Interpreting “Translanguages” in Transnational Women’s Literature: Socially Situated Perspectives and Feminist Close-Readings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an insightful article which examines the ‘translanguage’ practices of two writers from different geographical and cultural contexts (Algerian writer Assia Djebar and Dutch-Uruguyan poet Maxime Garcia Diaz). It shows how translanguaging practices can be employed as a tool of feminist resistance, subverting monolingual hegemony and patriarchal subjugation. The article draws on appropriate theoretical concepts, such as transnational, translingual, and transcultural writings, to make its argument. The discussion of the second case study is particularly strong, as there are clear examples to demonstrate how translanguage works in Garcia Diaz’s corpus. The article follows a clear structure and is well written. References are formatted correctly and are listed in the article’s bibliography.

It would be useful in the introduction to provide a clearer and more thorough explanation about why the case studies have been selected, as well as why the authors of the article have chosen to focus specifically on women writers. What does this add to the analysis? Specific terms should also be defined in the introduction, particularly when multiple terms are offered (e.g. p. 2, define translation, mother tongue, translingualism and translanguaging). I would also suggest moving the comments about the positionality of the article authors from the conclusion to the introduction, and then reflecting in more detail in the conclusion on how this positionality might have affected the research process and its conclusions.

The section ‘From transnational to translingual’ demonstrates good theoretical knowledge about connections between language and identity. It draws mostly on Homi Bhabha’s work. The connections between feminist positionality and transnational/translingual exchange could be reinforced at the end of this section – see Natalie Edwards’ comments about how translingual writing can act as a strategy of resistance to literary norms in Multilingual Life Writing by French and Francophone Women: Translingual Selves (2020).

In the following section it would be useful to distinguish between translingual writing and practices of translanguage/translanguaging. See Ofelia Garcia’s work on translanguaging (such as Translanguaging in Bilingual Education (2013)).  Translanguaging in Higher Education (2016) by Catherine Mazak and Kevin S. Carroll could also be useful.

In order to connect this section to the case studies, it would be useful to consider how the different geographical contexts of these writers influence their use of translanguaging and translingual practices. Terms such as ‘feminist translanguage of solidarity’ (p. 6) should be unpacked. References for the biographical information about Djebar should also be given. It would be helpful to make it clearer here that Djebar writes about her multilingualism in interviews and in metatextual contexts but that her prose is mostly written in French with little reference to her other languages (see Edwards, p. 23). If specific texts are analysed it would be useful to provide examples from Djebar’s writing, rather than focusing on secondary criticism. In this way, the voice of the authors will be more evident in the article, rather than that of other critics.

A transition paragraph between the two case studies would be useful. The second case study is much stronger than the first, given the detailed analysis of Garcia Diaz’s texts and the emphasis placed on primary texts rather than secondary criticism. More connections could be made between the two case studies in the conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

• It would be useful in the introduction to provide a clearer and more thorough explanation about why the case studies have been selected, as well as why the authors of the article have chosen to focus specifically on women writers. What does this add to the analysis? 

The relevance of transnational women’s writing is now explained in more detail. 

“The necessity of the EUTERPE project stems from phenomena in our contemporary era, defined by a reconceptualization of the nation state and national identity in an era of globalization, “characterised by migratory flows, hybridization among cultures and new concepts of citizenship and identity” (Federici and Fortunati 2019, p.47-48). Within Europe, refugee crises, migration, interculturalism and multiculturalism are contributing to the reshaping of Europe. Europe finds itself at a contradiction as it is a fluid and historically-situated concept, which can be defined geographically, politically and culturally, and yet it insists on its borders more than ever, most visibly in the treatment of refugees and the discourse surrounding “Fortress Europe.”

Significant contributions to literary criticism such as Times of Mobility: Transnational Literature and Gender in Translation (Lukic et al. 2019) have explored the particular relevance of gender to this genre. Transnational writers and subjects are displaced and elude fixed identity categories, troubling the notion of national belonging, presenting an issue when focusing solely on national discourses and literary canons. A focus on transnational women’s writing also allows us to explore how women’s lives, experiences and literary work are shaped and received through a gendered lens, bringing topics to the fore such as embodiment and transnational feminist solidarity.”

