Composition Forum 40 - Rethinking Translingual as a Transdisciplinary Rhetoric

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jay

The article proposes a translingual and transdisciplinary rhetoric that complements, rather than confronts, discipline-specific conventions in discourse, language, and culture. It surveys major lines of inquiry on translingualism in composition studies and analyzes practical challenges and resistance. After outlining key definitions and what it means to practice across disciplines, it offers tentative directions for establishing a translingual/transdisciplinary rhetorical norm in pedagogical settings.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

Rethinking Translingual as a Transdisciplinary Rhetoric - Broadening the Dialogic Space

Abstract and core proposal

Translingual negotiation through the example of “dànmù”

Audience and pedagogical implications

Ethical negotiation across writing and disciplines

Current Issue From the Editors Weblog Editorial Board Editorial Policy Submissions Archives Accessibility Search Composition Forum 40, Fall 2018 Rethinking Translingual as a Transdisciplinary Rhetoric: Broadening the Dialogic Space Zhaozhe Wang Abstract: This article proposes a translingual/transdisciplinary rhetoric that aims to complement, rather than confront, current discipline-specific discursive, linguistic, and cultural conventions. Specifically, the article reviews various lines of inquiry on translingualism in composition scholarship and identifies and accounts for the challenges and resistance to this orientation in practice. After defining translingual/transdisciplinary rhetoric and conceptualizing what it means to practice it across disciplines, the author proposes tentative directions for achieving a translingual/transdisciplinary rhetorical norm in pedagogical spaces. “I didn’t translate the word, not because I couldn’t find an English equivalent, but because I wanted my professor to understand its history,” one of my former first-year composition students explained to me, pointing at the word “dànmù” in his web design project report. Originally from China, he is now a junior student studying in the department of computer science. He came to me for advice on an assignment he was working on—reporting the rationales and procedures for creating a webpage function called弹幕(dàn mù)–synchronous (real-time) live streaming commenting. Literally meaning “barrage,” dàn mù was invented in Japan, and became widely popular across multiple live streaming platforms. It works like this: when watching live stream, viewers post their comments and project them onto the video. Hundreds of comments float on the video immediately after the viewers post them, and move like flying bullets as the video plays, creating a platform for viewers to interact with each other in real time while watching the video. The comments are mostly lighthearted criticisms on the video or live performance. The course professor left a question mark on the word “dàn mù” in his paper and suggested that he replace it with a more descriptive term. Yet he secretly disagreed, asserting that there was no more vivid term than dàn mù and that we should pay tribute to the word dàn mù since he first came across the term where it was widely used. Apparently, he was consciously aware of the interpretive challenge that his professor may have experienced yet insisted on the word choice for his own performative reasons—he mobilized a word that is popular among Chinese netizens in a different geographical, linguistic, and disciplinary sphere to mark his rhetorical ingenuity and refused to succumb to the disciplinary genre conventions that value clarity. Understanding his rationale, I suggested,“Since you convinced me that it’s justified to use the term dàn mù, let’s think of ways to convince your computer science professor. You would want to invite him to have a conversation with you rather than alienate him. So what about...” We talked about strategies such as using a footnote or endnote to provide a brief history of the term, or replacing it with an equally vivid term in English to create similar rhetorical effects and so on. Eventually, we agreed to use the term “barrage” accompanied by a screenshot of a barrage of comments in Chinese that illustrates the term. The translingual negotiation that took place in my office reminded me of the “can able to” moment in Min-Zhan Lu’s classroom, where a Chinese student from Malaysia deployed in her writing an idiosyncratic expression of “can able to”(450), which is an unconventional use of standard written English. The two writers both had the privilege to make meaning by adopting strategies at and beyond the textual level within the site of negotiation where they knew their linguistic differences would be valued. The major difference here, however, lies at the audience. The writer in Lu’s class resolved the tensi

FAQs

What central goal does the article propose for translingual/transdisciplinary rhetoric?

It aims to complement current discipline-specific discursive, linguistic, and cultural conventions rather than directly confront them.

How does the author use the “dànmù” example to discuss translingual practice?

The author describes choosing whether to translate or keep the term, explaining how rhetorical effects, audience expectations, and disciplinary norms shape the negotiation process.

To what extent does the article connect translingual approaches to transdisciplinarity?

It argues that translingualism presupposes transdisciplinarity because language practices are situated and help shape knowledge construction and dissemination across fields.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by jay