defining multilingualism/translingualism
Before diving in deeply into the main point of my essay, I must define three terms that Canagarajah, Oku and I utilize throughout our projects: monolingualism, multilingualism, and translingualism. According to Oku, language is a “system of communication used by a particular community or country” (Oku 1). Oku’s definition perfectly encompasses all four terms, and tells readers that communication does not necessary occur through voice, but can be through “context, gestures, and objects in the setting” (Canagarajah 5). Examining the meaning and prefix/suffix behind the three terms monolingualism, multilingualism, and translingualism, Canagarajah negates the validity of multilingual as a term to represent the “cross-language relations in the global contact zones,” and argues that even monolingualistic “communication have always been heterogeneous” and must be considered translingual, too (Canagarajah 6, 8).
However, my view of the term definitions differs from Canagarajah. Monolingualism is not translingualism; monolingualism is multilingualism. Consider the example provided by Canagarajah, “how ‘English’ includes words and grammatical structures from Scandinavian, Latin, French, and other languages . . . with differences in degree and not kind” (Canagarajah 8). The language “English” is a transformed conglomeration of other languages, mixing and molding continuously in accordance with modern trend and society. Translingualism cannot be equated to or even encompass monolingualism. The ultimate purpose for translingualism is to further understanding. Translingual communicators speak—not necessarily orally—by “codemeshing” because it sends a more accurate depiction of the message to the target, and for the target (Canagarajah 2). On the other hand, monolingualism serves to unite a wide range of speakers together, whether they speak multiple languages or only a single language. Although they transfer information, they cannot reach to the specificity and accuracy of translingualism. Due to a lack of accuracy and simply difference in culture, conflicts arise, similar to the conflict between Oku and Nemesis.
However, my view of the term definitions differs from Canagarajah. Monolingualism is not translingualism; monolingualism is multilingualism. Consider the example provided by Canagarajah, “how ‘English’ includes words and grammatical structures from Scandinavian, Latin, French, and other languages . . . with differences in degree and not kind” (Canagarajah 8). The language “English” is a transformed conglomeration of other languages, mixing and molding continuously in accordance with modern trend and society. Translingualism cannot be equated to or even encompass monolingualism. The ultimate purpose for translingualism is to further understanding. Translingual communicators speak—not necessarily orally—by “codemeshing” because it sends a more accurate depiction of the message to the target, and for the target (Canagarajah 2). On the other hand, monolingualism serves to unite a wide range of speakers together, whether they speak multiple languages or only a single language. Although they transfer information, they cannot reach to the specificity and accuracy of translingualism. Due to a lack of accuracy and simply difference in culture, conflicts arise, similar to the conflict between Oku and Nemesis.