Same Conversational Page?

Difference or Deficit in Speakers of African American English?

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderWorld Beat1 Nov 2007An Introduction Kirstin Chiasson Kirstin Chiasson Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.WB2.12162007.14 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Internationally coordinated research efforts—enhanced by fast, accessible, affordable electronic communication—are increasingly becoming part of mainstream science. Historically, international collaborations have been born of necessity—for example, to identify linguistic universals and linguistic diversity. Early studies of comparative linguistics epitomize global efforts. Systematic language comparisons have provided the framework for contemporary theories of the innate cognitive architecture underlying human language functions. Among the many challenges facing the discipline, the critical need to advance practice-based research stands out. The potential to advance clinical knowledge through international collaboration is extraordinary. Fortunately, we have a philosophically and empirically dense literature and abundant curiosity to support this expansion and enrichment of our clinical research base. This is the first of a two-part series in The ASHA Leader examining international research in speech, language, and hearing, with particular emphasis on its anticipated benefits to clinical service delivery. In Part 1, Elena Plante explores the training benefits for student researchers and clinicians participating in international research, and Lawrence Leonard offers guidance on how to establish and maintain a collaboration with international colleagues. In Part 2 (which will appear in the next issue), Kristen Zajdo addresses the challenges to developing a research agenda in an international community, and Ted Glattke explores a particularly difficult challenge—the protection of human subjects—an area in which moral absolutes need to withstand cultural, societal, governmental, and attitudinal variations. We have much to share and learn as part of the international community. When clinicians work globally, the translation of research into practice is complicated by cultural and linguistic variation. For example, audiologists use phonetically balanced word lists to derive a word discrimination score. Word lists (such as NU6, CID W22, and PBK50) were created to include words with a high frequency of use and a phonetic balance based upon distributions within Standard American English. A simple translation to non-English languages—to Russian, Spanish, or Japanese, for example—would neglect to adjust for the phonetic balance and word frequency distributions of these non-English languages. Thus, since a simple translation would not create a suitable word list, care needs to be taken to create language-appropriate word discrimination stimuli for use with non-English-speaking people. Similarly, speech-language pathologists are often asked to provide services to individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Unfortunately, because very few assessment instruments have been developed for use with such individuals, it is often challenging to confidently distinguish the effects of language impairment from linguistic and cultural variation. These challenges highlight the need for research that accounts for cultural and linguistic variation in measures of normative behaviors, estimates of diagnostic accuracy, and investigations of therapeutic efficacy. The new frontier for international research related to communication sciences and disorders will be in addressing prevention, assessment, and intervention practices across cultures and languages, as well as in understanding how societal attitudes and governmental policies affect the well-being of individuals living with communication impairments. Author Notes Kirstin Chiasson, is an audiologist for the Interior Health Ministry of British Columbia (Kelowna) and adjunct professor at Oregon Institute of Technology (Klamath Falls). Her research focuses on pediatric audiology and evoked potentials across the age span. Contact her at [email protected]. Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 12Issue 16November 2007 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Nov 1, 2007 Metrics Downloaded 72 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

English today is a conglomerate of a vast array of different varieties of English. This linguistic diversity, captured most prominently in the World Englishes paradigm (Kachru, 1985), poses a challenge to English language teaching (ELT) in countries where English does not have an official status (i.e. there is no codified local norm) and is learned as a foreign language, such as Armenia or Germany. Learners of English in these countries are norm-dependent on ‘standard’ Englishes spoken as a native language (Kachru, 1985) as the models of teaching (Galloway & Rose, 2015: 196–198; Matsuda and Friedrich, 2012: 21–22). These ‘Standard Englishes’ are abstract and idealized concepts as they are never fully realized by speakers in their ‘clearly delimited, perfectly uniform, and perfectly stable’ (Milroy, 2001: 543) form. However, they are powerful ideas in the minds of speakers – and learners in particular – as the models of language teaching. Standard British (StBE) and Standard American English (StAmE) and their associated prestige accents Received Pronunciation and General American traditionally serve as the models of language teaching for learners (Kirkpatrick, 2007: 184–189; Phillipson, 1992: 136–172). StBE has long been considered the global prestige accent variety but Bayard et al. (2001: 41–43) hypothesize that it is gradually replaced by StAmE due to the global availability of the US media.

