Germanic Intercomprehension: How to Teach 6 Germanic Languages Together

1 IntroductionThe rise of English as an international lingua franca has placed a series of demands on teachers of English to speakers of other languages around the world. Today, more and more teaching contexts around the globe are impacted by two important developments: on the one hand, the increasingly complex global English language phenomenon (Crystal, 2003); on the other hand, the increasing cultural diversity of many societal contexts and the implications this may have for the use of English in those contexts (Canagarajah, 2007). Both perspectives give rise to an awareness of the function of English beyond that which is controlled by its native speakers. Such functions can refer to intemational-intercultural interactions, which emphasize communication between speakers of the language, and intranational-multicultural interactions, which emphasize younger people's familiarization with English (through the Internet, gaming, the social media, etc.) and the use of it as a neutral means of communication even within the same society (Fay et al., 2010; Sifakis, 2009).In this chapter, we focus on how these developments have impacted the teaching of pronunciation. Our focus is going to be teaching contexts that have traditionally been labeled (English as a foreign language) contexts. The reason for doing so is because (a) these contexts are typically populated by non-native speakers of English who had to learn the language through some form of formal schooling and (b) it is in these contexts where English is used as a lingua franca by speakers of other languages. Pronunciation teaching offers many opportunities for studying the global spread of English, for the following reasons: (a) pronunciation can be seen as a way of identifying learners' proficiency and communicational effectiveness; (b) it is tightly linked to speakers' identity and can shed light on their perceptions about the ideal speaker; (c) it inhabits spoken communication, which has been the main habitat of most of ELF (English as a lingua franca) research. Our interest is the teaching of pronunciation and, in particular, the knowledge, skills and attitudes teachers need to have in order to teach ELF pronunciation.In what follows, we begin with suggesting a distinction between a traditional and a paradigm. We will briefly offer a description of the different characteristics of these paradigms with regard to teachers' required knowledge, skills and attitudes about English language teaching. In the following section, we will focus on pronunciation and its role within the EFL and post-EFL paradigm, in terms of both language use and learning. In the final section, we will draw implications for teacher education programmes wanting to incorporate an ELF pronunciation component in the post-EFL paradigm.2 EFL and contexts and pronunciation teachingEFL contexts are typically described as environments in which English is taught as a foreign language to speakers for whom it has no immediate fonction within their society. The English varieties favoured in these environments, which are also known as Expanding Circle contexts (Kachru, 1985), very much 'depend' on Inner-Circle norms, in the sense that the uses of English and the various competences of native speakers are a measure against which correct, appropriate and effective language communication of EFL users is generally gauged (Zhiming, 2003). The relations between language-based and cultural phenomena in the learners' home society and in the target society are crosscultural (Fay et al., 2010). EFL environments are also typically characterized as high-stakes examination contexts, where learners expect to be specifically trained to sit and pass certain, purposedriven, proficiency exams (such certification is usually demanded for entrance into tertiary education courses).Post-EFL contexts can be described as environments in which English is seen as a medium of both inter-national and intra-national interactions. …

Este estudo focaliza o municipio de Marechal Cândido Rondon, localizado no Oeste do Parana, que foi povoado em 1950 por imigrantes e seus descendentes, na maioria, de origem etnica cultural alema, procedentes de diversas regioes da Alemanha e de paises europeus, cuja lingua falada e/era o alemao. A proposta deste trabalho e refletir e analisar como a performance sociolinguistica de um humorista local reproduz o estereotipo do “alemao colono”, tendo como corpus de analise um texto de uma propaganda televisiva que o personagem fez referente a uma campanha de prevencao contra a proliferacao do mosquito da dengue. Conhecido em varias regioes do Brasil, o humorista realiza a negociacao de uma identidade alema local, valendo-se de estrategias fonologicas, lexicais, tematicas e simbolicas, que podem estigmatizar o falar alemao e, por extensao, os seus falantes. Assim, em um primeiro momento, neste trabalho, sao trazidas algumas consideracoes sobre como as relacoes historicas entre os alemaes e o Brasil se intensificaram com a imigracao alema, iniciada efetivamente em 1824, e como se deu o processo de colonizacao germânica de Marechal Cândido Rondon, para, apos, analisar, a luz da sociolinguistica e de estudos sobre variacao linguistica, a atuacao do personagem e a relacao disso com a comunidade local alema. Como resultado, verifica-se a reproducao de violencia simbolica com os falantes desse grupo social minoritario, homogeneizando-os, e levando os seus ouvintes ao riso pela associacao da forma de falar a uma representacao estereotipada de alemao colono, grosso, sem instrucao, sem saberes valorizados. Como conclusao, destaca-se que o reconhecimento da diversidade dos aspectos sociais da cultura e lingua alemas se constitui como uma das metas para a valorizacao do bilinguismo local e a diminuicao do estigma na macrorregiao dos falantes de alemao/portugues.Palavras-chave: imigrante, estereotipo, estigma, lingua e cultura alema.

