Translation as Technology: From Linguistic “Deficit” to Rhetorical Strength
For decades, scholars in rhetoric and composition and technical communication
have been acknowledging the increasing movement between people, places, technologies,
and networks embodied in contemporary classrooms and workplaces. This
constant flux of people and information has prompted researchers to further
consider the linguistic diversity enacted in the everyday communicative practices
of students and professionals. The idea that our classrooms and workplaces are
monolingual or dominated by “standard” English communication has
been consistently countered by scholars working across a broad range of disciplines,
including African American rhetorics, composition studies, technical communication,
English education, and related fields of practice (Alvarez; Matsuda; Pennycook; Sun;
Young). Stemming from the early work of our leaders in language and education (Smitherman), we have been advocating for the diverse communicative practices of “students
[and professionals] from the margins,” or the ability of individuals who work across
language and difference to communicate with various audiences using a wide range of tools.
More recently, scholars working in digital rhetorics have broadened our conceptions
of writing and communication beyond a single form, modality, or language (Arola, Ball,
and Sheppard, Canagarajah, Fraigberg, Gonzales, Selfe and Horner; Wysocki). The focus
of this scholarship on media or multimodality has been on emphasizing how writing can
encompass tools and semiotic resources expanding beyond alphabetic, monolingual words.
Policies such as the Statement on 21st Century Literacies issued by the National
Council of Teachers of English and the report “Diversity in Technical and Professional
Communication Programs” (Jones, Savage, and Yu), suggest that the fields of rhetoric and
composition and technical communication are now encouraging students, professionals, and
teachers to value and blend languages, cultures, and technologies to leverage the broadest
“bandwidth of semiotic resources for communication in order to make available all available
means of persuasion” (Selfe, n. pag). As Angela Haas explains, bridging conversations
on race, rhetoric, and technology in and across our disciplines allows us to “consider
more deeply how race affects the ways in which technologies and documents are designed and
used, how national and political values can inspire users to transform the work of technologies
beyond their designed intent, and how non-Western cultures use and produce with Western and
non-Western technologies differently than Westerners do” ( “Race, Rhetoric”
281). In this way, conversations connecting language, culture, and technology can help us recognize
the diverse realities of our communicative spaces.
In this chapter, I’d like to contribute to the efforts of this collection by
illustrating the ways in which linguistic diversity functions as a powerful technology
enacted by multilingual communicators. Drawing on a case study conducted with multilingual
technical communicators working in a non-profit organization located in Western Michigan,
I aim to show how multilingual communicators develop, maintain, and practice
multilingualism as a rhetorical strategy that allows them to bridge communicative discrepancies
across cultures. Paying attention to the communicative practices of multilingual communicators,
I argue, can help us continue moving beyond Western notions of rhetoric and technology, hence
allowing us to understand difference as an asset rather than a deficit in our classrooms and
workplaces. The purpose of this chapter is not simply to state that multilingual communicators
use diverse communicative strategies, but also to illustrate what these strategies entail and
how these strategies can contribute to the aims and goals of teaching and research in both
composition and technical communication.
Theories of Translation
Stemming from the understanding that linguistic homogeneity is a myth
(Matsuda) and drawing on the understanding that languages are always
in translation (Pennycook), researchers have theorized the various
strategies through which individuals blend languages and tools to communicate
across contexts. For example, the “translingual turn” in composition
recently emerged to help us understand the movement and blending of languages
within classrooms and programs. As described by Horner, Lu, Royster, and
Trimbur, translingualism illustrates “how language norms are actually heterogeneous,
fluid, and negotiable,” thus “directly counter[ing] demands that writers
must conform to fixed, uniform standards” (305). Proponents of translingualism
push researchers and teachers to value “how writers deploy [and combine] diction,
syntax, and style, as well as form, register, and media” (Horner, Lu, Royster
304). Hence, translingualism encourages the crossing and blending of semiotic resources
to communicate in classroom spaces, breaking away from what Selfe and Horner describe
as the “single language/single modality” approach to writing and writing
In addition to translingualism, earlier frameworks and theories of language illustrate
the processes through which individuals “mix,” “mesh,” or
“mash” languages and communicate (Young; Fraiberg). Scholars like Vershawn
Ashanti Young and Alistar Pennycook proposed the “code meshing” model to
theorize linguistic diversity. Code-meshing encourages individuals to combine languages
to use the “full quiver” (Selfe) of their semiotic resources to communicate
rather than having to conform to linguistic standards in any specific context. Like
translingualism, code-meshing models point to the ways individuals draw on a variety
of other semiotic resources like images and media (Canagarajah; Pennycook). Meshing or
“mashing” communicative codes including languages and modalities allows us to
better understand how linguistic and cultural “flows or scopes are co-constituted in
everyday reading, writing, speaking, and design practices” (Fraiberg 104). In this way,
code-meshing encourages teachers and students to blend languages, modalities, and other
resources to convey their ideas.
