Nov 12th, 2010 | Libraries, Transliteracy | 1,206 Comments
Preface
This is a long-ish essay about transliteracy that I've been editing for a few months now. I've asked for feedback from the Libraries and Transliteracy group [full disclosure: you can read the discussion here. I come off as arrogant, but luckily, not wrong] and Sue Thomas, and have based this version on their responses. Thank you to everyone who helped in getting this essay ready.
Introduction
The working definition of transliteracy, as defined by PART (Production and Research in Transliteracy):
Transliteracy is the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks.
This definition is both internally and externally inconsistent. The combination of problems requires a re-definition of the term such that transliteracy can be an effective interdisciplinary field of study.
Working Definition Inconsistencies
The definition mentions signing, orality, handwriting, and other things claimed to be platforms, tools, and media. Questions naturally emerge: Is handwriting a platform, tool, or medium? What about orality? It is unclear whether the things in the list are platforms, tools, or media at all, and if they are it is not clear in which category any one of them belongs.
A second problem follows. If handwriting is a medium and orality a tool (purely for example), how does one go across them? The trans- prefix of transliteracy means across or between; how does one go across not just different things, but different types of things?
Additionally, “signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks” is imprecise. There are ostensibly infinite platforms, tools, and media that fit into the framework. Listing a random, partial set of supposedly-included concepts is not how definitions are written.
The list also appears to assert a hierarchy, as if signing is somehow primitive compared to online social networks. Since the list is not purely alphabetical or chronological (TV comes before radio and film), it appears haphazard at best and literacy-elitist at worst.
It is also unclear why interaction is listed with reading and writing as it is redundant. Interaction is merely a series of reading and writing acts.
The biggest problem, and the one that leads to a solution, is that literacy is not the ability to read, write, and interact on a particular platform, tool, or medium. Literacy is the ability to encode and decode (since reading and writing are handwriting-centric activities) information in a particular language. Surely trans-literacy should then be
an ability to encode and decode information between or across languages.
This definition can be shortened to
an ability to communicate across languages
for most purposes. However, this iteration is less precise since the concept of communication often includes meaning, which is addressed later in this essay.
Defining Assumptions
The ability to encode and decode information in a particular language is not a definition for literacy in any known dictionary. Owing to its precision, it should be in the future.
The most common dictionary definition of literacy is concise: “The ability to read and write.” What is it that the literate person reads and writes? Information.
What does the literate person read and write information in? A passer-by on the street, asked if they were literate in the English language but not the Russian language, would be able to confidently answer yes or no to the query. Languages themselves are defined as systems for encoding and decoding information. Language as the base unit of literacy thus follows inductively from the vernacular and deductively from the definition of language.
Literacy purists may scoff at switching from reading/writing to decoding/encoding. There is a hearty debate as to whether understanding a spoken language constitutes a literacy. It is simple enough to agree that it does, with the caveat that generalizing makes the concept deviate slightly from the vernacular form.
Languages
Must an English-literate person learn English Braille? When someone first learns to understand spoken English, are they conclusively literate in English?
No. Very few people can be considered completely English literate. Spoken English, written English, and English Braille are all different languages. They are different systems of signs and symbols for encoding and decoding information. Surely they share similarities to the point that they can be considered in the same language family, but each facilitates communication using a different method. A person who understands spoken English is spoken English literate. Even to that point their literacy may not be comprehensive, as the English lexicon is huge and constantly-growing, and various spoken dialects of English exist that differ significantly.
Visual language works the same way. People can use different visual dialects with different visual grammars to communicate the same message. This is the terminology that artists and designers use to talk about their crafts. If transliteracy studies seeks to be interdisciplinary, using linguistic terminology is a great start.
The Medium is the Message[‘s Partner]
When someone communicates, they go through a process of encoding information into a language. The message travels on the medium to its destination. In this sense the medium is synonymous with the term ‘channel’ as it applies to the transmission model of communication.
For the purposes of talking about transliteracy, the important endpoints in a model of communication are where people either encode messages onto a medium or decode them from one. However, the medium itself only carries the message and is, as such, one of the two components of language.
Multiple messages can be encoded onto the same medium at the same time. A business memo can deliver in written language one message, while providing another via the typeface.