Human natural languages come in two forms: spoken languages and signed languages, which are the visual-gestural languages used mainly by Deaf communities. Modern signed language linguistics only began around 1960. Studies have shown that signed languages share similarities with spoken languages at all levels of linguistic description, but that modality—whether vocal-auditory or visual-gestural—plays a role in some of the differences between spoken and signed languages. For example, signed languages show a more simultaneous organization than spoken languages, and iconicity and the use of space play a more important role. The study of signed languages is therefore an important addition to our knowledge of human language in general. Based on the research already carried out, it seems that different signed languages are structurally more similar to each other than different spoken languages. The striking similarities between signed languages have been attributed to several factors, including the affordances of the visual-gestural modality. However, more recent research has also shown differences between signed languages. Some of these may be due to independent diachronic changes in individual signed languages, others to influences from spoken languages. Indeed, for most signed languages there is an intensive contact with at least one, and sometimes several, spoken languages, which undoubtedly influence the signed languages, especially at the lexical level. However, the influence, whether lexical or grammatical, has been explored to a limited extent. It is particularly interesting to examine the extent to which unrelated signed languages are similar and different, and whether contact with the surrounding spoken languages plays a role in this. Danish Sign Language and Flemish Sign Language are two signed languages that are not related. By contrast, Danish and Dutch both belong to the Germanic language family, Danish as a North Germanic language, Dutch as a West Germanic language. Some of the features shared by the two signed languages can be explained as modality dependent: they both use spatial morphology to express agreement and complex verbs of motion and location, and both use nonmanual features, that is, facial expression, gaze direction, and head movement, to express, for instance, topicalization and clause boundaries. Other shared features may not be explained as modality dependent in any straightforward way; this is the case with their preference for sentence-final repetition of pronouns and verbs. Moreover, the two signed languages share features that distinguish them from most Germanic languages: they lack a clear subject category and prototypical passive constructions, and they do not have V2-organization with the finite verb in the second position of declarative clauses. Much more research, especially research based on large annotated corpora, is needed to clarify the reasons why unrelated signed languages share many grammatical features, and the influences from spoken languages on signed languages.

German loanwords in Varaždin vernacular

African languages have played an important role in the development of linguistic theory but their role in the fields of historical linguistics and linguistic typology has been less prominent. Africa’s linguistic diversity has been long underestimated given the dominance of the four-family model proposed by Joseph Greenberg. Criticism of this model has long held among specialists in some of Africa’s smaller and lesser-known language families, but has only recently become more widely acknowledged among linguists. Archaeologists, geneticists, and others continue to model African prehistory based on African linguistic classifications, which are outdated and which have failed to withstand scrutiny. This teaching and learning guide suggests a program to train scholars in recognizing and evaluating the standards by which various African language classifications have been made. Africa’s linguistic diversity will be shown to be far greater than what is suggested by the four-family model.

Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments

06–208Bertinetto, Pier Marco (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy; bertinetto@sns.it) & Michele Loporcaro, The sound pattern of Standard Italian, as compared with the varieties spoken in Florence, Milan and Rome. Journal of the International Phonetic Association (Cambridge University Press) 35.1 (2005), 131–151.06–209Bruton, Anthony (U Seville, Spain; abruton@siff.us.es), Process writing and communicative-task-based instruction: Many common features, but more common limitations?TESL-EJ (www.tesl-ej.org) 9.3 (2005), 33 pp.06–210Canagarajah, A. Suresh (City U New York, USA), TESOL at forty: What are the issues. TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 40.1 (2006), 9–34.06–211Davies, Alun (Aichi Shukutoku U; Japan alun1917@yahoo.co.uk), What do learners really want from their EFL course?ELT Journal (Oxford University Press) 60.1 (2006), 3–12.06–212Eckert, Germana (U Technology, Sydney, Australia; geckert@aim.edu.au), Optimal class sizes in EAP programs. English in Australia (www.englishaustralia.com.au) 22.2 (2005), 12 pp.06–213Ellis, Rod (U Auckland, New Zealand), Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 40.1 (2006), 83–107.06–214Farrell, Thomas S. C. (Brock U, Canada; tfarrell@brocku.ca) & Particia Lim Poh Choo, Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers' beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ (www.tesl-ej.org) 9.2 (2005), 13 pp.06–215Felix, Uschi (Monash U, Melbourne, Australia; uschi.felix@arts.monash.edu.au), What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness?ReCALL (Cambridge University Press) 17.2 (2005), 269–288.06–216Haneda, Mari (Ohio State U, USA; haneda.1@osu.edu), Some functions of triadic dialogue in the classroom: examples from L2 research. The Canadian Modern Language Review (University of Toronto Press) 62.2 (2005), 313–333.06–217Hinkel, Eli (Seattle U, USA), Current perspective on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 40.1 (2006), 109–131.06–218Hu, Guangwei (Technological U, Singapore; gwhu@nie.edu.sg), English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy (Springer) 4.1 (2005), 5–24.06–219Jenkins, Jennifer (King's College, London, UK; Jennifer.jenkins@kcl.ac.uk), Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 40.1 (2006), 157–181.06–220Johnson, David (Kennesaw State U, USA; djohnson@kennesaw.edu), Teaching culture in adult ESL: Pedagogical and ethical considerations. TESL-EJ (www.tesl-ej.org) 9.1 (2005), 12 pp.06–221Kern, Richard (U California at Berkeley, USA), Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 40.1 (2006), 183–210.06–222Kumaravidivelu, B. (San José State U, USA), TESOL methods: changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 40.1 (2006), 59–81.06–223Li, Song (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) & Fu Li, Intercultural communicative language teaching: Rethinking the communicative approach to ELT in China. English in Australia (www.englishaustralia.com.au) 22.1 (2004), 24 pp.06–224Mantero, Miguel (U Alabama, USA; mmantero@bamaed.ua.edu), Language, education, and success: A view of emerging beliefs and strategies in the Southeastern United States. TESL-EJ (www.tesl-ej.org) 9.1 (2005), 15 pp.06–225Morgan, Angela (U Wolverhampton, UK; Angela-Morgan@wlv.ac.uk) & Kevin Hogan, School placement and conductive education: the experiences of education administrators. British Journal of Special Education (Blackwell) 32.3 (2005), 149–156.06–226Ryan, Mary, Systemic literacy initiatives: Stories of regulation, conflict and compliance. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Australian Literacy Educators' Association) 28.2 (2005), 114–126.06–227Savickienė, Ineta & Violeta Kalėdaitė (Vytautas Magnus U, Kaunas, Lithuania), Cultural and linguistic diversity of the Baltic states in a new Europe. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (Multilingual Matters) 26.5 (2005), 442–452.06–228Schauer, Gila (Lancaster U, UK; g.schauer@lancaster.ac.uk) & Svenja Adolphs, Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System (Elsevier) 34.1 (2006), 119–134.06–229Silver, Rita Elaine & Rita Skuja Steele (Nanyang Technological U, Singapore; resilver@nie.edu.sg), Priorities in English language education policy and classroom implementation. Language Policy (Springer) 4.1 (2005), 107–128.06–230Sugita, Yoshihito (Yamanashi U, Japan; sugita@yamanshi-ken.ac.uk), The impact of teachers' comment types on students' revision. ELT Journal (Oxford University Press) 60.1 (2006), 34–41.06–231Vandergriff, Ilona (San Francisco State U, USA; vdgriff@sfsu.edu), Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussion. Language Learning & Technology (http://llt.msu.edu/intro.html) 10.1 (2006), 110–138.06–232Wells-Jensen, Sheri (Bowling Green State U, USA; swellsj@bgnet.bgsu.edu), The Braille International Phonetic Alphabet and other options: The blind student in the phonetics classroom. Journal of the International Phonetic Association (Cambridge University Press) 35.1 (2005), 221–230.06–233Williams, Howard (Columbia U, USA; howwil@aol.com), Maths in the grammar classroom. ELT Journal (Oxford University Press) 60.1 (2006), 23–33.06–234Zacharias, Nugrahenny T. (Satya Wacana Christian U, Indonesia), Teachers' beliefs about the use of the students' mother tongue: A survey of tertiary English teachers in Indonesia. English in Australia (www.englishaustralia.com.au) 22.1 (2004), 9 pp.

This paper explores the relationship between linguistic variation and individual attitudes toward risk and uncertainty. Linguistic variation refers to differences in linguistic forms across languages. According to the linguistic relativity hypothesis, differences in grammatical structures and the vocabulary may affect how speakers of distinct languages perceive and think about the world. We develop a specific linguistic marker that classifies languages according to the number of non-indicative moods in irrealis contexts in their respective grammars. These grammatical categories express situations involving uncertainty, and the frequency of their use may be closely related to the overall degree of uncertainty perceived by individuals. Using data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and World Value Survey (WVS), we show that speakers of languages where non-indicative moods are used more intensively are on average more risk averse. This evidence holds both across countries and within linguistically heterogeneous countries. The results are robust to the inclusion of additional set of regressors and several fixed-effect controls for individual characteristics. Finally, we use our linguistic marker to instrument individual attitudes toward risk in the structural model for financial assets accumulation.

