scholarly journals Multilingual Writers, Multilingual Tutors: Code-Switching/Mixing/Meshing in the Writing Center

2016 ◽  
pp. 102-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Dvorak
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Salena Anderson

This study explores how first-year multilingual writers in a classroom community make sense of their first university writing center visits. Employing narrative analysis of student journals, this study illustrates differences in themes writers discuss in their narratives of first writing center visits and themes in self-reflections on their writing. Comparing narratives in student journals and tutor report forms, this study also presents the congruities and discrepancies between writer and tutor views of a session. Writer emphasis on grammar when narrating writing center visits contrasts with writer emphasis on development in self-reflections on their writing. When tutor and writer session descriptions differ, tutors emphasize discussion of development and organization while writers emphasize sentence-level accuracy. Without scaffolding of strategies for writing center use, first-year multilingual writers may privilege sentence-level feedback in their early understanding of the writing center, resulting in a more limited experience of writing center support.


Author(s):  
Hidy Basta

In this article, I reflect on efforts to revise the instruction and evaluation of an undergraduate writing consultant education course. The revisions are motivated by the desire to adopt practices that reflect the writing center’s commitment to social justice for multilingual/translingual students and by a commitment to provide an effective, flexible, and brave environment for writing consultants to continue their professional development. I argue that grounding understanding of multilingual writers in concepts that explicitly explore linguistic diversity and standardized 1 English ideologies as threshold concepts is essential to reconceptualize writing center practices. I also argue for the necessity of adopting a flexible system for reflection, engagement, and evaluation to support writing consultants’ learning and practice. I share prompts used in the course and some of the responses they generated. The responses suggest that although combining threshold concepts with a portfolio system is successful in supporting inclusive practices, there remains a need to expand more inclusive practices across the university.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-46
Author(s):  
Johanna Domokos

The present study describes the poetics of two contemporary multilingual writers, one born in Finland (Sabira Ståhlberg) and one in Bulgaria (Tzveta Sofronieva). Besides being prolific writers in literary genres such as poetry, prose, drama, both also translate and edit world literature. Early in their career each of them achieved a PhD. Sofronieva and Ståhlberg carry out academic activities through their research studies. After visiting a multitude of places, they have become not only literary figures of both their birth countries’ literature and the literatures of several other countries, but real literary citizens of the ‘new’ world literature (McDougall, 2014). Their philosophical and ecological aestheticism voices the most urgent problems of humanity by incorporating the latest insights of brain studies, quantum physics, psychology, migration and cultural studies. Their oeuvre addresses any reader irrespective of language(s), background(s), and location(s). After looking into the monolingually multilingual (using hidden code-switching) as well as multigraphic and multilingual (using overt code switching) artistic production of Sofronieva and Ståhlberg, this study compares two poems, one by each of them, sharing the common metaphor of the sea horse. The aim of this comparative study is to point out how their highly topical poetries activate the multilinguality of any reader, as well as how the linguistic, alphabetic code-switching and shifts of interpretation paradigms loosen formal and conceptual borders. By their act, the reader is empowered to take part in not only piecing together but creating a better ‘new’ world.


Author(s):  
Penelope Gardner-Chloros
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 498-516
Author(s):  
Neil O'Sullivan

Of the hundreds of Greek common nouns and adjectives preserved in our MSS of Cicero, about three dozen are found written in the Latin alphabet as well as in the Greek. So we find, alongside συμπάθεια, also sympathia, and ἱστορικός as well as historicus. This sort of variation has been termed alphabet-switching; it has received little attention in connection with Cicero, even though it is relevant to subjects of current interest such as his bilingualism and the role of code-switching and loanwords in his works. Rather than addressing these issues directly, this discussion sets out information about the way in which the words are written in our surviving MSS of Cicero and takes further some recent work on the presentation of Greek words in Latin texts. It argues that, for the most part, coherent patterns and explanations can be found in the alphabetic choices exhibited by them, or at least by the earliest of them when there is conflict in the paradosis, and that this coherence is evidence for a generally reliable transmission of Cicero's original choices. While a lack of coherence might indicate unreliable transmission, or even an indifference on Cicero's part, a consistent pattern can only really be explained as an accurate record of coherent alphabet choice made by Cicero when writing Greek words.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine J. Midgley ◽  
Kaitlyn A. Litcofsky ◽  
Tali Ditman-Brunye ◽  
Phillip J. Holcomb

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document