In a similar way, the same message can be delivered via two different media at the same time. A person shrugging while saying “I don’t know” illustrates this notion.
In both circumstances, two separate communications acts are being performed simultaneously, despite the sharing of a common component. Since language comprises both message and medium, a change in either changes the language and its encoding and decoding processes.
Is Transliteracy Meaning-less?
Some models of communication put emphasis on the concept of meaning. The sender intends to attach a certain meaning to the message and the receiver derives their own meaning upon decoding the message. Often these meanings do not agree. The meaning-making process occurs outside of the encoding/decoding process, however.
This appears to be a cold notion, that meaning is outside the scope of transliteracy. However, it meshes well with the original divide between transliteration and translation. A person who transliterates is able to do a literal, meaning-independent task. A person who translates takes meaning into account such that the completed translation is not a literal comparison to the original work.
It is worth noting, since the examples provided are placed in the context of the transmission model of communication, that the transmission model is often criticized for not explicitly addressing meaning or action. In both cases, such criticisms are unwarranted. Since meaning-making occurs before the encoding process or after the decoding process, a separate meaning-making process can be attached to a sender or receiver where applicable. Similarly, action is often a separate communication act. Communication acts of a common thread may be daisy-chained, ran parallel, and branched using the components of the model to illustrate concurrency and causes and effects.
Reconciliation
It is also worth noting that a general definition of literacy, and by relation transliteracy, should be as compatible with other definitions of both general and specific nature as possible. This facilitates interdisciplinary discussion and a useful pedagogical framework. For instance, a commonly-cited definition like
[the] ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society.
as set forth by UNESCO, should be reconcilable with the general notion of the base literacy definition used to define transliteracy. “The ability to communicate in a particular language,” to use the short form, has no prima facie incompatibilities. The UN definition is broad. Likely this is by perceived necessity to include areas where bilingualism is prevalent. It also does not explicitly group literacy competencies by language, though this characteristic does not make the definitions incompatible since “varying contexts” is suitably ambiguous.
As previously explained, the vernacular form of literacy is text-centric. This is a necessary consideration for a body that uses its internal definition to measure worldwide literacy rates. However, the concept limits the perception of language to a particular sensory set of signs and symbols when such a distinction is unnecessary and potentially-biased. The UN, as such, may rank areas with verbal or other communicative emphases lower than print-prevalent areas.
All literacies should be treated equally. The printed word should not be considered superior by fiat. The ability for a person to communicate effectively in common cultural contexts to an extent that makes them a functional member of society does not necessarily mean having native written language literacy. In many cultures illiteracy in the area’s official written language may make it difficult for a person to function in society. In other cultures it may not. This functional distinction is a necessary lens for measuring base literacy of a country, region, or person.
Other Literacies
Media Literacy, Multimedia Literacy, Computer Literacy, Digital Literacy, and many others fail the test of being language-based. Thankfully, the OED steps up to offer a solution:
2. competence or knowledge in a specified area
Many of these literacies, as such, can continue to be defined as they are without hurting anything. Without too much effort, though, the situation can improve: by making all of these literacies plural.
Computer literacies would then be all the language (the cool, system-for-transferring-information kind) abilities involved with using computers. Wine literacies would be the language skills necessary for the theory and practice of Oenology. This simple semantic change makes the second definition of literacy superfluous and makes the umbrella term transliteracy easier to wrap around existing literacy models.
Finally, the term “Information Literacy” must die. Since all literacies are information literacies, the plural form “Information Literacies” would encompass the entire namespace of knowledge. Information Literacy cannot be a single literacy, either. Information itself is not a language. Information must be encoded into useful forms via language for people or other things to use it.
The concepts presently under the umbrella of Information Literacy are valid and useful. The practice of teaching the skills and abilities currently associated with Information Literacy should continue. Those skills and abilities should just be called something that makes sense. Information Literacy (or Literacies) is not the right term.
So What?
If Transliteracy is to be an academically-respectable field of study, it needs precise, discipline-compatible language for its core concepts.
For more information on the language model of transliteracy, see the blog posts On Transliteracy and Speaking The Same Language.
Please comment on this post regardless of if you agree or disagree. Let’s talk about this. If you feel strongly enough, put the word transliteracy in a tweet; the people most involved with the concept will hear you.
Thank you.
