The Politics of Translingualism. Preview

The Politics of Translingualism
After Englishes
Translingualism refers to an orientation in scholarship that recognizes the

fluidity of language boundaries and endorses a greater tolerance for the plu-
rality of Englishes worldwide. However, it is possible that translingualism
exacerbates the very problems it seeks to redress. This book seeks to desta-
bilize underlying attitudes inherent in the narrowly conceptualized view of
Englishes by pushing forward current theories of translingualism and inte-
grating cutting-edge scholarship from sociolinguistics, critical theory, and
composition studies. The Politics of Translingualism pays particular atten-
tion to the politics of evaluating language, including different Englishes,
at a moment of unprecedented linguistic plurality worldwide. The book
draws on analyses of a wide range of artifacts, from television commercials,
social media comments, contemporary and canonical poetry, contemporary
and historical English phrasebooks, commercial shop signs, and the writ-
ing of multilingual university students. The volume also looks outside the
classroom, featuring interviews with recruiters in a number of professional
fields to examine the ways in which language ideologies about Englishes can
impact students entering the workforce. This book offers an innovative take
on current debates on multilingualism and global Englishes, serving as an
ideal resource for students and scholars in applied linguistics, sociolinguis-
tics, composition studies, education, and cultural studies.
Jerry Won Lee is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Califor-

nia, Irvine.
Routledge Studies in Sociolinguistics
For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com
8 White Hip-Hoppers, Language and Identity in Post-Modern America

Cecelia A. Cutler
9 Gender Representation in Learning Materials

International Perspectives
Edited by Abolaji S. Mustapha and Sara Mills
10 The Sociolinguistics of Voice in Globalising China

Dong Jie
11 The Discourse of Powerlessness and Repression

Life Stories of Domestic Migrant Workers in Hong Kong
Hans J. Ladegaard
12 The Discourse of Sport

Analyses from Social Linguistics
Edited by David Caldwell, John Walsh, Elaine W. Vine
and John Juneidini
13 Social Media Discourse, (Dis)Identifications and Diversities

Edited by Sirpa Leppänen, Elina Westinen and Samu Kytölä
14 Care Communication
Making a Home in a Japanese Eldercare Facility
Peter Backhaus
15 Heritage Language Policies around the World

Edited by Corinne Seals and Sheena Shah
16 The Politics of Translingualism

After Englishes
Jerry Won Lee
The Politics of Translingualism
After Englishes
Jerry Won Lee

First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of Jerry Won Lee to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-23305-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-31053-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Permissions ix
1 Translingualism, Difference, and “Englishes as Cultural Fact” 1
2 Proficiency, Legitimacy, Elasticity 23
3 Theorizing Inscrutability 51
4 Wayward Englishes 69
5 The Inscrutability of Standardized English 91
6 The Inscrutability of Englishes in the “Real World” 109
7 Translingualism and the Politics of Pedagogy 129
8 After Englishes 147
References 157
Index 173
Acknowledgments
I want to begin by thanking my editor at Routledge, Elysse Preposi, for

believing in this project from its inception. She has been endlessly patient
with me throughout this process, providing much-needed guidance and
encouragement. Thank you so much for helping me see this project through.
Thank you also to Allie Simmons, Routledge’s Editorial Assistant, for help-
ing to move this project along.
I received feedback from two anonymous reviewers on the proposal and
the complete draft of the manuscript. I hope that I never find out who they
are, for I don’t know if I can ever pay them back for their critical and intelli-
gent, but also generous and productive, feedback. I also thank my colleagues
Sara Alvarez, Suresh Canagarajah, José Cortez, Allison Dziuba, Asao Inoue,
Chris Jenks, Eunjeong Lee, Cruz Medina, Paul Chamness Miller, Ngũgĩ wa
Thiong’o, Mya Poe, Rajagopalan Radhakrishnan (Radha), Loretta Ramirez,
Will Saladin, and Jacob Schaubs, who read through portions of this project
at various stages. Chris and José were especially helpful in conceptualizing
and directing the project from the proposal stage, reading several drafts of
multiple chapters along the way, providing substantial and careful feedback.
I also thank Daniel Gross and Jonathan Alexander for helping me develop
the proposal for the project in the earlier stages. Thank you also to my Face-
book hivemind colleagues for your generosity. It is hard to imagine where
this project would be without everybody’s input and support. Any remain-
ing limitations I of course accept as my own.
I have so much gratitude for my colleagues at UC Irvine. I want to thank
Radha and Ngũgĩ not only for reading drafts but for numerous conver-
sations and for their overall graciousness, kindness, and humility, which
inspire me daily. Thank you so much to Daniel Gross and Jonathan Alex-
ander for your ongoing mentorship. Thank you to my colleagues in applied
linguistics, Julio Torres and Glenn Levine, whose intelligence, support, and
good humor are always appreciated. I send much gratitude to Julia Lup-
ton and Amanda Swain of the UCI Humanities Commons for support-
ing this project in many obvious and nonobvious ways. Thank you to all
my colleagues in the English Department, including Jami Bartlett, Becky
Davis, Erika Hayasaki, Jennie Jackson, Arlene Keizer, Rodrigo Lazo, Laura
viii Acknowledgments
O’Connor, Brad Queen, and Michael Szalay for going out of their way to
make me feel welcome and supported. Thank you especially and infinitely
to Martin Harries for inviting me to be a part of this wonderful depart-
ment, and for providing me this platform so that I can do my best to be a
scholar. Thank you to the English Department staff for supporting me and
this project in direct and indirect ways: DeeDee Nuñez, Robert Escalante,
Chad Horn, Sandy Mueller, Liz Nguyen, Kenny San Nicolas, Laura Swend-
son, and Adriane Trimnell. Thank you also to my friends and colleagues
outside of the department for your friendship and support: Philip Broad-
bent, Nahum Chandler, David Fedman, Kyung Hyun Kim, Jim Lee, Julia
Lee, Sylvia Nam, Annie Ro, Fernando Rodriguez, Rocío Rosales, Catherine
Sameh, Manabu Shiraiwa, and Serk-Bae Suh.
Thank you to Suresh not only for reading my work but also for his con-
tinued guidance and for always being available and willing to provide men-
torship, critique, and support. Thank you also to Bram Acosta, Chanon
Adsanatham, Bee Chamcharatsri, and Daniel Silva for their good humor,
camaraderie, and mentorship. Thank you to my friend and colleague David
Gramling, who first inspired me to explore questions of multilingualism
interdisciplinarily and transdisciplinarily. I don’t think my work will ever be
on par with his, but I’m trying.
Finally, thank you forever to my family for their support and patience
throughout this process: Mom, Dad, “Duke,” Sei, Hanjei, Sue, Sei-Umma,
and Sei-Appa. Thank you to Sei for making sure I am not working so hard
to the point where I forget to eat or sleep. Thank you to Hanjei, my little
guy and best buddy, for pulling me away from my work and inviting me to
build Legos with you.
Permissions
Sections of Chapters 2, 3, and 5 represent substantially edited versions of an

article previously published as Lee, Jerry Won 2016, “The Politics of Inten-
tionality in Englishes: Provincializing Capitalization” in Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies 13(1). Reprinted by permission of the publisher, Taylor &
Francis Ltd, www.tandfonline.com.
An earlier version of Chapter 7 was published as Lee, Jerry Won 2016,
“Beyond Translingual Writing” in College English 27(2). Copyright 2016 by
the National Council of Teachers of English. Used with permission.
1 Translingualism, Difference, and
“Englishes as Cultural Fact”
Englishes and the “Future as Cultural Fact”

The year 1989 was either a bad year or a good year, depending on who you
ask, or whom you ask, for those who concern themselves with such matters.
It was the year that witnessed 六四事件, Sametová revoluce/Nežná revolú-
cia, und den Fall der Berliner Mauer. In any case, 1989 was, whether a good
year or a bad year, a year in which one perhaps couldn’t help but imagine
the future. So, when the movie Back to the Future Part II was released in
1989, the futuristic lifestyle of the year 2015 that was depicted in the film,
which included hoverboards, rehydratable pizza, and, of course, flying cars,
was perhaps not entirely inconceivable. To be sure, countless technological
advances were introduced between 1989 and 2015, but among them, the
flying car did not come to fruition. As Yogi Berra, the great baseball player
who passed away, also in 2015, at the age of 90, once said: “It’s tough to
make predictions, especially about the future.” The future, put simply, has
no facts.
There is therefore something striking about Appadurai’s (2013) plea in
his book The Future as Cultural Fact to focus less on the past and more on
the future, where things are always less certain. Appadurai (2013: 285), a
renowned cultural anthropologist, writes that “Anthropology has had sur-
prisingly little to say about the future as cultural fact, except in fragments
and by ethnographic accident.” The same might also be said of other dis-
ciplines, whether generally anthropological in orientation or spirit, or even
those more broadly focused on the study of the human and what humans
do. Indeed, as Appadurai (2013: 300) writes, “Every field of expertise and
inquiry can and must make its own versions of this critical journey.” The
problem is that such journeys always involve conceding to uncertainty, and
scholars, in the business of knowledge and thus knowing, regardless of their
disciplinary orientation or field of expertise, are not always comfortable not
knowing.
The study of the English language, which is not bound to any one particular
discipline, has attended somewhat to questions of the future, but with vary-
ing degrees of success. I am thinking immediately of The Future of English?,
2 “Englishes as Cultural Fact”
Graddol’s (1997) monograph produced on behalf of the British Council.
Graddol predicted that, in the near future, because of the exponential growth
in numbers of users who learn and use English as an additional language,
English would no longer “belong” to the British. In fact, the scholarly para-
digm of world Englishes, of which Kachru (1985) is credited as the founding
father, precipitated the growing obsolescence of references to English in the
singular today. If a homogeneous and monolithic “English” does not belong
to, is not squarely associated with, or is otherwise not correlated to a particu-
lar national imaginary, the logic goes, a shift toward “Englishes” will help to
resolve some of the epistemological and appellative solipsism of a singular
English. Following this logic, it might perhaps be said that it is becoming
more evident that Englishes, rather than English, is emerging as cultural fact.
While many might contend that Englishes has always been a cultural fact, it
has been a cultural fact that has largely been minimized or ignored by vari-
ous attempts to insist on one type of normative English: native, monolingual,
standard, standardized, mainstream, academic, educated, correct, proper,
grammatical, appropriate, or any other term that valorizes a particular kind
of English at the expense of most others. Today, we have arrived at a moment
when the question of Englishes as cultural fact can no longer be dismissed as
something to be attended to at a later date.
This book is about what we might accomplish if we take seriously the
premise of Englishes as cultural fact. It is, in other words, an exploration
of what we might do now that we have abandoned the very possibility of
a single normative English that can function as a barometer against which
to measure “different” Englishes, that we are positioned to encounter even
more Englishes on the horizon, and that we, at present, do not have the
capacity to conceptualize these Englishes that are yet to be. There are many
Englishes in circulation today, but these Englishes are necessarily unequal,
as certain varieties and styles enjoy greater sociolinguistic capital (Dovchin
et al. 2016; Tupas 2015). So, what is to be done to ensure that inequal-
ity in Englishes is not a given of the future? Appadurai (2013: 286) asks
us to attend to how “imagination, anticipation, and aspiration” shape the
future as cultural fact. The role of human imagination has been crucial to
producing and sustaining postnational forms of social belonging, as Appa-
durai (1996) emphasized in Modernity at Large. More recently, Appadurai
(2013: 293) has asked us to consider how the human aptitude of anticipa-
tion, including forms of speculative behavior, and the capacity of aspiration,
including the “politics of hope,” will come to shape the future.
Obviously, one of my objectives is to imagine how we might remedy the
continued pathologization of different Englishes that do not meet a nar-
rowly defined set of standards and conventions dictated by a select and
privileged few number of academics and other language professionals. Yet
my primary, and simultaneously more urgent but also more challenging,
objective is to explore how we can aspire to more equitable ecologies of lan-
guage that go beyond simply inviting, encouraging, legitimizing, codifying,
“Englishes as Cultural Fact” 3
or curricularizing “difference.” While important developments in scholar-
ship have initiated the imagination of such equitable ecologies of language,
these imaginations inadvertently reify the very normative frameworks of
language legitimacy that they seek to upend. This book argues that we must
move beyond the epistemologies we have relied on to understand and evalu-
ate “different” language practices, such as “different” Englishes, and adopt
new ways of knowing, and indeed unknowing, in order to anticipate lan-
guage practices that we have yet to encounter, and to imagine those that
have yet to be.
Translingualism
Many imaginations of the future of Englishes are constituted by, and rep-
resentative of, arguments and scholarly investigations that presume or
insist on the legitimacy of “different” language practices. Many of the most
compelling arguments are reflected in the metadiscourse of translingualism
in sociolinguistics and its cognate disciplines and domains of inquiry. This
translingual turn is reflected in a series of alternative conceptual paradigms
that have been introduced in scholarship, including translingual practice
(Canagarajah 2013), translanguaging (Baker 2011; Creese and Blackledge
2010; García 2009; García and Li Wei 2014; Williams 1994), transglossic
language practices (Sultana and Dovchin 2017; Sultana et al. 2015), trans-
lingual dispositions (Canagarajah 2013; Horner et al. 2011; Lee and Jenks
2016), codemeshing (Canagarajah 2006; Young, V. A. 2004), polylingual
languaging (Jørgensen 2008), fragmented multilingualism (Blommaert
2010), metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2010; Pennycook 2010;
Pennycook and Otsuji 2015), and postmultilingualism (Gramling 2016).
Certainly, there are various challenges to conceptually harnessing each of
these discrete scholarly constructs. For instance, Blommaert (2010), Jør-
gensen (2008), and V. A. Young (2004) do not use the trans- prefix. Pen-
nycook and Otsuji (2015), meanwhile, explicitly distinguish their work
from the translingualism movement for its apparent tendency to neglect the
importance of space in the production of meaning. Nonetheless, one com-
mon characteristic among this scholarship, irrespective of the label used, is
the explicit concern with the fluidity and negotiability of language boundar-
ies, premised on the possibility that language is never normative but instead
always negotiable.
The trans- of translingualism signifies a movement not only between
and across languages, but beyond (Canagarajah 2013). Trans-, instead of
suggesting something of a going-in-between, as in transfer, transportation,
transition, or translation, can also invoke an epistemic upheaval of the cat-
egories being traversed, as in transgender, transsubstantial, or, of course,
translingual. Translingualism, in particular, as a paradigm, emphasizes the
need to view traditional language boundaries as dynamic and fluid, rather
than static and impermeable, and invites the “pursuit of new knowledge,
new ways of knowing, and more peaceful relations” (Horner et al. 2011:
307). These language practices and emergent paradigms represent what
Blommaert (2010) has termed the sociolinguistics of globalization, in
which hybridity across language boundaries and the mobility of language
resources across porous national boundaries are the norm. As Canagarajah
(2013) explains, an increased openness to linguistic plurality is becoming
endemic to communication in cosmopolitan global contexts as individuals
abandon restrictive grammatical rules and pragmatic conventions in favor
of mutually cooperative and spatially resourceful means of communication,
reflective of a requisite performative competence.
While it may appear as though many communities, especially in the con-
text of late modernity, are coming to be characterized by such communicative
practices, this phenomenon is, rather than “exceptional” or “unusual,” in fact
“quite normal” (Blommaert 2015), “unremarkable,” (Pennycook and Otsuji
2015), “ordinary” (Dovchin 2017), and by no means a “new” phenomenon
(Canagarajah 2013; see also Khubchandani 1997; Makoni 2002; Sugiharto
2015). As Dovchin (2017: 157) writes, based on her “(n)ethnography” of the
youth linguascapes of Mongolia,
there is nothing ‘new’ or ‘exotic’ about the unconventional youth lin-