Parsing Pragmatics

Over the past two years, the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program has been conducting an extensive review of George Mason UniversityA¢â‚¬â„¢s writing-intensive (WI) courses. As part of this review, WAC has explored the kinds of texts students read, the types of writing students are composing, and the major constraints faculty experience teaching WI courses. In the fall of 2016, WAC program staff conducted a review of syllabi from all WI courses on record in all colleges and schools offering undergraduate majors (62 academic units in total). This process entailed the review of 107 syllabi from 86 different WI courses taught during the spring 2015, fall 2015, and a few previous semesters. This review of syllabi focused on answering one question: What types of writing are being assigned in WI courses? In order to answer this question, WAC Program staff recorded writing assignments as listed on syllabi into two major categories (high stakes and low stakes) and several subcategories (different genres). This poster presentation will share the results of that review and draw on those results to explore the question: Are we writing in a digital world? This question will allow us to explore what it means to write in a digital world and to provide suggestions for incorporating writing projects inspired by the digital world.For more information about writing and research:A‚ https://stearnscenter.gmu.edu/teaching/writing-and-research

Speech-language pathologists who serve people with aphasia must be prepared to evaluate and treat agrammatism. We focus here on fundamental information about this communication disorder, particularly its features in English, dialects of English, and several different languages around the world. It is important to examine agrammatism across dialects and languages, since the disorder is not uncommon, and it is manifested differently, depending on the grammatical structure of the dialect or language in question.

This article examines how the official legal record, presumably an institutional space consisting of Standard American English (SAE), can become a record of a regional variety of English. Utilizing theory from language contact situations, interactional sociolinguistics, and critical discourse analysis, it describes and explains how a prestigious societal institution, often analyzed as imposing its powerful voice on those less powerful, exhibits some permeability as it absorbs at least a few discursive representations of a less dominant bilingual and bicultural group. Traces of the SpanishEnglish contact situation, biculturalism, and Latino life find their way into the official discursive space via stereotype, topic, lexical items, prepositions, and some verbal constructions. The discussion covers why some legal arenas are more impervious to linguistic and cultural diversity (or accented English) than are others. The conclusion discusses what such representations might mean for Latina women. (Standard English, Latino English, official record, prepositions, language contact, legal system)*

Dialectic preference is an often overlooked language model's (LLM) bias against marginalized groups. It can be observed When LLMs output reflects or promotes unfair preferences or prejudices towards particular dialects or linguistic variations. Such bias may lead the model to favor certain ways of speaking or writing, which can disadvantage speakers of marginalized dialects. Such bias can perpetuate social biases and inequalities, affecting how people interact with and are supported by AI technologies. In this preliminary study, we analyze dialectic preference bias for Standard American English (SAE) compared to African American English (AAE) using the sentiment classification task on Claude 3 Haiku, Phi-3-medium, and LLaMa 3.1 8b. We find a greater tendency to classify AAE sentiments as negative, especially in LLaMa 3.1 8b, compared to other models, demonstrating the presence of dialectic preference bias. This work highlights the importance of addressing dialectic language-based biases in LLMs to reach inclusive and equitable LLMs. We plan to extend this study to more dialects and larger language models.