Jun 18th, 2010 | General, Transliteracy | 937 Comments
I appreciate Sue Thomas, the preeminent scholar of transliteracy, taking the time to read and respond to my recent post. Her insight, and especially her question, made me realize that I had fallen into the curse of knowledge and had perhaps sacrificed effective communication for the sake of rigor.
So, I'd like to be a bit less formal and start from the top.
Information
The Universe is made up of information. This is particularly interesting in the context of concepts like simulated reality. A computer simulating a Universe to as detailed an extent as the Universe we inhabit would have to account for expressing physical information via digital physics and perhaps would require artificial intelligences for simulated inhabitants.
What's important here is that the universe is made up of information. That information can then be expressed in ways beyond the literals of existence.
Perception
Information wouldn't matter much without senses. We as living beings have an ability to perceive reality via our senses. We then do various stuff with this information.
Communication
Communication is "...a process of transferring information from one entity to another." While it's interesting to think of objects like stars communicating with us their message of very bright light from very far away, I think communication requires intention on the sender's part.
A plant of a certain color or emitting a certain scent may be communicating to animals that they do or do not wish to be eaten, but a rock of a certain color probably didn't go through any sort of process to convey a message to any recipient.
Language
When I think of "raw data," I visually see a wall of numbers in Notepad on my computer. This, however, is far from raw data (data being used interchangeably with information here). How do we fathom what the pure state of information really is? It's always expressed in some manner.
The method of expression is language. Languages are systems for encoding and decoding information.
Mixed Signals
As Sue points out, I made no mention of body language in my previous post. She is absolutely correct, and has provided an excellent example of how to effectively wrestle with my proposed redefinition of transliteracy.
Two people engaging in a face-to-face conversation may use three or more different languages. They'd speak verbally, they may gesture or use other body language, and may have intentionally-or-not decided to express information through scent.
What if this face-to-face conversation was flirtatious? The information expressed verbally might be playful and flattering. The body language could be expressed as a visual language of lines, shapes, colors, etc. The olfactory language could be pleasing found scents applied to the body or pheromones secreted involuntarily. There could even be touching. But I'm not writing a romance novel here, so let's leave this example and move elsewhere.
Someone transliterate in the languages of a face-to-face conversation is able to decode the information encoded and expressed by the sender, then encode and express that information via language (though not necessarily the same language[s] used by the other party). Since the information from one language may conflict with another, it's important to be able to encode and decode the information in order to interpret it. If I say 'yes' verbally but shake my head to indicate 'no,' what am I really communicating? This is a basic example of transliteracy.
Language, Not Language
I'm using language explicitly here as systems of encoding and decoding information. Dr. Thomas mentioned other types of languages as examples that aren't included in that sense. Cultural Language and Sensory Language as I'm interpreting them (though, to be honest, I don't really understand them) are sets of terminology within a language. This would be like the 6th definition in Princeton's wordnet listing for language.
If we operate from different definitions of language this communication falls apart, so I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean language in the sense of terminology.
Units
I contend language is the right unit to use for literacy because it plays well with original definitions of literacy and transliteracy. Since the terminological taxonomy of language is ironically poorly-defined, this is not as of yet an ideal solution.
However, it has an advantage over the current working definition of transliteracy that the base unit of language can be compared and contrasted. Since media, tools, and platforms are disparate things, you cannot express insights across them, which is the entire point of the trans- prefix attached to the word. By having one unit, whether you choose to call it language or 'medium' or 'channel' or 'kwyjibo,' you can then make comparisons.
You can see the comparative ability in the face-to-face conversation example. Different languages are used to express information; sometimes different information in different ways. One person, instead of blushing, could just say "I'm embarrassed." What strengths and weaknesses do these languages have over one another for expressing information?
More importantly for the sake of argument - how would you comparatively express face-to-face conversation in the context of media, tools, and platforms?
Free Riders
By using language as the base unit, we are also afforded the terminology and theory of linguistics to express and grapple with the communicative concepts. This provides us with an interdisciplinary framework for discussing the implications of transliteracy.
It's also useful for applying transliteracy in a pedagogical sense. If we want to ensure a learner is equipped to use flickr, we just need to teach them the necessary underlying languages - be they written, visual, interface, or otherwise.