On our case study selection: 

“Our two case studies provide different models of linguistic and literary expression, highlighting two transnational women authors from differing cultural contexts, linguistic backgrounds and, indeed, time periods, all of which inevitably influence their literary output and performance of feminist solidarity within their texts. These differences will underline the appropriateness and replicability of our methodology which aims to place feminist close-reading in dialogue with translanguaging, demonstrating the connections between these two practices.”

 

• Specific terms should also be defined in the introduction, particularly when multiple terms are offered (e.g. p. 2, define translation, mother tongue, translingualism and translanguaging). 

These terms are now defined when they first appear and expanded upon when needed later in the article. 

“In brief, we understand translation as the process of conveying information from a source named language or semiotic mode to a target named language or semiotic mode for an intended audience. A mother tongue is generally understood as the language in which one was raised or spoke first before learning other languages (this is, of course, complicated by questions of familiarity, comfort, national belonging and many other considerations).  Translingualism is the act of moving between languages, covering those “authors who have written important works in more than one language, the ambilinguals, and those who have written in only a single language but one other than their native one, the monolingual translinguals” (Kellman 2000, p.11). Translanguaging is a distinct concept which “refers to using one’s idiolect, that is, one’s linguistic repertoire, without regard for socially and politically defined language labels or boundaries” (Otheguy et al. 2015, p.297). We will return to these terms throughout the article and expand on them when needed.”

• I would also suggest moving the comments about the positionality of the article authors from the conclusion to the introduction, and then reflecting in more detail in the conclusion on how this positionality might have affected the research process and its conclusions.

After the extent of our engagement with the literature on translanguaging and sociolinguistics, we have limited additional and separate reflections on our positionality due to the article’s increased length. However, we hope we have positioned ourselves through the theories and genealogies we have evoked in our analysis. 

• The section ‘From transnational to translingual’ demonstrates good theoretical knowledge about connections between language and identity. It draws mostly on Homi Bhabha’s work. The connections between feminist positionality and transnational/translingual exchange could be reinforced at the end of this section – see Natalie Edwards’ comments about how translingual writing can act as a strategy of resistance to literary norms in Multilingual Life Writing by French and Francophone Women: Translingual Selves (2020).

Elizabeth Robinson’s connections between feminist poststructuralism and translanguaging have also been used. We also refer to the “translanguaging space” of Li (2011 in Mazak 2017) and the feminist translanguaging border arte performed by Abril-Gonzalez (inspired by Anzaldúa). 

We have also quoted from Natalie Edwards (2020). “Translanguaging enables us to probe how and why authors incorporate multiple languages in their literary writing, how they transform languages to invent new linguistic formations and how they create new formulations of subjectivity within their self-narrative” (p.18). These new formations have, in Edwards's view, a strong dissident potential since "[blurring the borders] between where one language ends and another begins" (Ibid.) makes translanguaging transactions the arena for "side-stepping resistance to linguistic boundaries" (Ibid.). Furthermore, translanguaging can help these women writers resist and disrupt not only rigid literary norms but also the cultural hierarchies that sustain them:

Reading through translanguaging, then, fundamentally questions hierarchies between languages and the power accorded to some of them. In the context of a highly centralized, colonial language, such a reading practice is all the more necessary (ibid.).” 

 

• In the following section it would be useful to distinguish between translingual writing and practices of translanguage/translanguaging. See Ofelia Garcia’s work on translanguaging (such as Translanguaging in Bilingual Education (2013)).  Translanguaging in Higher Education (2016) by Catherine Mazak and Kevin S. Carroll could also be useful.

The scholarship of Ofelia Garcia and Catherine Mazak’s introduction to Translanguaging in Higher Education (2016) has now been incorporated into the article. We have also engaged with Otheguy et al. (2015) in our explanation of translanguaging and how it differs from translingualism.

• In order to connect this section to the case studies, it would be useful to consider how the different geographical contexts of these writers influence their use of translanguaging and translingual practices. 

This consideration is present in our analysis and close-reading of the writers in our case studies sections. We hope the new additions to our close-reading of Djebar, in particular, demonstrate the connections between translanguaging, translingual practices and geographical contexts.  

 

• Terms such as ‘feminist translanguage of solidarity’ (p. 6) should be unpacked. References for the biographical information about Djebar should also be given. It would be helpful to make it clearer here that Djebar writes about her multilingualism in interviews and in metatextual contexts but that her prose is mostly written in French with little reference to her other languages (see Edwards, p. 23). 