This paper explores the relationship between linguistic variation and individual attitudes toward risk and uncertainty. Linguistic variation refers to differences in linguistic forms across languages. According to the linguistic relativity hypothesis, differences in grammatical structures and the vocabulary may affect how speakers of distinct languages perceive and think about the world. We develop a specific linguistic marker that classifies languages according to the number of non-indicative moods in irrealis contexts in their respective grammars. These grammatical categories express situations involving uncertainty, and the frequency of their use may be closely related to the overall degree of uncertainty perceived by individuals. Using data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and World Value Survey (WVS), we show that speakers of languages where non-indicative moods are used more intensively are on average more risk averse. This evidence holds both across countries and within linguistically heterogeneous countries. The results are robust to the inclusion of additional set of regressors and several fixed-effect controls for individual characteristics. Finally, we use our linguistic marker to instrument individual attitudes toward risk in the structural model for financial assets accumulation.

Intonation, the modulation of pitch in speech, is a crucial aspect of language that is processed in right‐hemispheric regions, beyond the classical left‐hemispheric language system. Whether or not this notion generalises across languages remains, however, unclear. Particularly, tonal languages are an interesting test case because of the dual linguistic function of pitch that conveys lexical meaning in form of tone, in addition to intonation. To date, only few studies have explored how intonation is processed in tonal languages, how this compares to tone and between tonal and non‐tonal language speakers. The present fMRI study addressed these questions by testing Mandarin and German speakers with Mandarin material. Both groups categorised mono‐syllabic Mandarin words in terms of intonation, tone, and voice gender. Systematic comparisons of brain activity of the two groups between the three tasks showed large cross‐linguistic commonalities in the neural processing of intonation in left fronto‐parietal, right frontal, and bilateral cingulo‐opercular regions. These areas are associated with general phonological, specific prosodic, and controlled categorical decision‐making processes, respectively. Tone processing overlapped with intonation processing in left fronto‐parietal areas, in both groups, but evoked additional activity in bilateral temporo‐parietal semantic regions and subcortical areas in Mandarin speakers only. Together, these findings confirm cross‐linguistic commonalities in the neural implementation of intonation processing but dissociations for semantic processing of tone only in tonal language speakers.

English is the most known and spoken language in the world. In this regard, we are interested in the history of the English language. English belongs to the largest and most widespread group of languages called Germanic languages. Germanic languages are a group of closely related languages spoken by more than 500 million people across the globe. The article considers the modern Germanic languages, their distribution and classification, and their ancestors - the Germanic languages. The relevance of this work lies in the fact that Germanic languages are the ancestors of the modern Germanic languages that are native languages for most countries of Europe and South Africa. It is also possible to increase interest in the science of language as interlinguistics, and as a result, further development of linguistics as a whole. The aim of this work is to investigate the role of the Germanic languages in the history of linguistics, and also give the knowledge about phonetic and morphological features. The objectives of this article: to give a classification of modern Germanic languages, to indicate the distribution area, to highlight the phonetic and morphological features of old Germanic languages. In the paper we have used the following research methods: analysis, synthesis, and abstracting

The diversity of languages in Indonesia is one of the advantages possessed by Indonesia as a multicultural and multilingual nation. The variety of languages speakers use is not the same; changes occur in various languages because speakers of a language usually make contact or relationships with speakers of other languages and occur over a long period. The comparative method is one of the methods used to compare languages in detail and systematically to prove historical or historical relationships between these languages. Comparative studies are always related to lexicostatistical calculations called internal reconstructions. This research is classified as descriptive research. In this study, the data were explained to obtain an adequate description of the research object without any manipulation or treatment of the subject and research object. The subject of this research is Balinese folklore with the title I Kedis Cangak (Pedanda Baka), which can be found on the page https://www.komangputra.com/av/kedis-cangak The technique used in this study is note-taking, in which the author carefully reads the folklore I Kedis Cangak (Pedanda Baka) and then notes every word that has something in common with Indonesian. The results of this study were the number of syllables, sound patterns, affixes, and basic word patterns in the folklore I Kedis Cangak (Pedanda Baka). The results of this study are the similarities and differences between BB and BI at the phonological level. These similarities and differences relate to the type and number of phonemes, diphthongs, clusters, and syllable patterns in BB and BI.