Concepts like “code-meshing” and “transligualism” help us
describe the linguistic practices of individuals who blend languages and other semiotic
resources to communicate, leading to the development of curricular models for writing
pedagogies that extend beyond the limitations of Standard Written English (SWE). Yet,
as some scholars have argued, while our fields have established helpful frameworks for
theorizing linguistic difference, we still need more examples to illustrate how this
diversity is enacted in practice (Guerra; Milson-Whyte). As Milson-Whyte explains, linguistic
moves “are sometimes motivated by social dictates, by ignorance, by desires to make
one language contest or complement another, or to achieve other specific purposes, or for
no apparent reason” (116). In turn, understanding the motivation and strategies for
moving between languages can help us continue to develop rigorous and ethical frameworks
for teaching and research.
In this chapter, I’d like to highlight the rhetorical work in which multilingual
communicators engage as they deploy diverse linguistic and technical resources to
transform information across languages. Rather than meshing or mixing languages, multilingual
communicators often aim to adapt information from one language to another. In this way,
multilingual communicators translate information to provide access to people with different
linguistic and technical strengths. This process of translation requires that individuals use
a wide range of semiotic resources (including languages and media) to make information accessible
to various audiences.
To highlight the rhetorical work that goes into translation, I focus this chapter
on my analysis of what I have come to call “translation moments”— instances
when an individual aims to transform and adapt information from one language to another
(Gonzales and Zantjer). Translation moments are not the entire process of translating a document
or word. Instead, translation moments are those instances in which individuals have to pause and
think about how a particular word or phrase needs to be contextualized for a specific audience
in a specific setting or moment. While the translation moments I illustrate in this chapter happen
when individuals are translating words from English to Spanish and vice versa, translation moments
can be part of any communicative task, even within a single language. For instance, translation
moments can take place when we have to pause and think about how to describe a
disciplinary-specific word or concept to someone unfamiliar with our field of study. However,
as I illustrate in this chapter, paying attention to how multilingual communicators navigate
translation moments as they move across languages can help all communicators understand how to
adapt and re-situate language for various audiences.
During “translation moments,” our linguistic histories and the limitations and
affordances of these histories create a communicative tension as we negotiate our ideas with
our linguistic abilities. Hence, analyzing “translation moments” allows us to examine
the resources and strategies individuals draw on to communicate while simultaneously teaching
us more about the sociocultural contexts in which we learn and work. In the following sections,
I’ll introduce the location where I studied “translation moments.” I will then
further illustrate how translation moments can help rhetoric and composition and technical
communication scholars understand translation as a rhetorical and technological activity that
can affect how we theorize and teach language and writing.
Analyzing Translation Moments: The Hispanic Center of Western Michigan
In order to study translation moments in practice, I partnered with the Hispanic
Center of Western Michigan, a non-profit organization in Grand Rapids,
MI.1 According to the organization’s website, the primary
goal of the Hispanic Center is to “provide unmet social services to the
Hispanic Community in Greater West Michigan.”