guascapes in Mongolia since they are just following the current linguis-
tic norm. The creative processes are better understood as their basic
practices, in which imitation, repetition, mimicry and copy is the norm.
It might be argued that translingualism, thus, in theory, asks us to go not

“back to the future,” but simply to look to the present and the past to see
what we have been neglecting all along.
Within the discourse of translingualism, the notion of translanguaging
is of particular significance. Translanguaging was introduced by Williams
(1994) to refer to a pedagogical practice of alternating between languages
(e.g., reading in one language and writing in another) (see Baker 2011; Gar-
cía and Li Wei 2014). It has since gained prominence through the work of
scholars such as García (2009), Creese and Blackledge (2010), and García
and Li Wei (2014), among others. García and Li Wei (2014: 2) define trans-
languaging as
an approach to the use of language, bilingualism and the education of

bilinguals not as two autonomous language systems as has traditionally
been the case, but as one linguistic repertoire with features that have
been societally constructed as belonging to two separate languages.
The implications of “languaging” are additionally important. The common

expression “language use” suggests an ontological stability of “language” as a
system that is used by a community of people. On the other hand, “languaging”
represents an emergent process of social interaction that does not merely draw
from “language” but constitutes the “language” through ways in which it is
practiced by individuals. “Languaging,” put differently, refers to the practice
of doing language. In Jørgensen’s (2008) formulation of polylingual languag-
ing, for instance, languaging refers to a highly deliberate and controlled com-
munication based on cues from and assumptions about various interlocutors.
It is systematic, but not in the sense that it draws solely from language as a
system—it is systematic in the sense that it relies on an acute meta-awareness
of a particular scenario and the language abilities of the interlocutors within
that context. Languaging, referring to the process of communicating in spite
of dominant conventions and rules of language, and translanguaging, refer-
ring more specifically to such communicative practice that resists traditional
categories of language, are crucial in order to understand communication not
as a way to abide by linguistic norms but as an ongoing practice across con-
ventional categories of language (Canagarajah 2013).
While translingualism might be used broadly to refer to an orientation
in sociolinguistics and language-related fields that recognizes the fluidity of
language boundaries, I should clarify that I do not restrict translingualism
to recent scholarship that uses the word “translingual,” “translanguaging,”
or similar variants of “trans-.” I use it in an even more capacious sense to
encapsulate a broad range of language-oriented scholarship that does not
view the blurring and blending of boundaries, whether boundaries between
languages, varieties, dialects, registers, and such, as a defect of an ideal-
ized usage, and as something to be pathologized and disciplined, subject to
what Cameron (2012) has called “verbal hygiene.” Within the scholarship
on Englishes, translingualism scholarship can be characterized on the basis
of its rejection of the notion of the inherent superiority of an “educated” and
“monolingual” and “native speaker’s” and generically normative English.
Translingualism scholarship, especially in the work of Pennycook (2007,
2010) and Canagarajah (1999, 2013), oftentimes does position itself in
opposition to other conceptual paradigms, including world Englishes (Kachru
1985, 1992, 2005; Schneider 2007), which focuses on discrete national
varieties of English. While I do provide a fuller critique of world Englishes
in Chapter 4, I do wish to briefly acknowledge the significance of world
Englishes for the purposes of translingualism. For instance, even in Kach-
ru’s (1976) earlier theorizations of world Englishes, he was attentive to the
politicization of language boundaries and to the ideologically subversive
potential of postcolonial communities appropriating the linguistic resources
of their colonial occupiers. In Kachru’s (1976: 236) words, “The strength
of the English language is in presenting the Americanness in its American
variety, and the Englishness in its British variety. Let us, therefore, appreciate
and encourage the Third World varieties of English too.” The possibility that
a language can be reconstituted through the usage of individuals who are
not traditionally imagined to be authorized users of the language is a useful
way to begin thinking about translingualism. Put differently, translingual-
ism, regardless of whether you celebrate the label or reject it for one reason
or the other (see Gilyard 2016; Matsuda 2014), represents an opportunity
to think not only about the plurality of language resources in a given enun-
ciation, artifact, or space, but also about the permissiveness to the plurality
of ways in which a particular language, such as English, can be encountered.
I therefore adopt the expression translingualism to refer to a general meta-
discursive orientation to language that recognizes difference and promotes
plurality while rejecting ideologies of homogeneity and hygiene that govern
assumptions about language and how language should be used.
Translingualism is an academic construct positioned in opposition to a
“monolingual orientation” to language (Canagarajah 2013). However, mono-
lingualism is itself a multifaceted construct. The monolingualism that is con-
fronted by translingualism is not the assumption that people should speak
one and only one language. Rather, it is the ideology of monolingualism that
aspires to quarantine languages from contact with each other, associating
language mixing with contamination and improficiency. While it may sound
paradoxical, even many common understandings of multilingualism are
bound to a monolingual orientation to language in the sense that multilin-
gualism is traditionally understood as the ability to use multiple languages
in an ostensibly pure, hygienic form, as if by an educated monolingual native
speaker within a homogeneous speech community, or what Pratt (1987: 50)
has termed the “linguistic utopia.” Heller (1999: 5) refers to this expectation
of multilingualism as “parallel monolingualism.” Thus, when an individual
is commended for being able to speak multiple languages, we are commend-
ing their proficiency not as a multilingual, but as a parallel monolingual.
Translingualism, on the other hand, does not reduce proficiency to such
narrow and latently monolingualist metrics.
The translingual orientation reflects a growing awareness that language
boundaries are ideological inventions of European philology and the nation-
state (Bauman and Briggs 2003; Canagarajah 2013; Khubchandani 1997;
Makoni and Pennycook 2005; Reagan 2004). These narrow sets of political
and ideological orientations to language have governed, and continue to
regulate, a vast majority of conceptualizations of language and derivative
assumptions about how language should be used. Yet it is not the invent-
edness of “language” as a category that warrants its dismissal. When one
thinks of inventedness one is tempted to think of seminal works on invention
and on the malleability of the categories of invention, such as Hobsbawm’s
(1983) “The Invention of Tradition” or Allen’s (1994) The Invention of the
White Race. It is easy to recognize the importance of desedimenting cultural
conceptions such as the European notion of the nation-state and whiteness,
respectively, because such are representative of political and social struc-
tures founded upon inequity, exploitation, and discrimination. However,
as Gramling (2016) suggests, the inventedness of a concept or thing, such
as monolingualism, does not in and of itself present an impetus for aban-
donment or deontologization. It is likewise worthwhile to ask whether the
inventedness of “language” is in fact grounds for its dismissal. It might be
said that, since “language” is an invention of European philology, its contin-
ued regulatory status as a means of conceptualizing human communication
privileges a Eurocentric epistemology and worldview. But more optimisti-
cally, Gramling (2016) reminds us, monolingualism
first made the Mercatorian notion of countable global cultures and

languages at least provisionally thinkable. Early monolingualism gave
seventeenth-century scholars in Europe a way to yoke all of the proposi-
tional and social ambitions of Language (langage) under the proprietary
roof of any single language (langue)—a powerful and imaginative act of
what we today might call (macro-)optimization.
(2)
Without dismissing the usefulness of language as a linguistic, philological,

scientific, aesthetic, or pragmatic category, what translingualism does is
acquaint us with how the categories of language, along with the derivative
criterion of proficiency, are used for the surveillance and pathologization
of language practices according to monolithic norms, which in turn sustain
inequitable social relations and hierarchies. It is not the categories of language
themselves nor their inventedness that are problematic but the ways in which
they are used to privilege individuals of a particular linguistic habitus and
marginalize those who are not “from” these privileged geographic locales or
social categories. However, whether such ideologies are or can be actually
recalibrated in any meaningful way in scholarly inquiry is another question.
A Critique of Translingual Reason