Compared to the traditional dimensions of diversity (e.g., age, gender or race), language has received little attention in the literature. This is unfortunate, as language diversity in organizations will continue to grow given increasing immigration and globalization. This symposium examines the impact of language and linguistic diversity on outcomes at individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. The symposium is composed of four papers. The first paper focuses on teams, illustrating how language diversity in multicultural teams can hinder the creation of a positive emotional climate. It also demonstrates the importance of leaders in mitigating this process. The second paper shows how language can influence knowledge management and communication processes in an MNE and its subsidiaries. The third paper examines the process of linguistic identity imposition in Indian call centers. It demonstrates that the imposition of a corporate language can influence individual identity and cause different reactions according to native-language identity strength. Finally, the last paper examines accent for non-native speakers interacting with native-speakers. It demonstrates that awareness of native-listener prejudice toward non-native accents can influence emotions and behaviors in daily work interactions. At the conclusion of these papers, a discussant will address the implications of the findings for future research and managerial practices and lead a discussion among the presenters and audience. Communicating Corporate Values and Strategy in a European MNE: English or Native Language? Presenter: Leena Louhiala-Salminen; Aalto U. School of Business Presenter: Anne Kankaanranta; Aalto U. School of Business Presenter: Päivi Karhunen; Aalto U. School of Business

