404
Vol. 22 No. 2, October 2022, pp. 404 – 412
DOI: 10.24071/joll.v22i2.4802
Available at https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/JOLL/index
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Ordinariness of Code-meshing in the Indonesian
Linguistic Landscapes
Setiono Sugiharto
setiono.sugiharto@atmajaya.ac.id
Doctoral Program in Applied English Linguistics, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia,
INDONESIA
Abstract
Article
information
Code-meshing as a strategic linguistic practice has been considered a rarity
in a high-stake writing practice (e.g. academic writing). Studies in composition
scholarship have demonstrated that such a practice needs arduous intellectual
endeavors and extra rhetorical efforts to be realized. That is, code-meshing
requires an exceptionally high linguistic adeptness, language awareness, and
rhetorical sensitivity in order to be performed effectively. As such, the products of
code-meshing in scholarly writing are often seen as a marked form of textual
realization. This article shows that while strenuous struggles are needed to
practice code-meshing in academic writing (i.e. high-stake translingual practice),
such a practice can be performed as mundane, ordinary, unremarkable, and
relaxed activities (i.e. low-stake translingual practice) in linguistic landscapes or
signage displayed in public places. Illustrations of the code-meshed texts in the
latter case will be provided, and then examined to account for their
ordinariness. In light of the vibrant low-stake translingual practice, I shall develop
an important notion of grassroots performativity to suggest the everydayness of
quotidian language practices enacted by multilingual language users in their own
community.
Keywords: code-meshing, linguistic practice; linguistic landscape; multilingual
language users; grassroots performativity
Received:
22 June 2022
Revised:
24 August
2022
Accepted:
7 September
2022
Introduction
Initially developed as part of translingual
practices in composition studies, code-
meshing has become a widely-quoted
terminology du jour used to describe an
egalitarian linguistic practice of mingling and
blending different linguistic codes so as to
create a hybrid textual realization, the
eventual goal of which is to pluralize academic
writing (see Canagarajah, 2013; Young 2004).
In composition scholarship, scholars have
used such terms as translingual writing
(Horner, Lu, Royster, & Trimbur, 2011) and
transcultural literacy (Lu, 2009) to refer to a
https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/JOLL/index
Journal of Language and Literature
Vol. 22 No. 2 – October 2022 ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online)
405
similar idea to code-meshing practice. Studies
on cross-cultural compositions (albeit limited
in numbers) have demonstrated that meshing
different linguistic codes amid dominant and
established writing conventions requires an
exceptionally high linguistics adeptness. This
suggests that code-meshing can only be
effectively practiced and performed by
experienced writers and scholars who have
solid and mature metalinguistic knowledge
(i.e. the ability to reflect and manipulate
language structure to suit one’s
communicative purposes).
Without fully developed metalinguistic
adroitness and rhetorical sensitivity in
shuttling between languages and cultures, one
cannot effectively create and display his hybrid
textual realizations as the desired goal of code-
meshing practice. Matsuda (2014), without
belittling the value of code-meshing practices
as an innovative approach to translingual
writing pedagogy and research, cautions us
against the haphazard application of these
practices in both composition pedagogy and
research. A lack of understanding of the notion
of code-meshing as a realization of
translingual writing in its application would
lead students and scholars to valorize and
celebrate it uncritically, rather than employing
it “for its intellectual value” (Matsuda, 2014, p.
479).
While the pros and cons of the usefulness
and value of code-meshing have their own
merits, we, however, need to go beyond this
robust intellectual debate by contextualizing
code-meshing practices outside the confine of
academic writing. In doing so, we can fully
capture the diversity of linguistic practices in
other life domains, as well as appreciate the
perfomative potential of multilingual language
users in their everyday linguistic practices.
Engrossing ourselves exclusively in the
translingual practice of the elitist genre (i.e.
academic writing) could mask linguistic
performativity of lay language users.
This article further takes issues on the
idea of code-meshing by contextualizing its
realization in the linguistic landscapes or
public sites in the Indonesian context. It argues
here that unlike in the scholarly writing
domain, translingual practice of code-meshing
in public spaces can be seen as an ordinary,
mundane, and unremarkable language
practice, or what Dovchin and Lee, 2019 call
“the ordinariness of translinguistics.” Thus,
while in the former case, code-meshing can be
viewed as a high-stake, exclusive and marked
translingual practice, in the latter case, code-
meshing can be seen as a low-stake, inclusive
and unmarked translingual practice.
