Journal of Multicultural Discourses

ISSN: 1744-7143 (Print) 1747-6615 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmd20

The connection between transcultural dispositions

and translingual practices in academic writing

Eunjeong Lee & Suresh Canagarajah

To cite this article: Eunjeong Lee & Suresh Canagarajah (2018): The connection between
transcultural dispositions and translingual practices in academic writing, Journal of Multicultural
Discourses, DOI: 10.1080/17447143.2018.1501375

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2018.1501375

Published online: 24 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 92

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmd20
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES
https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2018.1501375

The connection between transcultural dispositions and

translingual practices in academic writing
a b
Eunjeong Lee and Suresh Canagarajah
a
Department of English, Queens College, City University of New York; bDepartment of Applied Linguistics,
Pennsylvania State University

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article discusses how transculturalism and translingualism Received 20 December 2017
contribute to expanding epistemological landscapes in research on Accepted 11 July 2018
interculturality by analyzing the relationship between the two
KEYWORDS
terms. While both translingualism and transculturalism respond to Transcultural disposition;
the increasing diversity, mobility, and hybridity in communication translingual practice;
and identities, their relationship has not been studied, as scholars academic writing
articulating either concept belong to different fields. We analyze a
case of a multilingual student to demonstrate how his translingual
writing practice was enabled by his dispositions deriving from his
transcultural experience. In addition to demonstrating his rhetorical
and linguistic sensitivity from his transcultural disposition, we also
show that his writing creates a space for his peers and teacher to
develop a broadened disposition to appreciate language diversity
and creativity. We conclude the article by discussing future
possibilities of a transcultural and translingual approach in studying
interculturality to promote ‘pluri-dialogic imaginations, globo-ethical
positions and epistemological ecologies’.

Introduction
This article contributes to the special issue by exploring the connections between translin-
gual practices and transcultural dispositions and their role in expanding epistemological
landscapes in research on interculturality. While both translingualism and transculturalism
respond to the increasing diversity, mobility, and hybridity in communication and identi-
ties, their relationship has not been studied, as scholars articulating either concept belong
to different fields. In articulating this relationship, we are reminded of Shi-xu’s (2009) call
for more dialogical and diversified perspectives in research on language and communi-
cation. Shi-xu problematizes the imbalanced knowledge construction between the East
and the West with universalizing discourses mainly constructed by the latter, calling for
more diverse culturally specific points of views, values, and methodologies from the
Eastern discourses (i.e. Asian, African, and Latin American). This point is also implicated
in the study of interculturality particularly in what kinds of meaning researchers attend
to and how. To this end, we argue for the significance of transcultural dispositions and
translingual practices in attending to ‘meaning-beyond-language’, beyond ‘meaning-in-
language’, rooted in the Western logocentric ideology (Shi-xu 2009).

CONTACT Eunjeong Lee eunjeongleettu@gmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

Our inquiry was guided by data from a larger classroom ethnography, as we believe
that theorization can be more constructive and nuanced when applied to local and situ-
ated communicative interactions. Particularly, we analyze a multilingual student’s writing
to demonstrate a connection between his transcultural disposition and his translingual
writing practice, and how his writing creates a space for his peers and teacher to
develop a broadened disposition to appreciate language diversity and creativity in aca-
demic writing against the dominant monolingual and monocultural ideology. We con-
clude the article by discussing future possibilities of a transcultural and translingual
approach in studying interculturality to promote ‘pluri-dialogic imaginations, globo-
ethical positions and epistemological ecologies’.

Defining the terms

Research on cultural difference and diversity generated a variety of terminologies and
approaches in different fields of studies (Atkinson 2004; Dervin 2011; Guilherme and
Dietz 2015). In reviewing a definition of key terms and how they differ from a transcultural
and translingual approach, we focus on work from our disciplinary affiliations, Applied Lin-
guistics and Composition Studies, where discussions on cultural and linguistic diversity
have been proliferating.
The two terms that are widely recognized in describing the difference and diversity in
society are multicultural and intercultural. In the US, the term multicultural refers to a con-
stellation of different cultures, particularly focusing on maintaining different minoritized
groups’ identities (Guilherme and Dietz 2015). Along with the focus on preserving their
cultural identity, multiculturalism has also emphasized the minoritized communities’
need to be recognized as a legitimate member of the society and an equal to the ‘main-
stream’. While such focus helped increase the visibility of the inequality and discrimination
experienced by these groups, the term has garnered criticisms in its conceptualization of
culture and community, reifying ‘the myth of homogeneous and monocultural nation-
states’ (Castles 2000, 5) and indirectly promoting the essentialist view of culture.
The term intercultural has gained popularity in Europe to promote social harmony in the
era of increasing hybridity and diversity (Guilherm and Dietz 2015). In contrast to multicul-
turalists’ focus on cultural maintenance of individual minority groups, the term focuses on
the relationship between two or more cultures. Byram (2012), for instance, distinguishes
interculturalism from multiculturalism, criticizing the latter for ‘encourag[ing] different
social groups with different languages and cultures to live side by side in a spirit of
mutual acceptance, each remaining within their own language and culture and essentially
monolingual’ while ‘[i]nterculturalism … encourages ‘dialogue’ among groups’ (86). With
the definition focusing on the collaborative interaction, Byram (2008) argued for intercul-
tural competence – loosely defined as one’s ability to engage with another culture – as a
way to go beyond communicative competence as theorized along the native speaker
ideal.
Despite its merit, interculturalism still falls in the essentialist view of culture as multicul-
turalism does: The intercultural encounter is premised on encountering others, ‘them-
selves considered islands or distinct entities with clearly defined borders’ (Lavanchy,
Gajardo, and Dervin 2011, 18). Particularly in research on intercultural communication
or intercultural rhetoric, intercultural is adopted to compare cross-cultural differences in
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 3