Translingualism—as theorized in linguistics, English-language instruction, and college writing pedagogy—dramatically shifts the way we view language use and development. It engages us in a deeper analysis of how users produce meaning, which resources they draw from, and how they deviate from or use conventions of writing. Written communication is seen as a translation process involving both writers and audience, for translingualism shifts our focus from language to language user, thereby valuing the agency of writers. Finally, it brings to light the asymmetrical relations of power in language use. More importantly, translingualism fundamentally recognizes that languages are always in contact and mutually influencing each other rather than being static, separated, and fixed; language use is a dynamic social process of negotiation and renegotiation and translation in which users, conventions, and contexts are continually changing (Canagarajah 2013b, 6). While translingualism applies to the qualities and characteristics of many languages, the main focus has been on English or rather Englishes, for it recognizes the various forms of World Englishes, as theorized by Braj Kachru (2017).Ariel Dorfman's writings are also useful for understanding translingualism. Dorfman sees the globalization of English as a “mongrelization that inevitably comes when transnational people breed bodies and syllables” (2002, 93). Dorfman recognizes how English is, indeed, transformed by its users in a continually flowing dynamic process that contrasts its static, monolithic status, which characterizes a monolingual orientation. Reflecting on his own bilingual journey, Dorfman reveals tensions between the dualistic concept of the divided self and that of the hybridized diasporic subject (93). Gloria Anzaldúa's (1999, 2002) work also transforms the divided self with a new mestiza consciousness and new approach to language that arises in the space between borders. Suresh Canagarajah's prolific work on translingual practices, Dorfman's concept of hybridity, and Anzaldúa's new mestiza consciousness can re-envision the ways in which we understand Italian American texts, and they provide the theoretical focus of this essay.Over the past decade, college writing professionals have urged their colleagues to adopt a translingual approach in their writing classrooms as a way of understanding and treating language difference (Horner et al. 2011). This approach recognizes that “the formation and definition of languages and language varieties are fluid” and should be viewed as “resources to be preserved, developed, and utilized,” not viewed as interference, substandard, or deficient (304). It asks what “writers are doing with language and why” not which language is standard, as it recognizes the many variations of English and other languages, the “global” or “world Englishes” (306). In sum, this approach encourages us to honor “the power of all language users to shape language to specific ends,” to recognize “the linguistic heterogeneity” of language users, and to interrogate monolingualist expectations (305).Suresh A. Canagarajah has written extensively on translingual practices that represent a paradigm shift for our understanding of communicative practices. Drawing on Jan Blommaert's work, which inaugurated the sociolinguistics of globalization, Canagarajah conceptualizes language in terms of its globalization and views it as mobile. As Blommaert explains, “Language varieties, texts, images travel across time and space, and . . . this is a journey across repertoires and sets of indexicalities attached to ingredients of repertoires” (2003, 611). One's linguistic repertoire, whether with one language or more, encompasses all its varieties, including its dialects, styles, and accents, yet these forms reflect inequality (612). Such inequality is seen in “dominant” languages or the ideology of Standard English or any attempt at standardization and the devaluation of local dialects or negative views of accents, views associated with a monolingual orientation. A monolingual orientation considers a language as homogenous and pure; it is decontextualized from cultural, social, or environmental influences. In such an orientation, language users are also immobile and limited to their community. The process of languages becoming codified and standardized coincided with nation-building.1In contrast, with a translingual orientation, languages are not conceptualized with labels, for such an act separates languages and enshrines them with unequal value; labels mask their mutual influence and integration. The influence of one language on another can be inventive and imaginative and not necessarily an interference. Canagarajah explains further, “Though language patterns (in the form of dialects, registers, and genres) and grammatical norms do evolve from local language practices sedimented over time, they are always open to renegotiation and reconstruction as users engage with new communicative contexts” (2013b, 7). Canagarajah's case studies of migrant language users confirm that users “treat all available codes as a repertoire in their everyday communication” (6). Most importantly, users construct meaning from multiple modalities and semiotic resources. Thus, for Canagarajah, the paradigm shift depends upon the principal concepts that “communication transcends individual languages” and that “communication transcends words and involves diverse semiotic resources and ecological affordances” (6). Translingualism captures language as it evolves, created and re-created by user and receptors, particularly the diasporic subject, in contrast to a monolingualist view of language as a fixed standard, located outside of its users (6).Ariel Dorfman also critiques the monolingual orientation and envisions a multilingual world in his work. In “The Nomads of Language,” he dismisses the “monolingual option” of learning or rejecting a new language that is presented to migrants when crossing borders (2002, 91). Instead, Dorfman encourages “migrants and the states in which they dwell to embark fully and without fear upon the adventure of being bilingual, and ask them also to celebrate, as so many of the young do, the many intermediate tongues (condescendingly termed patois) that prosper in the spaces between established linguistic systems, the myriad creole zones of confluence where languages can mix and experiment and express the fluctuating frontiers of a mingled humanity” (91). Dorfman encourages multilingualism “as a real alternative,” especially in the context of our new globalized world with its constant motion and flux (92). Dorfman's description of the history of languages compares to translingual practices: “Languages . . . have themselves always been maddeningly migrant, borrowing from here and there and everywhere . . . taking words out on loan and returning them in different, wonderfully twisted and often funny guises, pawning these words, stealing them, renting them out, eating them, making love to them, and spawning splendidly unrecognizable children” (93). Dorfman celebrates the translingual view of languages that meet at the border.It took Dorfman almost his whole life to arrive at these insights about language. In his literacy autobiography, Heading South, Looking North (1998), he documents a life tormented by his bicultural identity: born in Argentina, exiled to the United States, exiled to Chile, resettled in the United States. Dorfman attempted “to escape the bifurcation of tongue and vocabulary” as he decisively moved from Spanish to English, English to Spanish, from American to South American (2002, 92). He attempts to resolve his dichotomy at one point by living in Chile, speaking Spanish, but writing in English.But he could not resolve his tormented duality until he extricated himself from a monolingual orientation: “For me—resident of this dual existence, married to two tongues, inhabited by English and Spanish in equal measure, in love with them both now that they have called a truce for my throat—the distress of being double and somewhat homeless is overshadowed by the glory of being hybrid and open” (2002, 91). To celebrate the “glory of being hybrid and open,” and move toward translingualism, Dorfman must disable his use of “divided worlds.”The metaphor of divided worlds captures the socio-psychological impact of conflict experienced by those who move from one locus to another. It is often employed by those who move from home to school, from a native country to America, from working-class homes to university, from Black worlds to white worlds, from straight to queer. While the binary appears reductive, it is an almost universal metaphor in numerous autobiographical poems, plays, short stories, novels, and contemporary cinema, particularly when used by those with immigrant or minority cultural identities. It is also visible in the contentiousness of the hyphenated American. And though many writers employ this metaphor, it almost always implies multiplicity. The binary implied in divided worlds is constructed from a monolingual orientation, and one cannot move toward reconciliation without its dismantling. Further, as I will show, Gloria Anzaldúa's theory of mestiza consciousness redirects our focus to the space between these worlds. From this position we can interrogate the binary.Dorfman can disable the divided-worlds trope because his life experience belies their static construction. For one, his movement across borders, however dichotomized as north and south, makes him transnational and a “diasporic subject” (McClennen 2005, 171). Sophia A. McClennen claims that while it is obvious that Dorfman's multiple exiles and his family's legacy of “forced migrations” as Russian Jews characterize his experience as diasporic, they also frame his expression of self-identity. Yet she provides only a brief analysis of the etymology of diaspora in which “‘speirein’ means ‘to sow or scatter’” to indicate “the intricate ways that Dorfman's text layers subjectivity” (171). McClennen posits that “scattering suggests the polyvalent self and, on the other hand, sowing suggests the binary tension between the attributes found in the seed and those found in the land” (171). McClennen's understanding of the diasporic subject, within the context of life writing, helps us see the complexities of identity formation, from divided to diasporic; however, a deeper understanding of the diasporic subject is needed.Robin Cohen's scholarship on global diasporas provides a comprehensive description of the common features of a diaspora, despite the many variations in historical experiences. Such features include “dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions” (1997, 26). Key to diasporic communities is the “collective memory and myth about the homeland” in addition to “an idealization of the putative ancestral home and a collective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its creation” and “a strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time” (26). Cohen's typology includes victim, labor, trade, and imperial diasporas. Donna Gabaccia draws on Cohen's work to delineate a broad historical account of “Italy's many diasporas,” reminding us that migrants from Italy left an impact on the places to which they migrated (2000, 10). Gabaccia informs us that those migrants were primarily low-wage workers who supplied the ever-expanding demand for labor in the global labor market of the nineteenth century (2000, 59). With the high rate of return to Italy, these workers embarked on a “transnational way of life” in which family economies were constructed across borders to achieve stability and American customs and ideas seeped into their villages (2000, 82). Gabaccia concludes that for Italians, “home” is always a place that can be anywhere (191). Similarly, Cohen acknowledges postmodern understandings of diaspora that view the “collective identity of homeland and nation [as] a vibrant and constantly changing set of cultural interactions that fundamentally question the very ideas of ‘home’ and ‘host’” (1997, 127).Consequently, Cohen proposes that the definition of diaspora be loosened to accommodate these new identities and subjectivities that can be encompassed with the term “cultural diasporas” (1997, 128). Cohen's recognition that “diasporas are positioned somewhere between nation-states and ‘travelling cultures’ in that they involve dwelling in a nation-state in a physical sense, but travelling in an astral or spiritual sense that falls outside the nation-state's space/time zone” connects to Dorfman's ever-shifting physical and psychosocial identities (135–136). Indeed, Dorfman forces us to examine both the artificiality of national borders and also how those borders become embedded in one's consciousness. Further, Dorfman relies on his writing and political activity to creatively construct his national identity, thus asserting his autonomy. He clearly illustrates the limits of monolingualism and its problematic enactment of separation and division, the main causes of his destabilization. His final acceptance of his hybridity stabilizes him; such hybridity parallels translingual practices.Dorfman performs hybridity and translingual practices throughout his literacy narrative. Though Dorfman uses English, Spanish phrases abound, always italicized: “This is the last time I will ever see him, the last story I will ever tell him, la última vez” (1998, 12). We witness translingual practice in a retelling of a scene from his mother's childhood, when classmates refuse to let her in the music room, and his mother hears “No podés . . . porque sos judia,” which he informs us means, “You can't open the door, because you're a Jew” (16). When young “Edward” takes Spanish at the British school, he is forced to say, “‘Hablo este idioma en forma execrable,’ I speak this language execrably” (111). Usually when his memory takes him to Argentina or Chile, he uses more Spanish phrases. Unlike Anzaldúa, who purposefully refuses to translate her various forms of Spanish in order to deny the dominating power of English, Dorfman almost always translates.While some may refer to this use of multiple languages as “code switching,” it is now more clearly understood, through translingual practices, as “code meshing.” As college English educator Russell Durst has pointed out, the “progressive-seeming concept of code-switching actually favors the dominant group, because users of minority language forms are asked to switch to Standard English in formal or professional discourse, while users of the Standard need never code switch” (2014, 65). In contrast, Canagarajah's definition of code meshing is “a form of writing in which multilinguals merge their diverse language resources with the dominant genre conventions to construct hybrid texts for voice” (2013a, 40). Thus, it would be more accurate to understand one's use of multiple repertoires and/or multiple languages as dynamic, translingual interchanges. Dorfman captures this process not only to reflect on his “bilingual journey” but also to show a peaceful path toward negotiated hybridity as a cultural diasporic subject.For Dorfman, the metaphor of borders, whether national or personal, is essential to understanding his life narrative. He deconstructs these borders, exhibiting the fluidity of identity in a postmodern world. Perhaps, as Gloria Anzaldúa envisions with her mestiza consciousness, Dorfman's divided self creates a space in which to move toward a more expansive consciousness that incorporates the multicultural, multilingual, “half and half” (Anzaldúa 1999, 41). For although Anzaldúa claims her duality as Mexican and American, this divided construction leads her to articulate multiple subjectivities: Tejana, Chicana, indigena. Anzaldúa's mestiza consciousness and her paths toward higher consciousness envision a holistic self to heal the divisions, and this is what Dorfman was finally able to achieve. Dorfman, too, is always aware of the layers of subjectivities that exist within himself. Further, like Anzaldúa, Dorfman believes in the power of language to incite and transform others.Like Dorfman, Anzaldúa draws on an expansive linguistic repertoire; she actively expresses eight languages throughout her book that are used in various contexts, including Standard English, working-class and slang English, Standard Spanish, Standard Mexican Spanish, North Mexican Spanish dialect, Chicano Spanish (which has regional variations), Tex-Mex, and Pachuco or caló (1999, 77). Her use of multiple languages progresses her new mestiza project, for this consciousness requires recognition of its multiple subjectivities. With her belief that “ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity—I am my language,” she cannot feel pride or legitimacy in herself until her languages also have those qualities (81). It would not be achieved until she is “free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having always to translate” and to use Spanglish instead of being forced to use English or Spanish; she anticipates a time when English speakers will accommodate her (81). Anyone who reads Borderlands/La Frontera can see how she has accomplished just that with her code meshing.Similar to Dorfman, Anzaldúa moves from divided to multiple: Her “divided self” empowers her with double perspectives that transform and create new identities, such as mestiza, but also with new ways of seeing. The divided nature of Chicano experience illustrates the problem of naming these identities: “Nosotros the one of we are constantly to the Spanish of the on the other we the so that we our (Anzaldúa 1999, of the in naming is the of “This makes for a of dual . . . We are a of two with various of or It is the conflict of the creates the as a her experience and that of the new mestiza consciousness. This consciousness multiple subjectivities as we see in this that appears in a A of a out of one into I am in all at the la (Anzaldúa 1999, with the duality of her experience but concludes with as Anzaldúa between two As we see in the final of the am by all the that create the self with that may to and states of which Anzaldúa characterizes as “a of (1999, Anzaldúa a new consciousness in order to from the to “a for the new mestiza This new consciousness duality . . . the that in the very of our our our languages, our believes it can and even the new mestiza must “a new story to our world and our in a new with images and that us to each other and to the Anzaldúa's new mestiza consciousness requires a which she throughout Borderlands/La the metaphor of crossing a to how this new consciousness explains, “The between the world just left and the one is both a and point of a a (2002, is essential to the self and this new Anzaldúa explains that is an journey home to the to the is the until there is a time when are Anzaldúa the space between divided worlds as the locus of For this I to the space open between Italian and American to the and of though I the meaning of the in their from Italy to America, of a that transformed them and divided them, even they who a linguistic identity, “a way of speaking and writing as an Italian though it was an identity born from 1999, how were from the mother the language that been as the and language of Italian the language of the of and of the that . . . original from Italian was by a linguistic their within their new mother broad provide a for a more and understanding of how the dialects the over were or as we see in the of and in the We also see how the space between Italian and American new linguistic identities and thus how the of language use established by Canagarajah, Dorfman, and Anzaldúa can transform our understanding of Italian American languages and in Italian American studies have the as Italian diaspora which acknowledges the impact of Italian on other as as the impact of those who to Italy As and point out, Italy has become a country of and this makes a in our understanding of what it means to feel and Italian and everyday life is changing our 7). Such can be seen in social, cultural, and linguistic a point of Italian is new to born and in foreign Italian language is changing and is by the of other the and that very process and Thus, translingual practices can our understanding of Italian diaspora of the scholarship on Italian American languages of translingual practices. who provides one of the of how it as a everyday language of within the at work, and its in as as the and it as a mix of Italian words, dialect, and It often but borrowing from English so it is viewed as Though acknowledges this negative view Italians, who it as a of their he also that some it as “an and a Further, a concept of languages often with mutual his that the language of Italian a of to produce a form of which in the of language This of linguistic confluence as Canagarajah monolingual and of linguistic Yet that is a in in the Italian there was a need for a common linguistic a a Italian This has been a in language from one or more languages and may be used as a or common language. to the nature of language these linguistic varieties to For a creole from a it the native language of a or its the as their language out that languages “as the and one of its established languages and takes over the of the as the (2000, to this is what to With the of and immigrant the World the to long it a of development. final are to be found within the In those where the was from to their it was in a a than as a means of the its it was by the very that it and was by a working-class American English only of the and it As English the dominant language of Italian their dialects, or their hybrid languages into While Italian to recognize that their immigrant language created an to and political and the of English, as other studies show that they not their hybrid one of the on Italian American language varieties, the of linguistic varieties in in the by the and of from In one linguistic varieties in Italian American primarily in that we will see in some Italian American dialect, often in a form that is found in the of between two or more of a or Standard of a them as dialect, American Italian and this to whether Italian American languages as or some other linguistic as they have features found in almost all of For the of my own work, to these of studies on Italian American language varieties and to understand them from the of a translingual For the of English and Italian dialects or English as which a translingual orientation would see as the mutual of semiotic one linguistic not include in his because of its negative a and its yet it to Italian American language more while translingual the which when with languages in their It was in by the who of form and to an Italian in his of which has been as as his to the Italian than the binary between high and sees language as a way to the hybridity of “The term a of in which the moves through languages to create a multilingual and In other words, one not switch from language to one uses them all at in two or more languages are in the of one of the languages the native definition with a translingual particularly for all forms of as resources and not as Further, she provides that for of were multilingual and not monolingual In she the historical shift from throughout the world to

The role of grammatical systems in profiling particular conceptual categories is used as a key in exploring questions concerning language specificity during the conceptualization phase in language production. This study focuses on the extent to which crosslinguistic differences in the concepts profiled by grammatical means in the domain of temporality ( grammatical aspect ) affect event conceptualization and distribution of attention when talking about motion events. The analyses, which cover native speakers of Standard Arabic, Czech, Dutch, English, German, Russian and Spanish, not only involve linguistic evidence, but also data from an eye tracking experiment and a memory test. The findings show that direction of attention to particular parts of motion events varies to some extent with the existence of grammaticized means to express imperfective/progressive aspect . Speakers of languages that do not have grammaticized aspect of this type are more likely to take a holistic view when talking about motion events and attend to as well as refer to endpoints of motion events, in contrast to speakers of aspect languages.