The work of Edwards is now included in the analysis. We have expanded on our use of the term translanguage and how it connects to feminism. We have unpacked the relevance of “feminist translanguage of solidarity” by increasing the amount of close reading in Djebar’s section.

 

• If specific texts are analysed it would be useful to provide examples from Djebar’s writing, rather than focusing on secondary criticism. In this way, the voice of the authors will be more evident in the article, rather than that of other critics.

The relevant section on Djebar has now been significantly altered to place more focus on her primary texts. 

• A transition paragraph between the two case studies would be useful. 

There is now a transition paragraph. 

1. The second case study is much stronger than the first, given the detailed analysis of Garcia Diaz’s texts and the emphasis placed on primary texts rather than secondary criticism. 

The relevant section on Djebar has now been significantly altered to place more focus on her primary texts. 

• More connections could be made between the two case studies in the conclusion.

Additional connections between the two case studies have emerged with the emphasis on close-reading in the section on Djebar. We hope that our conclusion evokes these connections without repeating them.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to read this submission. The topic is relevant and timely. The paper's focus on transnational women authors such as Assia Djebar and Maxime Garcia Diaz is welcome, and its attention to translanguaging in these authors' literary work contributes to understanding the textual and lived experiences of moving between, beyond, and across borders, languages, genres, and identities. However, the paper lacks a more robust engagement with the relevant literature. While the authors cite several sources within literary studies about translanguaging, they ignore the sociolinguistic scholarship about the phenomenon, which leads to several weaknesses. I'm certainly not implying that the authors should become sociolinguists themselves, but incorporating relevant sociolinguistic insights about translanguaging would significantly enrich the argument and highlight the paper's contribution to the special issue and to the field more generally. I have added several comments in the pdf with a view to helping stregthen this paper's theoretical and analytical scope. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

NB: Tracked changes have been kept on the document. Entirely new additions have also been highlighted in green. 

1. Overall appreciation: the paper lacks a more robust engagement with the relevant literature. While the authors cite several sources within literary studies about translanguaging, they ignore the sociolinguistic scholarship about the phenomenon, which leads to several weaknesses. I'm certainly not implying that the authors should become sociolinguists themselves, but incorporating relevant sociolinguistic insights about translanguaging would significantly enrich the argument and highlight the paper's contribution to the special issue and to the field more generally. I have added several comments in the pdf with a view to helping strengthen this paper's theoretical and analytical scope.

 

PDF comments:

1. A more suitable title as per the established uses in the relevant literature about translanguaging would be "Interpreting translanguaging in transnational women's literature...". There is not such a thing as "translanguage" as a nouns since moving across several linguistic repertoires is a practice, an action; translanguaging is a verb rather than a noun - much like the Butlerian view of gender performativity.
2. This is what sociolinguists refer to as translanguaging. The bulk of translanguaging scholarship is wary of considering named languages such as English, Swahili, Spanish etc. since such a view is based on an understanding of a language as a closed system. In practice, however, speakers deploy a variety of linguistic resources from various named languages in their daily lives - translanguaging refers to these hybrid uses of various linguistic resources for the purposes of a situated social action. The author would do well to attend to this scholarship more closely. See, for instance, the work of Suresh Canagarajah, Jerry Lee Won, Sender Dovchin etc.

 

Suggestions 1&2  accepted. We are aware that the term is not widespread which was the reason why it appears in inverted commas. However, after working on the references on translingualism from sociolinguistics suggested by the reviewer, we have realised that our article gains strength with the  incorporation of the dialogue with such scholarship. The title has been changed to  "Interpreting translanguaging in transnational women's literature..." 

 

1. What do you mean by "transnational women authors"? Please elaborate.

 

We have expanded on this term and provided our definition. 

 

“Transnational women writers are self-identified women writers whose identity does not fit neatly into one nation. Although this category is open to contestation, it includes writers who have physically crossed a national border, second-generation migrant writers, writers with more than one national identity, writers excluded from the nation (perhaps due to persecution), writers residing under colonialism, writers in exile, and writers deprived of a homeland.”

1. Again, the noun translanguage/s does not abide by the sociolinguistic scholarship in the phenomenon. Incorporating this scholarship in this paper would greatly enrich its argument and help it become more attuned with the relevant literature.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have incorporated this scholarship throughout the paper. It does certainly enrich the argument.

1. How is it distinct? Please elaborate. To be sure, feminist sociolinguists have also made important contributions to understanding translanguaging practices and their functions. See for instance the papers by Elizabeth Robinson and Ofelia Garcia in this special issue: https://www.benjamins.com/catalog/ttmc.5.1. and the chapter by Paty Abril-Gonzalez in  The Routledge International Handbook of Transdisciplinary Feminist Research and Methodological Praxis. 

 

Thank you for the suggestions. We have incorporated Garcia, Robinson and Abril-González into our paper. 

 

1. Negotiation (of meanings, identities, power relations, resources etc.) is central in any translanguaging practice. Several scholars of translanguaging have investigated the multiple dynamics of negotiation via the juxtaposition of various linguistic repertoires. Not engaging this scholarship weakens the argument of this paper. The authors seem to present "translanguaging" as something new, but it has a long pedigree in critical sociolinguistics.

 

We have now engaged with the literature on translanguaging recommended by the reviewer. We thank them for providing interesting perspectives and a body of scholarship which have strengthened our arguments and added new dimensions. 

1. here the authors use "translanguaging" and "translingualism" as interchangeable, but in the introduction, they affirm they are distinct concepts. Please, explain. Translanguaging has also been a topic of interest to sociolinguists since the early 2000s. While the authors situate their research within literary approaches to translanguaging, sociolinguistics has made incise contributions that at times even question/contradict/challenge the ways translanguaging has been used in literary scholarship. The authors should discuss these uses of translanguaging and incorporate sociolinguistic views of translanguaging since they can be useful for their purposes here.

 

We have now explained our approach to translanguaging and how it relates to previous scholarship on the term. 

1. This also resonates with bell hooks' rereading of Adrienne Rich's dictum "this is the oppressor's language, yet I need it to talk to you."  In other words, translanguaging as the deployment of multiple linguistic resources can be a powerful tool of resistance and postcolonial critique when bits and pieces of the oppressors' colonial languages are assembled together in innovative and defying forms, literary or otherwise. By deploying and repurposing bits and pieces of the oppressors' languages authors such as Gloria Anzaldua, Lelia Gonzalez, Djebar etc. not only position themselves within the colonial legacies that percolate their writing and lived experiences but also disrupt those very same legacies. Such translanguaging practices are radically contextual and reliant on complex form-content dialetics. In other words,  attention must be paid to the whats and hows of translanguaging. For instance, Anzandua's translanguaging between and across English, Spanish etc. emerges in specific contexts of her prose and in specific forms. To use Canagarajah's jargon, Anzaldua, Djebar and other female writers of the postcolony do not simply codeswitch from one language to another and back; instead, they "codesmash" the languages they use. Albeit interesting, the analysis has so far attended to the content of literary translanguageing in detriment to the form. I'm not suggesting that the authors should analyse the texts as sociolinguists would, but attention to form is paramount to add nuance to their reading of the material.

 

We greatly appreciate these suggestions and we have incorporated them into the article. 

1. Ok but how does the use of Dutch and English convey such different meanings? To advance such interpretations of what is conveyed through translanguaging, one needs to attend to how translanguaging is deployed. As sociolinguists have argued for decades, the same linguistic resource can amass different meanings in different contexts. Is it always the case that Diaz uses English as a "barrage of fiction" and Dutch conveys Diaz' story?

 

We are not extrapolating from this instance, but rather exploring how translanguaging is used in this particular poem and the effects of that in our close-reading. 

 

1. But isn't aesthetics itself a form of communication? The translanguaging scholarship I mentioned previously can help add nuance to this point.

 

We agree that aesthetics is a form of communication. We have altered the phrasing to suggest an affective response on the reader rather than a semantic meaning. 

 

1. Due to its contextual nature, meaning is never fixed. In fact, this is a truism in the translanguaging literature that informs my assessment of this paper.

 

We agree that language and meaning are contextual. However, emojis are not a codified language. They lack any standardisation or authority, and therefore their meaning is, in relative terms, more arbitrary than a verbal, written language.