Because the Hispanic Center of Western Michigan aims to provide its community
members with opportunities to gain employment, residency, and social assistance
in the United States, translation is a critical component of many interactions
between the Hispanic Center’s staff and its community members. For example,
to apply for residency, community members visit the Hispanic Center to
translate their birth certificates and other documentation from Spanish to English.
In addition, community members who don’t speak English frequently come into
the center for assistance with translation as they fill out school enrollment forms
or job applications for themselves or their children. In turn, as the center’s
website makes clear, employees of the organization are “bilingual and
multicultural,” a necessary component of facilitating communication between
community members and their desired resources.
In the summer of 2015, I spent 20 hours per week researching translation
at the Hispanic Center. As part of a reciprocal research relationship, I researched
translation while also helping to coordinate translation jobs in the Hispanic
Center’s Language Services Department. As one of three branches of the center,
the Language Services Department has on its staff more than 20 translators and
interpreters, whose job it is to provide language accessibility to the community
by translating or interpreting interactions between Spanish-speaking community members
and English-dominant organizations in the area.
During my time working in the Language Services Department at the Hispanic Center,
I recorded (through video, audio, and field notes) over three thousand translation
moments, focusing specifically on instances in which participants made decisions about
how to translate a word, phrase, or idea from Spanish to English or vice versa. As
I worked alongside translators in the office, I made note of translation moments
emerging throughout the workday, using a field notebook to write down specific time
periods that I would then go back and analyze (in collaboration with other participants)
in the video recordings. In this way, I was immersed in the process of translation
along with my coworkers, experiencing the tensions and rhetorical decisions encompassed
in my data.
For example, as one of the translators was translating a neighborhood guide for the
city of Grand Rapids from English to Spanish, she hesitated in an attempt to translate
the word “waste” in the phrase, “hazardous waste disposal in City
refuse carts” (see Figure 3).
In the translation moment illustrated in Figure 3, the translator was not sure whether
the word “waste” in this context should translate to desechos
or residuos in Spanish. To make an accurate decision during this translation
moment, the translator used digital tools (e.g., the Linguee dictionary and Google Translate)
as well as physical resources (e.g., a conversation with the other translator in the
room) to make a translation decision. Through her conversation with the second
translator, the decision was made to use the word residuos because the
translators believed this word to be “more proper” for a formal publication
to be sent out to all residents in Grand Rapids (see Figure 4). In deciding on a
“proper” translation, the two translators recalled their
previous experiences with the words desechos and residuos, sifting
through their indexed cultural knowledge drew on various technologies—physical, social,
and embodied—to make an accurate decision that would make the required
information accessible to their audience. I argue that closely analyzing these translation
moments and the tools and strategies used by translators in these instances can
help us understand the rhetorical, technological work of multilingual communicators
at a level of practice.
In the following section, I will illustrate three other translation moments that
took place during my time in the Language Services Department at the Hispanic Center
of Western Michigan. Through these three situated examples, I argue that multilingualism,
and in particular the processes through which multilnguals transform information
across languages, is a powerful technology and a rhetorical practice that should receive
more specific attention in our classrooms and professional spaces.
Translation Moment 1: Translation as Cultural Localization
While all employees at the Hispanic Center are bilingual (speaking both
Spanish and English in various capacities), analysis of translation moments
within this organization revealed that these employees were incredibly aware
of their need to culturally localize information. Recent conversations about
translation in technical communication have taught us that the mere replacement
of one word in one language with a word in another language does not account
for the work that goes into making appropriate linguistic and
cultural transformations (Agboka; Batova and Clark; Sun; Walton, Zraly, &
Mugengana). That is, replacing one word with another does not necessarily translate
the ideas, interfaces, and usability of a design. Hence, although employees at
the Hispanic Center speak both English and Spanish, they also have extensive
experience localizing information to specific Latin@ cultures.