The article is structured as follows: first, it
clarifies the seemingly interchangeably-used
terms of code-meshing, code-switching, and
code-mixing; second, it reviews and discusses
evidence of high-stake code-meshing practices
of multilingual writers from different
ethnicities in published scholarly writings;
then, instances of low-stake code-meshing
practices in the linguistic landscapes will be
presented and analyzed; finally, a notion of
grassroots performativity will be proposed to
suggest the everydayness of quotidian and
relaxed language practices enacted by
multilingual language users in their own
community.
Code-Meshing, Code-Switching and
Code-Mixing: A Terminological
Mistmach?
Amongst the available neologisms in the
field of applied linguistics, especially in
composition and literacy studies, code-
meshing (unveiled initially by Young, 2004)
has sparked controversies among scholars in
the field. Probably due to its relative novelty,
code-meshing has not yet gained an
established status like other seemingly similar
notions of code-switching and code-mixing. At
its best, it has been treated as synonymous
with code-switching and code-mixing. At its
worst, its significance and values have not
been fully recognized.
Matsuda (2013), for example, seems
indifferent to expounding and distinguishing
code-meshing with code-switching and code-
mixing, and considers these terms as “a
terminological mismatch” (p. 133). For him,
any intellectual endeavors should not be
engrossed with distinguishing the terms, as
“many applied linguists use the term “code-
mixing” interchangeably with code-switching,
Journal of Language and Literature
ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online) Setiono Sugiharto
406
which is more or less the same idea as code-
meshing” (p. 134).
Canagarajah (2013), taking a somewhat
different position, does treat code-switching as
the same as code-mixing, but makes a sharp
distinction of these terms with code-meshing.
Problematizing the traditional differences
between code-switching and code-mixing (the
former requires bilingual competences, while
the latter does not), he sees no need to treat the
two separately, as dual language competences
are not always required in switching and
mixing codes. Clearly, Canagarajah’s treatment
of making the terms synonymous is heavily
influenced by his strenuous advocacy of
translingual practice, in which “one can adopt
language resources from different
communities without “full” or “perfect”
competence in them…(p. 10).
Yet, as for code-meshing, Canagarajah
(2013) differentiates it from code-switching
and code-mixing, in that the former “offers a
possibility of bringing the different codes
within the same text rather than keeping them
apart” (pp. 112-113). Thus, while both code-
switching and code-mixing are seen as
resorting to language separation and
segregation, code-meshing views different
linguistic codes as integrated into one
compartment (see also Canagarajah, 2006 for
the distinction of code-meshing and code-
mixing in a specific context of literacy
theorization and pedagogy).
The distinction between language
segregation and language integration in
relation to the distinction of the three terms
above is taken even further by Young (2009) to
sharpen the distinction between code-
switching (or code-mixing) and code-meshing,
to which he staunchly advocates both as an
ideology and as a pedagogy. For Young, code-
switching subscribes to a segregation ideology,
which “fortifies language barriers” (p. 67), and
which serves as a basis for facilitating racism
and sexism.
Furthermore, as a pedagogy, code-
switching has been argued to instill into
students “a segregationist logic” (p. 54), and is
therefore deemed incompatible with linguistic
diversities that have long characterized
language classroom. Accusing code-switching
of being undergirded by “the dominant
language ideology”, Young (2009) contends
that this ideology has been imposed on
“minoritized dialects speakers” to conform
and accept the standard norm for
communication.
As a corrective to this, Young (2009; see
also Young, 2013) proposes a preferable
notion of code-meshing. Code-meshing, as he
asserts, “encourages speakers and writers to
fuse standard language with native speech
habits, to color their writing with what they
bring home…, to multiply the range of available
rhetorical styles, expand our ability to
understand linguistic difference and make us
in the end multidialectical, as opposed to
monodialectical” (Young, 2009, 64-65) [italics
added]. What code-meshing envisions in both
oral and written communication is that
language users can shuttle forth and back
without necessarily conforming to the
“standard principles for communication”
(Young, 2009, p. 64). In addition, code-
meshing used in a pedagogical context is
deemed compatible with multilingual
speakers and writers, as “it allows them to
become more effective communicators by
doing what we all do best, what comes
naturally: blending, merging, meshing
dialects” (Young, 2009, p. 72).
