Generation 1.5 Writing Center Practice: Problems with Multilingualism and Possibilities via Hybridity

In much writing center theory and practice, conversations about multilingual writers have tended to involve L2 writers. Often international students, these writers speak at least one language other than English, but they perhaps speak more than just one other language despite their L2 designation. They do not speak English as their first language, and when they come to English-language-based institutions of higher education, they find themselves needing to learn and learning English. More recently, however, the field of writing center scholarship has recognized complexity in the category of multilingualism. Especially following the publication of Terese Thonus’s “Serving Generation 1.5 Learners in the University Writing Center,” Generation 1.5 or L1.5 writers have emerged as part and parcel of writing center practitioners’ and scholars’ conversations. Neither L1 speakers and writers nor L2 necessarily, Generation 1.5 writers exist in a linguistic liminal space. Although much variation exists among Generation 1.5 writers and although Generation 1.5 writers do not inherently represent a single, transitional generation in a family’s immigrant history,1 Linda Harklau, K. M. Losey, and Meryl Seigal define them as writers with “backgrounds in US culture and schooling” who sustain identities that are “distinct from international students or other newcomers who have been the subject of most ESL writing literature” (vii). They differ from English as a Second Language (ESL) students in that they “are primarily ear learners,” and they may “have lost, or are in the process of losing, their home language(s) without having learned their writing systems or academic registers” (Thonus 18). They are neither here nor there in terms of their linguistic identities. Or, perhaps, they are both here and there.University Writing Cente

PROFILOWANIE PRAWNO-JĘZYKOWE W OSADZENIU INSTYTUCJONALNYM – NA PRZYKŁADZIE PRACOWNICZYCH ORGANÓW PRZEDSTAWICIELSKICH W UE

This paper applies a structured legal-linguistic profiling approach to EU “staff representation bodies” as a way to access domains that lie behind the public face of EU institutions and their texts concerning translation, language and terminology. The study commences with a legal-linguistic analysis of EU texts for references to “staff”, “staff representation” and “employment” in order to identify specific texts and bodies of relevance to the study. This approach leads to two broad categories: staff committees and trade unions. Information is sought from EU institutions about these bodies and their translation and language arrangements, and a list is made of websites available to the general public. These sites are then examined as part of the legal-linguistic profiling approach.W niniejszym artykule zastosowano ustrukturyzowane podejście do profilowania prawno-językowego do „unijnych organów reprezentujących pracowników” jako sposobu dostępu do obszarów poza oficjalnym obliczem instytucji UE oraz ich tekstów dotyczących tłumaczeń, języka i terminologii. Badanie rozpoczyna się od analizy prawno-językowej tekstów UE pod kątem odniesień do „pracowników”, „reprezentacji pracowników” i „zatrudnienia” w celu zidentyfikowania konkretnych tekstów i organów mających znaczenie dla badania. Takie podejście prowadzi do dwóch kategorii, ujmowanych szeroko: komitetów pracowniczych i związków zawodowych. Instytucje UE poszukują informacji na temat tych organów oraz ich tłumaczeń i ustaleń językowych. Sporządzono także listę stron internetowych dostępnych dla ogółu społeczeństwa, które następnie są badane w ramach profilowania prawno-językowego

Equal access to community interpreting in Flanders: a matter of self-reflective decision making?

The central issue tackled by this article revolves around decision-making by public service institutions in respect of the uses and perceived effects of community interpreting and translation in Flanders (Belgium) and/or other resources of language support (such as the use of a lingua franca, soliciting the help of a multilingual co-worker, etc.). The aim of the study was to obtain a clear understanding of processes and participant frameworks of decision-making with regard to language support within these institutions. Consequently, a qualitative survey was set up focusing on three selected geographic regions and, within these regions, on four domains of public service (health, education, public administration and employment assistance). Respondents were both institutional end users and immigrants. The results reveal a lack of national and local organizational policy and explicit procedures in the allocation of language support resources. This lack contributes to inequality in foreign language users’ access to the services of public institutions. It is recommended that a self-reflective framework be introduced for regulating access to a more systematic use of community interpreting alongside other instruments or strategies for bridging language barriers. Such a framework should be tailored to the needs of the institution’s clients and to domain-specific and local needs of the institution. It should also include the relative availability of other adequate instruments for bridging language barriers

Eliminating Language Barriers for LEP Individuals: Promising Practices from the Public Sector

While the focus of this report is on eliminating language barriers for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals, any strategy to improve communications with this population must also include English learning and address the shortage of high-quality English as a Second Language (ESL) courses for adults. State-administered ESL programs currently serve only about a million of the estimated 12.4 million LEP adults in the United States who need language instruction. The underfunding of ESL programs means that large numbers of immigrant adults who wish to learn English are unable to enroll in classes or face overcrowded classrooms. For instance, a 2006 national survey of ESL providers found that 57 percent of these programs maintained waiting lists -- ranging from a few weeks to more than three years -- and could not accommodate the high numbers of immigrants interested in learning English. Policy experts and organizations that work with adult English learners have proposed various strategies to increase the availability of high-quality ESL courses, but lack of political support at the national level -- coupled with the current fiscal crisis -- has weakened efforts to help immigrants improve their English skills

Maximizing Indigenous Student Learning in the Mainstream with Language and Culture

In this paper, we explore the importance of being conscious of the needs of indigenous students within the education system in order to increase their learning process and decrease their dropout rates. Specifically, we discuss how Mayan language, culture, and ideologies affect the educational outcome of Mayan students in mainstream classes in Guatemalan schools. From this discussion, we highlight the impact that these factors have on both teacher training and the education of the indigenous student population. A simple “teaching to learn—learning to teach” model is explained which discusses the importance of multilingual and multicultural aspects of teacher training and real-life implications in the indigenous student learning process

FACTORS DETERMINING THE DOMINAT LANGUAGE OF BILINGUAL JAVANESE-INDONESIAN CHILDREN IN THE VILLAGES OF BANCARKEMBAR (BANYUMAS REGENCY) AND SIDANAGERA (CILACAP REGENCY)

This paper is going to explain about the research on bilingual Javanese-Indonesian in Purwokerto and Cilacap. Most Javanese in rural areas are bilingual, i.e. Javanese and Indonesian. Javanese is usually spoken more in informal situations. Today, Javanese communicate more in Indonesian. The general impression is that the ability to read and write Javanese script is diminishing amongst the present generation of Javanese. Parents have an important role to preserve the Javanese language because if they use Javanese at home, their children will automatically master the language. The result of this research shows that there is an unsatisfactory attempt to master the complicated system of the standard Javanese language in Bancarkembar village, Banyumas Regency, and Sidanegara village, Cilacap Regency. Respondents in those two villages try to simplify Javanese language etiquette. The result of this research also indicates that the roles of the school are very important in supporting and repressing the Javanese language. Without considerable exposure to formal teaching and experience in other domains, it may lead to substantial defferences in teaching the language to their children