Homework
I encourage you to look at some of the great examples of transliteracy on the transliteracy.com site and consider which languages are at work in each communication. Moreover, consider how you would then teach the necessary literacies such that others could communicate in the same manner.
I hope this post provides a little more clarity into what I mean by language and why it's a good choice for a base unit of transliteracy. Thank you.
May 31st, 2010 | General, Transliteracy | 1,115 Comments
Summary
Transliteracy defined as a cross-media ability misuses the word literacy, since the base competency of literacy is language rather than medium.
Background
First - I regret my approach to the subject of transliteracy via twitter. As librarianbyday claimed, my initial criticisms were vague and perhaps unjust. Before proceeding I would first like to apologize if my meanings were unclear or personally hurtful. That was not my intention.
I insinuated transliteracy was “a bullshit made-up term for the same old stuff.“ This isn’t entirely or necessarily my stance, given that my qualms with transliteracy stem from a poor common definition of literacy. The application of the term literacy across media, as such, was hasty since I myself had not defined literacy as pertinent to my argument. I apologize for this basic error.
Before proceeding to the meat-and-potatoes of my argument I would like to take this opportunity to point any readers to two blogs which I quite admire:
- Libraries and Transliteracy - a collective effort from which I personally have gleaned insights and with which I bear no ill judgment
- Agnostic, Maybe - a brave blog of contemporary opinions with which I frequently disagree (sometimes at a basic level) but with an author whose acceptance of alternate viewpoints I truly admire
You can view the twitter meta-discussion to see where such arguments began, though they are conveyed at basic level. What follows is more rigid in interpretation and as such the twitter discussion merely serves as metadata (ha!) to the real deconstruction of transliteracy as a term and definition.
First, define your terms
Or more correctly, "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another” as Voltaire wrote in Dictionnaire philosophique. It is in the transliteracy.com 'working' definition of transliteracy that vague terminology originates apropos to this discussion.
Transliteracy is the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks.
This definition is hasty because transliteracy is not an arbitrarily-coined word. As the authors of Transliteracy: Crossing Divides point out, transliteracy is an existing term stemming from the verb ‘to transliterate.’ Both they and Sue Thomas in her report on the Transliteracies conference quickly jump from talking about language to mentioning media, tools, and platforms.
Transliteration
Transliteracy in its original definition is well-defined and valid. It is the prefix trans- added to the word literacy, which has a strong denotation. Literacy here is the ability to read (and often write) in a given language. The test of whether one is literate as such is language-dependent. In practice, transliteracy would then be the ability to transliterate - commonly referring to a process by which one language with different character-to-phone rules is converted to another.
It's important to treat the "same language" with different sensory and communicative characteristics as a different language. For instance, the “English language” can be represented via touch in braille. Someone who can interpret input (interpret being defined loosely here) in the form of raised dots is said to be literate in that given language’s Braille. English in Braille and common written English are not a 1:1 comparison; since Braille characters are larger than written characters for tactile purposes, contractions unfamiliar to readers of written English are used. While fluency in ‘English’ is implicit to one literate in English Braille, the change of format necessitates many real differences and presents real barriers that make these different language literacies and fluencies.
Language
You may have noticed that I’m playing faster and looser with the word language than you may be accustomed. Straight from Wikipedia:
A language is a system of signs (indices, icons, symbols) for encoding and decoding information.
In the introductory paragraphs of that same article, distinction is made between spoken language and written language. I think this distinction is necessary, and grant that a permeable umbrella term “language family” can be used to refer both to historically-linked different languages of written or verbal form, but also to contemporary languages that are closely related across those barriers. For the purposes of this article I’d like to grant that spoken English, written English, English Braille, American Sign Language (to a less-clear extent), and others are part of the English language family. As a further look at language families will attest, there is a certain lack of taxonomic clarity to how language families are described.
Visual Language
Now we’re getting somewhere! Visual language has structural units, like any other language. Via Wikipedia:
Its structural units include line, shape, color, form, motion, texture, pattern, direction, orientation, scale, angle, space and proportion.
I contend that medium, if not directly a part of this list, is at least strongly intertwined with the other structural units. As such, medium is most connected to the visual language of a piece compared to other languages.
This is an important distinction because there is so much communicative variation within and across media. An LCD screen can be used for almost anything, and a huge range of information and emotion can be expressed as sound over air.