There have been numerous debates about African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), the most widely studied American English variety primarily spoken by African-Americans. This paper explores the nature of AAVE, trying to reveal it as a distinct linguistic variety and identity marker, highlighting its sociolinguistic implications and its relation to Standard English (SE). AAVE’s origins are revealed in the study through the dialectologist hypothesis, which traces its features to non-standard British dialects, and the Creole hypothesis, which links it to Creole languages formed during the transatlantic slave trade. Its lexical impact on Standard American English (SAE) is evident through the widespread adoption of AAVE-originated vocabulary in mainstream discourse facilitated by pop culture and digital media. The research analyses the existing literature, comparing AAVE with SAE in terms of phonology and syntax, drawing from the scholarly works of Rickford, Green, and Morgan. The findings of the study indicate that AAVE’s linguistics features, including copula deletion, negative concord, aspectual markers, and subject-auxiliary inversion, illustrate its complexity and rule-governed nature. Furthermore, the study addresses the social implications of AAVE in the framework of public performance by middle-class African-Americans, as well as the widespread linguistic discrimination Africans face together with the educational challenges they encounter. Public performances of political leaders such as Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, and well-known talk show host Oprah Winfrey have been analyzed, emphasizing their sociolinguistic code-switching ability where speakers adjust their pronunciation and shift between different linguistic styles and dialects based on audience and context. Research outcomes prove that AAVE has deep historical and cultural roots; thus, it needs proper recognition and valuation for linguistic equity. The findings underscore the necessity of integrating the contrastive analysis teaching method to bridge the linguistic gap between AAVE and SAE. This will promote linguistic justice and inclusivity, particularly in educational frameworks, where code-switching and contrastive approaches can enhance literacy and academic performance. Աֆրոամերիկյան ժողովրդական անգլերենը (այսուհետ՝ ԱԱԺԱ)՝ ամերիկյան անգլերենի ամենաշատ ուսումնասիրված տարատեսակը, որը հիմնականում օգտագործում են աֆրոամերիկացիները, դարձել է բազմաթիվ քննարկումների առարկա։ Հոդվածում ուսումնասիրվում է ԱԱԺԱ -ի բնույթը՝ բացահայտելով այն որպես առանձին լեզվական տիպ ևինքնության ցուցիչ, ընդգծելով դրա սոցիալ-լեզվաբանական նշանակությունը և կապը ստանդարտ անգլերենի հետ։ Ուսումնասիրության շրջանակներում ԱԱԺԱ-ի ծագումը դիտարկվում է երկու վարկածների միջոցով՝ բարբառագիտական, որը կապում է դրա առանձնահատկությունները ոչ ստանդարտ բրիտանական բարբառների հետ, և կրեոլյան, որը կապում է դրա ծագումը կրեոլյան լեզուների հետ, որոնք ձևավորվել են տրանսատլանտյան ստրկավաճառության շրջանում։ ԱԱԺԱ-ի բառապաշարային ազդեցությունը ստանդարտ ամերիկյան անգլերենի վրա դրսևորվում է հիմնական խոսույթում ԱԱԺԱ-ից փոխառված մի շարք բառերի լայն տարածմամբ, ինչին նպաստում են փոփ մշակույթը և թվային լրատվամիջոցները։ Հոդվածում վերլուծվում է առկա գիտական գրականությունը՝ ԱԱԺԱ-ն համեմատվում է ստանդարտ ամերիկյան անգլերենի հետ հնչյունաբանության և շարահյուսության տեսանկյուններից՝ հիմք ընդունելով Ռիքֆորդի, Գրինի և Մորգանի գիտական աշխատությունները։ Ուսումնասիրության արդյունքները ցույց են տալիս, որ ԱԱԺԱ-ի լեզվական առանձնահատկությունները, այդ թվում՝ օժանդակ բայի բացակայությունը, կրկնակի ժխտումը, կերպիմաստային ցուցիչները ևենթակայի ու օժանդակ բայի շրջադասությունը, վկայում են դրա բարդության և կանոնակարգված բնույթի մասին։ Այնուհետև հոդվածում դիտարկվում են ԱԱԺԱ-ի սոցիալական դրսևորումները միջին խավի աֆրոամերիկացիների հրապարակային խոսքում, ինչպես նաև լայնորեն տարածված լեզվական խտրականության և կրթական դժվարությունների խնդիրները, որոնց բախվում են աֆրոամերիկացիները։ Վերլուծվում են քաղաքական առաջնորդների, ինչպիսիք են Բարաք Օբաման և Մարտին Լյութեր Քինգը, ինչպես նաև հայտնի թոք-շոուի հաղորդավար Օփրա Ուինֆրիի, հրապարակային ելույթները՝ ընդգծելով նրանց սոցիալ-լեզվաբանական կոդափոխման ունակությունը, երբ խոսողը հարմարեցնում է իր արտասանությունը ևանցում կատարում տարբեր լեզվական ոճերի ու բարբառների՝ կախված լսարանից և համատեքստից։ Ուսումնասիրության արդյունքները ապացուցում են, որ ԱԱԺԱ-նունի խորը պատմական և մշակութային արմատներ, ուստի՝ այն պետք է արժանանա պատշաճ ճանաչման և գնահատման՝ լեզվական իրավահավասարության ապահովման նպատակով։ Արդյունքներն ընդգծում են կրթական գործընթացում ԱԱԺԱ-ի և ստանդարտ ամերիկյան անգլերենի միջև լեզվական բացը լրացնելու համար հակադրողական վերլուծության ուսուցման մեթոդի ներմուծման անհրաժեշտությունը։ Դա կնպաստի լեզվական արդարությանը և ներառականությանը, հատկապես կրթական միջավայրում, որտեղ կոդափոխումը և հակադրողական մոտեցումները կարող են բարձրացնել գրագիտության մակարդակը ևակադեմիական առաջադիմությունը։

This study examined the relation between African American preschoolers' use of African American English (AAE) and their language and emergent literacy skills in an effort to better understand the perplexing and persistent difficulties many African American children experience learning to read proficiently. African American preschoolers' (n = 63) vocabulary skills were assessed in the fall and their language and emergent literacy skills were assessed in the spring. The relation between students' AAE use and their vocabulary and emergent literacy skills was examined using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), controlling for fall vocabulary and other child, family, and school variables. Children's use of AAE was examined across two contexts-sentence imitation and oral narrative using a wordless storybook prompt. There was a significant -shaped relation between the frequency with which preschoolers used AAE features and their language and emergent literacy skills. Students who used AAE features with greater or lesser frequency demonstrated stronger sentence imitation, letter-word recognition, and phonological awareness skills than did preschoolers who used AAE features with moderate frequency, controlling for fall vocabulary skills. Fewer preschoolers used AAE features during the sentence imitation task with explicit expectations for Standard American English (SAE) or School English than they did during an oral narrative elicitation task with implicit expectations for SAE. The nonlinear relation between AAE use and language and emergent literacy skills, coupled with systematic differences in AAE use across contexts, indicates that some preschoolers may be dialect switching between AAE and SAE, suggesting emerging pragmatic/metalinguistic awareness.

Relation of dialect to phonological processing: African American Vernacular English vs. Standard American English

