A Mind Map for the text "A Trans-semiotizing and re-sourcing resources in language education: Towards a multimodal social semiotic perspective on intercultural communication"
In what ways does 脕lvarez Valencia’s argument resemble or contradict that of Wei’s argument in “Translanguaging as a practical theory of language”?
Wei (2017) acknowledges the fluidity and dynamism of communication, as well as the presence of multimodal elements in any process of meaning making. As a matter of fact, Wei (2017) draws on authors such as Thibault, Cowley, and Steffensen, who put forward a vision of meaning making that involves the body, the context, the historical moment, etc. However, his theory places speech as the central mode of communication par excellence, and renders other multimodal resources as elements at the service of speech, clearly not at the same level of linguistic elements. Wei’s stance is made evident in his decision of keeping the word “Translanguaging” to denote multimodal processes in communication, sort of like a reminder that communication is mainly linguistic, and other modes appear as ancillary back-ups of speech. What is more, Wei (2018) refers to languaging as the umbrella term that encompasses several modes of meaning making, but then again the etymological root of languaging reinforces the notion that language is first and foremost the most prominent mode for sign makers.
On the other hand, 脕lvarez-Valencia (2022) portrays a view of communication where multimodality permeates meaning making without any preference of a particular mode. In fact, speech is counted as one semiotic resource in a list of many others that are equally relevant, which in 脕lvarez’s terms is an attempt to contest the verbocentric ideology that has prevailed so far in communication fields. For 脕lvarez-Valencia (2022) the multimodal nature of communication implies the simultaneous co-occurrence of different modes of meaning making, as well as the transit across modes at the convenience and command of the sign makers. Accordingly, 脕lvarez-Valencia (2022) detaches himself from the concept of translanguaging (which fosters a verbocentric notion) and adopts the term of trans-semiotizing, in an attempt to illustrate the transit/transition across several semiotic resources for meaning making, among which speech is one of the many options sign makers have.
Finally, another difference between Wei’s and 脕lvarez’s arguments have to do with the the ultimate purpose of their postulates. While Wei (2017) focuses on a theory of language that would inform classroom practices and processes of language acquisition and learning, Alvarez’s (2022) transcends the didactic realm of the classroom and aims at decolonial endeavors by means of multimodal-social-semiotic perspective in intercultural communication.
Hello, dear Alex! We agree in many ways! As you, I also think that “verbocentrism” is what marks more distance between both authors. I also wrote about it. If you allow me, I am going to borrow the words you used to refer to trans-semiotizing as “trans-semiotizing, in an attempt to illustrate the transit/transition across several semiotic resources for meaning making, among which speech is one of the many options sign makers have.” Your words made me reminisce the first time I learned about translanguaging in a presentation by Raquel Sanmiguel, a scholar from the master in linguistics at Universidad Nacional de Colombia. I remember she usually made clear that she used the prefix trans- not to mean “going against language”, but to mean how Caribbean speakers of Spanish, English and Creole “transited” across languages and language varieties. At the same time, other scholars like Enrique Arias were also trying to conceptualize translanguaging without really providing satisfactory answers when they were asked about the differences between code-switching, code-meshing, code-mixing and translanguaging. I definitely agree with you and, of course, with 脕lvarez-Valencia and other authors, in the fact that it is the detachment from codification and the decentering of language what positions trans-semiotizing and the MSS purview of meaning-making as a new and fresh theory that frees communication from the imprisonment of words and linguistic structures.
The way you synthesized the information is nice. I could see how you organized the information from 脕lvarez Valencia (2022) into five main and central ideas. I can see different ideas that converge between your mind map and mine. Additionally, the visual design of your mind map is good. The colors you used are in accordance with the layout and the spatial spaces are well-organized.
In relation to your response, I have to say I am in agreement with you in the sense that Wei’s (2018) arguments are centered on language theories rather than catering for different cultural semiotic resources that are also part of communication and its different modes. Based on your response and the setting you are immersed in; I would like to ask if you have evidenced any vestiges of multimodality / multimodal pedagogies in the language programme/s at Univalle? Do you think social-semiotics is taking place at the university level in your city? I ask this because I think at the state-funded school level, we have incipient advances regarding this fact. I can see there are just few or no teachers who acknowledge the concepts of translanguaging / multimodality / multimodal pedagogies / social semiotics / trans-semiotizing / resourcing resources, among others. This makes me reflect on the importance of appropriating the terms from a decolonial perspective to subvert ELT hegemonies still present in teaching and learning nowadays.
Hi Hans, yes, trans for me also should mean transgressing as you say subverting. Still, I guess people are free to have a more particular or reductive view of translanguaging centered on language only.
In what ways does 脕lvarez Valencia’s argument resemble or contradict that of Wei’s argument in “Translanguaging as a practical theory of language”?
