Annotated Bibliography

Second Language Writing - Perspectives and Inclusivity. Matsuda, P. (2003). Basic writing and

second language writers: Toward an inclusive definition. Journal of Basic Writing, 22(2), 67-

89.

In this article Matsuda gives a historical perspective on the term basic writers as it relates to writing courses in higher education.  In the past, basic writing as a generalized term has not taken into account linguistic or cultural backgrounds of students as a broader expanse in which to view writing practices and the resulting product. Matsuda demonstrates that the history of instruction of basic writers and English Second Language (ESL) writers have run parallel over the years, oftentimes intersecting to the detriment of the ESL writers or, worse, them being completely marginalized or ignored. According to Matsuda, it is inevitable that as a result of increasing diversity in the university population, and the inability of colleges to properly identify and place writers, that the likelihood of second language writers intermixing with basic native English speakers will increase.

In addressing the systemic failure of the field of composition to address the specific needs of second language writers, Matsuda identifies what he describes as the “persistence of (a) disciplinary division of labor” (83) that has failed the second language writer in addressing their needs from a perspective of inclusion (being incorporated into the native, basic writing classroom) and instead has created the conditions for exclusion (being quartered into ESL classes).  

In an attempt to include ESL writers into a basic writing framework, Matsuda points out that Linda Adler-Kassner included them as an entire section in her Bibliography for Teachers of Basic Writing and called for interdisciplinary cooperation between basic writing specialists and second language specialists. Matsuda calls for this cooperation as a critical step in addressing the writing needs of second language writers.  Indeed, he states the very term ‘basic writer’ must be re-examined in lieu of unreliable placement test scores, language backgrounds, or immigration status” and include “all students who are subject to the disciplinary pedagogical practices of basic writing” (Matsuda, 84). 

This article is important as a contribution to scholarship and inquiry laying the groundwork in composition studies for progress toward a broader consideration of inclusivity for second language writers and research that eventually includes non-standard English writers.

Toward a More Expansive View of Literacy: The Composition Classroom as Multilingual Space

Matsuda, P. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college

composition. College English, 68 (6), 637-649.

This article explores the notion of English monolingualism and how the assumption of English-only as an expression of linguistic homogeneity in the composition classroom impacts pedagogical strategies and accommodation of those that do not speak the dominant language variant.  Matsuda calls for the field to address the responsibility of accommodating not only second language speakers but any speaker of non-privileged English. Matsuda examines the history that led to a form of linguistic containment that cordoned off differing versions of English, and most notably affected second language writers that fell outside the privileged version. He shows that linguistic containment is part of the history of composition studies dating back to Harvard’s very purpose in creating what is now known as the composition classroom.  Originally, and from this origin, the dye was cast for composition to be remedial and cut off from the other disciplines. It was a means to an end (correcting grammar, spelling, and discourse errors) rather than an end itself (to include writing for any other purpose).

This form of linguistic containment of which varieties of English are judged as inferior against a prevailing English proficiency norm and standard continues to exist.  Specifically, the impact on second language students of English is propagated by linguistic containment and the demarcation created by having an alternate course selection just for the non-native speakers (English as a second language version of ENG 101 such as ENG 107).  No other discipline seeks to bifurcate students in such a way based on language, which itself “reifies the notion that one is superior and the other inferior” (Matsuda, 640), the latter of which not even being able to exist on a separate but differently equal plane; the effort is made to erase the traces of (second language students’) language differences before they are allowed to enroll in the required composition course” (Matsuda, 642). 

Matsuda is not suggesting an outright abolishment of the second language learning classroom.  Indeed, most international and resident second language speakers prefer to be in these classes, and eventually thrive with similarly situated peers.  But the implications of the policy of containment as an unchallenged reality and how that affects second language learners and those speakers of underprivileged varieties of English is where the problem lies.  If institutions of higher learning cling to the notion of linguistic containment and monolingual, privileged English is the standard, then this works against the goal of accommodation and inclusion. As Matsuda concludes, “to work effectively with the student populations in the twenty-first century, all composition teachers need to reimagine the composition classroom as the multilingual space that it is, where the presence of language difference is the default and the norm to be accepted, valued and utilized (646).

 Matsuda adds to a research niche in the field that questions the very notion of there being a standard of English linguistic homogeneity to which both second langue and non-privileged speakers/writers must adhere. In doing so he calls into question and critiques the very notion of a linguistic standard of literacy to which the compositing class is required to pay homage and adherence to. 

 Canagarajah, S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning

from multilingual writers. College English, 68(6) 589-604.