Spivak’s (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason represents a call to rec-
ognize that politically oriented scholarly paradigms that are founded in
opposition to hegemony, such as postcolonial theory, tend to evade critique
on the very basis of their oppositionality to hegemony. Postcolonial theory,
for one, becomes rendered as exceptional in two senses: virtually exempt
from critique while inadvertently excluding the aspirations of peoples and
individuals through unrepresentative categorizations of subalternity. For
instance, postcolonial theory constructs a homogeneous “subaltern” subject
while effacing categories such as sexual difference:
The question is not of female participation in insurgency, or the ground

rules of the sexual division of labor, for both of which there is “evi-
dence.” It is, rather, that, both as object of colonialist historiography
and as subject of insurgency, the ideological construction of gender
keeps the male dominant. If, in the contest of colonial production, the
subaltern has no history and cannot speak, the subaltern as female is
even more deeply in shadow.
(Spivak 1999: 274)
Spivak (1999: 310) thus insists that “subalternity” is not about simply
“being postcolonial” or being a “member of an ethnic minority” but reflects
the “sheer heterogeneity of decolonized space.” The flattening tendencies
of postcolonial theory, as Spivak suggests, cause it to resort to the very
exclusivist logic that it is founded in opposition to.
Translingualism, similar to postcolonial theory, aligns itself with a coun-
terhegemonic social justice agenda, in that it confronts the inequitable dis-
cursive economies that afford disproportionate amounts of cultural capital
(Bourdieu 1984) to certain language practices over others. Translingualism,
like postcolonial theory, has at times assumed a homogeneous translingual
subject (Gilyard 2016; see Kramsch 2009 for the limits of conceiving of
a monolithic multilingual subject). While certainly not entirely impervious
to critique, translingualism has tended to evade critique by promoting lin-
guistic plurality while eschewing monolingualism simultaneously as a dis-
cursive formation and as a discriminatory prescriptivist ideology. The most
obvious path toward anti-monolingualism has been the documentation and
defense of linguistic plurality in the form of the simultaneous co-presence
of resources associated with more than one “language.” Nonetheless, while
Horner et al. (2011: 311) do insist that translingualism is not simply about
welcoming and encouraging multiple language resources conterminously
in a single space, but also about the appropriate openness “toward lan-
guage and language differences” (see also Lee and Jenks 2016), it appears
as though some recent scholarship on translingualism tends to focus on lan-
guage practices characterized by conspicuous plurality (see, for instance,
Jain 2014; Lee, M. E. 2014; Lueck and Sharma 2013; Ray 2013), perhaps
suggesting that if translingualism or related conceptual terms should be
bound to tediously narrow and specific meanings it would contradict the
spirit of translingualism. But it is especially striking to encounter scholar-
ship in which “translingual” is used to refer simply to the simultaneous pres-
ence of multiple language resources in a given utterance, which makes one
wonder why a distinction from “multilingual” was ever needed in the first
place. It does appear that for some the translingual label functions as a
trendier alternative to multilingual, and therefore Matsuda (2014: 479) may
certainly be correct that many scholars today are “stretching the coattails”
of translingualism. However, the liberal or opportunistic usage of transling-
ualism, along with whether such language practices being studied might be
more accurately labeled as “multilingual,” are only part of the issue.
Pennycook and Otsuji (2015) argue that an overemphasis on the form or
product of translingualism, by focusing on the fluidity of language boundar-
ies as a means to an ends, runs the risk of inadvertently reifying the very
boundaries of language that are purportedly being reconfigured by the
everyday language practice that is celebrated. There is a distinction to be
made from arguments made by scholars such as Lennon (2010), Apter
(2013), and Mufti (2016), for whom the culprit is disciplinary forma-
tions such as comparative literature, which monolingualizes multilingual
literatures and literatures in languages other than English for the purposes
of facilitated reading and study by English-speaking students and academ-
ics. As Pennycook and Otsuji (2015) and Holquist (2014) suggest, critiques
of monolingualism are like straw man arguments that simultaneously reject
and presume the very possibility of quarantining different languages in the
first place. Holquist (2014: 8) argues, echoing Bakhtin’s (1975) notion of
heteroglossia, that
the language of those who are said to speak only one language, in this
everyday sense of the term, is already immersed in the ineluctable dis-
unity and formal multiplicity that are the necessary condition for hav-
ing any language at all.
By focusing on and drawing attention to the simultaneous presence of

multiple language resources in a particular utterance, moment, or space,
we risk simultaneously gesturing to and reaffirming the disciplinarian
linguistic ideologies that have aspired and perhaps conspired to keep such
language resources in isolation from one another. Rather than languages
being “disinvented” (Makoni and Pennycook 2005), it might be said that
scholarship runs the risk of language being inadvertently reaffirmed and
reinvented. The central preoccupation with language as a point of departure
ultimately reflects the persistence of monolingualist ideology, even in the
very resistance to monolingualism.
Radhakrishnan (2003), in exploring the question of “multiculturalism,”
attends to how it can be either “used” responsibly or simply “abused.”
The same concerns apply to the question of translingualism. In his critique
of translingualism, Matsuda (2014) introduces the expression “linguistic
tourism” to refer to both a fascination with unfamiliar language practices
and the tendency among scholars to select conspicuously unique examples
of language use to focus their analysis on, which is akin to a tour guide
focusing on particular attractions that are appealing to tourists but not
necessarily representative of the day-to-day lives of the local people. Rad-
hakrishnan (2003: 40) writes of the dangers of “multiculturalism” being
“commodified and aestheticized and packaged as an exciting consumable
collage: brown hands holding yellow hands holding white hands holding
male hands holding female hands holding black hands in a spirit of post-
historical contemporaneity.” Conversely, multiculturalism can also “be
developed along the lines of social justice, egalitarian democratic participa-
tion, and the ideological yet multilateral production of social consensus
and dissent” (Radhakrishnan 2003: 40).
In order to avoid translingualism being reduced to a “consumable collage”
of linguistic plurality, we need to recognize how it is complicit in the emer-
gent culture of what I refer to as polyglot exceptionalism, which is manifest
in two different forms. Polyglot exceptionalism is reflected most obviously
in the surplus of scholarly and folk linguistic (Preston 1993) arguments
about the assumed benefits of multilingualism. An article published in the
New York Times titled “Why Bilinguals are Smarter” (Bhattacharjee 2012)
is just one example of the prevalence of polyglot exceptionalism among
countless others, which promote the notion that an individual who can
speak multiple “languages” is simply better (more intelligent, cultured, etc.)
than a “monolingual” speaker. This reflects not so much a valorization of
the speaker of multiple “languages” but rather, more appropriately, the valo-
rization of the parallel monolingual speaker (Heller 1999). Polyglot excep-
tionalism also entails the treatment of language practices that draw from
multiple language resources as not just different from, but superior to, their
ostensibly monolingual alternatives. We must not assume, or rather, must
not presume, that translingual practices, even if historically peripheralized,
are, by dint of having been peripheralized, deserving of recognition as legiti-
mate. I acknowledge that this is an uncomfortable proposition. While it is
undoubtedly necessary to advocate for perspectives in which alternative lan-
guage practices are viewed as legitimate in their own right, I also am wary
of suggesting that they are more superior to, or more resourceful than, or
otherwise simply preferable to, normative English.
In Radhakrishnan’s (2009) essay, “Why Compare?,” it is argued that the
purpose of “comparing” different cultural practices and conventions, such
as literature or even different methods of transportation, should not be to
presume and re-identify deficiencies in one culture but to reassess the very
categories and criterion of difference across which comparative evaluations
are deployed. As Radhakrishnan (2009: 471) writes, “Comparisons should
not be the vehicles of a latent calculus that has predetermined who, within
the comparative continuum, is more developed than whom.” Therefore, it
needs to be clarified that there is a difference between encouraging differ-
ent language practices and insisting on a particular kind of language prac-
tice, even if the language practice that is insisted upon has historically been
neglected. It is important to identify and problematize the different ways
certain Englishes have been neglected and continue to be pathologized, but
the scholarship on translingualism at times runs the risk of exalting trans-
lingual practices to a status higher than their normative counterparts. Trans-
lingualism, in short, should not be reduced to a superficially pluralistic and
resolutely anti-monolingualist paradigm of language that invites, encour-
ages, and legitimizes plurality for the sake of plurality, and views the trans-
lingual as better than the non-translingual. Translingualism can anticipate,
aspire to, and hope for more.
One way for translingualism to move beyond the anti-monolingualism
stance might be to think in terms other than those of conspicuously hybrid
language practices. This can move us beyond understanding fluidity at the
level of “language,” and beyond the discourse of boundaries between one
“language” and another “language.” I am not referring to the commonsense
reality that internal variation is a characteristic of any language. Nor am I
referring to the distinction between glossodiversity (diversity of form) and
semiodiversity (diversity of meaning) as described by Halliday (2002; see also
Canagarajah 2013; Kramsch 2006; Pennycook 2008, 2010). Instead, I argue
that translingual practices need not be reduced to language practices that
contradict traditional ontologies through which communicative repertoires
are compartmentalized into categories of one language or another. Here I
am reminded of the expression “postmonolingual,” introduced in Yildiz’s
(2012: 5) Beyond the Mother Tongue to refer to a “field of tension in which
the monolingual paradigm continues to assert itself and multilingual prac-
tices persist or reemerge.” For Yildiz (2012: 4), “postmonolingual” is simul-
taneously a temporal category (“since the emergence of monolingualism as
dominant paradigm”) and a critical category (“the opposition to the term it
qualifies”). Yildiz’s work is unique in its ability to draw attention to the pres-
ence of multilingual resources within ostensibly monolingually disciplined
literary texts, thus subverting the notion of the “mother tongue” as a unified
entity (see also Bonfiglio 2010). In doing so, Yildiz’s work also resonates with
critical approaches such as Pennycook’s (2008) declaration of English as a
language always in translation and Canagarajah’s (2013) point that English
has always been translingual. But in relying on “English” or “monolingual-
ism” as a point of departure, there is a risk of reifying a positivistic frame pre-
mised on the containment and codification of “languages” in the first place.
Therefore, what needs to be emphasized is the potential for the metadiscourse
of translingualism to directly confront broader general conceptualizations of
language appropriateness, among both professional scholars and the general
public, including the conceptualizations that produce assumptions that there
is such a thing as a normative English distinct from other Englishes, including
the Englishes of so-called “nonnative speakers,” and those of other margin-
alized social groups who are “native” speakers of English, such as African
American, Cockney, or Appalachian English. Through an extensive focus on
the lingual, whether solely as multilingualism, postmonolingualism, or even
translingualism, we become bound to essentializing language and linguistic
categories as a point of departure.
To continue with the example of English, because encounters with differ-
ent Englishes have become commonplace, it can be argued that translingual-
ism reflects the possibility that we have entered an era of what I like to refer
to as postmonolithicism. By using the expression postmonolithicism, rather
than postmonolingualism, I am making a deliberate choice to avoid treat-
ing language as a monolithic entity, with a particular attention to plurality
within Englishes. Of course, the heterogeneity of Englishes within English
is by no means a new concept. Instead, this book considers what to do now
that it is understood that there is no such thing as a single English. In other
words, this book asks us to consider how, in an era when Englishes, rather
than English, is emerging as cultural fact, and as the norm, we can adapt
our metadiscourses of language accordingly. On the one hand, the unprec-
edented scale of heterogeneity that will characterize the Englishes of various
communities and individuals means that it is inadequate, and perhaps even
unethical and unjust, to prioritize any single English, including putatively
standardized English. However, this is not simply a matter of accommodat-
ing linguistic plurality. It entails reconsidering the very outcomes, and not
just the intent, of the metadiscourse of linguistic plurality, along with the
potential affordances of a metadiscourse of translingualism.
Cameron (2012) troubles the longstanding distinction between descrip-
tivist and prescriptivist linguistics. The scholarly metadiscourse of trans-
lingualism, for one, including the documentation of specific examples of
translingual practice, can never be merely descriptive, in that it has an objec-
tive that is political: whether primary or secondary, stated or implied, to
legitimize language usages that are subject to pathologization by dominant
language ideologies. Translingualism is necessarily a political movement,
in that it attempts to represent and advocate on behalf of the legitimacy
of language practices of particular populations. However, each publication
on translingualism, while generally focused on the questions of linguistic
plurality and openness to difference, is nonetheless guided by its own spe-
cific priorities, agendas, and approaches. An individual scholarly enuncia-
tion of translingualism, such as an individual publication, cannot be viewed
as representative of translingualism. For instance, Pennycook and Otsuji’s
(2015) book, which looks at examples of linguistic and spatial practices in
urban contexts, specifically in Tokyo and Sydney, is titled Metrolingualism:
Language in the City rather than Metrolingualism: Language in Tokyo and
Sydney. Of course, one main reason for drawing such generalizations is that
publishers prefer scholarship that will appeal to a broader audience. Alter-
natively, it could be argued that a book with too specific of a title or subtitle
runs the risk of being neglected by readers who are not interested in that
specific population or geographic region. To clarify, I am not questioning the
extent to which Pennycook and Otsuji’s book on metrolingualism in Tokyo
and Sydney can legitimately live up to the subtitle that suggests it is more
broadly about “the City.” In fact, as Pennycook and Otsuji clarify, one of
the primary purposes of their work is to confront the dominant tendency in
sociolinguistics, dating to the foundational variationist paradigm of Labov
(1972), to view urban space as the mere contextual background that shapes
a speaker’s discrete linguistic patterns. Alternatively, they theorize how lan-
guage and space are rather co-constitutive of one another. The broader con-
cern I am suggesting is the need to explore the question of whose language
practices are being represented in the scholarship as a whole, and whose
interests are being served by such representations.
Translingualism, put differently, is always already a question of politics.
Translingualism is a political movement with great potential but, as a politi-
cal movement as such, bound to anticipatable failures. Politics is ultimately
about representation. And, if anything, the scholarship on translingualism
appears to resolve one problem while simultaneously exacerbating others.
It would appear to somewhat solve the problem of representation: While
dominant and conventional language practices, such as normative English,
have come to be regarded as de facto prescriptive norms, translingual prac-
tices are benefitting from a greater amount of exposure in large part due
to the above scholarship. Of course, such Englishes have generally had a
long history in the literary arena, such as in novels, short stories, and espe-
cially poetry, which are spaces more amenable to, and in many cases, driven
by, literary and linguistic creativity. In other areas of language study, such
as sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, composition, and education, schol-
ars are also recognizing the everyday communicative practices of various
diverse communities, as noted above. Some might be encouraged by wit-
nessing an increased representation of translingual practices in spaces that
have generally been dismissive of, inhospitable to, or even hostile to, any
language usage that is deemed incorrect or nonstandard (terms that are
oftentimes used interchangeably), such as in high-stakes classroom contexts.
But representation will only get us so far, because in spite of the semblance
of plurality and tolerance for difference, certain usages will continue to be
subordinated in unintended ways, as I will discuss in Chapter 2.
As Esposito (2015) argues, the very notion of politics, as a paradigm of
representation, is based on an untenable foundation, in that politics has
overly concerned itself with the question of representability in time, in a
particular temporal moment. Using the example of the romanticized and
ever-appealing notion of the “revolution,” Esposito (2015) writes,
Revolution requires a new foundation, a transcendent principle (law,

authority, legitimacy) to which it can sink its roots. But was revolution
not defined as modern precisely because it was part of a plan for libera-
tion from the Absolute in all its forms? This is the vicious circle that
closes in on every revolution.
(63)
Any revolution, therefore, according to Esposito, is always hearkening back

to a romanticized past. This is not dissimilar to Hardt and Negri’s (2000)
recognition of the human tendency to obsess over a past that never was.
In Esposito’s formulation, a revolution directs itself toward an imagined
past but never to the future or the unknown, in spite of what a revolution
promises. Even revolutionary politics are bound to a series of temporal
restrictions that it cannot transcend. Thus, Esposito advances the possibility
of the impolitical. Politics, if guided by the objective of representation, is
simply not possible: “the multitude as such cannot be represented: because
a political representation can only rivet the multiplicity to the unity of its
‘imagist’ form, which is not concrete but transcendental” (Esposito 2015: 9).
Yet the impolitical is not strictly a counter to the political: “The impolitical
is the political, in the literal sense that it makes visible its terms—which
coincide with the entire reality of relations between people” (Esposito
2015: 13, emphasis added). Any radical movement, translingualism
included, if bound to the extant parameters of politics as such, because it
continuously but unwittingly is bound to the past, cannot fulfill its promise.
It relies, as Esposito (2015: 16) insists, on a mere “theatre of representation”
in the sense that its represented populace is necessarily unrepresentable.
The existing epistemologies and frameworks of translingualism in the
form of attempting to legitimize difference are bound to such a theatre of
representation, which ensures that any resulting “legitimization” is merely
symbolic or ceremonial.
As argued by Radhakrishnan (2003), in his response to Taylor’s (1994)
“The Politics of Recognition,” the alternative to representation is not merely
“recognition” in the ethico-political sense of the term. “Recognition,” Rad-
hakrishnan (2003) clarifies, is, beyond a corrective to peripheralization, a
gesture prefigured in relation to the peripheralization of the subject being
recognized:
the politics of recognition would have been unthinkable except from

the point of view of subaltern and subjugated knowledges. It is only
against this backdrop of an unevenly realized cognitive human land-
scape that the politics of recognition takes on any kind of meaning or
significance. The critical task is to detach the morality of recognition
from its anchorage in the visuality of dominance, to detach it from the
gaze as dominance.
(54–5)
Radhakrishnan (2003: 61) consequently gestures toward a modality between

that of “recognition” and “representation,” a “space that honors the need for
recognition without at the same time circumventing or censoring the play
of representation.” Radhakrishnan (2003: 61) acknowledges that such a
political space is “barely coordinated,” suggesting that politics as such, in its
general mode of undistributive justice, cannot accommodate the collective
aspirations of discrete and uneven populations within a single aggregated
representational rubric. The impolitical, as described by Esposito, likewise
gestures toward an unknown, and thus toward a series of possibilities that
are not reimaginations of a return to an idealized past, even if framed as
a movement toward the future, but a turn to the future in the sense of an
invitation of that which is unknown.
Translingualism has hitherto aimed to represent translingual practices such
as peripheralized Englishes, a gesture that functions as a political response
to the reality that there are considerable inequities between different Eng-
lishes (Dovchin et al. 2016; Tupas 2015). One of the primary culprits that
continues to exacerbate inequitable sociolinguistic relations is the industry
of English teaching, especially in the teaching of users who represent lin-
guistic minority communities. Phillipson (1992) claims that the teaching of
English is an inherently hegemonic practice that promotes the “linguistic
imperialism” of English. Holliday (2005: 6) has argued that the teaching
of English as an international language is guided by the ideology of native
speakerism, or “the established belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers repre-
sent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English lan-
guage and of English language teaching methodology.” Although I will not
provide an exhaustive inventory of scholars who have outlined the prob-
lems associated with the term “native speaker,” it is worth noting that some
scholars have provided more nuanced and nonbinarized usages of native-
ness. For instance, Kachru (2005) insists on the distinction between genetic
and functional nativeness: While many users of world English varieties may
be unable to achieve genetic nativeness, they can nonetheless acquire func-
tional nativeness according to the standards of local norms. However, fol-
lowing the seminal works of scholars such as Rampton (1990) and Cook
(1999), it is fair to ask if it is even worth revisiting the question of the
“native speaker.”
I nonetheless attempt, as many scholars have, to continue to work beyond
the binary between native and nonnative speakers of English. This is in part
because the sheer heterogeneity of Englishes today cannot be reduced to this
dichotomous framework of native/nonnative. As Pennycook (2012) argues,
we also need to attend to the performative nature of linguistic subjectivity,
treating subjectivities not as ontologically fixed, but rather as resignified in
individual interactions through the ways in which we “pass,” whether as a
native or as a nonnative speaker of English. If passing is the means by which
our linguistic subjectivities are being shaped and determined in interactions
across global space, questions of “who is” a native or nonnative speaker
of English become indeterminate. I acknowledge Canagarajah’s (2013: 16)
point that, even if we reject the binary, we need to continue to use terms such
as “native speaker of English” and “nonnative speaker of English” because,
if anything, there is a “practical need to discuss how language learners have
been discussed in previous scholarship in order to demonstrate the limita-
tions and move the field to a different orientation to both groups.” However,
one reason I try to avoid the native/nonnative dichotomy, when possible,
is because it cannot fully encapsulate the nuances of race, class, gender, or
sexual orientation. For instance, as I suggested earlier, there are varieties
of English, such as African American English, used by “native” speakers of
English in the US and beyond that are considered by certain people to be
acceptable only for informal, or “vernacular,” contexts. There are “native”
speakers of English who do not enjoy the assumed privileges of nativeness,
which undermines the usefulness of nativeness as an aspiration or even a
point of critical departure.
Throughout this book, I adopt the expression peripheralized Englishes
instead of other choices such as “nonnative Englishes,”“outer circle/expanding
circle Englishes,” “global Englishes,” or even “periphery Englishes.” I avoid
“outer circle/expanding circle” because it evokes the Kachruvian world
Englishes paradigm (Kachru 1985, 1992, 2005), whose nation-centric con-
ceptualizations of language are increasingly untenable (Bruthiaux 2003;
Canagarajah 2013; Pennycook 2007; Saraceni 2010). I also avoid the
expression “global Englishes,” which has emerged in scholarship and in
textbooks as a means of differentiating from the world Englishes paradigm
(Canagarajah 2013; Jenkins 2014b; Pennycook 2007). Among the most
conspicuous gestures is the decision to rename Jenkins’s (2003) seminal and
widely used textbook from World Englishes to Global Englishes for the
2014 third edition. Yet the expression global Englishes is limited in a variety
of ways too. For one, it is inherently paradoxical. One does not regularly
encounter, for instance, investigations of native varieties of English practiced
in the US within the scholarly rubric of global Englishes. In addition, the
modifier “global” operates, it would seem, as a mere euphemism for a type
of “nonnative” English that does not fit neatly within the world Englishes
paradigm. It is especially curious that, although the practice of English is and
has always been plurilithic and translingual (Canagarajah 2013), we con-
tinue to rely on the modifier “global” to mark certain Englishes as emerging
from a “different” place than that of Englishes commonly understood as
normative.
I do rely on the expression translingual practice introduced by Canaga-
rajah (2013: 6) to conceptualize language use that “transcends individual
languages” and “transcends words,” as a recognition that communication
is constitutive of a range of spatial, semiotic, and nonlinguistic resources.
However, as suggested above, while a great deal of scholarship has focused
on conspicuously hybrid usages of multiple “languages,” I focus more
broadly on language practices that are not necessarily marked by conspicu-
ous hybridity but are nonetheless subject to pathologization by dominant
language ideologies, with a particular focus on peripheralized Englishes. My
usage of peripheralized Englishes attempts to encapsulate the Englishes that
are marked by deviations from ostensibly normative Englishes. Peripheral-
ized Englishes are thus a type of translingual practice, in that they represent
Englishes that are frequently dismissed as ungrammatical, nonstandard,
incomplete, interlingual, in-process, or more generally, not normal or legiti-
mate, as a result of any number of ideological rationalizations. The expres-
sion peripheralized Englishes represents a form of what Spivak (1988: 281)
terms “strategic use of positivist essentialism in a scrupulously visible politi-
cal interest.” This, of course, is not a call to view all marginalized language
practices as one and the same, or, as Gilyard (2016: 286) writes, to assume
the “sameness-of-difference.” As Gilyard (2016: 286) argues, we must con-
tinue to remember the “historical and unresolved struggles of groups that
have been traditionally underrepresented in the academy and suffer dispro-
portionately in relation to it.” Further, I acknowledge that even traditional
binaries such as periphery-center or colonial-postcolonial cannot account
for how certain language practices within periphery contexts are peripher-
alized within (Canagarajah 1999; Dovchin et al. 2016; Parakrama 1995). I
recognize that there are different varieties of peripheralized Englishes that
index different levels of education, gender and sexual identities, geographic
regions, and even different national, racial, or ethnic origins. However, what
all peripheralized Englishes have in common is the unlikelihood that they
will wield the same amount of social, economic, or institutional capital as
an imagined normative English. Thus, while the category of peripheralized
Englishes may appear, at first glance, the product of a false binary between
“peripheralized” and “normative,” I assert that such strategic binarization is
crucial at the moment in order to account for how peripheralized Englishes
continue to be peripheralized. Further, by “peripheralized,” instead of
“peripheral,” as in Blommaert et al. (2005), I aim to be attentive to ways
in which they have been and continue to be peripheralized by dominant
language ideologies rather than reifying them as indeed peripheral. In other
words, peripheralized, in the past tense form, focuses on the agent of periph-
eralization, dominant language ideologies, in addition to their assumed sta-
tus as such. Of course, most scholars in sociolinguistics and cognate fields
would agree that translingual practices such as Englishes marked by devia-
tions from imagined mainstream norms are not inherently inferior to their
ostensibly normative counterparts. However, we need the label peripheral-
ized, as I argue, as a continued reminder that people continue to face mar-
ginalization and discrimination as a result of their English usage. Yet as I
will demonstrate throughout this book, the ways in which various Englishes
emerge, are practiced, and get evaluated may also mean the development
of an increasingly nebulous and fluid distinction between normative and
peripheralized Englishes.
I argue for the need for translingualism to be driven by an agenda of
productive ambivalence, working beyond the existing parameters of the
politics of representation, beyond the parameters of politics as such, and
beyond predetermined objectives of insisting on the legitimacy of periph-
eralized Englishes. Translingualism must entail coming to an understand-
ing that we cannot fully anticipate, understand, and evaluate the Englishes
that people use and continually reinvent. Translingualism cannot be lim-
ited to insisting that readers acknowledge the commonsense point that
people around the world use “English” in different ways for different pur-
poses. And it cannot be premised on asking or demanding that interlocu-
tors simply be more tolerant of difference. Rather, translingualism needs to
be about coming to terms with the fact that we may no longer be able to
predict or even identify what kinds of English will be encountered, and
whether this unfamiliar or unknown English, upon encountering it, can
be effectively evaluated. Put differently, translingualism is about coming
to terms with the fact that extant political and epistemological barom-
eters we have relied upon to interpret and evaluate Englishes have been
exhausted. It could be said, then, that the central wager of this book is that
translingualism cannot be actualized if bound to politics as such. The Poli-
tics of Translingualism, investigating the question of Englishes as a case
in point, proposes a radical reconceptualization of the very foundations
of evaluating “difference” in language. This book, in short, argues for an
ongoing need to confront this metadiscourse of plurality and difference
in Englishes and to reevaluate not the Englishes themselves but the very
epistemologies of evaluation in the first place.
Evaluating Difference Differently

