Special Edition: Dynamic Translingualism
On December 6th 2013, the Asian Student Organization, Black Student Alliance, and the Office of Multicultural Programs and Services hosted an event called the Holiday of Cultures. The Holiday of Cultures bring together different organizations beyond the three listed above, invites guests from all over campus, and informs people of the diversity that exists within Emory. When some of the cultural organizations focused on introducing unique holidays within their country, I have noticed that they utilized translingual communication to get their message across. Although the majority of the people could not understand the second language that was mixed into the message, it perfectly served its purpose.
This specific instance occurred when the Korean Undergraduate Student Association spoke about unique Korean holidays. In introducing the name of the holidays, the speaker spoke in Korean to inform the audience of how the natives call this day. For example, instead of introducing Korean New Years (Lunar New Years, or Chinese New Years) as the English translation, the speaker introduced that day as Seulnal (설날). I believe this is a more accurate and powerful way to engrave the day in the audiences’ minds. Canagarajah states in his writing “languages are not necessarily at war with each other; they complement other in communication” (Canagarajah 6). The speaker was able to do this by replacing previously unknown vocabulary such as the name of holidays, the terminology of Korean greeting, and name of specific Korean foods. The new language draws attention and curiosity more than the translation does. In addition, replacing the word in Korean did not impede or hinder communication in any way either because further explaining was done after the introduction of the vocabulary.
In his essay, Canagarajah talks further about multilingualism and translingualism. As the quote stated above explains, translingualism is a great tool to communicate efficiently, accurately because “translingual practice will find manifestation in diverse ways in communicative modes and media” (Canagarajah 8).
However, as the audience of the event mostly composed of non-Korean audiences, there were limits to the degree of translingual practice. According to Canagarajah, translingual practice applies ore to the strategies of engaging with diverse codes, with the awareness that the shape of the final textual products will vary according to the contextual expectations” (Canagarajah 8). The speaker, aware of her audience, only could utilize Korean words in place of vocabularies that she was to explain further to the audience, and could not fully communicate translingually. Further usage of Korean would impede the fluency and accuracy in communication because the inability of the audience to understand. Thus, translingual practice is not a single label that can be applied, but rather a spectrum—that is a dynamic spectrum—in which the speaker chooses to move up and down in degrees of translingualism to suitably accommodate her audience’s previous knowledge of the mixed languages.
This specific instance occurred when the Korean Undergraduate Student Association spoke about unique Korean holidays. In introducing the name of the holidays, the speaker spoke in Korean to inform the audience of how the natives call this day. For example, instead of introducing Korean New Years (Lunar New Years, or Chinese New Years) as the English translation, the speaker introduced that day as Seulnal (설날). I believe this is a more accurate and powerful way to engrave the day in the audiences’ minds. Canagarajah states in his writing “languages are not necessarily at war with each other; they complement other in communication” (Canagarajah 6). The speaker was able to do this by replacing previously unknown vocabulary such as the name of holidays, the terminology of Korean greeting, and name of specific Korean foods. The new language draws attention and curiosity more than the translation does. In addition, replacing the word in Korean did not impede or hinder communication in any way either because further explaining was done after the introduction of the vocabulary.
In his essay, Canagarajah talks further about multilingualism and translingualism. As the quote stated above explains, translingualism is a great tool to communicate efficiently, accurately because “translingual practice will find manifestation in diverse ways in communicative modes and media” (Canagarajah 8).
However, as the audience of the event mostly composed of non-Korean audiences, there were limits to the degree of translingual practice. According to Canagarajah, translingual practice applies ore to the strategies of engaging with diverse codes, with the awareness that the shape of the final textual products will vary according to the contextual expectations” (Canagarajah 8). The speaker, aware of her audience, only could utilize Korean words in place of vocabularies that she was to explain further to the audience, and could not fully communicate translingually. Further usage of Korean would impede the fluency and accuracy in communication because the inability of the audience to understand. Thus, translingual practice is not a single label that can be applied, but rather a spectrum—that is a dynamic spectrum—in which the speaker chooses to move up and down in degrees of translingualism to suitably accommodate her audience’s previous knowledge of the mixed languages.