horner, Canagarajah, Matsuda), the debate continues on how, and even whether, the individual needs of writers and their purpose in writing can be achieved in relation to any particular L1 standard (Horner, Smit). Over the past two decades, L2 English writing research in North America has been split into two camps: Second Language Writing (SLW) and Translingualism. Both wholeheartedly reject monolingualism as an acquisition goal. However, the two camps diverge from that point: SLW seeks to accommodate L2 writing within the framework of an emergent L1 form. The L1 form is not an absolute standard for competency, but one that takes into account L2 writing and agency as constrained by the L1 (Watson). Translingualism, by contrast, has a broader ideological focus in its monolingual rejection. It builds on Critical Discourse Analysis theory in calling into question the notion of there being a standard of discourse to adhere to (Canagarajah).   

     Translingualism focuses on individual writer agency and expression, with such expression requiring conscious rhetorical and pragmatic strategies by L2 writers (Canagarajah). Research specifically related to First Year Composition (FYC) pedagogical practices also suggest the need for conscious meta-linguistic and meta-rhetorical awareness as a necessary precursor to producing L2 writing that is assessed effective by instructors in FYC programs (Corcoran). One such meta-cognitive strategy involves code-meshing as a purposeful, exploitative strategy (Lee).  This strategy is of the very type that translingualism sees as an intentional, performative act of “intentional intermingling” necessary to counter the ideological monolingual variant (Corcoran) 

     Although code meshing is often, and wrongly, associated with only Translingualism, it is simply a linguistic strategy that naturally occurs in writing and speech (Lee). As Williams points out, and as the strategy of code meshing exemplifies, the ongoing debate across ideological lines between SLW and Translingualism need not be an either or debate. Focus should be on shared attributes of both fields and how the needs of writers are met in both their academic and everyday lives. While both fields lean on the foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis in rejecting monolingualism as a source for maintaining privilege and power (Bouvier), both fields can use the very relationship between text, ideology and the dynamic nature of potential change inherent (Bawarshi) as an equally shared opportunity. One such dynamic potential for change and bridging the ideological gap between SLW and Translingualism in a way that focuses on learners is through rhetoric. Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) provides a framework for the production of meaning (Bawarshi) that is diverse and individualized, but ultimately shared and communicative. RGS attends to language transfer, as occurs in L2 writing, not grammatically but rhetorically, within the context of alternative generic writing and the situational construction of meaning (Bawarshi).

     FYC research has shown a connection between the utilization of rhetoric, and the affordances of layered meaning, as a way of projecting both self-expression and meaning simultaneously (Alexander, Gonzalez). This research specifically demonstrated how basic writers perceptions of rhetorical affordances in one particular mode of writing, multi-modality, increased perception of affordances that impacted on the use of particular types of rhetorical appeals (Alexander). A valid question that remains unanswered ( and even unaddressed) is whether modes of writing themselves can naturally lead to instances of code meshing in ways that bridge the gap and serve the purpose of both SLW and Translingual camps, and, more importantly, serve the individual writers themselves.  

RESEARCH QUESTION

     In an attempt to address the gaps in the literature as it pertains to rhetorical affordances and instances of code meshing in the composition classroom, my research proposes to answer questions related to whether the specific type of writing that relates to personal expression, within an academic context, impacts how L2 writers perceive and utilize rhetorical affordances, and whether those affordances ultimately produce an end product that is deemed rhetorically effective by L1 evaluators. The specific question I pose here is: Do modes of writing with expressive affordances such as message board posts, personal narratives, and multi-modal texts frequently include instances of L2 writer code-meshing that are assessed as rhetorically effective by L1 evaluators? 

RATIONALE

     My research has the potential to be highly relevant to the field of L2 writing. Code-meshing has been theorized as an important aspect of L2 writer’s resistance to a monolingual L1 standard. If through assignment mode it can be demonstrated that L2 students are more inclined to write in a way that leads to increased agency and voice and this is correlated with increased instances of code-meshing, then L2 writing pedagogy may have a writing praxis that can be quickly and easily implemented in FYC classroom.  