ResponderEliminarWei (2017) acknowledges the fluidity and dynamism of communication, as well as the presence of multimodal elements in any process of meaning making. As a matter of fact, Wei (2017) draws on authors such as Thibault, Cowley, and Steffensen, who put forward a vision of meaning making that involves the body, the context, the historical moment, etc. However, his theory places speech as the central mode of communication par excellence, and renders other multimodal resources as elements at the service of speech, clearly not at the same level of linguistic elements. Wei’s stance is made evident in his decision of keeping the word “Translanguaging” to denote multimodal processes in communication, sort of like a reminder that communication is mainly linguistic, and other modes appear as ancillary back-ups of speech. What is more, Wei (2018) refers to languaging as the umbrella term that encompasses several modes of meaning making, but then again the etymological root of languaging reinforces the notion that language is first and foremost the most prominent mode for sign makers.
On the other hand, 脕lvarez-Valencia (2022) portrays a view of communication where multimodality permeates meaning making without any preference of a particular mode. In fact, speech is counted as one semiotic resource in a list of many others that are equally relevant, which in 脕lvarez’s terms is an attempt to contest the verbocentric ideology that has prevailed so far in communication fields. For 脕lvarez-Valencia (2022) the multimodal nature of communication implies the simultaneous co-occurrence of different modes of meaning making, as well as the transit across modes at the convenience and command of the sign makers. Accordingly, 脕lvarez-Valencia (2022) detaches himself from the concept of translanguaging (which fosters a verbocentric notion) and adopts the term of trans-semiotizing, in an attempt to illustrate the transit/transition across several semiotic resources for meaning making, among which speech is one of the many options sign makers have.
Finally, another difference between Wei’s and 脕lvarez’s arguments have to do with the the ultimate purpose of their postulates. While Wei (2017) focuses on a theory of language that would inform classroom practices and processes of language acquisition and learning, Alvarez’s (2022) transcends the didactic realm of the classroom and aims at decolonial endeavors by means of multimodal-social-semiotic perspective in intercultural communication.
(400 words)
Hello, dear Alex! We agree in many ways! As you, I also think that “verbocentrism” is what marks more distance between both authors. I also wrote about it. If you allow me, I am going to borrow the words you used to refer to trans-semiotizing as “trans-semiotizing, in an attempt to illustrate the transit/transition across several semiotic resources for meaning making, among which speech is one of the many options sign makers have.” Your words made me reminisce the first time I learned about translanguaging in a presentation by Raquel Sanmiguel, a scholar from the master in linguistics at Universidad Nacional de Colombia. I remember she usually made clear that she used the prefix trans- not to mean “going against language”, but to mean how Caribbean speakers of Spanish, English and Creole “transited” across languages and language varieties. At the same time, other scholars like Enrique Arias were also trying to conceptualize translanguaging without really providing satisfactory answers when they were asked about the differences between code-switching, code-meshing, code-mixing and translanguaging. I definitely agree with you and, of course, with 脕lvarez-Valencia and other authors, in the fact that it is the detachment from codification and the decentering of language what positions trans-semiotizing and the MSS purview of meaning-making as a new and fresh theory that frees communication from the imprisonment of words and linguistic structures.
EliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarDear Alexander,
ResponderEliminarHope you are alright.
The way you synthesized the information is nice. I could see how you organized the information from 脕lvarez Valencia (2022) into five main and central ideas. I can see different ideas that converge between your mind map and mine. Additionally, the visual design of your mind map is good. The colors you used are in accordance with the layout and the spatial spaces are well-organized.
In relation to your response, I have to say I am in agreement with you in the sense that Wei’s (2018) arguments are centered on language theories rather than catering for different cultural semiotic resources that are also part of communication and its different modes. Based on your response and the setting you are immersed in; I would like to ask if you have evidenced any vestiges of multimodality / multimodal pedagogies in the language programme/s at Univalle? Do you think social-semiotics is taking place at the university level in your city?
I ask this because I think at the state-funded school level, we have incipient advances regarding this fact. I can see there are just few or no teachers who acknowledge the concepts of translanguaging / multimodality / multimodal pedagogies / social semiotics / trans-semiotizing / resourcing resources, among others. This makes me reflect on the importance of appropriating the terms from a decolonial perspective to subvert ELT hegemonies still present in teaching and learning nowadays.
Regards,
Hans
Hi Hans, yes, trans for me also should mean transgressing as you say subverting. Still, I guess people are free to have a more particular or reductive view of translanguaging centered on language only.
EliminarThank you dear professor :)
EliminarHello Alex, thank you very much for your review. Here is a comment about it https://voca.ro/1mqoXCJq8TLQ
ResponderEliminar