The Nilgiri Hills are home to several tribal communities, each with their distinct culture and language. Effective communication is crucial for their social, economic, and cultural well-being. However, the region's remote and rugged terrain, limited infrastructure, and socio-economic constraints pose significant challenges to communication. Language plays a vital role in shaping their identity, culture, and daily life. However, the region's linguistic diversity faces challenges due to urbanization, migration, and globalization.This study investigates the communication networks and challenges faced by tribal communities in the Nilgiri Hills. We conducted interviews and surveys among three tribal groups, examining their access to and utilization of communication channels. Our findings highlight limited access to modern communication technologies, reliance on traditional modes, and significant barriers to effective communication. We discuss the implications for social inclusion, economic development, and cultural preservation, and propose strategies for improving communication infrastructure and addressing the unique needs of these communities. This study delves into the linguistic behavior and problems faced by tribal communities in the Nilgiris Hills, a region renowned for its linguistic diversity. Through a mixed-methods approach, we investigated language use, language attitudes, and language challenges among three tribal groups: Toda, Kota, and Irula. Our findings reveal a complex linguistic landscape, with language shift, language loss, and language maintenance efforts. We discuss the implications for language preservation, education, and social inclusion, and propose strategies for supporting linguistic diversity and addressing linguistic problems in these communities.Methodology: We conducted interviews with 100 participants from three tribal groups (Toda, Kota, and Irula) and surveyed 50 households. We examined access to and usage of communication channels, including mobile phones, internet, radio, and traditional modes. We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys, interviews, and focus groups with 300 participants from the three tribal groups. We examined language use, language attitudes, language proficiency, and language challenges.Conclusion: Enhancing communication networks and addressing the unique challenges faced by tribal communities in the Nilgiri Hills is crucial for their social inclusion, economic development, and cultural preservation. By bridging the communication gap, we can empower these communities to access information, resources, and opportunities, ultimately improving their overall well-being. The linguistic diversity of the Nilgiri Hills' tribal communities is a valuable asset, but faces significant challenges. By understanding the linguistic behavior and problems, we can develop targeted strategies to support language preservation, education, and social inclusion. Empowering these communities to maintain and promote their languages will enrich India's linguistic heritage and foster a more inclusive society.In total this study examines multilingualism among tribal communities in the Nilgiri Hills, a region known for its linguistic diversity. Through a mixed-methods approach, we investigated language use, language proficiency, and language attitudes among three tribal groups: Toda, Kota, and Irula. Our findings reveal a complex multilingual landscape, with tribal languages, dominant languages (Tamil, Malayalam), and bilingualism/multilingualism. We discuss the implications for language preservation, education, and social inclusion, and propose strategies for supporting multilingualism and linguistic diversity in these communities.


 
 
 The purpose of this study was to probe best course modality for the student population of a community college taking the Microbiology and Infection Control Courses. Students’ retention of knowledge base was compared in Traditional, Hybrid and Writing-Intensive Microbiology and Infectious Disease Control courses. Students' final grades achieved in the course and withdrawal rates were used to evaluate the comprehension of knowledge and students' overall performance. Additionally, students’ scores for a specific set of twenty five questions in the final lecture exam were utilized as part of the embedded assessment for retention of knowledge base, and general education proficiencies were also compared. All courses used in this study were taught by the same instructor, the difference being the lecture delivery mode. Students in all courses were provided with the same lecture notes via Blackboard. For the Traditional and Writing-Intensive (WI) courses, there were weekly in-class lectures with duration of three hours each; however, there were no in-class lectures for Hybrid courses and face to face component was three hour/week Lab session. WI students were required to do formal and informal writing assignments based on the core topics, though Lab components were exactly same for students in all courses modalities in this study. Data analysis revealed that students in Traditional courses performed much better in most aspects measured in this study, as compared to students in Hybrid and Writing-Intensive courses. Withdrawal rates were same in Hybrid and WI courses, but higher than Traditional courses. The number of students who received an overall F grade was highest in the WI courses. In terms of correct responses to embedded assessment questions, the difference was significantly higher for students in WI courses as compared to Traditional.
 
 

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

This article examines the transformation of Australian EAL/D (English as an additional language/dialect) classrooms, transitioning from a monolingual focus on Standard Australian English (SAE) to embracing plurilingual and intercultural approaches in English language and literacy teaching and learning. Employing hermeneutic phenomenological and narrative analyses, the study reflects on the lived experiences of 16 English teachers who learned English as an additional language and migrated to Australia. The research highlights the significance of fluid affective processes, cultural responsiveness, plurilingualism, and intercultural identity development in language and literacy classrooms. Findings emphasise the central role of affect in EAL teaching and its implications for cultural responsiveness and linguistic diversity. The lived experiences of these teachers underscore the transformative potential of diverse teaching strategies that resonate with students on affective and cultural levels. Implications include fostering plurilingual literacy and identity development, promoting global identity, and cultivating intercultural capabilities among learners and educators. Ultimately, the article highlights the paradigm-shifting power of English language and literacy education when enriched with empathy, creativity, and a commitment to linguistic and cultural diversity. This approach not only enhances EAL/D education but also offers valuable insights and implications for other areas of the curriculum and pedagogical practices, promoting a more inclusive and responsive educational environment across disciplines.