This article continues the conversation and movement toward an expansion of literacy assessments that move beyond monolingual invariability and toward pedagogical strategies that seek to accommodate non-privileged forms of usage.  Canagarajah makes a critique of writing process models, and pedagogical strategies based on those models, that seeks to go beyond the singular, monolingual, L1/C1 language/culture generalizations that posits invariability in second language (L1) discourse and its subconscious merging with native-language (L2) writing in a way perceived to be in error. Such models fail to take into account rhetorical variables, and the writer’s own expression of voice, in multilingual writers composing in L2 environments. Canagarajah looks into two identified existing models and their pedagogical implications and posits a new model based on an expansion of those competing models. 

Canagarajah begins with an overview of the two models he seeks to expand on, one is the Inference Model and the other being the Correlationist Model. In the Inference Model the L1 is taken to be instructive of all issues of errors, but no attempt is specifically made to identify those conventions in the L1 beyond simply observing them in the English of the L2 writer. In the Correlationist Model, an attempt is made to examine the L1 of the writer to extract information on writing practices. Canagarajah sees this as grossly overgeneralizing writing based on the conventions of whatever artifact of writing is examined (and is narrowly situational based on genre). He instead posits a theory of writing whereby the space between the L1 and L2 is constantly negotiated based on rhetorical goals and social contextuality. He ends with a review of pedagogical implications based on this position.

For his methodology, the author utilizes a writing sample of a multilingual writer within the same genre but in three different rhetorical contexts - L1 (Tamil) written for local publication; a research article written in L2 (English) for local publication and a research article written in L2 (English) for a foreign publication.       

What he finds is that individual writers display multivocality in a constant bilateral negotiation of voice, agency, and preferred forms of native discourse with a conscious consideration of rhetorical goals attendant to the L2 audience (to the extent that those are known). The negotiation of the L1 and the L2 involves “being creative in shuttling between communities'' and a clear act of consciously “finding spaces within the dominant (discourse) conventions to insert one’s own voice and preferred conventions'' (Canagarajah, 600).  For Canagarajah this demonstrates clear evidence of proving the “agency of multilingual writers.” (600). Here, as part of the dynamic process of negotiation of the interstitial space between linguistic and discourse conventions, authors take on “conventions of one (discourse) to orient themselves to the convention of another (Canagarajah, 600).” As is pointed out, the very fact that the author was able to get published in a rigorous, peer-reviewed journal in the West implies many possible reasons, but among them is the notion that “oppositional or alternative forms of writing” (Canagarajah, 602) are an end product the acceptance of which is possible in academia.

The different writing conventions inform us that there are “multiple genres of English writing for multilingual writers.  A specific language does not possess a specific mode of writing.  In other words, one language does not equal one discourse as this is always based on textualized realizations of authorial gauges of effect and appropriateness within a given social context” (Canagarajah, 594). This article shows a general theme that has prevailed in Composition Studies, that being how social considerations are so inexorably linked to the writing process that even in the strict act of writing in a genre as narrowly constrained as literature for a refereed publication, social context matters and this negotiation even “shuttles” itself within the span of that context in “accomplishing diverse rhetorical acts.” (Canagarajah, 601).  Constraints, to the extent they exist, are not informed or guided by culture or the language itself, they are authorially driven and this itself is not conditioned or homogeneous, but is an act of individual creativity within the negotiated space where they can carve out a niche within the conflicting discourses.

This informs pedagogical strategies by shedding light on this negotiation as a conscious consideration and effect, not an error; and this conscious choice is based on desired effect. Canagarajah states that as a result of this potential reality, we must not only allow for but actively teach students this choice and space for voice as an expression of communication, their identity, and to achieve specific purposes inherent to their writing. We should de-emphasize strict adherence to rules and conventions in writing as the very flaunting of those rules (if one could be so bold in stating that) is part of the negotiation of the interstitial linguistic space that the writer is operating within.  This can and should be encouraged in ways that still maintains acceptance within generally appropriate rhetorical boundaries.

 Corcoran, L. (2017). “Languaging 101”: Translingual practices for the translingual realities of

the SEEK composition classroom. Journal of Basic Writing, 36(2) 54-75.

            In this article, Corcoran furthers the notion of integrating strategic, intentional intermingling of non-privileged forms of English and takes the idea of translingualism as a counter to standard, ideological monolingualism in articulating an alternate model of “holistically integrated linguistic repertoire” (55) in which speakers/writers use strategic, intentional intermingling of “heteroglossic repertoires” based on situational and communicative context (55) in the act of not using language (as a static noun entity) but in languaging (performing as a verb). In furtherance of this, she examines the translingual turn in the field of composition within the context of a first-year college writing program that seeks to develop meta-linguistic and meta-rhetorical awareness as part of having that drive the writing process and assessments of writing effectiveness.  