For example, the video in Figure 5 illustrates how Sandra, a promotora
(or promoter) for one of the Center’s healthy-eating initiatives, begins her
presentation by assuring her audience that although they all come from different
places, she will do her best to make sure they can understand one another
(“yo creo que nos vamos a entender, aunque somos de differentes
paises”). Sandra tells a story about how in a previous presentation,
she used the word mazorca to describe corn on the cob. An audience member
from Mexico at that presentation thought Sandra was suggesting she serve dry corn to
her family (which did not seem right to her). Hence, in the translation moment I recorded,
Sandra uses another translation moment to let her audience know that she understands
the need to localize information. She then proceeds to pause at several points
to ask her audience how they define specific words (e.g., “How
do you say ‘beans’ to your kids?”; “How does your family
describe grocery shopping?”), negotiating languages as she presents information
to a multicultural audience that is familiar with Spanish and English to various
degrees. She situates the information she is presenting within the context of that
specific audience during that specific presentation.
While this is a brief and limited example, Sandra’s (and her audience’s)
language localization echoes some of the arguments recent scholars in technical
communication have made to highlight the importance of “user localization.”
As Sun illustrates, analyzing the localization practices of everyday users can help
technical communicators better understand how to develop culturally sensitive, global-ready
content (Gonzales and Zantjer). Translation moments at the Hispanic Center, such
as Sandra’s language localization practices, illustrate the extensive localization
experience multilingual communicators gain through their lived experiences. In
turn, further studying how and why multilingual communicators translate and localize
information can help us understand the rhetorical dexterity needed to communicate
across languages and cultures. Multilingual communicators’ localization practices
can help technical communicators better understand how to adapt and develop technologies
across cultural, linguistic, and physical boundaries.
Translation Moment 2: Translation as Rhetorical Strategy
While translation moments often occur when multilnguals attempt to describe
a concept or idea they have in mind to a specific audience, they can
also reflect instances of struggle, confusion, and negotiation, in which answers
or descriptions are not readily accessible. Multilingual communicators employ
several strategies to negotiate such communicative discrepancies.
For example, as she was translating a marriage certificate for a community
client, Carolina, a trained translator at the Hispanic Center, stumbled when
translating the word “notarize.” At first, Carolina used
Linguee, an open-access digital translator
to look up Spanish translations for the word “notarize”
As evidenced in Figure 6, Linguee provided three possible translations for the word
including notariado, notariados and escriturados.
While these translations are useful, all three words are present-tense adjectives,
and Carolina was looking for a past-tense description. Catalina’s experience
with digital translation software reflects many of the limitations exhibited through
algorithmically developed translations (Chen and Bao). Thus, during this translation
moment Carolina was left to improvise a translation. At first she asked out to others
in the translations department office, “Como dirian &lsqu;notarized’?”
(“How would you all say ‘notarized’?”).
Another translator, Sara, said “‘Notarizado’?” Carolina replied,
“Yeah, I think so, pero what about ‘notariado’?” Carolina and
Sara then said both words aloud: “Notariado, notarizado,
notariado, notarizado… which sounds better?” They then googled
both words to find examples of each used in articles written in Spanish. At
this point, Sara explained, “I think notariado is the correct
translation grammatically speaking, but notarizado is used most
commonly in practice.” Based on this conversation and on their collaborative
research, Carolina used notarizado in her translation.
This translation moment represents one isolated instance of an activity
in which translators and multilingual communicators engage on a daily basis. While
all communicators have to situate their language rhetorically, the practice of
consistently contextualizing language across English and Spanish allows translators
like Carolina and Sara to understand how to respond appropriately to communicative
discrepancies in specific rhetorical situations. While there is no evidence for their
rhetorical dexterity in contexts outside of this translation moment for the example
provided, looking at the flexibility and ease with which Sara and Carolina negotiated
language using digital, physical, and cultural resources may help us understand how
multilingual communicators are constantly practicing finding the most appropriate
discursive resources for communication. This practice can perhaps, if given
adequate value and attention, be leveraged in other academic and professional contexts
in which we encourage individuals to develop rhetorical flexibility.
Translation Moment 3: Translation as Design
While much of the translation work at the Hispanic Center is verbal
and/or alphabetic, translation moments also involve the use of other semiotic
resources. In addition to having a Language Services Department that translates
information for the office and for community partners, the center employs Amy, a
technical communicator in charge of designing promotional materials, maintaining
the website, and writing grants for the Hispanic Center. While Amy is proficient
in both Spanish and English, she frequently relies on the trained translators in
the Language Services Department to translate formal language for the
website. As illustrated in Figure 7, the Hispanic Center’s website has both an
English version and a Spanish version, which means that content frequently needs to
be updated in both languages in order to be accessible to both Spanish- and English-proficient
During one translation moment, Amy worked to adapt information translated by
the Language Services Department to the organization’s website. She
was attempting to update the “Current Volunteer Opportunities”
portion of the website. She sent the Language Services translators a written
list of the opportunities in English, and they returned the translations
depicted in Figure 8. Amy transported the translated information into the
Spanish portion of the site; however, she was left with a task that required
more than cuting and pasting.
As Amy explained during this translation moment, adapting content from the
English version to the Spanish version of the Hispanic Center’s WordPress site is
not always easy. When she receives translations from the Language Services
Department, she frequently has to adjust them to fit the space
constraints of the website’s template. “Spanish is often longer
than English,” Amy explains, which means “what fits on the
English side of the site doesn’t always fit in the Spanish side.”
During this specific translation moment, Amy had to readjust the Spanish
sentences, requiring that she use her knowledge of Spanish and her understanding
of design to decide how to best adapt the information. In addition, Amy explains
that the WordPress site itself “is clunkier on the Spanish side,” since
plug-ins and updates don’t always work at the same pace and in the same way
in both versions. Through her job at the center, Amy has to constantly toggle
between Spanish and English and between the corresponding parts of the
WordPress site. She not only has to employ successful visual design practices
(Arola; Fleckenstein; Wysocki), but also has to understand how her designs
may affect multilingual audiences across the various parts of the
website. While Amy receives translation help from the Language
Services Department with the written/alphabetic translations, translators in the
Language Services Department are not familiar with Web content management and
design. Often Amy has to adapt the translations given to her by the translators,
put these adaptations on the site, take screenshots of the content, print these
screenshots, and physically bring them to the Language Services Department for
further proofreading. Thus navigating “intercultural visual design”
(Brumberger) requires Amy to pair her technological and linguistic skills with the
linguistic and cultural skills of the translators in the Language Services Department.
In Figure 9, Amy and the Language Services Director, Sara, are shown discussing how
Amy’s adaptation may be perceived by Spanish-speaking users of the
As evidenced in this translation moment, translation is more than just
the transformation of words. Effective translations, particularly when developed
in professional settings, require the navigation of images, Web platforms, and other
media. Hence, while technical communicators would gain experience with these
rhetorical adaptations in many professional settings, technical communicators
like Amy who adapt content across languages have an additional layer of work to
accomplish in order to advocate for their organizations and communities.
Conclusion: Translation as Technology
Analysis of translation moments as enacted by multilingual writers
and translators at the Hispanic Center illustrates some of the creative,
rhetorical, purposeful work of translation. The rhetorical negotiations that
take place as multilingual communicators shape information in and between
English and Spanish requires audience awareness, rhetorical dexterity, and an
understanding of writing beyond the alphabet. Given this, I’d like to end
by arguing for a closer examination and greater valuing of translation
as a technology.
In “Wampum as Hypertext,” Angela Haas asks our fields to reconsider
the notion of “discovery” as it applies to how we historicize and
conceptualize digital tools and technologies. Through her illustration of wampum
belts as tools preceding Western conceptions of hypertext, Haas “call[s on us to]
resist the dominant notions of what it means to be technologically
‘literate’ or ‘advanced’ and… critically reflect
on struggles for and engage with discussions about digital and visual rhetorical
sovereignty” (95). In the same vein, Haas reminds us that the word
“digital” precedes our field’s understanding of
digitized tools and technologies, saying “’[D]igital’ refers to our
fingers, our digits, one of the primary ways (along with our ears and eyes) through
which we make sense of the world and with which we write into the world” (84).
Following Haas’s call for the reconsideration of how we theorize digital and
visual rhetorics, I suggest that we continue analyzing the work of translation as a technology
employed by multilingual communicators to accomplish rhetorical work. If we are to think
of the word “technology” as a derivative of the Greek word “techne,”
we might link back to the “craftsmanship” or “creativity” employed
by Greek orators as they spoke in trials and lectures. This etymology suggests that the word
“technology” relates to creative practices employed for specific rhetorical
purposes. Translation, on the other hand, as illustrated here through employees at the Hispanic
Center, requires a similar sense of creativity and rhetorical awareness. As evidenced by the
three brief translation moments I discuss, multilingual communicators who move between languages employ
a variety of technical resources to accomplish their work. These resources include not only digital,
internet-based technologies (e.g., Linguee digital translator, WordPress platforms),
but also include cultural knowledge (e.g., an understanding of how
foods are named differently by various Latin@ communities) and collaborative community practices
(e.g., conversations about translating “notarized”). Hence, technical communicators,
and more broadly communicators who navigate linguistic boundaries to accomplish work, must
employ various iterations of the word “technology.”
As we consider the connections between race, technology, social media, and multimodality
in this collection, it’s important that we emphasize the importance of the theories,
terminologies, and various histories through which we describe our work. While positioning
multilingualism as a technology may be a small move that requires much more extensive empirical
study, thinking about the ways in which we name the practices of multilingual communicators
can help us continue flipping the deficit model often used to represent people of color in
professional and academic spaces.
Often multilingualism is positioned as an “issue” or communicative
“problem” to be overcome in our classrooms and workplaces, particularly
with reference to individuals whose primary language is not English. While many
researchers are working to flip this discourse through various methods, my focus
on the rhetorical work enacted by multilingual communicators through translation
moments can help us understand the specific, situated assets and strategies linguistic
diversity brings to classrooms and workplaces. These assets not only are relevant and
useful to multilingual communicators, but also can be applied to our broader objectives
as rhetoricians. That is, cultural localization, rhetorical dexterity, and design skills
are at the core of many organizational missions and academic programs. Drawing on this
research, writing and rhetoric instructors can present translation as a framework to
help students understand how language can be adapted for different audiences even when
all communicators are working in English. For instance, teachers can ask students to
interpret or translate discipline-specific terms like “audience” and
“analysis” using various semiotic resources, in this way encouraging a
multiplicity of meanings to be practiced through students’ work. With a focus on
translation, difference can be positioned at the center of our pedagogy, allowing students
to understand their role as communicators rhetorically adapting language to meet the needs
of various audiences and contexts.
In the same way, repositioning linguistic diversity as an asset in professional settings
can help us further value the translation work of multilingual technical communicators,
those individuals whose cultural histories and lived experiences can help us continue
designing and disseminating ethical and effective global content. By positioning
translation as a technology that can be learned and practiced, we can both continue
to value the communicative practices of multilingual communicators and directly
incorporate these practices into the core of our training and pedagogical models.
In turn, valuing translation as technology can help us center the experiences and
skills of multilingual communicators as relevant and critical to the broader aims of
our classrooms and organizations.
Agboka, Godwin Y. “Participatory Localization: A Social Justice Approach to Navigating Unenfranchised/Disenfranchised Cultural Sites.” Technical Communication Quarterly 22.1 (2013): 28-49. Print.
Alvarez, Steven. “Brokering the Immigrant Bargain: Second-Generation Immigrant Youth Negotiating Transnational Orientations to Literacy.” Literacy in Composition Studies 3.3(2015): 25-47. Print.
---. “Translanguaging Tareas: Emergent Bilingual Youth as Language Brokers for Homework in Immigrant Families.” Language Arts 91.5 (2014): 326-39. Print.
Arola, K, Sheppard, J. & Cheryl Ball. Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. Web.
Batova, Tatiana, and Dave Clark. “The Complexities of Globalized Content Management.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication (2014): 221-35. Print.
Brumberger, Eva. “Toward a Framework for Intercultural Visual Communication: A Critical Review and Call for Research.” Connexions International Professional Communication Journal 2.1 (2014): 91-116. Web.
Canagarajah, Suresh. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Chen, Jiangping, and Yu Bao. “Cross-Language Search: The Case of Google Language Tools.” First Monday 14.3 (2009). Web.
Gonzales, Laura. “Multimodality, Translingualism, and Rhetorical Genre Studies.” Composition Forum 31(2015). Web.
Gonzales, Laura, and Rebecca Zantjer. “Translation as a User-Localization Practice.” Technical Communication 62.4 (2015): 271-84. Print.
Guerra, Juan. “From Code-Segregation to Code-Switching to Code-Meshing: Finding Deliverance from Deficit Thinking through Language Awareness and Performance.” In P. J. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K, 2012. Web.
Fraiberg, Steven. “Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework.” College Composition and Communication 62.1 (2010): 100-126. Print.
Fraiberg, Steven. “Reassembling Technical Communication: A Framework for Studying Multilingual and Multimodal Practices in Global Contexts.” Technical Communication Quarterly 22.1 (2013): 10-27. Print.
Haas, Angela M. “Race, Rhetoric, and Technology A Case Study of Decolonial Technical Communication Theory, Methodology, and Pedagogy.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26.3 (2012): 277-310. Print.
---. “Wampum as Hypertext: An American Indian Intellectual Tradition of Multimedia Theory and Practice.” Studies in American Indian Literatures 19.4 (2007): 77-100. Print.
Hawisher, Gail, et al. “Becoming Literate in the Information Age: Cultural Ecologies and the Literacies of Technology.” College Composition and Communication 55.4 (2004): 642-92. Print.
Horner, Bruce, et al. “Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” College English (2011): 303-21. Print.
Jones, Natasha, Gerald Savage, and Han Yu. “Tracking Our Progress: Diversity in Technical and Professional Communication Programs.” Programmatic Perspectives 6.1 (2014). Print.
Matsuda, Paul Kei. “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition.” College English 68.6 (2006): 637-51. Print.
---. “The Lure of Translingual Writing.” PMLA. 29. 3(2014): 478-83. Print.
Milson-Whyte, Vivette. “Pedagogical and Socio-Political Implications of Code-Meshing in Classrooms: Some Considerations for Translingual Orientation to Writing.” In Literacy as Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms. Ed. Suresh Canagarajah. New York: Routledge, 2013: 39-46. Print.
Pennycook, Alastair. “Beyond Homogeny and Heterogeny.” “The Politics of English as a World Language. Ed. Christian Mair. Rodopi, Amsterdam, 2003: 3-17. Print.
Sun, Huatong. Cross-Cultural Technology Design: Creating Culture-Sensitive Technology for Local Users. Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Selfe, Cynthia, and Bruce Horner. “Translinguality/Transmodality Relations: Snapshots from a Dialogue.” The Working Papers Series on Negotiating Differences in Language and Literacy. University of Louisville, 2013. Web. 5 July 2014.
Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Wayne State University Press, 1977. Print.
Walton, Rebecca, Maggie Zraly, and Jean Pierre Mugengana. “Values and Validity: Navigating Messiness in a Community-Based Research Project in Rwanda. Technical Communication Quarterly 24.1(2015): 45-69. Print.
Wysocki, Anne Frances. “Awaywithwords: On the Possibilities in Unavailable Designs.” Computers and Composition 22.1 (2005): 55-62. Print.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti, Rusty Barrett, and Kim Brian Lovejoy. Other People’s English: Code-Meshing, Code-Switching, and African American Literacy. Teachers College Press, 2013. Print.
Laura Gonzales is Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Writing Studies at the University of Texas at El Paso. Her work is focused on the intersections of translation, technical communication, and community engagement. Laura also works as a translator for the Hispanic Center of Western Michigan in Grand Rapids, and she is a member of the 2016–2018 cohort for NCTE’s Cultivating New Voices among Scholars of Color (CNV) program.