Download PDFCode-Meshing and Translingualism
In code-meshing and translanguaging, communicators treat all their language variations and codes as one integrated code (Canagarajah 403) and can use non-standard spoken dialects in their writing (Schrieber 1). Code-meshing refers to different English registers being used together, whereas translanguaging or translingualism refers to multiple languages being used together. Both function the same, one focusing on codes and one focusing on languages, which is why I have paired them together.
Code-meshing is described as a strategy that helps students view all their varieties of English as one integrated code (Canagarajah 403), then allowing their repertoires to be “spliced together” to meet the author’s needs (Lee 317). This means that writers can use non-standard spoken dialects in their writing (Schrieber 1) or incorporate both written and verbal codes within a single utterance. In this method, students are not concerned with following any prescriptive boundaries that may exist in one specific language, but rather have the freedom to mix them together.
Near identical to code-meshing is translanguaging, which is most popular for multilingual students. Like code-meshing, a translingualism orientation allows multilingual communicators to view all their languages as one big repertoire rather than separate pieces (Garcia and Wei; Zapata and Leman 367). In code-meshing and translingualism, teachers understand that students use all their language variations all the time: the way they think, speak, and write. To that point, teachers acknowledge that students unknowingly already make decisions about when and how to use each. The shift in perspective happens by showing students that their language varieties can all coexist to make communication more powerful, even if they don’t have mastery over them all. By honing in on that perspective, students can learn that each dialect or variation in their background can and should inform how they communicate holistically, not separately and exclusively.
Both methods, code-meshing and translingualism, can build students’ confidence in their identity. They are no longer viewed as insufficient or labeled as outsiders just because of their language codes and variations, but are validated and celebrated. More specifically, in our case, they don’t have to change how they perform their identity to be accepted in academia.
Vershawn Ashanti Young, who coined the term code-meshing, has repeatedly stated that code-meshing is his preferred application of linguistic justice. He appreciates the way it “allow[s] minoritized language users to blend their cultural and heritage languages within academic, professional and public writing and speaking” (Vershawn Young, “English Language and Literature”). Likewise, translingualism empowers students to make language decisions by considering the demands of the text, audience, purpose, and setting, while also integrating their linguistic diversity and goals as the author. This is all to say that language varieties don’t have to be turned “on and off,” but they can coexist and work together.
Shreiber counters this emphasis with a potential difficulty in emphasizing code-meshing in the composition classroom, saying that most writing instructors don’t explicitly teach students how to code-mesh effectively. As a result, students’ use of code-meshing, and I would argue translanguaging as well, may appear as a “free-for-all” (Shreiber 2). Jay Hardee comments on this challenge, saying, “Instead of matching code to context, students use all their linguistic resources within a single rhetorical context” (n.p.). This means that students often use code-meshing too freely, without considering the rhetorical context to inform when and how they should mesh their codes.
Possible Applications
For code-meshing to be a rhetorically sound option for students, they must be taught how to use it in a way that both validates their identity and effectively communicates their message to their audience. Many scholars offer instructions on how to teach code meshing effectively, but the most comprehensive and easily accessible lessons I found come from Brennah Hutchinson and Angela Morris’ program, called “Mesh It Y’all!” They suggest introducing students to the statements “Student’s Right to their Own Language” and “This Ain’t Another Statement” before showing them code-meshed works like Vershawn Ashanti Young’s CCCCs Welcome Note from 2019 and his 2004 article “Your Average Nigga.” They also compiled this information into a video that is available on YouTube as a multimodal option. Other examples of powerful code-meshing are the novels The Hate You Give by Angie Thomas and Lisa Linn Kanae’s Sista Tongue, as well as Marvel’s Black Panther.
Following the introduction to code-meshing, students break down their own language, which is easily done with slang. Students in Hutchinson and Morris’s research used words and phrases such as “bougie,” “shook,” “salam,” and “throw shade,” then analyze and explain the words’ origin, modern use, relatability, and power or persuasiveness. The final step asks students to convince an academic audience to use this word in a formal setting (Hutchinson and Morris). By asking students to dive deeper into a single word, students get the opportunity to see how language evolves and has different impacts and meanings over time. This activity also shows them how and when someone might consciously use language diversity to serve a rhetorical purpose.
Translingualism takes more effort from the instructor because it requires a complete shift of perspective on language that must be taught explicitly. For this approach to work in a classroom, students must see language practices as continuous works in progress rather than exclusive and solidified systems (Horner and Alvarez 22). To effectively shift the classroom perspective towards translingualism, an entire unit on language must be taught early on or referenced repeatedly throughout the semester. Rachel Shapiro and Missy Watson suggest that to teach translingualism successfully, instructors must teach students the background of language, how to analyze their language repertoires and choices, show language variations in the world around them and academic settings comparatively, and finally let students set goals for their language choices and give them ample practice opportunities (Shapiro and Watson). Each step is necessary for success in translingualism because it teaches students about the powers and limitations of blending languages, preparing students to use variations as a conscious and purposeful tool.
This begins with students reflecting on what qualities their home languages and registers have. How have these qualities been accepted or rejected, and by whom? What other factors may have caused that reception? This conversation can be an emotionally heavy activity for some, so creating a safe environment for these discussions is vital. Still, instructors shouldn’t shy away from discussing how language prejudice is often rooted in racism and classism. Instructors should use that contention to emphasize why things have and should continue to change.
Shapiro and Watson also recommend drawing on historical examples of language repression, such as the Carlisle Indian School when young native children were forced to abandon their native languages and names “to kill the Indian in him and save the man” (Pratt 260). Likewise, Richard Rodriguez retells in his autobiography the experience he had in school, learning “the public language,” English, and losing his “private language” of Spanish. Despite viewing it as a formative experience that positively impacted his future, Rodriguez couldn’t deny how much it also negatively impacted his ability to communicate and connect with his family (Rodriguez). After covering such heavy topics, it’s essential for teachers to confront the weight of this conversation. It can get uncomfortable, but it is critical for students to see how racially motivated and discriminatory language has been historically to understand the value of linguistic justice.
Shapiro and Watson also note that if students share similar linguistic backgrounds, instructors can turn to pop culture for analysis. Consider using something like the musical In the Heights, which is a phenomenal example of purposeful dialect mixing. Instruct students to investigate their use of language, where they came from, and how that may have impacted their language choices, finally thinking about how their language is received and why.
Finally, teachers should shift to academic works and show examples where language variations are used. Popular academic articles where this is presented well are Gloria Anzaldúa’s “Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Frontier,” Clarice Blanco’s “My Name is /KLA-ris/: The Bordered Name of an American Latina,” and Vershawn Ashanti Young’s “Should Writers Use They Own Language?”
Before moving on to making the decisions for your class, let’s do a brief recap of each linguistic justice method discussed above. Code-switching teaches students to change the way they communicate based on the context they are in. Some believe this is a necessary skill that helps students communicate and integrate into professional and academic settings, thereby preventing the implicit bias of the audience from negatively impacting the writer. Young voices his concern that by teaching code-switching, students may feel that academia believes their home-spoken dialects are inferior to SAE, which can imply that their diverse identities are inferior as well (“Nah, We Straight).
Code-Meshing and Transligualism teach students that all of their language varieties can be used as one whole that informs the way they communicate. This also emphasizes that their varieties can actually strengthen their communications rather than weaken them. These methods are praised for how they teach students to value their linguistic diversity and, as was stated earlier, their diverse identities. The major drawback is the amount of time and effort it takes to change students’ perspectives on language and teach skills sufficient for them to implement the varieties to fulfill a rhetorical purpose, on top of all other required course content.