     The steps involved in pedagogical theory leading to pedagogical practice can be long and arduous.  From the abstract debates by theoreticians and their occasional intransigence (such as is currently occurring between SLW and Translingualism), to the issue of teacher training and implementation, to how the teaching models will be received by students - the path from theory to practice to proficiency can be long and uncertain. My research question, and hypothesis based on that question, proposes a practical solution to L2 writer agency in producing instances of code-meshing that can be immediately implemented through the assignment type. Furthermore, to the extent that this model works for code-meshing in L2 writers, it leads to the possibility that writing mode can produce increased use of code-meshing (through the same mechanism of increased voice and agency) in writers of other dialects, to include traditionally underprivileged writers, and even an entire generation of writers that have text-speak as their preferred “dialect.” 

METHODOLOGY

     I have developed a focused case study based methodology whereby a small group of L2 participant writers will produce four modes of writing - two message board posts, one print-based personal narrative, and a multi-modal profile essay - that will be assessed by L1 writing center tutors. Self-reflections of L2 subject’s writing process as well as L1 assessments of the subject's writing will be conducted based on both qualitative and quantitative measures of analysis. For measuring L2 writer’s composition process, I utilize screencast recordings in conjunction with a reflective Think Aloud. Both measures are conducted in real time for the purposes of gathering data that will be measured qualitatively. The screencast is used by this researcher to potentially highlight for discussion (interview portion) any questions related to the composition process to include error correction, pauses in composition, and utilization of other resources (such as dictionaries or Grammarly). The Think Aloud will serve as a window into the thinking process of writer subjects as well as potential material for follow up discussion.  

     A follow up questionnaire that is both qualitative and quantitative will be administered to L2 writer subjects for the purposes of gathering information on perceptions and feedback after each writing process. The questionnaire will include Likert scale measures and open end responses.  I will utilize the Likert scale for measuring perceptions of if and to what degree each writing task enabled self-expression of voice and agency as well as measures of rhetorical affordances. Open ended questions will grant subjects the opportunity to reflect on how each writing task enabled them to use language that was or was not code-meshed. The Likert scales responses will be quantitatively assessed and the open ended questions will be qualitatively assessed. Finally, I will conduct one on one interviews with each subject to follow up on and put into perspective data collected through the screencast and Think Aloud, along with any follow up questions to the questionnaire. This data will be qualitatively assessed. Language will be considered code-meshed if it is of a specific, identifiable, and patterned linguistic form particular to the L1 language of the L2 writers. Data assessment of affordance will be based on analyzing both real time and reflective writer feedback (both quantitative and qualitative measures). Rhetorical Genre Studies will be used to analyze code-meshing as a form and expression of alternate rhetoric within the RGS model. 

     Native speaker assessments will be conducted through evaluation of writing as rhetorically effective. Two writing center tutors will be recruited and will evaluate each piece of writing based on a clearly defined rubric of rhetorical appropriateness. Is the writing, as produced for its intended purpose and audience (professor and classmates), rhetorically appropriate and effective in conveyance of meaning? L1 evaluators will have both qualitatively and quantitatively measured response opportunities through a questionnaire that combines open ended questions with Likert scales responses.  

     Subject recruitment of L2 writer participants will be through a class email and flyer advertised to local community college First Year Composition courses (both the regular section and the non-native speaker section) at the beginning of the first sequence offering of that course (i.e. ENG 101/ENG 107). Participant recruitment will not target particular groups or even make an initial L1/L2 distinction. A questionnaire that will be administered in conjunction with subjects responding to the recruitment will ask students if English is their native language, how long they have studied English, and what writing courses they have had. Participants will be chosen based on English not being their native language and having no prior college English writing experience in terms of ESL or basic writing courses. For the size and scope of the project, I am looking for 6-10 L2 writer participants in my case study with the added goal of having an even distribution of male/female participants as well as as many cultures as possible.

     L2 writing samples produced will consist of four versions of expressive writing: one introductory post on the shared class message board YellowDig, one print based personal narrative, one multi-modal type profile essay, and a final reflective YellowDig post on the course and what was learned. The same subjects will complete the same writing task to be assessed by the same evaluators. Assignments will be over an 8 week period beginning with the Yellowdig post, then the personal narrative, the multi-modal project, and then the final Yellowdig reflection.

     Ethical considerations consist of ensuring everything from the recruitment, to all questions in questionnaires and asked in interviews, have no interpretation that would likely and reasonably be a basis for feeling inferior or being judged inferior based on L2 writing ability or being of a particular ethnic or minority status. Ethical considerations as it relates to all steps of the process beyond the initial recruitment are addressed by way of a research disclosure statement and the voluntary nature of participation, which entails the ability to leave the study at any time. The ethical considerations of the screencast recording is reliant on clear communication as to the presence, scope and general purpose of the recordings. The screen recordings will take place in the writing center lab at the college; thus, expectations of absolute privacy in relation to the computer usage are acknowledged and consent given.  

     Potential limitations of the study include external validity concerns of being able to generalize my small case study results to inform larger conclusions on writing process to other L2 writers and generalizing assessments from two similarly situated writing tutors that might not match assessments typical of instructors, peers, or those in the real world. A potential limitation of internal validity is how the writing progress of students, and specifically perception of affordances and confidence in expressing themselves through code meshing, increases based on the potential foundational building through the assignments themselves. 

BRIDGING THE GAP

     Given the current divide among L2 writing theorists and the difficulty in implementing theory into practice, my work is motivated to potentially cross this divide in a way that tangibly and positively impacts L2 writers. By focusing on rhetorical appeals and effect, I hope to positively impact the accommodation of L2 writers and continue the conversation of strategies that seek a more equitable composition classroom.

     My current research as proposed here will give our field an idea of whether we can, in effect, create a short term solution to a long term problem. And that short term solution might well be the long term solution (or at least put our field on that path). If my hypothesis is wrong, then we simply keep thinking and keep questioning. But what we cannot do is keep fighting (against each other). We must continue to work toward implementing already promising theory into pedagogical reality. Implementation of pedagogical theory should not be stalled by a chasm between two well meaning but unnecessarily conflicting and misunderstood groups.  The gaps between theories need filling, and sometimes those gaps are best filled with a bridge.  

 References

Alexander, K., Powell, B., & Green, S. (2012). Understanding modal affordances: Student perceptions of potentials and limitations in multimodal composition. Special Issue: Multimodal Composing: Opportunities and Challenges in Basic Writing Contexts. Basic Writing eJournal, 10/11

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

Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre : An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press.

Bouvier, G., & Machin, D. (2018). Critical Discourse Analysis and the challenges and opportunities of social media. The Review of Communication, 18(3), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1479881

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English, 68(6), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.2307/25472177

Canagarajah, A.S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x

Corcoran, L. (2017). Languaging 101: Translingual practices for the translingual realities of the SEEK composition classroom. Journal of Basic Writing, 36(2), 54–77.

Gonzales, L. (2015). Multimodality, translingualism, and Rhetorical Genre Studies. Forum - Conference on College Composition and Communication, 31, 1–1.

Horner, B. (2015). Rewriting Composition: Moving beyond a discourse of need. College English, 77(5), 450–479.

Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English Only and U.S. college composition. College Composition and Communication, 53(4), 594–630. https://doi.org/10.2307/1512118

Lee, A. Y., & Handsfield, L. J. (2018). Code-meshing and writing instruction in multilingual classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 72(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1688

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English, 68(6), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.2307/25472180

Smit, D.W.  (2004). The End of Composition Studies. Southern Illinois University Press.

Watson, M. (2021). The inevitable mess of translingualism. Pedagogy : Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Culture, and Composition, 21(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-8692703

Williams, J., & Condon, F. (2016). Translingualism in composition studies and second language writing: An uneasy alliance. TESL Canada Journal, 33(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v33i2.1234