The response to the problems outlined above begins in Chapter 2, “Pro-
ficiency, Legitimacy, Elasticity,” which considers the problems with how
translingual practices (which have historically been viewed as aberrant or
undesirable) are being represented for a readership of academics. While the
scholarship on translingual practices represents a collective appeal to read-
ers who may doubt the legitimacy of such practices, such approaches inad-
vertently marginalize the very users they aim to advocate for. Chapter 2
elaborates on the dangers of attempting to legitimize, or represent, non-
normative language practices, including peripheralized Englishes. As I will
discuss, arguments that certain Englishes and users are or are not legitimate
miss the point that the criteria for what is legitimate are readily adapted
according to the whims of dominant institutions and interlocutors. The elas-
ticity of such criteria calls into question the very possibility of evaluation,
along with the assumption that translingual practices must always be made
to be legitimate in the eyes of dominant interlocutors.
Chapter 3 offers inscrutability as an alternative epistemological frame-
work through which to make sense of different Englishes. While inscrutabil-
ity, referring to the inability to be read, is generally viewed as a problem,
I argue that it is not a problem in and of itself but a problem for a par-
ticular type of interlocutor who seeks to interpret different language prac-
tices, whether such interpretations result in rejection or acceptance. I draw
on theories of illiteracy (Acosta 2014), intelligibility (Butler 1990, 2001),
and disidentification (Muñoz 1999) in order to develop inscrutability as
an acknowledgment of our inability to read translingual practices through
the evaluative purview of normative Englishes. I then offer an analysis of
an unusual grassroots political artifact to demonstrate how inscrutability,
while counterintuitive to conventional approaches to interpreting language,
can nonetheless be a productive means of reimagining sociolinguistic hier-
archies across different Englishes.
In Chapter 4, I look to the question of the assumed interrelationships
between language and geography. I question the prevalence of assumptions
surrounding the ways a person uses English and how these assumptions are
used as a means to determine where they are “from,” which in turn has poten-
tial to shape derivative assumptions about their linguistic abilities. I critique
how this language-geography correlation undergirds the world Englishes par-
adigm, and offer an alternative of wayward Englishes in order to account
for the increasing unpredictability of linguistic migrations and the increas-
ing inability to evaluate language on the basis of geographic algorithms.
I look to the question of “Korea/n” English to examine not only how it
is imagined as a deficient mainstream English but also as an inscrutable
English that cannot be evaluated according to the epistemological frame-
works at our present disposal.
Chapter 5 turns to the phenomenon of standardized English. While stan-
dardized English is generally viewed as a specific form that wields and is
imagined to afford great cultural capital and economic privileges, I offer
a disinvention (Makoni and Pennycook 2005) of standardized English in
order to challenge the fundamental premise that standardized English is a
variety that can be evaluated in the first place. Acknowledging the limita-
tions of attempting to disinvent standardized English through traditionally
available means, such as through published scholarship, I turn to the critical
literacy narratives of students who are users of peripheralized Englishes,
which are typically pathologized in academic contexts. These narratives,
as I argue, destabilize not only the assumed status of academic English as
the paragon of literacy, but the very notion of academic English as a vari-
ety, which in turn confronts the very possibility of evaluating standardized
English more generally.
Chapter 6 explores what a translingual orientation to language means
in relation to the evaluation and evaluability of “different” Englishes in the
“real world” by examining how notions of legitimacy in Englishes are rein-
forced and reconstituted in workplace contexts in the US. I propose that
inscrutability is a necessary condition shaping the evaluation and evalu-
ability of language in the cosmopolitan workplace, in that it is becoming
increasingly untenable to come to definitive or even reliable determinations
of whether normative Englishes are a precondition to employability. As I
will demonstrate, rather than conceptualizing a baseline standard for a uni-
form English, it is more urgent, instead, to recognize the contradictory and
conflicting expectations of proficiency in Englishes in the workplace that are
constitutive of language ideologies in the emerging global economy.
While Chapter 6 concerns the “real world,” in Chapter 7 I turn to the
classroom by theorizing potential pedagogical considerations for translin-
gualism. Translingualism scholarship has thus far limited itself to finding
ways of curricularizing translingual practices. However, I contend that such
invitations can exacerbate sociolinguistic hierarchies by demanding that dif-
ferent Englishes accommodate normative evaluative criteria. Applying the
notion of inscrutability to pedagogical practice, I instead assert that the very
assumptions of pedagogy as the “teaching of English” require a fundamen-
tal reimagination. In short, we need to go beyond locating spaces for trans-
lingual practices in pedagogy and instead imagine ways of translanguaging
pedagogy itself.
In Chapter 8, I conclude by briefly exploring the question of “After Englishes,”
which refers to the fact that we need to go beyond simply acknowledg-
ing that there is no such thing as a single English and also beyond simply
acknowledging that there are different kinds of Englishes. I argue that the
very notion of “Englishes” is based on a disciplinarian view of language
and that the future demands us to think beyond the question of academic
“disciplines,” both in terms of promoting transdisciplinary scholarship and
also in terms of thinking beyond the academy as such.
No Flying Cars Yet

The year 2015, in spite of what Back to the Future Part II might have tried
to predict in 1989, did not bring flying cars as we might have imagined,
hoped for, and perhaps even anticipated. In thinking about cars, and trans-
portation options that could have been, I cannot help but think again of
Radhakrishnan’s (2009) essay, “Why Compare?” Radhakrishnan (2009)
begins the essay by recounting a conversation with a taxi driver in Chennai,
India, who is perplexed that roads in the US have designated lanes that cars
must drive within. The driver cannot imagine navigating such restrictive
driving conditions. On the other hand, many drivers in the US would find
the roads in Chennai to be “underdeveloped.” How, some might ask, can
one drive under such chaotic conditions, with no lanes to help reduce the
risk of collisions, with no lanes to tell us where to go, and to tell the other
drivers where not to go?
The same question represents the wariness of those committed to the
inherent value of normative English, whether they are policy makers, teach-
ers, or everyday people concerned with, as the late English poet John Betjeman
lamented, the “blue-blooded murder of the English tongue.”1 Grammatical-
ity provides structure to the otherwise unruly nature of human communica-
tion, so is translingualism not disruptive to this order that we have worked
so hard to create (that is, the select few who have helped make such deci-
sions)? How can translingual practices, if they are not guided by some kind
of structure, be considered language in the first place? If there are no con-
ventions for translingual practices to follow, how is communication even
possible? If there is no baseline standard, how can we evaluate whether a
usage is effective or not? If there is no uniformity to the different Englishes
of the world, how can we achieve mutual intelligibility? If students do not
learn the rules of standardized English, how will they succeed in school?
How will they get jobs? These are all fair questions, but they are all ques-
tions premised on the normativity of a normative English. But then are
translingual practices better? It can be suggested that translingual practices
represent independence while normative English represents constraint. But
it can also be argued that normative Englishes represent order and translin-
gual practices represent chaos.
I cannot say whether normative English or translingual practices are pref-
erable, in the same way that I cannot say whether roads with lanes or with-
out lanes are preferable. Flying cars, of course, would obviate the need to
make a determination. Likewise, understanding Englishes as cultural fact
might show us that the above questions are not the questions we need to be
focusing on. Understanding Englishes as cultural fact might mean trying to
imagine, anticipate, and aspire for something we have yet to encounter and
therefore something we cannot quite yet conceive of. Today, we face new
questions in addition to those regarding which Englishes are appropriate in
particular contexts on the basis of their purported monolinguality or stan-
dardness. It is clear that we need to reconsider which questions we should
be asking, along with who is asking the questions on behalf of whom. This
reconsideration begins in the following chapter, “Proficiency, Legitimacy,
Elasticity.”
Note
1. Alternative hip-hop and rock performer Jamie T samples this quote by Betjeman
into his song titled “Sheila,” a gesture which acknowledges and then swiftly and
flippantly dismisses concerns that Jamie T’s Cockney accent represents, for many,
the antithesis to an ostensibly more refined Queen’s English.
References
Acosta, Abraham. 2014. Thresholds of Illiteracy: Theory, Latin America, and the Crisis of
Resistance. New York: Fordham University Press.
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alcoff, Linda. 1991. The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique 20: 532.
Alim, H. Samy. 2005. Critical Language Awareness in the United States: Revisiting Issues
and Revising Pedagogies in a Resegregated Society. Educational Researcher 34 (7): 2431.
Alim, H. Samy , and Smitherman, Geneva. 2012. Articulate While Black: Barack Obama,
Language, and Race in the US. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allen, Theodore. 1994. The Invention of the White Race. Vol. 1. London: Verso.
Althusser, Louis . [1971]2001. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
American Educational Research Association . 2014. Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
Andrew & Terry English Lab . 2010. Tonglish [Tonglish: Native Expressions We Dont
Know]. Seoul: Rich Vanilla.
Aneesh, A. 2015. Neutral Accent: How Language, Labor, and Life Become Global. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Anson, Chris M. 2000. Response and the Social Construction of Error. Assessing Writing 7
(1): 521.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Appadurai, Arjun. 2013. The Future as Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition.
London: Verso.
Apter, Emily S. 2013. Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. London:
Verso.
Arnaut, Karel , Blommaert, Jan , Rampton, Ben , and Spotti, Massimiliano. 2016.
Introduction: Superdiversity and Sociolinguistics. In Language and Superdiversity, edited by
Karel Arnaut , Jan Blommaert , Ben Rampton , and Massimiliano Spotti , 117. London:
Routledge.
158 Atkinson, Dwight , Crusan, Deborah , Matsuda, Paul Kei , Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina ,
Ruecker, Todd , Simpson, Steve , and Tardy, Christine . 2015. Clarifying the Relationship
Between L2 Writing and Translingual Writing. College English 77 (4): 383386.
Baca, Damin. 2008. Mestiz@ Scripts, Digital Migrations, and the Territories of Writing.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baker, Colin. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. [1975] 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Baldwin, James . [1979]2007. If Black English Isnt a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is? In
Rotten English: A Literary Anthology, edited by Dora Ahmad , 425457. New York: Norton.
Ball, Arnetha. 1999. Evaluating the Writing of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students:
The Case of the African American Vernacular English Speaker. In Evaluating Writing: The
Role of Teachers Knowledge About Text, Learning, and Culture, edited by Charles Cooper
and Lee Odell , 225248. Urbana, IL: NCTE Press.
Bamgbose, Ayo. 1998. Torn Between the Norms: Innovations in World Englishes. World
Englishes 17 (1): 114.
Barnum, Carol. 1987. Writing Rsums That Sell. Management World 16 (5): 1013.
Bauman, Richard , and Briggs, Charles L. 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies
and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beason, Larry . 2001. Ethos and Error: How Business People React to Errors. College
Composition and Communication 53 (1): 3364.
Belkin, Douglas. 2015. Test Finds College Graduates Lack Skills for White-Collar Jobs. Wall
Street Journal, January 16. www.wsj.com.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1990. DissemiNation: Time, Narrative, and the Margins of the Modern
Nation. In Nation and Narration, edited by Homi K. Bhabha , 291322. London: Routledge.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. 2012. Why Bilinguals Are Smarter. The New York Times, March 17.
www.nytimes.com.
Bigo, Didier. 2002. Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of
Unease. Alternatives 27: 6392.
Blaauw-Hara, Mark. 2006. Why Our Students Need Instruction in Grammar, and How We
Should Go About It. Teaching English in the Two-Year College 34 (2): 165178.
Blackburn-Brockman, Elizabeth , and Belanger, Kelly. 2001. One Page or Two?: A National
Study of CPA Recruiters Preferences for Rsum Length. Journal of Business Communication
38 (1): 2945.
Bleich, David. 1997. What Can Be Done About Grading? In Grading in the Post-Process
Classroom: From Theory to Practice, edited by Libby Allison , Lizbeth Bryant , and Maureen
M. Hourigan , 1535. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Blommaert, Jan . 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blommaert, Jan. 2015. Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of
Complexity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Blommaert, Jan , Muyllaert, Nathalie , Huysmans, Marieke , and Dyers, Charlyn. 2005.
Peripheral Normativity: Literacy and the Production of Locality in a South African Township
School. Linguistics and Education 16 (4): 378403.
159 Bolton, Kingsley . 2010. Creativity and World Englishes. World Englishes 29 (4): 455466.
Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul. 2002. Race and the Rise of Standard American. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul. 2010. Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native
Speaker. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Brandenburg, Laura C. 2014. Testing the Recognition and Perception of Errors in Context.
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 78 (1): 7493.
Brandt, Adam , and Jenks, Christopher. 2011. Is It Okay to Eat a Dog in Korea Like China?
Assumptions of National Food-Eating Practices in Intercultural Interaction. Language and
Intercultural Communication 11 (1): 4158.
Broad, Bob. 2003. What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing
Writing. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Brock, Mark N. 1991. The Good Feeling of Fine: English for Ornamental Purposes. English
Today 7 (2): 5051.
Brown, Sean. 2016. Hillary Supporters Have Utterly Disturbing Response to Melania Trumps
RNC Speech. PoliticalCult, July 19. www.politicalcult.com.
Bruner, M. Lane. 2002. Strategies of Remembrance: The Rhetorical Dimensions of National
Identity Construction. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Bruthiaux, Paul . 2003. Squaring the Circles: Issues in Modeling English Worldwide.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13 (2): 159178.
Bucholtz, Mary. 2003. Sociolinguistic Nostalgia and the Authentication of Identity. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7 (3): 398416.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London:
Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1999. Performativitys Social Magic. In Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by
Richard Schusterman, 113128. Oxford: Blackwell.
Butler, Judith. 2001. Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of
Transsexuality. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7 (4): 621636.
Caldeira, Teresa P. R. 2012. Imprinting and Moving Around: New Visibilities and
Configurations of Public Space in Sao Paulo. Public Culture 24 (2): 385419.
Cameron, Deborah. 2012. Verbal Hygiene. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh . 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2002. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2006. The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization
Continued. College Composition and Communication 57 (4): 586619.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan
Relations. London: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2017. Translingual Practices and Neoliberal Policies: Attitudes and
Strategies of African Skilled Migrants in Anglophone Workplaces. New York: Springer.
Carlson, Holly K. , and McHenry, Monica A. 2006. Effect of Accent and Dialect on
Employability. Journal of Employment Counseling 43 (2): 7083.
160 Carolino, Pedro . 1855. O Novo Guia De Conversao Em Portuguez e Inglez. Paris: J.-P.
Aillaud, Monlon e Ca.
Carroll, Lewis. 1871. Lewis Carrolls Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Charney, Davida H. , Rayman, Jack , and Ferreira-Buckley, Linda. 1992. How Writing Quality
Influences Readers Judgments of Resumes in Business and Engineering. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication 6 (1): 3874.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1986. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative
Discourse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chaucer, Geoffrey . [1382]1987. The Parliament of Fowls. In The Riverside Chaucer, edited
by Larry D. Benson, 383394. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chow, Rey. 2014. Not Like a Native Speaker: On Languaging as a Postcolonial Experience.
New York: Columbia University Press.
CNN. 2014. How You Say Sexy Accent?, September 17. www.cnn.com
Coffelt, Tina A. , Baker, Matthew J. , and Corey, Robert C. 2016. Business Communication
Practices From Employers Perspectives. Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly 79 (3): 300316.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor . [1834]1997. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. In Samuel Taylor
Coleridge: Complete Poems, edited by William Keach , 167186. New York: Penguin.
Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language
Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, Walker. 1994. Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL
Quarterly 33 (2): 185209.
Corbett, Edward P. J. , and Connors, Robert J. 1999. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern
Student. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corrie, Marilyn. 2006. Middle English: Dialects and Diversity. In The Oxford History of
English, edited by Lynda Mugglestone , 86116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Council of Writing Program Administrators . 2014. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year
Composition (3.0). July 17. www.wpacouncil.org
Creese, Angela , and Blackledge, Adrian. 2010. Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom:
A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94 (1): 103115.
Currie, Pat. 1994. What Counts as Good Writing? Enculturation and Writing Assessment. In
Teaching and Learning Genre, edited by Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway , 6379.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Cutler, Celia A. 1999. Yorkville Crossing: White Teens, Hip Hop and African American
English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (4): 428442.
Czaika, Mathias , and de Haas, Hein. 2015. The Globalization of Migration. International
Migration Review 48 (2): 283323.
da Fonseca, Jos , and Carolino, Pedro. 1883. English as She Is Spoke: Being a
Comprehensive Phrasebook of the English Language, Written by Men to Whom English Was
Entirely Unknown. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
161 Danielewicz, Jane , and Elbow, Peter . 2009. A Unilateral Grading Contract to Improve
Learning and Teaching. College Composition and Communication 61 (2): 244268.
Deleuze, Gilles , and Guattari, Felix. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Delpit, Lisa. 1988. The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other Peoples
Children. Harvard Educational Review 58 (3): 280299.
Demick, Barbara. 2002. English 101: Get a Longer Tongue. The Seattle Times, April 7.
www.seattletimes.com
Derrida, Jacques . [1972]1981. Dissemination. London: Continuum.
Derrida, Jacques . [1996]1998. Monolingualism of the Other; or, the Prosthesis of Origin.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
De Swaan, Abram. 2001. Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge:
Polity.
Dovchin, Sender. 2017. The Ordinariness of Youth Linguascapes in Mongolia. International
Journal of Multilingualism 14 (2): 144159.
Dovchin, Sender , Sultana, Shaila , and Pennycook, Alastair. 2016. Unequal Translingual
Englishes in the Asian Peripheries. Asian Englishes 18 (2): 92108.
Dryer, Dylan B. 2016. Appraising Translingualism. College English 78 (3): 274283.
Elliot, Megan. 2015. 5 Skills College Grads Need to Get a Job. USA Today, May 3.
www.usatoday.com
Esposito, Roberto. 2015. Categories of the Impolitical. New York: Fordham University Press.
Faigley, Lester. 1992. Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of
Composition. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Fairclough, Norman , ed. 1992. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Faist, Thomas. 2013. The Mobility Turn: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences? Ethnic
and Racial Studies 36 (11): 16371646.
Farrington, Robert. 2014. The Two Key Traits Employers Need From Todays College
Graduates. Forbes, May 28. www.forbes.com
Ferris, Dana R. 2011. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. 2nd ed. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, Dana R. 2016. Promoting Grammar and Language Development in the Writing Class:
Why, What How, and Why. In Teaching English Grammar to Speakers of Other Languages,
edited by Eli Hinkel , 222245. London: Routledge.
Firth, Alan. 1996. The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On Lingua Franca English
and Conversation Analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26 (2): 237259.
Fiske, Robert Hartwell. 2013. About The Vocabula Review. www.vocabula.com
Flores, Nelson. 2013. The Unexamined Relationship Between Neoliberalism and
Plurilingualism: A Cautionary Tale. TESOL Quarterly 47 (3): 500520.
Flores, Nelson , and Rosa, Jonathan. 2015. Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic
Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education. Harvard Educational Review 85 (2): 149171.
Flusser, Vilm , and Bec, Louis . [1987]2012. Vampirotheutis Infernalis. Minneapolis:
University of Minneapolis Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel . [1978]1980. Introduction. In Herculine Barbin, vii-xvii. New York: Vintage.
162 Freire, Paulo . [1968]2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum.
Garca, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Garca, Ofelia , and Wei, Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.
Garber, Megan. 2013. English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet. The Atlantic,
November 19. www.theatlantic.com
Gilyard, Keith. 2016. The Rhetoric of Translingualism. College English 78 (3): 284289.
Gonzlez, Norma , Moll, Luis C. , and Amanti, Cathy , eds. 2005. Funds of Knowledge:
Theorizing Practice in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Graddol, David. 1997. The Future of English?: A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of
English in the 21st Century. London: British Council.
Graff, Harvey J. [1979]1991. The Literacy Myth: Cultural Integration and Social Structure in
the Nineteenth Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Graff, Harvey J. 2010. The Literacy Myth at Thirty. Journal of Social History 43 (3): 635661.
Gramling, David. 2016. The Invention of Monolingualism. London: Bloomsbury.
Gray, Loretta S. , and Heuser, Paula. 2003. Nonacademic Professionals Perception of Usage
Errors. Journal of Basic Writing 22 (1): 5070.
Green, Lisa J. 2002. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Greenfield, Laura. 2011. The Standard English Fairy Tale. In Writing Centers and the New
Racism: A Call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen
Rowan, 3359. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Guba, Egon G. , and Lincoln, Yvonna S. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Guerra, Juan C. 2016. Cultivating a Rhetorical Sensibility in the Translingual Writing
Classroom. College English 78 (3): 228233.
Hairston, Maxine . 1981. Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the
Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage. College English 43 (8): 794806.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2002. Applied Linguistics as an Evolving Theme. Association
Internationale De Linguistique Appliqu. Lecture.
Hamp-Lyons, Liz . 1991. Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hampson, Rick . 2016. Melania Trump Speaks to a Nation Thats Rarely Heard Her Voice.
USA Today, July 19. www.usatoday.com.
Hanson, F. Allan . 1993. Testing Testing: Social Consequences of the Examined Life.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hardt, Michael , and Negri, Antonio . 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Harvey, David . 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich . [1807]1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Heller, Monica . 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography.
London: Continuum.
Heller, Monica . 2007. The Future of Bilingualism. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach, edited
by Monica Heller , 340345. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
163 Heller, Monica . 2011. Paths to Post-Nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language
and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herder, Johann Gottfried . [1787]1967. Ideen Zur Philosophie Der Geschichte Der
Menschheit. In Smtliche Werke, edited by Bernhard Suphan . Vol. 14. Berlin: Georg Olms
Verlag.
Heyd, Theresa . 2014. Folk-Linguistic Landscapes: The Visual Semiotics of Digital
Enregisterment. Language in Society 43 (05): 489514.
Higgins, Christina . 2009. English as a Local Language: Post-Colonial Identities and
Multilingual Practices. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hobsbawm, Eric . 1983. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition,
edited by Terence Ranger and Eric Hobsbawm , 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hogg, Richard M. , ed. 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Cambridge:
Holliday, Adrian . 2005. The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Holquist, Michael . 2014. What Would Bakhtin Do? Critical Multilingualism Studies 2 (1): 619.
Honey, John . 1983. The Language Trap: Race, Class, and the Standard English Issue in
British Schools. Kenton: National Council for Educational Standards.
Hong, Cathy Park . 2007. Dance Dance Revolution. New York: Norton.
Horner, Bruce , Lu, Min-Zhan , Royster, Jacqueline Jones , and Trimbur, John . 2011.
Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach. College English 73 (3):
303321.
Horowitz, Daniel . 1991. ESL Writing Assessments: Contradictions and Resolutions. In
Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts, edited by Liz Hamp-Lyons ,
7185. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hosoda, Megumi , and Stone-Romero, Eugene . 2010. The Effects of Foreign Accents on
Employment-Related Decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25 (2): 113132.
Huot, Brian A. 2002. (Re)Articulating Writing Assessment for Teaching and Learning. Logan:
Utah State University Press.
Hyland, Ken . 1996. Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles.
Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433454.
Hyland, Ken . 2001. Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-Mention in Research Articles.
English for Specific Purposes 20 (3): 207226.
Hyland, Ken , and Tse, Polly . 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.
Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156177.
Inoue, Asao B. 2014. A Grade-Less Writing Course That Focuses on Labor and Assessing.
In First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice, edited by Deborah Coxwell-Teague and
Ronald F. Lunsford , 71110 Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Inoue, Asao B. 2015. Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing
Writing for a Socially Just Future.Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Inoue, Asao B. 2017. Using Writing Assessment to Create the Conditions for Translingual
Pedagogies. In Crossing Divides: Exploring Translingual Writing Pedagogies and Programs,
edited by Bruce Horner and Laura Tetrault , 119134. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Irvine, Susan . 2006. Beginnings and Transitions: Old English. In The Oxford History of
English, edited by Lynda Mugglestone , 3260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
164 Jain, Rashi . 2014. Global Englishes, Translinguistic Identities, and Translingual
Practices in a Community College ESL Classroom: A Practitioner Researcher Reports.
TESOL Journal 5 (3): 490522.
Jang, Gyesung , and Kang, Yunhye . 2009. Globish. Paju: Dalakweon.
Jenkins, Jennifer . 2003. World Englishes. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, Jennifer . 2014a. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The
Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, Jennifer . 2014b. Global Englishes. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Jenks, Christopher J. 2017. Race and Ethnicity in English Language Teaching: Korea in
Focus. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Joffe, Julia . 2016. Melania Trump on Her Rise, Her Family Secrets, and Her True Political
Views: Nobody Will Ever Know. GQ, April 27. www.gq.com.
Johnson, David , and Vanbrackle, Lewis . 2012. Linguistic Discrimination in Writing
Assessment: How Raters React to African American Errors? ESL Errors, and Standard
English Errors on a State-Mandated Writing Exam. Assessing Writing 17 (1): 3554.
Jordan, Jay . 2012. Redesigning Composition for Multilingual Realities. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Jordan, Jay . 2015. Material Translingual Ecologies. College English 77 (4): 364382.
Jrgensen, J. Normann . 2008. Polylingual Languaging Around and Among Children and
Adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (3): 161176.
Kachru, Braj B. 1976. Models of English for the Third World: White Mans Linguistic Burden or
Language Pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly 10 (2): 221239.
