My primary takeaway from Matsuda and Hammill was to not assume all L2 writers will feel or respond positively to lessons or activities. I appreciated specific suggestions such as:

 

American centralism never ceases to amaze (and disappoint) me. While I don’t want to believe academia subscribes to the mentality “our American way is the best way” or an American product is superior, Canagarajah addresses these assumptions about teaching ESL students as if this perspective is common. While I’ve always admired multilingual students as brilliant for their willingness to learn and navigate different languages, and like most word nerds I find varied discourses interesting, admittedly, I too would have assumed some of the same approaches to teaching writing that Canagarajah cautions against. So, I’m grateful for the suggestions on what to do: 

 

Canagarajah acknowledges the pedagogy can challenge instructors. The conflict between an instructor’s inclination toward established discourse norms and a student’s potentially unpredictable and creative multilingual approach requires flexibility. An important reminder within this conflict is that “contact zone writing occurs in contexts marked by power differences and inequalities” (34)… another great quote for my bulletin board.

 

In Literacy in American Lives, Brandt systematically compared biographical interviews of the literacy learning recollections of 80 people, to discover what historical and socially-structured forces influenced literacy learning. In comparison to an anthropological and autoenthnographic approach in which subject narratives are individually considered, Brandt’s sociological approach analyzed the common processes and structures of the participant pool. She linked literacy “to patterns of economic and political inequality” (331).

 

In hindsight, Brandt recognizes “how sponsors can insinuate themselves into language habits, extending their power by fusing their interests with people’s inner and affective states and structuring what people (including researchers) will treat as facts” (333). This said, Brandt does not see rhetoric itself as a sponsor of literacy like Lawrence, as rhetoric must come from a person or entity (of which is the sponsor).

 

To any educator hesitant about pluralizing English beyond Standard Written English, Canagarajah points out how the negotiation strategies multilingual speakers use are just as important for monolingual students to learn in order to effectively communicate in today’s global environment. Honestly, I’d assumed this had been well-established by the article’s 2006 publication date, especially considering the CCCC adopted Students’ Right to Their Own Language (STROL) in 1974. Canagarajah’s break down of the “the dilemmas present in implementing STROL” (596) strengthen the case for codemeshing. 

 

As a codemeshing newbie, I noted the following: 

 

Finally, Canagarajah’s thought-provoking assertion that “the assumption that multilingual students are always bound to err in a second language denies them agency” (609) will stick with me. 

 

Building on Horner et al.’s definition of translingual disposition, an openmindedness “toward language and language difference” (as quoted in Lee & Jenks, 319), Lee and Jenks explore how students can “move beyond preconceived, limited notions of standardness and correctness” (319) of various Englishes through writing critical literacy narratives. “Doing” translingual disposition involves uncovering “rhetorical appropriateness or social value” (320), which Lee and Jenks posit should be considered a critical skill for all composition students for the same global communication competence reasons Canagarajah puts forth in “World Englishes.” Although the Lee and Jenks study involved peer review of essays exchanged between students at a US university and a Hong Kong university, I suspect the findings would be similar with any exchange between students of different language backgrounds. 

 

What I found most fascinating was the assignment component in which even monolingual students were instructed to write about their second language identity, after learning about the World Englishes paradigm. A monolingual native English speaker, for example, wrote about the language of basketball.  In comparing his second language experience to a multilingual peer, he relates similarities and identifies differences that produce an ideal outcome for the exercise: “He is aware of the privilege afforded to him because of his status as a native speaker, but he also recognizes that nonnative speakers may experience hardships while attempting to learn English for use in high-stakes situations and may be marginalized for not speaking a certain way” (333).  

 

A challenge the authors identify with translingualism is assessment. Instructors are cautioned to be wary of grading students on their expressed ideologies, and instead should consider focusing on student engagement and personal reflection with the course material.