communication or rhetorical patterns, often focusing on a problem resulting from the cul-
tural difference (Dervin 2011). Just like multiculturalism, interculturalism also treats culture
as belonging to the respective communities, and therefore, bounded and distinct, focus-
ing on essentialized products rather than a process, or as a noun rather than a verb (Heath
and Street 2008). Both terms frame the relationship or collective around cultures as owned
by geographically bounded communities under the nationalist ideology, overlooking the
complexity in ways that individuals interpret, negotiate, and resist different cultural cat-
egories. For instance, many intercultural competence models emphasize effective and
appropriate communication, the evaluation of which often reflects the communicative
norms of the dominant cultures (Claudia 2017). Despite the call for a dialogic approach,
away from ‘difference-as-problem’ view, and recent advancement of critical intercultural-
ism, research on interculturalism has not been explicitly responding to such call (Xu 2013).
The term transcultural, on the other hand, examines relationships that transcend com-
munities and essentialized cultures (Risager 2006; Pennycook 2007). Originally theorized
by Ortiz (1940/1995) to describe the ‘transmutation of culture’ in Cuba (98), transcultura-
tion has been adopted and interpreted by many scholars. Extending Pratt’s (1992)
interpretation of transculturation as ‘phenomenon of the contact zone’ (6) in language
learning and teaching, Zamel (1997) highlights individuals’ agentive work in transcultura-
tion: ‘Transculturation assumes and celebrates the selective, generative, and inventive
nature of linguistic and cultural adaptation and thus reflects precisely how languages
and cultures develop and change – infused, invigorated, and challenged by variation
and innovation’ (350). Given its focus on transcending boundaries, transcultural also
shares similarity with cosmopolitan dispositions. Stuart Hall (2002) argues:
We are drawing on the traces and residues of many cultural systems, of many ethical systems –
and that is precisely what cosmopolitanism means. It means the ability to stand outside of
having one’s life written and scripted by any one community … and to draw selectively on
a variety of discursive meanings. (26)

In other words, transculturalism involves situating oneself in liminal social spaces and
drawing from values and practices of diverse cultures to constantly reconstruct one’s iden-
tity and social belonging. Pennycook (2007) examines such practices through the notion of
transcultural flows, ‘the processes of borrowing, blending, remaking and returning’, or ‘pro-
cesses of alternative cultural production’ (6). Pennycook emphasizes how cultural forms
move across borders and also ‘change and are reused to fashion new identities in
diverse contexts’ through the case of English and hip-hop. In this sense, adopting a trans-
cultural positioning does not require leaving one’s usual habitation as text and media can
also introduce diverse cultures to people. What is critical is the imagined and virtual com-
munities people form beyond their rooted place to connect with others and treat their
relationships, investments, and experiences as occurring in a liminal space, leading to
transculturation. Given this definition, transculturalism ‘encourages analysis of phenom-
ena that question supposed boundaries’, the questioning which ‘insist[s] on the multipo-
larity, multiple perspectives, and transformative dynamics inherent to the research subject’
(König, Heidelberg, and Rakow 2016, 95).
As shown above, transculturalism is concerned with going beyond categories and
boundaries. To this end, we argue that translingualism offers a new perspective to con-
ceive language and literacy, decoupling the link between community and culture and
4 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

focusing on practices and processes rather than on product or form – the criticisms that
interculturalism and multiculturalism often receive. We turn to this discussion of translin-
gualism next.

The promise of translingualism

The way culture is conceptualized and represented has been also implicated in research
on linguistic difference and diversity in the US with the traditional assumption about
the relationship between culture and language. The European ‘Herderian Triad’ (Risager
2006), the link between one’s nationality, language, and identity, has solidified notions
of ownership and territorialization. Such a monolingual ideology is still well alive in research
on multiculturalism and interculturalism with a view towards language as a discrete, sep-
arate boundary. Just as multiculturalism reifies the cultural boundary, the term multilingual
views languages forming a repertoire while maintaining their separate status. Similarly,
terms such as code switching and code mixing, which conceptualize the interlingual
relationship between languages, also assume each language preserves its own structure,
autonomy, and separate identity.
Translingual, on the other hand, treats the notion of pure, standardized, or autonomous
languages as an ideological construct (Makoni and Pennycook 2006). This way, translingual
problematizes the concept of ownership of language and culture as well as its territoria-
lization, challenging the traditional dichotomy of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’, and
its connection to a particular nation-state. Instead, translingual considers the languages
in synergy, generating new forms and meanings in contact, and treats communication
as constituted by mobile verbal resources that are appropriated and fluidly used
beyond separate labels (Blommaert 2010). Thus, translingual processes characterize all
communicative practice even when the finished product may not seem codemeshed
(Young 2004; Canagarajah 2006) with different named languages. For example, one
might translate ideas and shuttle between languages mentally, even though the essay
is in a named language. The prefix ‘trans’ therefore indexes the verbal relationships that
transcend separately labeled languages or beyond words (i.e. multiple modalities
beyond the visual, and symbols from color, images, objects, and sound)1.
Moreover, the prefix can be understood as treating communication as transforming
established norms and relationships associated with a language (Canagarajah 2013). As
Bakhtin (1986) has stated, speaking involves populating words with one’s own intentions.
In each act of communication, speakers are reconfiguring contexts in order to represent
their own voices and interests, appropriating available semiotic resources and developing
new indexicalities for meanings and values that are more empowering and inclusive. For
example, non-native speakers of English might appropriate verbal resources from English
and use them creatively with their other repertoires for communicative success (see Cana-
garajah 2013; Lu 1994). This way, they might challenge notions of deficiency and construct
new identities beyond their unequal status. Therefore, translingual practices involve
reconfiguring contexts through critical and creative language use, rather than conforming
to dominant meanings, conventions, contexts and social relationships that can be disem-
powering or silencing.
In this sense, translingualism challenges not just the way language is conceptualized in
the West in a similar sense to ‘meaning-in-language’ (Shi-xu 2009) that focuses on the
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 5

form, and therefore, the way academic writing is performed, knowledge constructed in
and through English, but also assumptions rooted in the way cultural transition or trans-
formation takes place. Rather than expecting for the subordinate to conform to the domi-
nant cultural or linguistic practices, as often represented in intercultural policy or
education (see Liddicoat 2011), translingualism views such negotiation to occur in multi-
directional ways that honor and respect the history and identity of both interlocutors while
remaining open to new emerging cultural practices during the interaction.

The turn to dispositions

With the treatment of languages and cultures as verbs, processes or practices, and a focus
on the synergy between them that generates meanings and identities, there has also been
a turn to dispositions in humanities and social sciences. Particularly, given the conceptu-
alization of language beyond the western logocentric legacy in translingualism, where
readers or listeners are expected to draw on their semiotic resourcefulness as much as
the writers or speakers, dispositions bear a particular significance. Also, considering ‘the
myth of linguistic homogeneity’ (Matsuda 2006) in US college composition, where our
research pertains to, dispositions to linguistic and cultural diversity need more discussions.
Developed in relation to the notion of habitus, Bourdieu (1990) explains dispositions are
‘acquired through experience, thus variable according from place to place, time to time’ (9,
emphasis in the original). The ‘socially constituted’ dispositions, Bourdieu argues, in turn,
influence one’s action. Indeed, translingual scholars recognize that what enables people to
negotiate diverse codes in social interactions is not knowledge of separately structured
grammars but a set of dispositions that enable them to negotiate diversity, embrace crea-
tivity, and co-construct meanings in contemporary contexts of superdiversity (Canagarajah
2013). Similarly, scholars who adopt a transcultural orientation distinguish between prop-
ositional (i.e. a product-oriented understanding of cultures as essentialized features and
values) and procedural knowledge (i.e. a disposition to engage with diversity with tolerance
and openness, and construct new identities and relationships) (Byram 2008).
This evolving scholarship suggests that a person is able to engage in successful trans-
lingual practices if they come with suitable transcultural dispositions. Though this connec-
tion has not been discussed in those terms in the literature, diverse scholars have
articulated the place of dispositions in translingual writing (Lee and Jenks 2016; You
2016). Pointing out ‘listening’ as a less valued interpretive invention in Rhetoric and Com-
position, Ratcliffe (1999) emphasizes ‘rhetorical listening’ as ‘a code of cross-cultural
conduct’ (200), namely seeking for a space where rhetorical negotiation can take place,
thereby listening to the discourse ‘not for intent, but with intent’ (205). Therefore, rhetori-
cal listening foregrounds a willingness to change one’s footing to understand where he or
she ‘stands under’ or does not stand under as well as how one’s footing can position,
silence, and voice others.
Also emphasizing significance of dispositions in communication, Canagarajah (2006)
attributes psychological and attitudinal resources such as ‘patience, tolerance, and humi-
lity’ to success of multilinguals’ interaction in addition to their ‘curiosity towards the
language, the ability to intuit linguistic rules from observation of actual usage, a metalin-
guistic awareness of the system behind language’ (593). Labeling it ‘a cooperative disposi-
tion’, Canagarajah (2013) further theorizes this non-cognitive aspect of communication as
6 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

an important element in multilinguals’ ‘performative competence’ – a notion posited to

emphasize practice-based competence for multilinguals. Canagarajah’s model of coopera-
tive disposition includes language awareness (fluidity, functionality, and porosity of
language), social values (openness to diversity, willingness to collaborate, desire for
voice), and communicative strategies (adaptiveness, use of resources, learning from
experience).
Such dispositions are developed from various experiences where ‘multiplicity is a norm
and difference is inevitable’ (Lorimer Leonard 2014, 240). Lorimer Leonard views learning a
new literacy is about how one ‘come[s] to know – become[s] rhetorically attuned – over a
lifetime of communicating across difference’ and therefore developing an ‘understanding
that assumes multiplicity and invites the negotiation of meaning across difference’ (228).
Calling such disposition as ‘rhetorical attunement’, Lorimer Leonard emphasizes that both
the dispositions and ever-evolving repertoires are developed out of ongoing transcultural
experiences.
While studies above emphasize the significance of disposition, none of them illustrates
actual processes of how transcultural dispositions encourage translingual practices. The
only example that examines the connection between the two concepts is Canagarajah’s
(2016) interview-based study of African skilled migrants in Anglophone communities.
The skilled migrants in the study adopted intuitive strategies to negotiate meanings
with interlocutors from different languages and cultures; their everyday engagement
with neighbors had endowed them with transcultural dispositions friendly to translingual
practice. To further explore how transcultural dispositions shape translingual practice, we
now illustrate a case of a multilingual writer2, Koky. As this study emerges from a classroom
ethnography, we do not have access to Koky’s socialization outside his classroom.
However, we draw information from interview data to illuminate the dispositions that
explain his translingual writing practice.

Methods
This study draws on a larger ethnographic multiple-case study as it allows us to examine a
particular individual in a particular setting and his particular experience and interpretation
of the world. This is important in studying culture considering the dialectical relationship
between culture and individual. As Atkinson (2004) emphasizes, culture is instantiated in
individual lives, and it is their interpretation that makes up our understanding of culture.
We take a similar approach, and maintain a position that focusing on a single case allows
us to discuss the way individuals work with and stand above cultural categories more in
depth. Accordingly, we do not intend to generalize our claim about learning academic
writing. We chose Koky’s case as his case best illustrates the relationship between the
two concepts, transcultural dispositions and translingual practices.
Data were collected in an academic writing class at an intensive language program in a
Northeast US University in Fall, 2015. The course was designed to help students familiarize
themselves with conventions and expectations in academic literacies in US higher edu-
cation settings. The class included 14 students from Middle East, Uruguay, and Czech
Republic with a variety of experiences in school and work. Accordingly, these students
brought different academic and professional goals, from enrolling in college to learning
English for professional settings. This variety helped us study how students differently
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 7

understood academic writing in English, which itself is a particular cultural practice, and
negotiated different motivations towards learning English. Adopting ethnographic
methods, various forms of data were collected, through classroom observations, five
semi-structured interviews, audio- and video-recorded classroom interaction, and
textual artifacts that these students engaged with such as drafts of writing and instruc-
tional materials. The interview questions included the participants’ previous and then-
current communicative and social experience, thoughts, attitudes, values, and goals in
learning and using different languages and literacies as a writer and a language user.
We analyzed the data following a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998),
focusing on Koky’s textual negotiations (Canagarajah 2013). We started with an open
coding, trying to find emerging themes in data, and then we tried to identify different cat-
egories based on the connections between the patterns. Adopting constant comparison
methods, the different patterns were constantly compared within and across data sets.
Any emerging themes guided the data collection and also were confirmed by the partici-
pants themselves during the interview. In order to examine how Koky negotiated
language difference in his writing, we adopted Canagarajah’s (2013) negotiation strategies
classifications, which was also informed by Byram’s (2008) model, to understand how Koky
negotiates language and rhetorical difference with his teacher and peers, and what he
achieves through such negotiation. This meant that our reading of Koky’s writing was
also guided by our effort to incorporate his personal history, values, personality, and
other practices that shaped his historicities into our analysis, beyond the textual form as
well as the personal relationship the first author has built over the last three years
during and after the data collection for the study. Below, we share Koky’s dispositions
and negotiation of multiple languages and cultures intertwined with these languages in
his learning of academic writing.

Koky’s transcultural disposition and translingual practices

Originally from the Czech Republic, Koky came to the US with his family in Fall, 2014. Koky
was not a typical student in the program considering his age (in his 40s) and his disinterest
in pursuing an academic degree. Hoping to acquire a work visa and obtain residency in the
US, Koky wanted to improve his English for his career.
Koky was also unusual among other multilingual students in demonstrating a greater
degree of transcultural dispositions based on his life experiences. Koky stated he ‘used
only Czech language growing up’, influenced by the political history of communism in
then Czechoslovakia during his childhood (Interview #1). Although Koky learned Russian
at school, he did not consider this experience as ‘real’ language learning because he
‘didn’t really use the language. I listen, teacher talk some words’. Perhaps not surprisingly,
Koky described his Russian ability as ‘not much’ since he ‘forgot the Russian language very
much because I didn’t use it much’ despite his ability to understand it when he travels. As
hinted in this self-evaluation, Koky focused on the functionality of the language, and he
showed a similar attitude in learning English; he was less concerned about the form
and accuracy and more about his communicability: ‘I know it’s not the correct, but it
doesn’t matter for me. One year ago, I wasn’t able to speak with anybody because I
didn’t understand, but right now I almost understand, and I always say what I’d like to
say.’ Koky acknowledges that his language may be inaccurate at times, but ‘it doesn’t
8 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

matter’ for him. What matters to him is that he can communicate – both being understood
and being able to say what he wants.
Koky demonstrated a functionalist disposition to writing as well. He described writing
as an essential part of his career as a self-employed electrician and plumber, explaining
‘the work don’t fall from the sky’ (Interview #1). Although ‘it’s not essay[,] like in school’,
Koky wrote extensively while negotiating many factors such as the demand of his custo-
mer, the best approach to the issue, and cost for his work. Furthermore, Koky had to be
rhetorically savvy in order to compete against bids from other electricians while using
the language his prospective clients can understand. In other words, Koky needed to con-
stantly negotiate different constraints as a self-employed entrepreneur. Such social and
communicative interactions appear to have developed a transcultural disposition for
negotiating with diverse interlocutors, modalities, and literacies.
Koky also showed a critical disposition towards language boundaries. During an inter-
view, Koky commented how he learned a new word in Czech while reading an article in
English.
I don’t know some words in English, and so I tried to use the translator, and the translator gives
me exactly the same word in my language. I said, well nice. ahahahaha I have to find what’s
the meaning of this word in my language! … of course in my language, there are words from
other languages, but I don’t know every words in my language, probably no one can know in
his original language. you learn all the life. (Interview #2)

While looking up a word, he realized that the word is also shared in Czech, then acknowl-
edging that Czech shares many words from other languages. In fact, during the member-
check, Koky stated that there were many incidents like above where he realized some
words can cross the boundaries of the two languages (English and Czech) and many
more (French, German, and others). This acknowledgment shows that Koky understands
that language boundaries are not strict but more fluid and porous, and that the Czech
language is already ‘translingual’, having elements borrowed from other languages. As
Koky learns a new academic word in English, he learns a new word in Czech, blurring
which word or language he is learning in this case. Similarly, he cannot pinpoint by
what named languages his repertoire is constituted. Koky’s critical disposition is also
well reflected in his belief that no one can have a full proficiency just because of native-
speakership; rather, proficiency is achieved through a lifelong process of exploring and
learning. He understands that the semiotic repertoire is built with historicities of different
semiotic systems (Blommaert 2010; Busch 2017; Kramsch and Whiteside 2008), including
values and ideologies embedded and experienced by the individuals. This semiotic
process therefore can lead to conflicts with a new semiotic system in one’s learning
process, as Koky’s frustration with English academic writing will be shown below.
His workplace experience together with his critical dispositions might have prepared
Koky to negotiate different constraints while learning English in the US. With his position-
ing as an older student who plans to work as an electrician, Koky actively negotiated the
demand from assignments geared towards academic literacies. For instance, instead of
observing classes, interviewing professors, and analyzing syllabi, Koky observed a local
work site and interviewed an electrician. His willingness to negotiate was also well demon-
strated in his sensitivity to language difference, particularly in terms of ‘who is responsible
in making meaning across?’ Koky understood that the reader has to negotiate in reaching
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 9

the meaning as much as the writer, and therefore, the relationship between the reader and
the writer is ‘less arrogant’ and condescending in Czech writing. With Koky’s generalization
of Czech writing culture aside, Koky found the expectation on the writer to make meaning
explicit in English academic writing ‘very boring’ (Interview #1). Indeed, Koky had often
made comments such as ‘this stupid academic writing’ (fieldnotes, 23 September 2015)
in his class. In contrast to most students in the course who considered their other reper-
toires irrelevant or a bad communicative strategy in learning English, Koky constantly com-
pared Czech and English writing. This comparison seemed to help develop some
metalinguistic observations and rhetorical sensitivity, which would contribute to
forming dispositions that rise above the individual languages and communities.
Recognizing the difference between academic writing in English and his Czech writing
throughout the semester, Koky gradually negotiated language difference through translin-
gual practice. Compared to his initial attempt to make his writing sound more ‘academic’
by replacing his ‘normal words’ with incomprehensible ones (Interview #2) at the begin-
ning of the semester, Koky showed increasing textual negotiations throughout different
assignments. His research paper exemplifies such an attempt. The assignment asked stu-
dents to write on a topic in their academic discipline with a particular research question. As
Koky was not pursuing any postsecondary degree nor identified himself as ‘academic’, he
decided to write a paper on an issue he was interested in as a hunter himself – namely,
how to obtain a gun as a foreigner in the US. Koky’s paper explains his attempts to
read and interpret the law to determine his eligibility for purchasing guns. Particularly,
Koky decided to make his writing more enjoyable, by writing the paper ‘like a story’
with a humor while ‘fulfill[ing] … expectation’ (Interview #3).

Excerpt 1. Beginning of Koky’s paper

The right to keep and bear arms is one of the fundamental rights every American. The 2nd Amendment express: ‘A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed’. Based on this quotation, every adult citizen can buy an unlimited number of weapons and
ammunition for his own use, and exploit it for personal protection, target shooting or hunting. I will not criticize or
defend the controversial law which has been repeatedly debated in the Senate across the political spectrum, even not
focus on President Obama’s efforts to restrict this right. I would like focus on the possibility of obtaining a firearm for a
man or woman who is not US citizen, but have in the USA a legal status.
I found wording of the law that says on the pages ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)
‘An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving,
or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922
(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official
representatives of a foreign government or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government
entering the United States on official law enforcement business’. Other words, I cannot buy the gun in the USA except a
few exceptions above. Some people might declare that my survey ended before it could even begin, but I was not
satisfied with a simple statement and I tried to look more to depth.

As shown in Exerpt 1, Koky renegotiates the demanding assignment in a more ‘fun’ and
‘enjoyable’ manner by drawing on various rhetorical strategies. First, Koky fulfills common
expectations in the introduction of academic papers; he introduces the topic (guns in
general, and then gun control vs. right issue in the US) and situates the issue within a par-
ticular context (recent controversy around gun control in the US). Before stating his thesis
statement (italicized), he claims the ‘non-typicalness’ of his essay – a unique story with
something to contribute to other foreign US residents’ knowledge. This ‘recontextualiza-
tion strategy’ (Canagarajah 2013) not only help set his writing apart from other essays
10 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

but also prepare the readers for the upcoming text in alignment with its distinctive tone
and stance.
After his introduction, Koky lays the groundwork for the overall structure of his paper.
Koky builds his ethos as an informed writer while constructing a narrative and investiga-
tive voice. First, Koky presents research on the gun acquisition in the US, using a direct
quote from ATF and interpreting the law to prove to the readers that ‘[he] read all the
difficult law language for hours’ (Interview #3). Koky also builds up a bit of drama by
shaping somewhat unexpected first finding from the research, namely his ineligibility to
purchase a gun as a non-US citizen. To this, Koky preemptively ensures his readers that
he ‘tried to look more to depth’ without giving up and asks them to join his journey.
Doing so constructs a hint of narrative and investigative voice, which we might call his
‘envoicing strategy’ (Canagarajah 2013).

Excerpt 2. Third body paragraph of Koky’s paper

Another option that I found was to be a holder of the green card. The holder of the green card is not alien with
nonimmigrant status, he is immigrant with permission to live and work in the United States and as well as a citizen this
holder has same rights include to buy and bear the firearms. Unfortunately again I am not the holder of the green card,
maybe in the future or never. Quién Sabe? I have to try to look for something else.

In the rest of the papers, Koky’s hybrid voice emerges more explicitly as we will demon-
strate from Excerpt 2. Koky maintains the narrative and investigative voice, while following
the structure of academic research paper; second and third paragraphs follow the struc-
ture of first presenting legal conditions and concluding with Koky’s interpretation and jud-
gement of whether his current status meets the condition to acquire a gun. In addition to
the narrative, personal, and academic voices, Koky makes the hybridity of his writing more
visible at the discourse level through his codemeshing of a Spanish phrase, Quién Sabe. As
revealed during the interview, Quién Sabe (roughly translated as ‘who knows?’) is a phrase
that he used with his friends in Czechoslovakia to describe a precarious life as a business
contractor – ’no one knows what will happen tomorrow’, he often commented on his life
in the US and general. Here, Koky utilizes an ‘entextualization strategy’ (Canagarajah 2013),
marking the different ‘code’ from English by making the phrase bold. Koky’s codemeshing
creates a sense of humor in his text. When asked if he knew his instructor would under-
stand what that phrase meant, he said, ‘no, but you know, she always looks up if there’s
anything she doesn’t understand, like she does in classroom’ (Interview #4).
That Koky’s negotiation strategies, endowed by his dispositions, were successful is
proven through enthusiastic responses from his instructor, Daphne, as well as his peers.
Daphne, who emphasized rhetorical autonomy as well as creativity of students, compli-
mented Koky’s ability for showing more than his knowledge of structure of language.
Calling the work, ‘perfection’, Daphne commented, ‘it demonstrates a different level of
proficiency’ with his ability to ‘manipulate the language … breaking the rule, know[ing]
when and how to do it … shows a higher level of proficiency’ (Interview #4). Daphne’s
comments on Koky’s grammar reflects her dispositions as well: ‘they are very minor
errors. None of the errors caused confusion about the meaning of your work. These
kinds of errors are expected in everyone’s work’ (Teacher Feedback, 15 November
2015). We must note that Daphne was receptive to Koky’s translingual practice and co-
constructed meanings effectively with him because of her own transcultural dispositions.
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 11

Though valuing normativity might be common in a US university, she was more tolerant,
receptive, and willing to negotiate, as stipulated by ‘rhetorical listening’ (Ratcliffe 1999).
Koky’s subsequent writing also drew enthusiastic responses from some of his peers.
Joseph and Eizan, who had demonstrated quite a normative view towards language
and writing – to the extent that they once called Koky’s writing ‘wrong’ and ‘not academic
writing’ – both responded very positively. When asked about Koky’s writing, Joseph
answered that he was pleasantly surprised. Joseph continued, ‘when I read [koky’s]
paper and so like he concluded with his own opinion and how to solve it? I thought
that was wrong … but now I think I can try it’ (Interview #3). Eizan, who attempted to
rewrite Koky’s ‘unconventional’ writing himself earlier in the semester, responded with
an equal excitement: He said, ‘I could hear his voice … It was brilliant because it just
makes sense and flows well, and was just him’ (Interview #4). They learn that the voices
of authors are different and unique, and they need to be respected. Also importantly,
such successful uptake of Koky’s translingual practice shows that dispositions matter.
His own transcultural dispositions challenged his peers through his translingual texts
that can facilitate the more collaborative meaning-making activity.

Koky’s transcultural and translingual negotiation

The analysis illustrated how Koky’s transcultural dispositions helped him to engage in the
translingual practice. His transcultural dispositions led him to observe language difference
and carefully negotiate the difference; Koky drew on his entire semiotic repertoire across
named languages and rhetorical traditions against the backdrop of the monolingual ideol-
ogy dominant in academic writing in the US, hoping to create something ‘better’ for both
himself and his readers (Interview #3). Throughout this process, Koky not only shuttled
between different communities of academic writers and non-academic people and their
practices, but also created a space for his transcultural belonging; he not only navigated
a complex web of semiotic repertoires while negotiating with others but also constructed
a new meaning-making possibility by connecting multiple ‘differences’ and occupying this
seeming ‘chasm’ between differences. The way Koky inhabited this space was contingent
upon his historicities, goals, and subjectivities as a person with transcultural dispositions
(Kramsch and Whiteside 2008).
Also noteworthy is performative potentials of Koky’s practice. To most of the students
eager to learn how to write like ‘Americans’, ‘native speakers’, or ‘the best way’, Koky’s
writing provides an example of transcultural belonging in a seemingly monolingual and
monocultural space of academic writing in English. In this sense, Koky’s enactment of
his rhetorical abilities was performative, transformatively constructing a space for others
to develop suitable transcultural dispositions. This resonates with ‘translanguaging
space’ (Li 2011) – that the act of translanguaging creates a space where one’s creativity
and criticality are manifested and interlocutors change their footing for negotiation and
their dispositions. Koky challenges a dominantly monolingual and monocultural space,
and his practice invites other students and teacher to reflect on their own disposition
towards different norms and expectations while learning so-called English academic
writing culture. As shown earlier, other students who initially held a more conservative atti-
tude towards language use realized that meaning-making in academic writing can be
done while capitalizing their semiotic repertoire.
12 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

Also importantly, such practice is further promoted by others who hold similar dispo-
sitions. Daphne’s willingness to be ‘rhetorically attuned’ (Lorimer Leonard 2014) to
Koky’s writing led her to take efforts to understand the purpose of this ‘different’
paper through her translingual practice. In other words, the success of Koky’s writing
was co-constructed between Koky and Daphne with their transcultural disposition to
language use and willingness to understand each other in a given space. Their transcul-
tural dispositions allow them to attend to ‘historical and cultural context and not just
text, to personality and deeds and not just words, to intuition, imagination and moral
values and not just apparent forms’ (Shi-xu 2009, 35). This point reinforces the signifi-
cance of a dialogic approach to study interculturality that allows a situated and local
analysis of interactional spaces.
To summarize, transcultural and translingual approaches illuminate a co-constructed,
emergent, generative nature of interculturality rather than treating culture as given,
priori, and essentialized products. The approaches allow us to attend to how individuals
negotiate multiple, and at times, conflicting expectations and norms in language and cul-
tural practices for their own voice and identity beyond the limiting cultural categories and
boundaries. In turn, the trans-approaches enable us to appreciate how such negotiation
leads to new practices, which interculturalism and multiculturalism often do not highlight.
Koky’s transcultural dispositions, translingual practices, and what emerges as a result
cannot be productively discussed in terms of interculturalism or multiculturalism. Nor
can we accurately explain his conceptualization of and relationship with multiple
labeled languages and literacies with the monolingual ideology undergirding multilingu-
alism. Transcultural and translingual approaches, therefore, provide a framework to
examine ever-evolving semiotic repertoire and landscapes that shape individuals’ reper-
toire in the era of transnational mobility.

Conclusion
This article discussed the relationship between the two terms through a case study of Koky
and argued for transcultural and translingual as a valuable lens to study interculturality. As
shown above, transculturalism and translingualism provide a useful analytical tool for
understanding the difference and diversity in society by highlighting the (co-)constructed,
negotiable, and therefore, performative nature of language and literacy and what drives
such negotiation (Canagarajah 2013; García and Li 2014; Horner et al. 2011). The genera-
tive potential of Koky’s transcultural dispositions also highlights the significance of trans-
approaches in challenging inequalities. While both multicultural and intercultural lenses
provide an important starting point for understanding inequalities in different social
spaces, these terms are still grounded in the traditional view of the monolingual and
monocultural nation-state, thereby viewing difference as a problem. The monolingual
bias shapes the dominant cultural group as one with semiotic legitimacy, and therefore,
positions minoritized groups as one responsible for negotiating linguistic and rhetorical
difference by conforming to the dominant social norms. Unlike multicultural and intercul-
tural, transcultural and translingual paradigms challenge the monolingual and monocul-
tural ideology and ask us to understand all parties, rather than minoritized ones, to be
responsible for the negotiation, and therefore, social interaction and order as negotiable
and dynamic. In this sense, transcultural and translingual approaches urge us to remain
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 13

open-minded to the possibility of a new social order to emerge from such interaction and
see the ability to negotiate as important competence.
Finally, it is in this sense that a transcultural paradigm helps us to stretch the very bound-
aries of the legitimacy of knowledge that research on interculturality delineates by high-
lighting phenomena that ‘stand between’ various cultural milieus (König, Heidelberg, and
Rakow 2016, 94). Scholars in Cultural Discourse Studies have been working towards the
goal of ‘a culturally conscious, critical and creative form of discourse and communication
scholarship that helps with the co-existence, harmony and prosperity of human commu-
nities’ (Shi-xu 2016, 6). And we believe that transcultural and translingual approaches
encourage us to take multiple perspectives in questioning how valid, legitimate, and rel-
evant knowledge is defined by drawing from fields such as rhetoric, composition, applied
linguistics, and cultural studies. This way, transculturalism and translingualism allow us to
stretch the disciplinary boundary and engage in knowledge making process in a more
reflexive and critical manner. Going forward, we have to take our inquiry outside the class-
room and consider how people develop transcultural dispositions and what implications
such dispositions have for successful negotiation of translingual practice. Though writing
scholars have discussed dispositions in terms of language and literacy negotiations, we
hope that scholars would expand their context and consider how people’s histories and
socialization over diverse scales of time and space develop transcultural dispositions that
facilitate their translingual practices. We need more studies of this nature to explore how
a focus on translingual dispositions can contribute to discourses on difference and diversity.

Notes
1. It is important to emphasize that translingual practices are not a new phenomenon, while
emerging discussions around transcultural and translingual scholarship have been developed
around the postmodern conditions. Rather, translingual practices have existed for a long time
in Asian communities. See Canagarajah (2013) on translingual practices in South Asia. See
García and Leiva (2014) on the influence of Latin American scholars on the theoretical back-
ground of translinguaism.
2. In this paper, we use ‘multilingual’ to refer to people, and ‘translingual’ for their practice.

Notes on contributors
Eunjeong Lee recently earned a PhD in Applied Linguistics at Pennsylvania State University and will
start a new position as an Assistant Professor in English at Queens College, Fall, 2018. Her research
interests include translingualism, Global Englishes, composition pedagogy for multilingual writers,
and transnational literacy practices.
Suresh Canagarajah is the Erle Sparks Professor and Director of the Migration Studies Project at
Pennsylvania State University. He teaches World Englishes, Second Language Writing, and Postcolo-
nial Studies in the departments of English and Applied Linguistics. One of his recent publications,
Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations (Routledge, 2013), won the best
book award from AAAL, BAAL, and MLA. He was formerly the editor of TESOL Quarterly and President
of the American Association of Applied Linguistics.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
14 E. LEE AND S. CANAGARAJAH

ORCID
Eunjeong Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2310-5935
Suresh Canagarajah http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1292-2366

References
Atkinson, D. 2004. Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: why contrastive rhetoric needs a better
conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 277–289.
Bakhtin, M.M. 1986. The dialogic imagination: four essays. Ed. M. Holoquist; Trans. C. Emerson and M.
Holoquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Busch, B. 2017. Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of spracherleben –
the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics 38, no. 3: 340–358.
Byram, M. 2008. From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: essays and
reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. 2012. Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citi-
zenship. In Routledge handbook of intercultural communication, ed. J. Jackson, 85–97. New York:
Routledge.
Canagarajah, A.S. 2006. The place of world Englishes in composition: pluralization continued. College
Composition and Communication 57, no. 4: 586–619.
Canagarajah, A.S. 2013. Translingual practice: global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York:
Routledge.
Canagarajah, A.S. 2016. Translingual practices and neoliberal policies: attitudes and strategies of African
skilled migrants in anglophone workplaces. Berlin: Springer.
Castles, S. 2000. Ethnicity and globalization: from migrant worker to transnational citizen. London:
Sage.
Claudia, B. 2017. Is there really a need for assessing intercultural competence?: Some ethical issues.
Journal of Intercultural Communication no. 44.
Dervin, F. 2011. A plea for change in research on intercultural discourses: A ‘liquid’ approach to the
study of the acculturation of Chinese students. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6, no. 1: 37–52.
García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
García, O., and C. Leiva. 2014. Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In
Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy, ed. A. Blackledge and A. Creese, 199–216. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Guilherme, M., and G. Dietz. 2015. Difference in diversity: multiple perspectives on multicultural,
intercultural, and transcultural conceptual complexities. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 10,
no. 1: 1–21.
Hall, S. 2002. Political belonging in a world of multiple identities. In Conceiving cosmopolitanism, ed. S.
Vertovec and R. Cohen, 25–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, S., and B. Street. 2008. On ethnography: On approaches to language and literacy research.
New York: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College.
Horner, B., M. Lu, J. Royster, and J. Trimbur. 2011. Language differences in writing: toward a translin-
gual approach. College English 73, no. 3: 299–317.
König, D.G., R. Heidelberg, and K. Rakow. 2016. The transcultural approach within a disciplinary fra-
mework: An introduction. Transcultural Studies 2: 89–100.
Kramsch, C., and A. Whiteside. 2008. Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a theory of
symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics 29, no. 4: 645–671.
Lavanchy, A., A. Gajardo, and F. Dervin. 2011. Interculturality at stake. In Politics of interculturality, ed.
A. Gajardo and A. Lavanchy, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
 JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 15

Lee, J., and C. Jenks. 2016. Doing translingual dispositions: considerations from a US–Hong Kong
partnership. College Composition and Communication 68, no. 2: 317–344.
Leonard, R.L. 2014. Multilingual writing as rhetorical attunement. College English 76, no. 3: 227–247.
Li, W. 2011. Moment analysis and translanguaging space: discursive construction of identities by mul-
tilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43, no. 5: 1222–1235.
Liddicoat, A.J. 2011. Language-in-education policies as discourses of the intercultural. In Politics of
interculturality, ed. A. Gajardo and A. Lavanchy, 205–224. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Lu, M. 1994. Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition
and Communication 45, no. 4: 442–458.
Makoni, S., and A. Pennycook. 2006. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. New York: Multilingual
Matters.
Matsuda, P.K. 2006. The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English
68, no. 6: 637–651.
Ortiz, F. 1995. Cuban counterpoint: tobacco and sugar. Trans. H. Onís. Durham: Duke University Press.
(Original work published in 1940).
Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge.
Pratt, M.L. 1992. Imperial eyes: travel writing and transculturation. London: Routledge.
Ratcliffe, K. 1999. Rhetorical listening: A trope for interpretive invention and a ‘code of cross-cultural
conduct’. College Composition and Communication 51: 195–224.
Risager, K. 2006. Language and culture: global flows and local complexity. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Shi-xu. 2009. Reconstructing eastern paradigms of discourse studies. Journal of Multicultural
Discourses 4, no. 1: 29–48.
Shi-xu. 2016. Cultural discourse studies through the journal of multicultural discourses: 10 years on.
Journal of Multicultural Discourses 11, no. 1: 1–8.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. London: SAGE.
Xu, K. 2013. Theorizing difference in intercultural communication: A critical dialogic perspective.
Communication Monographs 80, no. 3: 379–397.
You, X. 2016. Cosmopolitan English and transliteracy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Young, V.A. 2004. Your average nigga. College Composition and Communication 55, no. 4: 693–715.
Zamel, V. 1997. Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly 31, no. 2: 341–352.