Translingualism in Composition Studies and Second Language Writing: An Uneasy Alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although some translingual advocates call for collaboration amongst composition studies, translingual, and second language writing theorists, current misinterpretations of translingual theory represent the field of second language writing in a negative light, making an alliance amongst the scholars of these elds unlikely. Translingualism is embedded in inclusive rhetorics, which, we demonstrate, equate difference with the ability to think divergently. From this perspective, linguistic difference is a catalyst for critical thinking, and linguistic standardization is discrimination. Although this view is accurate, translingual theorists are at risk of misinterpreting second language classrooms as sites of forced linguistic homogenization. The teaching of form and genre are particularly contentious as translingual theorists, who may be unaware of research in second language writing, believe that these elements are taught in second language classrooms without tolerance of linguistic variation. Because translingualism is deeply rooted in inclusive rhetorics, second language teachers are unable to object to this nega- tive view of their field without affiliating themselves with exclusionary rhetorics. However, theorists such as Larsen-Freeman, Halliday, and Tardy write about form and genre using terms similar to those used by translingual theorists, suggesting that current second language writing theory recognizes linguistic variability and the interdependence of form/genre and context. Therefore, alliances amongst scholars in the elds of composition studies, translingualism, and second language writing would be possible if the negative view of second language writing implied by misinterpretations of translingual theory could be redressed. Bien que quelques tenants du translinguisme prônent une collaboration entre les études en rédaction, les théoriciens en translinguisme et ceux en expression écrite en langue seconde, des interprétations erronées de la théorie du translinguisme présentent actuellement le domaine de la rédaction en langue seconde sous un jour négatif, rendant peu probable une alliance entre les chercheurs de ces domaines. Le translinguisme est intégré à la rhétorique de l’inclusion qui, nous le démontrons, présente la notion de la différence comme synonyme de capacité de raisonnement divergent. Selon ce e perspective, la différence linguistique est un catalyseur pour la pensée critique et la normalisation linguistique constitue une forme de discrimination. Même si ce point de vue est valide, les théoriciens en translinguisme risquent de mal interpréter les cours en langue seconde comme des sites d’uniformisation linguistique imposée. L’enseignement de la forme et du genre est particulièrement controversé car les théoriciens en translinguisme, ignorant peut-être la recherche portant sur la rédaction en langue seconde, croient que l’enseignement de ces éléments dans les cours de langue seconde se fait sans tolérer la variation linguistique. Puisque le translinguisme est fermement ancré dans la rhétorique de l’inclusion, les enseignants en langue seconde ne peuvent contester ce e vision négative de leur domaine sans s’a lier à la rhétorique de l’exclusion. Toutefois, certains théoriciens comme Larsen-Freeman, Halliday et Tardy s’expriment sur la forme et le genre en employant des expressions qui sont similaires à celles qu’emploient les théoriciens en translinguisme, ce qui permet de croire que la théorie actuelle portant sur la rédaction en langue seconde reconnait la variation linguistique et l’interdépendance de la forme, du genre et du contexte. Des alliances entre les chercheurs des trois domaines (rédaction, translinguisme et langue seconde) sont donc envisageables si l’on corrige l’opinion négative face à la rédaction en langue seconde qui ressort des mauvaises interprétations de la théorie translingue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".