The above exposition provides a clear
elucidation that that code-meshing is a
mutually exclusive notion which radically
differs from both code-switching and code-
mixing, in that it heavily emphasizes language
practice or performance (i.e. the actual), rather
than language competence (i.e. the
ideological). That is, code-meshing is
concerned with “whether (and to what degree)
something is in fact done, actually performed,
and what its doing entails” rather than with
“whether (and to what degree) something is
formally possible”, to borrow Hymes’ (1972, p.
281) formulation of communicative
competence. [italics in original].
With its emphasis on the performativity
of language in practice –an important and
excusive tenet that distinguishes it from both
code-switching and code-meshing –we
therefore see no reason for treating it, along
Journal of Language and Literature
Vol. 22 No. 2 – October 2022 ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online)
407
with the other two terms, as a terminological
mismatch. Instead, drawing a strict boundary
between these interchangeably used terms is
of paramount importance for the sake of
avoiding a terminological obfuscation.
Code-Meshing as a High-Stake
Translingual Practice
Deemed a strategic linguistic practice in
indexing and infusing one’s identities and
ideologies, code-meshing was initially
intended to resist linguistic inequalities
especially in literacy practices where the
established conventions and norms of the
privileged language (i.e. English) have been
dominant.
In the pedagogical circle, code-meshing
practices have been continuously exhorted
and even encouraged in order to challenge “the
dominant communicative norms through the
meshing of minoritized languages and
literacies for embodying alternate identities
and values” (Canagarajah, 2021, p. 20). Despite
the fact that the effective implementation of
code-meshing in the pedagogical context has
been called into question by scholars (Block,
2018; Flores, 2013, Kubota 2016), such
translingual practice has long been evident in
the writings of highly proficient multilingual
writers.
Classic examples of code-meshed writings
can be found in Canagarajah’s (2006, 2013)
astute analysis of the writing of an African-
American scholar, Geneva Smitherman, who
attempted to gain voice in writing by meshing
her home language, African-American
Vernacular English (AAVE) with Standard
English. Despite the dominance of the
established norms and conventions
Smitherman had to comply for her writings to
pass muster in the review process,
Canagarajah demonstrated that Smitherman
managed to strategically appropriate these
norms and conventions and to get her writings
published in the journals.
Another study of code-meshed texts by
multilingual scholars have recently been
carried out by Sugiharto (2015). Scrutinizing
the writings of two renowned Indonesian
scholars from two different ethnicities
(Javanese and Sundanese), Sugiharto has
provided further evidence of code-meshing
practice as a strategic way of indexing
multilingual writers’ identities in gaining voice
in academic writing. Both Canagarajah’s
(2006, 2013) and Sugiharto’s (2015) studies
have revealed that code-meshing occurred at
both lexical and morpho-syntactical levels.
This will be discussed further below.
Code-Meshing at Lexical Level
Drawing upon the studies from
Canagarajah (2006, 2013) and Sugiharto
(2015), this sub-section shows and discusses
how multilinguals writers of different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds
successfully managed to appropriate the
established academic conventions and to
construct their alternate discourses. The code-
meshing instances shown here occur at the
lexical level.
The classic study of code-meshing at the
lexical level has thrown important light into
how a multilingual writer styles him/herself to
gain voice amidst the dominance of the
established writing conventions (Canagarajah,
2006, 2013). Consider the following code-
meshed text:
As an organizational position, the
“Students’ Right” resolution represented a
critical mechanism for CCCC to address its
own internal contradictions at the same
time as marching, fist-raising, loud-talking
protesters, spearheaded by the Black
Liberation Movement, marred the social
landscape of “America the beautiful”
(Smitherman, 1999, pp. 357-358).
From Canagarajah’s (2013) analyses, the text
has rhythmic voice indicated by the lexemes
marching, fist-raising, loud-talking, which
“evoke a register that is more oral and non-
academic” (Canagarajah, 2013, p. 118). While
the inclusion of such lexical items (influenced
by the AAVE oral culture) can render the text
non-standard, the emotive and repetitive
expressions are considered rhetorically
enriching, as they have indexical values.