There is a dependency, as such, on the visual language for expressive purposes. Two artists could express the same concept with different visual languages in much the same way that a fluid column of text on a computer screen could communicate the same information as a fixed column on a printout. Visual literacy, then, is the ability to decode and encode information from visual language. Visual fluency is the ability to derive meaning from that visual information.
Interface Language
The signs, symbols, analogies, literals, and physical attributes of a given piece as they convey information pertaining to the usage of said piece.
In many instances the interface is rather passive. A painting on a wall is only interacted with in the sense that it is viewed. One could make the case that an ornate frame informs the user not to touch the piece. Not touching is an interaction vector.
A book’s binding, in conjunction with elements of written and visual language, inform the user on the method of turning pages. By interface convention, a book user may also naturally assume to find certain interface elements in commonly-found places: jacket, title page, verso, contents, index, etc.
A computer has a literal, physical interface language at the first layer. An ‘on’ button, a keyboard in a likely-familiar layout, a pointing device of some sort.
The on-screen interface prior to the GUI was essentially a programming language in the form of shell scripting.
Different GUIs have different interface languages. While Mac, Windows, and the common Linux windowing systems are the stand-out examples of this principle, it’s worth noting that different versions of an OS often contain striking differences in interface language.
Languages evolve.
The web is a curious sea of interface languages. At the very core, it’s a “frame story” of interfaces, in that the browser’s cues aren’t necessarily those of the base OS’s GUI (that was fun to write, btw). The ever-changing elements of hypertext are another layer on top of that. Then, site-and-or-page-specific styling via CSS enable a web designer (that designation used loosely here) to change the interface language much further.
Platforms and Tools
I’ve already placed media in the spectrum of language scopes where I believe it fits - that of visual language (or perhaps aural). Platforms and tools can be found much higher up the chain.
A platform - let’s use Windows XP as an example - is a combination of many languages, some not elaborated upon in this article. A user of the platform must learn certain interface language elements, many of which are composed of visual language elements that the user should also likely know. The interface is loaded with written language and various sound-based languages. What’s so interesting about this from a ‘transliteracy’ perspective is that there are degrees of iteration, inclusivity, and exclusivity to the necessary competencies.
A tool could really be anything, but let’s use Facebook as an example. It fulfills the laughable “digital social network” component of the original re-definition, which is a plus in my book. Sure, Facebook has very much become a platform as of recent, but since tools and platforms fall out of what I’m asserting is the scope of transliteracy’s definition, let’s just move forward with Facebook as a tool. It’s part of the previously-explained frame story. It can use its own interface language and interchange written languages, but abides by common web interface language conventions in order to promote usability.
The important part here is that platforms and tools are combinations of languages, while a medium is only part of a language.
Proposed Re-Re-Definition
Transliteracy is the ability to encode and decode information between or across languages.
I believe this definition meshes well with the original definition and works with the contemporary work done under the umbrella of transliteracy. It is perhaps necessary to better define the different types of languages and create a more-holistic model for their interaction, though.
A Caveat on Usage
Sorry Andy, I’m going to pick on your latest post a little bit. On his blog, he wrote regarding the future of libraries:
Personally, in the future, I think that the main focus of librarianship will rest on two areas: transliteracy and customer service. For me, transliteracy is the best umbrella concept to the multi-disciplinary knowledges that the future of information will require. With information storage occurring in a multiple of mediums (audio, video, and written recordings, for example), the ability to navigate the formats will become a necessity.
Personally, in the present, this doesn’t mean much. It’s essentially saying “I think the main focus of librarianship in the future will be knowledge.”
Without specificity when using the term (ie. “This is apropos to transliteracy because the user must be able to go across these specific languages in order to interpret the end-goal information”), it could conceivably refer to the entirety of human perception. That’s a huge umbrella that contains the past, present, and future of libraries, as well as the rest of the perceived and readily-perceptible universe.
Great care should be taken to convey scope as it pertains to transliteracy.
Further (Wikipedia) Reading
I’m no linguist, psychologist, philosopher, or artist. I know I’ve left out certain context for brevity (ha!) and have undoubtedly made unintentional mistakes. There’s been a ton of work that applies to this one term, of which I personally have only skimmed the surface. Here is a list of Wikipedia articles that I think will be useful for yours and my further study:
