Before venturing into a discussion of the text and Bou Ayash’s argumentation it is

important to note that this text “Language Ideologies in Teaching Writing” is the first chapter of

a larger book Toward Translingual Realities in Composition. As such, it is possible and

probable, that Bou Ayash answers questions asked, and addresses concerns raised at later points

in the text.

Bou Ayash’s views on the three Language Ideologies are presented clearly and early. The

author opposes the ideologies Monolingualism and Multilingualism – which she finds to be

problematic – and instead proposes the elevation of Translingual ideologies both in academia

and education.

Bou Ayash’s argument may be first noticeable in the adjectives assigned to the

ideologies. Monolingual is first labeled as dominant and then later as hegemonic – both terms

carry with them significant negative connotations – while multilingualism is branded as

alternative. In contrast, translingualism is labeled as counterhegemonic – a term which carries

with it a positive connotation.

Fortunately, Bou Ayash does not characterize the text as impartial expressly stating that

she will “be arguing against some of these orientations to language.” Her critiques of

monolingualism are strong and plentiful.

Monolingualism depicts language as fixed, unchanging, and universal. Bou Ayash notes

that to do so, proponents of monolingualism, must ignore the historical and contemporary

interaction and exchange of terms, concepts, and phrases between languages.

This is especially true when considering the modern English language, which has evolved

as it’s speakers have been introduced to other languages through trade, war, and migration.
Indeed, approximately 29% of the English language is derived from French dialects, largely due

to William the Conquerors takeover of England.

Consideration of historical evidence alongside Bou Ayash’s claim makes defense of the

monolinguistic view of language as timeless, untouchable, and universal difficult.

Bou Ayash further critiques monolingualism, suggesting that it punishes and eliminates

“any traces of language difference or lack of conformity” by branding them as “signs of

unwitting technical failure or ignorance.” It is further stated that monolingualism does so, in the

name of “false ideals of the homogeneity, universality, and stability of language.”

This argument offered by Bou Ayash, is less grounded in concrete evidence, and could

reasonably be classified as opinion rather than analysis. Indeed, much of Bou Ayash’s text could

be presented as opinion rather than research.

Multilingualism, similarly, is attacked by Bou Ayash. Bou Ayash praises Multilingual

for abandoning the notion of language as static and uniform. However, she objects to its

treatment of the dominant language (in this case English) as a self-contained, closed of entity. As

such, she finds that the languages and the sociocultural identities tied to them – are seen and

treated in accordance with dominant monolingual representations. She further Multilingualism to

lead to territorialization of language.

Finally, she critiques Multilingualism, for failing to consider sociocultural conditions

alongside the “constant intermingling, interweaving, and interpenetration of languages” and the

resultant lack of recognition for cultural, sociopolitical, and economic fluctuations.

In short Bou Ayash argues that Multilingualism presents “language resources and

practices as discrete possessions to be “picked up or eliminated”, left behind, or “completely put

aside.”
Thus, Bou Ayash calls for translingualism. Ayash’s writing assigns to Translingualism a

host of benefits. The “counterhegemonic ideology of Translingualism” is said to

“problematize and disrupt” the issues of internalization and systematicity found in

existing mono and multi linguistic assumptions of language. Further, it allows for the

acceptance of deviations from linguistic norms – which in turn allows for the acceptance

of those social components linked to the language characteristics that were previously

dismissed or opposed. In short, Translingualism promotes linguistic diversity – and by

extension social diversity, while monolingualism and Multilingualism do not.

Bou Ayash presents a convincing case for Translingualism. However, no case is

presented against it. Alternative theories are presented and discussed, but no

consideration is given to multilingualism and monolinguist arguments against

translingual. This raises several questions regarding the author’s positionality, and it’s

influence on the text. To the members of this group, at least, it hints at the possibility of

biased source selection and lowers the receptibility of the text.