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, Codification, and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English
Language in the Outer Circle. In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language
and Literatures, edited by Randolph Quirk and H. G. Widdowson , 1130. Cambridge:
Kachru, Braj B. 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Kachru, Braj B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Kamusikiri, Sandra . 1996. African American English and Writing Assessment. In Assessment
of Writing: Politics, Policies, and Practices, edited by Edward White , William Lutz , and
Sandra Kamusikiri , 187203. New York: MLA.
Kandiah, Thiru . 1998. Epiphanies of the Deathless Native Users Manifold Avatars: A Post-
Colonial Perspective on the Native Speaker. In The Native Speaker: Multi-lingual
Perspectives, edited by Rajendra Singh , 79110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, Robert . 1966. Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Communication. Language
Learning 16 (12): 120.
Keats, John . [1817]2002. Letter to George and Tom Keats, 21, 27 December 1817. In The
Selected Letters of John Keats, edited by Grant F. Scott , 5561. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kerschbaum, Stephanie L. 2014. Toward a New Rhetoric of Difference. Urbana, IL: NCTE
Press.
Khubchandani, Lachman M. 1997. Revisualizing Boundaries: a Plurilingual Ethos. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Killoran, John B. 2006. Self-Published Web Rsums: Their Purposes and Their Genre
Systems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 20 (4): 425459.
165 Kim, Eun-Young Julia . 2012. Creative Adoption: Trends in Anglicisms in Korea. English
Today 28 (2): 1517.
Klein, Christina . 2003. Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 19451961.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kohn, Alfie . 1993. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, As,
Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, Alfie . 2011. The Case Against Grades. Educational Leadership 69 (3): 2833.
Kramsch, Claire . 2006. The Traffic in Meaning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 26(1):
99104.
Kramsch, Claire . 2009. The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krishnaswamy, N. , and Burde, Archana S. 1998. The Politics of Indians English: Linguistic
Colonialism and the Expanding English Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ku, Robert Ji-Song. 2014. Dubious Gastronomy: The Cultural Politics of Eating Asian in the
USA. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2009. Internationalization of Universities: Paradoxes and Responsibilities.
The Modern Language Journal 93 (4): 612618.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2016. The Multi/Plural Turn, Postcolonial Theory, and Neoliberal
Multiculturalism: Complicities and Implications for Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics 37
(4): 474494.
Labov, William. 1969. A Study of Non-Standard English. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.
University of Pennsylvania Press, PA: Philadelphia.
Ladefoged, Peter. 1999. American English. In Handbook of the International Phonetic
Association, edited by International Phonetic Association, 4144. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lady Gaga . 2008. Poker Face. The Fame. Interscope Records.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the
Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27 (4):
590619.
Lawrence, C. Bruce. 2012. The Korean English Linguistic Landscape. World Englishes 31
(1): 7092.
Lea, Mary R. , and Street, Brian V. 1998. Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic
Literacies Approach. Studies in Higher Education 23 (2): 157172.
Lee, Jerry Won. 2014. Transnational Linguistic Landscapes and the Transgression of
Metadiscursive Regimes of Language. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 11 (1): 5074.
Lee, Jerry Won. 2016. Beyond Translingual Writing. College English 27 (2): 174195.
Lee, Jerry Won. 2016. The Politics of Intentionality in Englishes: Provincializing
Capitalization. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 13 (1): 4671.
Lee, Jerry Won , and Jenks, Christopher J. 2016. Doing Translingual Dispositions. College
Composition and Communication 68 (2): 317344.
Lee, Melissa E. 2013. Shifting to the World Englishes Paradigm by Way of the Translingual
Approach: Code-Meshing as a Necessary Means of Transforming Composition Pedagogy.
TESOL Journal 5 (2): 312329.
Lee, Robert G. 1999. Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
166 Lennon, Brian . 2010. In Babels Shadow: Multilingual Literatures, Monolingual States.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Le Row, Caroline B. 1887. English as She Is Taught: Genuine Answers to Examination
Questions in Our Public Schools. New York: Cassell & Company.
Lillis, Theresa , and Scott, Mary. 2007. Defining Academic Literacies Research: Issues of
Epistemology, Ideology and Strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional
Practice 4 (1): 532.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination
in the United States. 2nd ed.London: Routledge.
Li Wei . 2011. Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive Construction of
Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5): 12221235.
Lo, Adrienne. 1999. Codeswitching, Speech Community Membership, and the Construction
of Ethnic Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (4): 461479.
Lorimer Leonard, Rebecca. 2014. Multilingual Writing as Rhetorical Attunement. College
English 76 (3): 227247.
Lowe, Lisa. 1996. Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Lu, Min-Zhan. 1994. Professing Multiculturalism: The Politics of Style in the Contact Zone.
College Composition and Communication 45 (4): 442458.
Lu, Min-Zhan. 2004. An Essay on the Work of Composition: Composing English Against the
Order of Fast Capitalism. College Composition and Communication 56 (1): 1650.
Lu, Min-Zhan. 2006. Living-English Work. College English 68 (6): 605618.
Lu, Min-Zhan , and Horner, Bruce. 2013. Translingual Literacy, Language Difference, and
Matters of Agency. College English 75 (6): 582607.
Lueck, Amy , and Sharma, Shyam. 2013. Writing a Translingual Script: Closed Captions in
the English Multilingual Hearing Classroom. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and
Pedagogy 17 (3).
Lyons, Scott Richard. 2000. Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want From
Writing? College Composition and Communication 51 (3): 447468.
Lyons, Scott Richard. 2009. Theres No Translation for It: Nationalism, Hybridity, and the
Search for a Native American Writing Pedagogy. Journal of Advanced Composition 29:
77106.
Mahboob, Ahmar. 2014. Language Variation and Education: A Focus on Pakistan. In The
Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, edited by Sarah Buschfeld ,
Thomas Hoffmann , Magnus Huber , and Alexander Kautzsch , 267281. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Maher, John C. 2005. Metroethnicity, Language, and the Principle of Cool. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 175/176: 83102.
Maher, John C. 2010. Metroethnicities and Metrolanguages. In The Handbook of Language
and Globalization, edited by Nikolas Coupland, 575591. Oxford: Blackwell.
Makoni, Sinfree. 2002. From Misinvention to Disinvention: An Approach to Multilingualism. In
Black Linguistics: Language, Society, and Politics in Africa and the Americas, edited by
Sinfree Makoni , Geneva Smitherman , F. Arnetha Ball, and Arthur K. Spears, 132153.
London: Routledge.
Makoni, Sinfree , and Pennycook, Alastair. 2005. Disinventing and (Re)Constituting
Languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 2 (3): 137156.
167 Marchetti, Gina . 1993. Romance and the Yellow Peril: Race, Sex, and Discursive
Strategies in Hollywood Fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Martnez, Ramn Antonio. 2010. Spanglish as Literacy Tool: Toward an Understanding of the
Potential Role of Spanish-English Code-Switching in the Development of Academic Literacy.
Research in the Teaching of English 45 (2): 124149.
Matsuda, Paul Kei. 2014. The Lure of Translingual Writing. PMLA 129 (3): 478483.
McNamara, Tim. 2011. Multilingualism in Education: A Poststructuralist Critique. The Modern
Language Journal 95 (3): 430441.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2003. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and
Colonization. 2nded. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2007. Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and
the Grammar of De-Coloniality. Cultural Studies 21 (23): 449514.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial
Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Milroy, James. 2001. Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 530555.
Milson-Whyte, Vivette. 2013. Pedagogical and Socio-Political Implications of Code-Meshing
in Classrooms: Some Considerations for a Translingual Orientation to Writing. In Literacy as
Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms, edited by A. Suresh
Canagarajah , 115127. London: Routledge.
Modiano, Marko. 1999. Standard English(es) and Educational Practices for the Worlds
Lingua Franca. English Today 15 (4): 313.
Mufti, Aamir. 2016. Forget English!: Orientalisms and World Literatures. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2006. The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muoz, Jos Esteban. 1999. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of
Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Myers, Greg. 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics 10
(1): 135.
Nericcio, William Anthony. 2007. Tex{t}-Mex: Seductive Hallucinations of the Mexican in
America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Nevalainen, Terttu , and Traugott, Elizabeth , eds. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History
of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ngg wa Thiongo . 1981. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African
Literature. London: James Currey.
Ngg wa Thiongo . 2012. Globalectics: Theory and the Politics of Knowing. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Ngg wa Thiongo. forthcoming . Encounters With Translation: A Globalectic View.
Nilson, Linda B. 2015. Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and
Saving Faculty Time. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Ong, Aihwa. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ono, Kent A. , and Pham, Vincent N. 2009. Asian Americans and the Media. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Otsuji, Emi , and Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Metrolingualism: Fixity, Fluidity and Language in
Flux. International Journal of Multilingualism 7 (3): 240254.
Parakrama, Arjuna. 1995. De-Hegemonizing Language Standards: Learning From
(Post)Colonial Englishes About English. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
168 Park, Joseph Sung-Yul . 2010. Naturalization of Competence and the Neoliberal Subject:
Success Stories of English Language Learning in the Korean Conservative Press. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology 20 (1): 2238.
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul. 2011. The Promise of English: Linguistic Capital and the Neoliberal
Worker in the South Korean Job Market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 14 (4): 443455.
Park, Kyung-ja. 2009. Characteristics of Korea English as a Glocalized Variety. In Global
Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates, edited by Kumiko Murata and
Jennifer Jenkins , 94110. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Park, So Jin , and Abelmann, Nancy. 2004. Class and Cosmopolitan Striving: Mothers
Management of English Education in South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly 77 (4): 645672.
Pavlenko, Aneta. forthcoming. Superdiversity and Why It Isnt: Reflections on Terminological
Innovation and Academic Branding. In Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse,
edited by Stephan Briedbach , Lutz Kster , and Barbara Schmenk . Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2008. English as a Language Always in Translation. European Journal
of English Studies 12 (1): 3347.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2009. Plurilithic Englishes: Towards a 3D Model. In Global Englishes in
Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates, edited by Kumiko Murata and Jennifer Jenkins ,
194207. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2012. Unexpected Places: Language and Mobility. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, Alastair , and Otsuji, Emi. 2014. Metrolingual Multitasking and Spatial
Repertoires: Pizza Mo Two Minutes Coming. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18 (2): 161184.
Pennycook, Alastair , and Otsuji, Emi. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the City. London:
Routledge.
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piller,
Ingrid. 2002. Passing for a Native Speaker: Identity and Success in Second Language
Learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6 (2): 179208.
Piller, Ingrid. 2016. Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice: An Introduction to Applied
Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piller, Ingrid , and Cho, Jinhyun. 2013. Neoliberalism as Language Policy. Language in
Society 42 (1): 2344.
Plato. [ca 370BC]2005. Phaedrus. New York: Penguin.
Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 1987. Linguistic Utopias. In The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments
Between Language and Literature, edited by Nigel Fabb , Derek Altridge , Alan Durant , and
Colin MacCabe , 4866. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 2012. If English Was Good Enough for Jesus Monolinguismo y Mala Fe.
Critical Multilingualism Studies 1 (1): 1230.
169 Prendergast, Catherine . 2008. Buying Into English: Language and Investment in the
New Capitalist World. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Preston, Dennis R. 1993. The Uses of Folk Linguistics. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 3 (2): 181259.
Quijano, Anibal. 1992. Colonidad y Modernidad/Racionalidad. In Los Conquistados: 1492 y
La Poblacin Indgena De Las Amricas, edited by Heraclio Bonilla , 437448. Quito, Ecuador:
Tercer Mundo-Libri Mundi.
Quijano, Anibal. 2000. Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla 1 (3):
533580.
Quirk, Randolph. 1990. Language Varieties and Standard Language. English Today 21: 310.
Radhakrishnan, R. 2003. Theory in an Uneven World. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Radhakrishnan, R. 2009. Why Compare? New Literary History 40 (3): 453471.
Rampton, Ben. 1990. Displacing the Native Speaker: Expertise, Affiliation, and Inheritance.
ELT Journal 44 (2): 97101.
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ray,
Brian. 2013. A Progymnasmata for Our Time: Adapting Classical Exercises to Teach
Translingual Style. Rhetoric Review 32 (2): 191209.
Reagan, Timothy. 2004. Objectification, Positivism and Language Studies: A
Reconsideration. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 1 (1): 4160.
Reagan, Timothy. 2006. The Explanatory Power of Critical Language Studies: Linguistics
With an Attitude. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 3 (1): 122.
Reagan, Timothy. 2016. The Conceptualization of Language Legitimacy. Critical
Inquiry in Language Studies 13 (1): 119.
Riley, Tracey J. , and Simons, Kathleen A. 2016. The Written Communication Skills That
Matter Most for Accountants. Accounting Education 25 (3): 239255.
Roberts, Celia. 2016. Translating Global Experience Into Institutional Models of Competency:
Linguistic Inequalities in the Job Interview. In Language and Super-diversity, edited by Karel
Arnaut , Jan Blommaert , Ben Rampton , and Massimiliano Spotti , 237260. London:
Routledge.
Robinson, Andrew J. 2009. Language, National Origin, and Employment Discrimination: The
Importance of the EEOC Guidelines. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157: 15131539.
Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task Complexity, Task Difficulty, and Task Production: Exploring
Interactions in a Componential Framework. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 2757.
Rubin, Donald L. 1992. Nonlanguage Factors Affecting Undergraduates Judgments of
Nonnative English-Speaking Teaching Assistants. Research in Higher Education 33 (4):
511531.
Ruecker, Todd. 2014. Here They Do This, There They Do That: Latinas/Latinos Writing
Across Institutions. College Composition and Communication 66 (1): 91119.
Ruecker, Todd , and Ives, Lindsey. 2015. White Native English Speakers Needed: The
Rhetorical Construction of Privilege in Online Teacher Recruitment Spaces. TESOL Quarterly
49 (4): 733756.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, Edward W. 1991. Musical Elaborations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Salager-Meyer, Franoise. 1994. Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical
English Written Discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149170.
170 Saraceni, Mario . 2010. The Relocation of English: Shifting Paradigms in a Global Era.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1988. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schilb, John. 2007. Rhetorical Refusals: Defying Audiences Expectations. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Schmid, Carol. 2000. The Politics of English Only in the United States: Historical, Social, and
Legal Aspects. In Language Ideologies, edited by Roseann Dueas Gonzlez , 6286. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge:
Scollon, Ron. 1997. Contrastive Rhetoric, Contrastive Poetics, or Perhaps Something Else?
TESOL Quarterly 31 (2): 352358.
Seargeant, Philip. 2010. Naming and Defining in World Englishes. World Englishes 29 (1):
97113. Segrest Purkiss , L. Sharon , Perrewe, Pamela L. , Gillespie, Treena L. , Mayes,
Brontston T. , and Ferris, Gerald R. 2006. Implicit Sources of Bias in Employment Interview
Judgments and Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2):
152167.
Shiffman, Betty Garrison. 1997. Grading Student Writing: The Dilemma From a Feminist
Perspective. In Grading in the Post-Process Classroom: From Theory to Practice, edited by
Libby Allison , Lizbeth Bryant , and M. Maureen Hourigan, 5872. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Shim, Rosa Jinyoung. 1999. Codified Korean English: Process, Characteristics and
Consequence. World Englishes 18 (2): 247258.
Shor, Ira. 2009. Critical Pedagogy Is Too Big to Fail. Journal of Basic Writing 28 (2): 627.
Shuck, Gail. 2006. Racializing the Nonnative English Speaker. Journal of Language, Identity
& Education 5 (4): 259276.
Silverstein, Michael. 1998. The Uses and Utility of Ideology: A Commentary. In Language
Ideologies: Practice and Theory, edited by Bambi B. Schieffelin , Kathryn A. Woolard , and
Paul V. Kroskrity , 123148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, Peter. 1998. Task-Based Instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18:
268286. Smitherman, Geneva. 1977. Talkin and Testifying: The Language of Black America.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Song, Jae Jung. 2016. A Rose by Any Other Name? Learner English and Variety-
Status Labelling: The Case of English in South Korea. English Today 32 (4): 5662.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. London:
Routledge.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1999. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of
the Vanishing Present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Subtirelu, Nicholas Close . 2013. English Its Part of Our Blood: Ideologies of Language and
Nation in United States Congressional Discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17 (1): 3765.
Subtirelu, Nicholas Close. 2015. She Does Have an Accent but : Race and Language
Ideology in Students Evaluations of Mathematics Instructors on RateMy Professors.com.
Language in Society 44 (1): 3562.
Sugiharto, Setiono. 2015. The Multilingual Turn in Applied Linguistics? A Perspective From
the Periphery. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 25 (3): 414421.
171 Sultana, Shaila , and Dovchin, Sender. 2017. Popular Culture in Transglossic Language
Practices of Young Adults. International Multilingual Research Journal 11 (2): 6785.
Sultana, Shaila , Dovchin, Sender , and Pennycook, Alastair. 2013. Styling the Periphery:
Linguistic and Cultural Takeup in Bangladesh and Mongolia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17
(5): 687710.
Sultana, Shaila , Dovchin, Sender , and Pennycook, Alastair. 2015. Transglossic Language
Practices of Young Adults in Bangladesh and Mongolia. International Journal of
Multilingualism 12 (1): 93108.
Swales, John M. , and Feak, Christine B. 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: A
Course for Nonnative Speakers of English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Course for Nonnative Speakers of English. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Course for Nonnative Speakers of English. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tan, E. K. 2017. Heritage Language: The Case of Chinese in Singapore. In The Routledge
Handbook of Migration and Language, edited by Suresh Canagarajah. London: Routledge.
Taylor, Charles. 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Tchen, John Kuo Wei , and Yeats, Dylan , eds. 2014. Yellow Peril!: An Archive of Anti-Asian
Fear. London: Verso.
Tribble, Chris , and Wingate, Ursula. 2013. From Text to Corpus: A Genre-Based Approach
to Academic Literacy Instruction. System 41 (2): 307321.
Trimbur, John. 2006. Linguistic Memory and the Politics of US English. College English 68
(6): 575588.
Trinh T. Minh-Ha. 1989. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism.
Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press.
Tupas, Ruanni , ed. 2015. Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tupas, Ruanni , and Rubdy, Rani. 2015. Introduction: From World Englishes to Unequal
Englishes. In Unequal Englishes, edited by Ruanni Tupas , 117. Basing-stoke: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Turnbull, Miles , and Dailey-OCain, Jennifer , eds. 2009. First Language Use in Second and
Foreign Language Learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Twain, Mark. [1870]1963. Introduction to The New Guide of the Conversation in Portuguese
and English. In The $30,000 Bequest and Other Stories, 239243. New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers.
Twain, Mark. [1883]1972. Disgraceful Persecution of a Boy. In The Complete Essays of Mark
Twain, edited by Charles Neider , 710. Boston: Da Capo Press.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2016. www.eeoc.gov/.
van Lier, Leo. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural
Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Vertovec, Steven. 2007. Super-Diversity and Its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30
(6): 10241054.
Villanueva,Jr. Victor. 1997. Maybe a Colony: And Still Another Critique of the Comp
Community. Journal of Advanced Composition 17 (2): 138190.
172 Voloshinov, V. N. [1929]1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Warner, Chantelle. 2011. Rethinking the Role of Language Study in Internationalizing Higher
Education. L2 Journal 3 (1): 121.
Watson, Paul Joseph. 2016. Tolerant Leftists: Melania Trump Is a Dumb Bitch Who Cant
Speak English. InfoWars, July 19. www.infowars.com.
Watts, Richard J. Language Myths and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1994. The Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2): 377389.
Wiens, Kyle. 2012. I Wont Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Heres Why.. Harvard
Business Review, July 20. www.hbr.org.
Williams, Cen. 1994. Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyddestun Addysg
Uwchradd Ddwyieithog. Doctoral thesis, University of Wales.
Williams, Joseph M. 1981. The Phenomenology of Error. College Composition and
Communication 32 (2): 152168.
Wimsatt, William K. , and Beardsley, Monroe C. 1954. The Verbal Icon: Studies in the
Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Yancey, Kathleen Blake. 1999. Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing
Assessment. College Composition and Communication 50 (3): 483503.
Yancey, Kathleen Blake , and Huot, Brian. 1998. Construction, Deconstruction, and
(over)Determination: A Foucaultian Analysis of Grades. In The Theory and Practice of
Grading Writing, edited by Frances Zak and Christopher C. Weaver , 3953. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Yang, Seunghyuk , and Bernie Bernie. 2015. Can or Cant. Seoul: Donginlang.
Yildiz, Yasemin. 2012. Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition. New
York: Fordham University Press.
Young, Morris. 2004. Minor Re/Visions: Asian American Literacy Narratives as a Rhetoric of
Citizenship. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. 2004. Your Average Nigga. College Composition and
Communication 55 (4): 693715.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. 2007. Your Average Nigga: Performing Race, Literacy, and
Masculinity. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Zentella, Ana Celia. 1997. Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.