While acknowledging the weakness or absence of research literature of classroom practices and pedagogy that comprise such models, she herself incorporates ethnographic exploration through case study observations of speakers in the community juxtaposed with students’ own language repertoires as a primary mode of inquiry in an English 101 class she taught.  The case study ethnographies that she enacts are purposefully designed for exploring and examining “rhetorical and linguistic dimensions of everyday practices and performances.” (Corcoran, 55)

In specifically drawing attention to speakers’ rhetorical modes, Corcoran is positioning writing to be viewed through the prism of its localized “practical conditions and its production and reception.” (55). In other words, how is language used, by whom, and for what purpose. For her, the ability to “theorize and contextualize the ever-shifting contours of language and literacy” is paramount for students in both their academic careers (ENG 101, after all, is preparing students as a foundational course) and functioning politically in life outside of academia.  

Translingualism and Second Language Writing: Friend or Foe

Williams, J. (2016). Translingualism in composition studies and second

     language writing: An uneasy alliance. TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 33(2) 1-18.

This article details the brief history of two emerging subdivisions in and among  research perspectives on second language writing and its proper integration and acceptance. The examination calls for a collaboration and alliance among the subdiscipline of translingualism with that of second language writing and concludes that such an alliance is improbable as long as the misperception and miscategorization of second language writing is framed in exclusionary rhetorics, a binary distinction based on opposition to any allowance toward writing    standardization and to any view that is not fiercely in line with inclusive rhetoric of linguistic difference as an articulation of critical expression.  

Watson, M. (2021). The inevitable mess of translingualism. Pedagogy, 21(1) 83-107

This article examines the continued tension among translingualism and second language writing that persist to this day, the history and justification for such a divide, and offers a potential path of both working collaboratively for achievement of shared goals or, failing that, at least allowing for both approaches to serves composition and English studies, serve students of diverse background, while still allowing both to stake distinct claims to what they value in continuing valuable research without the need for adversarial or disciplinary conflict.  Watson calls for the “need for openness across scholars in both fields (as) necessary to establish the sort of conditions conducive for productive collaboration” (Watson, 88), and urges for a patient, benefit of the doubt view of translingualism and “the inevitable mess” that comes with it being a new disciplinary approach.  

Acceptance of the main tenets of translingualism is generally a given in terms of the cross-disciplinary, unified rejection of monolingualism and a desire to give voice to diverse and previously disenfranchised populations; however, the two approaches are on divergent paths in terms of the ambiguity involved in the “what now?” (Watson, 84), and what to do pedagogically as a next step in putting the notion into practice continues to be at issue. The divergence arises in considerations of how each approach views Standard English, how it is taught, and the multitude of factors that intersect with considerations of SE pedagogy versus a direct, outright rejection of its use as evidence of linguistic homogeneity and monolingualism of a privileged form that must be resisted at all cost.  SLW seeks to value diversity of voice and perspective but operates within a realm that aligns toward adherence to SE, especially when considerations of genre and rhetorical appropriateness dictate a lean toward more standard versions of English.

To the extent that there is friction and tension with translingual approaches and more traditional SLW practices and theory, the lack of consensus could lead to a fracturing of the two camps with the demarcation serving as a barrier, and perhaps even discrediting of translingualism as a legitimate and meaningful subdivision.  The author predicts inherent and inevitable “messiness” within translingualism, as inherent to any novel area of inquiry, but that this should be seen as vital, invigorating, and met with “patience, openness, and support” (Watson, 85),with the focus on the shared goal of combating monolinguistic ideologies.

To the degree and extent that translingualism criticizes, rejects, opposes or ignores (for citation purposes) SLW research, this is seen by the author as not only unnecessary, but misguided, based on misperception, and in the end counterproductive for both camps.  In a best-case scenario, translingualism can rightfully view the general aims of SLW as in line with their own as it relates to inclusiveness, diversity, and social justice. Where the former seeks to “challenge, deconstruct and transform” (Watson, 90) Standard English on the micro level, the latter seeks change on the macro level (the institutional and social level) while permitting SE to serve as an avenue to that power.  And whereas SLW might not agree with translingualism in this approach, at the very least they do not want to be misrepresented by them.  Toward that aim, in a worst-case scenario, the two approaches can coexist with a good faith understanding of each other and proceed with valuable research that avoids each side cannibalizing the other. 

Intercultural/Cross-cultural Pragmatics and Rhetoric of Codemeshing/Translingualism 

Lee, A (2018). Code-Meshing and writing instruction in multilingual classrooms. The reading

teacher, 72(2) 159-168.

