Thank you so much for your message, I could listen to your feedback. My mom is already at home, thank God! We are taking good care of her and making the most of every moment with her. I really like the activity because it shows how our brains make meaning of the same text in different ways. Thanks again!
In what ways does Álvarez Valencia’s argument resemble or contradict that of Wei’s argument in “Translanguaging as a practical theory of language”?
The authors’ arguments resemble in their underlying principles due to the fact that these are practices that question and challenges the privilege of unique modes of communication in a given scenario. Translanguaging emerged from the need of making classrooms more equitable spaces for learning languages seeing individuals as meaning makers. In that sense, both concepts are pedagogical practices rooted in the same rationale of social justice education, multilingualism and decolonial thought in that they seek to transform power relationships in classroom scenarios. Additionally, both theories attempt to subvert linguistic ideologies that minoritized languages and other forms of expression (monolingual ideologies, verbocentric approaches). Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing are fluid and dynamic practices that aim at validating and legitimizing students’ linguistic and semiotic repertoires in the language classroom promoting the coexistence of languages and modes of expression, respectively, by bridging the gaps among individuals. Another similarity is that these two theories regard communication as multimodal because there is a movement across varied semiotic systems. Language learning, in both arguments, is a process that entails participation and resemiotization.
On the other hand, I do not see the authors' arguments as contradicting, instead I see trans-semiotizing as a more comprehensible concept for translanguaging. For Wei, translanguaging embraces multimodal social semiotics and language users enter in a cycle of resemiotization as they use signs associated with particular meanings. Even though Wei acknowledges the fact that humans draw on a set of cognitive, semiotic and modal resources to make meaning, his attention revolves around the linguistic repertoire. For Álvarez Valencia, trans-semiotizing embraces translanguaging given that language is as valid as any other mode of communication and does not have a primary role. He questions the primacy given to linguistic repertoires in translanguaging which ignores the role of other semiotic systems that come into play in multilingual and multicultural communication. Undoubtedly, the term trans-semiotizing offers a more comprehensive concept for the movement across a varied range of semiotic repertoires that make meaning in multicultural classrooms.
Hello Claudia, please listen to my commentary here https://voca.ro/15KAzanV816i
ResponderEliminarThank you so much for your message, I could listen to your feedback. My mom is already at home, thank God! We are taking good care of her and making the most of every moment with her. I really like the activity because it shows how our brains make meaning of the same text in different ways. Thanks again!
ResponderEliminarIn what ways does Álvarez Valencia’s argument resemble or contradict that of Wei’s argument in “Translanguaging as a practical theory of language”?
ResponderEliminarThe authors’ arguments resemble in their underlying principles due to the fact that these are practices that question and challenges the privilege of unique modes of communication in a given scenario. Translanguaging emerged from the need of making classrooms more equitable spaces for learning languages seeing individuals as meaning makers. In that sense, both concepts are pedagogical practices rooted in the same rationale of social justice education, multilingualism and decolonial thought in that they seek to transform power relationships in classroom scenarios. Additionally, both theories attempt to subvert linguistic ideologies that minoritized languages and other forms of expression (monolingual ideologies, verbocentric approaches). Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing are fluid and dynamic practices that aim at validating and legitimizing students’ linguistic and semiotic repertoires in the language classroom promoting the coexistence of languages and modes of expression, respectively, by bridging the gaps among individuals. Another similarity is that these two theories regard communication as multimodal because there is a movement across varied semiotic systems. Language learning, in both arguments, is a process that entails participation and resemiotization.
On the other hand, I do not see the authors' arguments as contradicting, instead I see trans-semiotizing as a more comprehensible concept for translanguaging. For Wei, translanguaging embraces multimodal social semiotics and language users enter in a cycle of resemiotization as they use signs associated with particular meanings. Even though Wei acknowledges the fact that humans draw on a set of cognitive, semiotic and modal resources to make meaning, his attention revolves around the linguistic repertoire. For Álvarez Valencia, trans-semiotizing embraces translanguaging given that language is as valid as any other mode of communication and does not have a primary role. He questions the primacy given to linguistic repertoires in translanguaging which ignores the role of other semiotic systems that come into play in multilingual and multicultural communication. Undoubtedly, the term trans-semiotizing offers a more comprehensive concept for the movement across a varied range of semiotic repertoires that make meaning in multicultural classrooms.