Journal of Language and Literature
ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online) Setiono Sugiharto
408
Consider again the following
translanguaged text from another multilingual
writer:
Both Sundanese and Javanese for example
share the values of silih asah (mutual
learning), silih asuh (mutual caring), and
silih asih (mutual loving) (Alwasilah, 2014,
p. 24)
The meshing of Sundanese phrases silih asah,
silih asuh, silih asih with English was done
deliberately, yet strategically. It is interesting
to observe here that for the sake of the reader’s
understanding of the meanings of these
phrases, Alswasilah felt obliged to provide
their English equivalents for each of the
phrase. However, as Alwasilah might have
believed that the original Sundanese phrases
could capture the specific nuances of the
context of his writing, he insisted on using the
phrases, for which their English counterparts
might not be able to convey the original
meanings. Given Alwasilah’s cultural
background as a Sundanese, the employment
of these phrases helped index his ethnic
identity. As Ivanic (1998) has pointed out, the
lexical aspect of writing can construct a
writer’s identity. Thus, it is through the use of
his native language that Alwasilah was able to
self-represent himself as a multilingual scholar
who was adroit in crossing different languages
in order to exercise his agency.
Similar to Alwasilah’s code-meshed
practice, Dardjowidjojo ‘s writing evokes a
sense of deliberate deviation of the standard
norm for the sake of achieving a certain
stylistic and rhetorical purpose.
The ewuh pekewuh outlook would also bar
students... (Dardjowidjojo, 2001, p. 319)
The meshing of the Javanese and English in the
example above showcases not only
Dardjowijojo’s linguistic dexterity in shuttling
languages, but also his consciousness of
historical, cultural, and socio-political factors
in which the texts are constructed. As can be
seen from the example, the Javanese phrase
ewuh pekewuh ‘feeling uncomfortable and
uneasy’ are deliberately meshed with the
English codes to locate the temporality of the
text and to bring the author’s agency as an
Indonesian nationality with a Javanese
ethnicity.
In doing the meshing, Dardjowidjojo
grounded his agency “in the mutually
constitutive relation of the individual and the
social, the official and the lived or practical”
(Lu & Horner, 2013, p. 592). With a strong
cultural root as a Javanese, he could freely
select and choose culturally available voices
and easily play out with meshing codes with
the purpose of attaining a rhetorical
effectiveness of his writing. Dardjowidjojo’s
insertion of the indigenous words instead of
finding their English equivalents reflects what
Wertsch (1991) calls “patterns of privileging”,
where the individual writer “can exercise the
power to conform to or resist the social forces
that are privileging one voice type over
another” (Ivanic & Camps, 2001, p. 7). It should
be clear here that Dardjowidjojo, while aware
of the governing academic norms or standard
written language he ought to conform, chose to
resist the social forces that could privilege the
dominant language (i.e., English), and opted
instead for using codes of his home
language(s).
Code-Meshing at Morpho-Syntactical
Level
Code-meshing also occurs at the morpho-
syntactical level, as illustrated in the instances
of a multilingual writer below.
At the morpho- syntactical level,
Darjowidjojo meshes Javanese terms (gugu
and tiru) with the Indonesian prefix di, ensuing
a passive construction. Morpho-syntactical
wise, the meshing of the codes from the three
languages creates a double passive
construction. As for the Standard Written
English norms, the following meshed
construction is rather eccentric, and may be
deemed undesirable and deviant from the
established norm.
A guru to us is a school-time parent. (S)he
must, therefore, be digugu (trusted that
what (s)he says is right) and ditiru
(imitated)... (Dardjowidjojo, 2001, p. 315)
Journal of Language and Literature
Vol. 22 No. 2 – October 2022 ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online)
409
The construction of be digugu and ditiru
demonstrates linguistic creativity, rather than
deficit. To borrow Milu’s term, such a creativity
is called “linguistic inventiveness.” (Milu,
2013). The double translanguaging (from
Javanese to Indonesian to English) here may
seem to flout the Standard Written English to
which the writer must conform. While being
conscious of the “ungrammaticality” of the
above construction, Darjowidjojo,
nevertheless, seems to adopt what
Canagarajah (2011, p. 411) calls a “relaxed
attitude” toward writing style and
grammatical error, not because he is ignorant
of the grammatical rules or shows no “care
about form”, but because he treats written
standards “subservient to his rhetorical
purposes”.
