Negotiating Writing Identities Across Languages: Translanguaging as Enrichment of Semiotic Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on findings from an ethnographic study of the writing practices of three plurilingual writers in Toronto, Canada, this article focuses on the translingual practices that these writers engaged with and discusses how these practices enriched their writing processes and products both in English and in their mother tongues. The author explains how these writers’ translanguaging was a complex process with five dimensions: (1) lexical, (2) syntactic, (3) rhetorical, (4) conceptual, and (5) presentational (how to present, share, and disseminate text). The article highlights how translanguaging contributed to the participants’ larger semiotic engagements. Moving beyond the formulations of semiotic agility as a technical skill, the author explains how translanguaging helped the writers maintain their writing identities by creating semiotic and semantic continuity in their writing trajectories. S’inspirant des résultats d’une étude ethnographique sur les pratiques de rédaction de trois écrivains plurilingues de Toronto au Canada, cet article se concentre sur les pratiques trans-langagières que ces écrivains utilisent et discute de la façon dont ces pratiques ont enrichi leur processus et leurs produits d’écriture à la fois en anglais et dans leur langue maternelle. L'auteur explique comment le translanguaging de ces écrivains était un processus complexe en cinq dimensions : (1) lexical, (2) syntaxique, (3) rhétorique, (4) conceptuel et (5) présentationnel (comment présenter, partager et disséminer le texte). L’article souligne comment le translanguaging a contribué aux engagements sémiotiques plus larges des participants. En se déplaçant au-delà des formulations d’agilité sémiotique comme compétence technique, l’auteur explique comment le translanguaging a permis aux écrivains de maintenir leur identité rédactionnelle en créant une continuité sémiotique et sémantique dans leurs trajectoires rédactionnelles.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.010 | 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".