As a valid, workable strategy for incorporating translingualism, this article looks at how teachers can incorporate linguistic inclusiveness of diverse ethnic backgrounds into the classroom through a purposeful accommodation of code-meshing as a valid form of bidialectal expression.  

Lee first examined code switching in comparison to code meshing. In the former, dialects are seen as perpetuating language deficit attitudes among students (Lee, 160) and demonstrates how in the case of African American Language, as well as other varieties, the dialect is marginalized and relegated to inferior status to simply be tolerated, even as the dialect is used in both formal and informal settings. Code meshing, by contrast, involves the “intentionally incorporation of more than one language within writing to purposefully exploit and blend those differences” (Lee, 161).

The question then becomes, for those instructors that have an accommodation mindset, how do they go about teaching and integrating code meshing into instruction to enhance students’ literacy development. The approaches examined include the utilization of mentor texts that include code meshing examples with which students can recognize and feel comfortable. Teachers can then accentuate these texts by way of presenting them as an equally valued linguistic expression (or choice of expression) to which they can “enhance both the complexity and the authenticity of their writing.” (Lee, 162).  

As a metacognitive strategy, making students aware of the difference of their dialect and that of the dominate form of English is instructive and illuminating, especially if provided as a choice of usage where both versions are equally valued and accepted. The equally valued and accepted aim can be achieved through purposeful rewriting of dominant monolingual texts and code-meshing them.  This mash up involves mixing in elements of the native dialect with the dominant one toward that aim.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying    

          teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal.  

95(3) 401-417.

            In this article, Canagarajah critiques product-oriented approaches to translanguaging in favor of dialogical, process oriented, discourse-level approach that examines the value of purposeful pedagogy in formulating metacognitive teaching strategies to include recontextualization, voice, interactional, and textualization.

To the extent that translanguaging is a naturally occurring phenomenon, what conscious pedagogical strategies need to be adopted beyond simply making allowances for accommodation, contextual guidance, and valued representation.  In addition, identification on limitation of errors for purposes of assessment are examined, whereby a liberal interpretation at its extreme could conceivably categorize all errors as a “case of positive transfer from (the mixed dialect) rather than a case of interference” (Canagarajah,402). Canagarajah advances a practice-based, metacognitive awareness model whereby students practice both writing and reading (in assessing their own and peers’ works) with the focus being on beyond sentence-level discourse level considerations of rhetoric and pragmatics. Meaning in this sense is not tid to grammatical and mechanical proficiency but to rhetorical effectiveness.  For Canagarajah, the judgement of translanguage appropriateness must be aligned with rhetorical and discourse level strategies whereby “demonstrated communicative functionality and metalinguistic competence” (403) take primacy. In the same sense that “effective writing is not a matter of (simply) stringing well-formed sentences (but) has to do so with rhetorical effectiveness” (Canagarajah, 403). This is all done within the framework and understanding that unlike speech “writing involves strategic options and choices” (Canagarajah, 404) which can be consciously monitored. What choices then are more rhetorically appropriate and effective.  Pedagogy does have an active place in translanguage writing, argues Canagarajah, in that writing itself is a “high stakes activity in schools with serious implications for assessment (which) is heavily censored in (the) literate contexts” in which it exists (Canagarajah, 404). A full understanding and critical awareness of this through metacognition along with the need of students “to learn the relevant textual and rhetorical conventions for literate activity” (Canagarajah, 404) is critical. Notions of linguistics competence thus interlaces sentence-level mechanics within the broader context of discourse and pragmatics.  

Canagarajah specifically outlines four strategies to achieve translanguage communicative competence: recontextualization - pragmatically shaping one’s discourse use and effect to achieve multilingual acceptance; voice - imposing one’s strength and positionality in related textual space; interactional - negotiating meaning with the reader in a performative way to establish equality and relationship with reader and achievement of certain goals that go beyond the level of the text and its mechanics; textualization - orientation to text in socially assessed and achieved co-constructed meaning with form subservient to meaning and achieved within a process-oriented approach to effective text development that accounts for “observations about the update of the audience” and “calibrates the extent and types of code meshing” (Canagarajah, 424). In this sense, the focus is on “discovering meaning and reshaping (writing) in relation to (one’s) own evolving thinking in response from peers and audience, and interactions with other texts and codes” (Canagarajah, 424). In research of this, he performs an ethnographic study of one graduate student’s writing based on a survey of the subject’s interpretation of codemeshing.  

The value of this study is that it provides for a pedagogical strategy that teachers and students can latch on to that goes beyond simple unguided meta-awareness, or that relies only on naturally occurring surfacing of translanguaging that might be described as more ad hoc and certainly less strategic toward the ultimate aim of full integration.