Additionally, the linguistic inventiveness
shows the author’s boldness to enact his
agency and index his ethnicity (as a Javanese)
without necessarily complying with the
standard conventions of academic discourse.
Such a double passive construction provides
further evidence that grammatical norms are
always emergent in a specific communicative
setting and ideological in nature.
Code-Meshing as a Low-Stake
Translingual Practice
While code-meshing in academic writing
can be considered as an elitist, exclusive
linguistic practice that can only be effectively
performed by skillful writers, code-meshing in
linguistic landscape can be seen as a more
inclusive, ordinary, quotidian, and mundane
activity. The latter is a low-stake linguistic
practice that can be done by ordinary language
users who have no necessarily advanced
language proficiency.
Unlike in the academic writing which
compels the writers to devise their cognitive
strategies in planning to code-mesh (when,
where (in the texts) and how to code-mesh),
code-meshing in the public space seems to be
performed at ease without these tedious
mental strategies. Consider, for example,
Figures 1, 2 and 3 below. We see in these
figures (signage found in the food stalls in
major cities in Indonesia) an assortment of
creative meshing and blending of linguistic
codes of English and Indonesian.
In Figure 1, for instance, we see a list of
the menu, along with the prizes offered: ‘prett
ciken’ (fried chicken), ‘kulit ciken’ (chicken
skin), and ‘ceker ciken’ (chicken feet), all which
have different prizes. The lexical meshing here
takes the form of both whole borrowing, as in
the case of ‘prett ciken’, and partial borrowing,
as in the case of ‘kulit ciken’ and ‘ceker ciken.’
In the former case, the original English words
are deliberately borrowed wholly by altering
their spelling so as to sound Indonesian
phonologically, and in the latter case, the
original word has been partly borrowed and
blended with the Indonesian words, creating
what is called loan-blend. The creative
meshing of these different linguistic codes also
has a humorous dimension which can make
people laugh upon reading it. Understood
from the context in this specific instance of
signage in the public site (the food stall) in a
multilingual country like Indonesia, code-
meshing of different languages becomes an
ordinary practice.
Figure 1
(source:https://twitter.com/kfcayamnyajago)
Another example of quotidian code-
meshed practice can be seen in Figure 2 where
the street vendor offers different kinds of fresh
beverages such as ‘es jeruk’ (orange ice),
‘milksek’ (milk shake), and ‘es kelapa muda’
(young coconut ice). The word ‘sex’ in ‘milksex’
has undergone a spelling change from the
original shake, and as a result is pronounced
differently from the latter word. The spelling
alternation of the word shake into ‘sex’ may
also evoke a sense of creative playfulness, and
has a humorous dimension. Yet, despite this
spelling alteration, the word is less likely to get
https://twitter.com/kfcayamnyajago
Journal of Language and Literature
ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online) Setiono Sugiharto
410
misunderstood if construed from its context
(i.e. a street vendor selling any kinds of
beverages) and its meshing with the
Indonesian ‘es jeruk’ and ‘es kelapa muda’.
Figure 2
(Source: http://www.masplanet.com)
Unlike such traditional beverages as
orange ice and young coconut ice, milk shake is
relatively popular among young people in the
urban context. Also, the beverage is more
common in the big restaurants than in the
street food stalls. However, as milk shake is
getting more popular among people from all
walks of life, it has been offered in almost
public sites including by street vendors. Thus,
the meshing of the borrowed word milkshake
(with its emerging local variant milksex) with
other local Indonesian words, as depicted in
Figure 2, is indicative that code-meshing has
become a mundane and ordinary linguistic
practice. That’ s to say, there is nothing exotic
and remarkable about it.
Finally, in Figure 3 we see how a rather
odd-looking word ‘tek ewei’ (derived
originally from the English word take away) is
meshed with the Indonesian words. During the
Covid-19 pandemic, the English take away has
been a common sight especially in big
restaurants and food stalls in the malls where
customers are not allowed to dine in on site. So
common and popular is the word in the ears of
the Indonesian people that even street stall
owners use it to inform their customers that
they only provide a take-away service. As we
can see in Figure 3, the banner says “Sorry, for
the time being we only provide a take away
service.” With the spelling modification –and
consequently phonological alteration –the
English take away has not only been borrowed,
but has also been meshed with the Indonesian
words.