The Politics of Translingualism. Preview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Politics of Translingualism. Preview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Politics of Translingualism

Translingualism refers to an orientation in scholarship that recognizes the

Jerry Won Lee is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Califor-

8 White Hip-Hoppers, Language and Identity in Post-Modern America

9 Gender Representation in Learning Materials

10 The Sociolinguistics of Voice in Globalising China

11 The Discourse of Powerlessness and Repression

12 The Discourse of Sport

13 Social Media Discourse, (Dis)Identifications and Diversities

15 Heritage Language Policies around the World

16 The Politics of Translingualism

Jerry Won Lee

1 Translingualism, Difference, and “Englishes as Cultural Fact” 1

2 Proficiency, Legitimacy, Elasticity 23

5 The Inscrutability of Standardized English 91

6 The Inscrutability of Englishes in the “Real World” 109

7 Translingualism and the Politics of Pedagogy 129

8 After Englishes 147

I want to begin by thanking my editor at Routledge, Elysse Preposi, for

Sections of Chapters 2, 3, and 5 represent substantially edited versions of an

Englishes and the “Future as Cultural Fact”

there is nothing ‘new’ or ‘exotic’ about the unconventional youth lin-

It might be argued that translingualism, thus, in theory, asks us to go not

an approach to the use of language, bilingualism and the education of

The implications of “languaging” are additionally important. The common

first made the Mercatorian notion of countable global cultures and

Without dismissing the usefulness of language as a linguistic, philological,

A Critique of Translingual Reason

The question is not of female participation in insurgency, or the ground

By focusing on and drawing attention to the simultaneous presence of

Revolution requires a new foundation, a transcendent principle (law,

Any revolution, therefore, according to Esposito, is always hearkening back

the politics of recognition would have been unthinkable except from

Radhakrishnan (2003: 61) consequently gestures toward a modality between

Evaluating Difference Differently

No Flying Cars Yet

You might also like