Figure 3
(Source Twitter/lucunation)
On Grassroots Perfomativity
What, in fact, accounts for the occurrence
of the relaxed, ordinary, and mundane
meshing of the different linguistic codes in the
local linguistic landscape shown above? It is
important to note here that translingual
practice is not restricted to scholarly writing
only, but has expanded its scope to include the
consideration of space. As such, it also involves
“diverse semiotic resources and ecological
affordances” (Canagarajah, 2013, p.6). This
expansion in scope of translingual practice has
been triggered mainly by the notion of “the
mobility of linguistic and other semiotic
resources in time and space” (Blacklegede &
Creese, 2017), typified by migration of people,
diasporic community and advanced
technologies, amongst other. Mobility, in
essence, has made linguistic borders become
unstable, porous and unbounded. As for the
global spread of Englishes worldwide, English
has permeated into other localities resulting in
what Pennycook (2007, p. 6) calls
“transcultural flow of Englishes”. Thus, when
English enters and moves to a new territory
beyond its place of origin, there is the
possibility that it not only is borrowed, but is
also remade, repurposed and even localized by
the inhabitants of the new territory. This flow,
as Pennycook (2007) succinctly describes it,
refers “not merely to the spread of particular
forms of culture across boundaries, or the
existence of supercultural commonalities
(cultural forms that transcend locality), but
rather to the process of borrowing, blending,
http://www.masplanet.com/
Journal of Language and Literature
Vol. 22 No. 2 – October 2022 ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online)
411
remaking, returning, to the processes of
alternative cultural reproduction” (p.6).
As a result of the transcultural flow of
Englishes in the everydaness of
communicative events, language incessantly
moves and travels. In this sense, language
becomes “mobile resources”, and is no longer
treated as “immobile language” (Bloomaert,
2010). It is the fluidity and mutability of the
mobile resources that make translingual
practice such as code-meshing now ubiquitous
in city’s linguistic landscape, and has become
an urban phenomenon. Scholars have termed
this phenomenon as “translanguaging space”
(Li, 2011), or “spatial repertoires” (Pennycook
& Otsuji, 2015, “which links the repertoires
formed through individual life trajectories to
the particular places in which these linguistic
resources are deployed” (p. 83). The ubiquity
of language resources in the public places
shown in the examples previously reflects
language speakers’ adroitness and
resourcefulness in linking their linguistic
repertoires to spaces around them.
This vibrant linguistic practice in a low
stake level – everyday productive linguistic
practices involving highly complex semiotic
resources and culture – can be seen as
“grassroots performativity” (Sugiharto, 2014).
Low- stake linguistic practices such as those
shown in the examples does not require
advanced linguistic proficiency to be
performed effectively. The convivial, playful,
and quotidian code-meshed texts in the public
signage above provide evidence of vibrant
“multilingualism from below” (Pennycook &
Otsuji, 2015, p. 49). Despite its playfulness and
seemingly lacking of seriousness, the value and
significance of the conviviality in such a low-
stake code-meshing practice should not be
overlooked. As Blommaert (2013) has
convincingly argued, the everyday linguistic
practices or what he prefers to call ‘relaxed
identity work’ like mundane badinage have
their own linguistic significance, because this
work constitutes ‘identity rehearsal,’ which
eventually becomes activated in ‘specific
configurations when identities become chips
in a high stakes game’ (p. 620). Furthermore,
the playfulness and the humorous, convivial
side of the creative meshing in the examples
above have an important bearing on linguistic
practice in a multilingual world, as they can
“challenge the power relations and
hierarchical order in the process of
knowledge construction” (Tai & Li, 2020, p.
608).
Conclusion
The banal presence of code-meshing in
the public sites shown previously provides “a
picture of the very ordinariness of mixed
language use and also a source of pride”
(Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015, p. 5). Despite the
fact that the code-meshed texts above sound
parodic, humorous and playful in nature, they
still exhibit significance as a linguistic practice
critically and creatively performed ground-up.
This stands in a stark contrast to code-meshing
as a high stake linguistic practice in academic
writing where linguistic dexterity and
metalinguistic awareness are called for.
As an instance of grassroot
performativity, convivial code-meshing
practices demonstrate the resourcefulness of
language users in not only borrowing and
mixing different linguistic codes, but also in
remaking and repurposing them by virtue of
the communicative needs of the local
community.
References
Alwasilah, C. (2014). Islam, culture, and
education: Essays on contemporary
Indonesia. Bandung: Rosda International.
Blackledge, A. & A. Creese. (2017).
Translanguaging in mobility. In S.
Canagarajah (Ed.), The routledge
handbook of migration and language (pp.
31-46). New York: Routledge.
Block, D. (2018) The political economy of
language education research (or the lack
thereof): Nancy Fraser and the case of
Translanguaging. In: Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies. New York, USA:
Adance Publication.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Complexity, accent, and
conviviality: concluding comments,
Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 613–22.
Journal of Language and Literature
ISSN: 1410-5691 (print); 2580-5878 (online) Setiono Sugiharto
412
Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of world
Englishes in composition: pluralization
continued. College Composition and
Communication, 57(4), 586–619.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice:
Global Englishes and cosmopolitan
relations. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2021). Diversifying academic
communication in anti-racist scholarship:
The value of a translingual orientation.
Ethnicity, [online version]. Doi:
10.1177/14687968211061586
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2001). Cultural constraints
in the implementation of learner
autonomy: The case in Indonesia. Journal
of Southeast Asian Education, 2(2), 309-
322.
Dovchin, S. & Lee, J.W. (2019). Introduction to
special issue: ‘The ordinariness of
translinguistics, International Journal of
Multilingualism, 16(2), 105-111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.201
9.1575831.
Flores, N. (2013) The unexamined
relationship between neoliberalism and
plurilingualism: a cautionary tale. TESOL
Quarterly 47(3), 500–520.
Horner,B., M.Zhan Lu, J.Royster, & J. Trimbur
(2011) Opinion: language difference in
writing: Toward a translingual approach,
College English, 7(3), 303–21.
Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative
competence. In J. Prides & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The
discoursal construction of identity in
academic writing. Amsterdam: John
Benyamin.
Ivanic, R. & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I
sound: Voice and self representation in
L2 writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10, 3-33.
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical
theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39
(1), 9-30.
Lu, M. (2009). Metaphor matters:
Transcultural Literacy, JAC, 29(1), 285-
293.
Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn,
postcolonial theory, and neoliberal
multiculturalism: complicities and
implications for applied linguistics.
Applied Linguistics 37, 474–494.
Lu, M.Z. & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual
literacy, language difference, and matters
of agency. College English, 75(6), 582-
607.
Matsuda, P.K. (2013). It’s the wild West out
there: A new linguistic frontier in U.S.
college composition. In S. Canagarajah
(Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice:
Between communities and classrooms (pp.
128-138). Routledge: New York and
London.
Matsuda, P.K. (2014). The lure of translingual
writing. PMLA, 129(3), 478-483.
Milu, E. (2013). Translingual practices in
Kenyan Hiphop: Pedagogical
implications. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.),
Literacy as translingual practice: Between
communities and classrooms (pp. 104-
112). Routledge: New York and London.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and
transcultural flows. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. & E. Otsuji (2015).
Metrolingualism: Language in the city.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Smitherman, G. (1999). CCCC’s role in the
struggle for language rights. College
Composition and Communication, 50(3),
349-376.
Sugiharto, S. (2015a). Translingualism in
Action: Rendering the impossible
possible. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 12(2),
125-154.
Sugiharto, S. (2015b). The multilingual turn in
applied linguistics?: A perspective from
the periphery, International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 414-421. DOI:
10.1111/ijal.12111.
Tai, K.W. & Li, W. (2020). Constructing Playful
Talk through Translanguaging in English
Medium Instruction Mathematics
Classrooms, Applied Linguistics, 42(4),
607-640. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa04
3.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A
sociocultural approach to mediated
action. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Young, V.A. (2004). Your average Nigga.
College Composition and Communication,
55(4) 693–715.
Young, V.A. (2009). “Nah, we straight”: An
argument against code switching, JAC, 29,
(1-2), 49-76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1575831
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1575831
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa043
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa043