This intervention aims to deal with two issues which have become manifest in my experience as a Language Development Tutor at LCF (and through my previous work with LD at other colleges) – 1: The use of machine translation in mediating academic communication and 2: the need for greater inclusivity among peers in the “international” university space.
The need for greater cultural inclusivity in the university
Fantini (2022) suggests that language is not merely about teaching “new ways to say old things (i.e., new symbols for old thoughts) rather it aims to aid the discovery, via new language systems, of new ways of “perceiving, of classifying and categorizing, of interacting, and to new ways of thinking about the world.” However, as I will argue, this process is not restricted to the acquisition of the hegemonic (colonial) language: English. “Translanguaging” is the act of accessing different linguistic features or various modes” of what are described as “autonomous languages,” to optimize the potential for communication (Garcia, 2009, p.140). However, as Friere (2005, p.90) notes dialogue cannot exist when one or both parties lack humility.
What happens in the multicultural, multilingual space of the classroom at LCF is that Chinese students (the predominant international student group) will usually all sit together, this is understandable from the perspective of a shared language – and a shared identity. It is not surprising, with over 150,000 Chinese nationally, 90,000 of whom are postgraduates, that many should end up spending a lot of time with other Chinese students (Ebel, 2024, p.7). These students disclose that they ‘want to integrate better’ and diversify friendship groups but feel unable to do this; and they often cite that the feel like they are being treated as sources of revenue (a “cash cow”) ‘rather than as valued members of the community (Ibid).
One example of exclusion, I observed a few weeks ago, was when delivering part one of a presentation workshop for BA Fashion Marketing. There were 8 students – 7 home (mainly white – but one black British) and one Chinese. The Chinese student sat alone at the front, there was a space among the other students on the back table, so I asked the student to sit with the others so that she could participate in the peer-based activities. However, when these activities began the home students worked together in pairs and small groups whilst the Chinese student was excluded. Whilst I tried to involve the student, the refusal of the home students to include the Chinese student – which may have required some adaptation, and indeed empathy – struck me as being something endemic within the university, and I imagine that this student will be very reluctant to repeat the experience of the workshop in part two– affecting attendance and learning. Students in HE do not acknowledge these microaggressions as being racism, although a deeper exploration reveals that this denial is tooted in the lack of discourse around “‘anti-Asian racism,” and may be obscured and complicated by intersections “with other power axes such as gender” (Yu et al. 2023, p.1700)
Had there been other Chinese students, then most likely these students would have worked together. My reason for moving the student was purely to facilitate communicative activities, however the opportunity for mediated cross-cultural communication exists, and would, in my view, benefit all students. What I observed in the above was, in my evaluation, an “othering” of the Chinese student, and the exclusion was based on this “othered” characteristic. Of course, central to this cultural identity is the language barrier, although it is the plurality of languages that may hold the key to building an intercultural space and the mediation of worldviews.
Paraphrasing and mediating as a cognitive process.
Paraphrasing is an essential skill in academic discourse, both in the production of writing and speaking, for several reasons. However, in the era of AI, this is a productive task which can be completed automatically by machine. This enables product, i.e. achieving what appears on the surface to be an academic text to the genre, but lacks the essential process: the cognitive linguistic synthesis of academic voices, i.e. that of the secondary source author and that of the primary researcher writer. In the context of HE it is this process which enables the student to understand, and demonstrate understanding of ideas and discourse, and crucially, through this synthetic process, enable autonomous learning.
However, there are significant barriers regarding the ability to do this for students who are using English as a second or other language. The process of paraphrasing, and indeed writing per se is often mediated through translation tools, this also risks subverting the cognitive processing on the part of the student; in as much as the text is translated into the first language, synthesized into the first language writing produced by the student, and then translated back into English by machine. However, this does offer some opportunity to investigate how a linguistic difference between one language and another reveal a plurality of cultural perspectives and paradigmatic world view, interpretations of ideas, and on the discourse around them. The relationship between culture and language is deeply rooted in how language reflects cultural perspective, where a plurality of ideas result from plurality of languages in use (Ponorac, 2022).
Fantini (1989, p.2) asserts that a “worldview lack of awareness of our own language and language use arises from the fact that as we master our native tongue, it in turn masters us.” This “Linguistic determinism” can be defined as the system through which we understand and mediate the world and individuals exposed to a second language may develop an expanded vision of the world, facilitating participation with other cultural groups, “expanding qualitatively our social possibilities” (Ibid, pp.2-3). The mediation of languages also has cognitive, social, and pragmatic benefits.
Mediation is one of the four modes in which the CEFR model organizes communication. Learners seen as social agents engage in receptive, productive, interactive or mediation activities or, more frequently, in a combination of two or more of them. While interaction stresses the social use of language, mediation encompasses and goes beyond that by focusing on making meaning and/or enabling communication beyond linguistic or cultural barriers. Both types of mediation rely on collaborative processes. (CE, 2022)
Proposed Intervention
I have begun talking to Chinese students about their experiences and behaviours (and I am also interested in learning the perceptions and behaviours of the home and other students). I have also afforded opportunities (in Chinese only classes thus far) to get students to write translations for key words and terms in the whiteboard/ flip chart (a more tactile form of typography and opportunity to step outside the digital space). This not only brings the visualization of culture through the visual representation of the language into the foreground, but then provides the opportunity to explain the complexity of meanings, and how this might affect our world view (see Fig 1. and 2). Thus far this has been an illuminating process in which students’ culture and language is not hidden but forms a meaningful part of the learning process. This metalinguistic level of discussion also has potential for first language speakers in understanding how language informs their world view, although they will also need to be supported in the metalinguistics required for this discourse (this is where the expertise of Language Development can support all learners at UAL).
Fig 1. Language Development LCF Speaking and Listening Class: Student writing Chinese translations of key words from discussion (May 2025)
Fig. 2 Language Development_BSc Fashion Management Class: Student writing Chinese translation of keyword for analysis – (May 2025)
My formative idea for this is based on two activities/ procedures – firstly, using the above to allow students to provide a translation then present their evaluation of the different ways that languages interpret this word, ad hoc during lessons. Secondly, drawing on an idea which I came across working with Adam Ramejkis on the Intercultural Communication programme on Zine workshops (see fig 2 and 3. also see Ramejkis (n.d.) and Holmes (2025) blog for more details about Zines) in order to offer an opportunity for cross cultural collaboration, mediation and exploration of identity and perception. This process utilizes interaction and production outside of the digital space, where real collaboration and cultural sharing can occur. It is also intended to be a means of exploring dialectical variation both lexico-grammatically and phonemically, through utilizing synthetic and IPA (EnglishClub, 2025) phonological tools) which is applicable to the range of contexts within the English speaking body of students.
Fig 3. Welcome Week Zine Workshop Chelsea College of Arts Autumn 2024.
In sum, the procedure aims to practice mediation, paraphrasing, translanguaging and expansion of world view perception, in the production of a cross-cultural artefact – which focuses on exploring both denotation and connotation in the representation and cognitive significance of language. Through doing this I want to foster a community of discourse where a plurality of cultures and languages can be seen as a gift rather than a burden to the learning experiences of all students.
References
CE- Council of Europe (2025) ‘Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Mediation. ‘Available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/mediation (Accessed on 25/05/25)
Fantini, A.E. (1989) ‘Language and Worldview’ Journal of Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2-2: this paper was presented in Ottawa, October 7–10, 1988, at the Association’s Thirteenth Annual Conference, “Towards a Global Civilization.”
Friere, P. (2005) Pedagogy of the Opressed: 30th Anniversary Edition, (Originally published 1970): Noew York: Continuem
García, Ofelia (2009). ‘Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century.’ In: Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds). Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, pp. 128-145
Holmes, I. (2025) ‘Reflective Post 4: Reflections on ‘zines,’ ‘roots’ and ‘routes’ in the multicultural university learning space.’ Available at: https://pgcertianholmes2025.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2025/03/18/blog-4-reflections-on-a-zine-fair-roots-and-routes-in-the-multicultural-university-learning-space/ (Accessed on 25/05/25)
EnglishClub (2025) ‘Interactive Phonemic Chart.’ Available at: https://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/phonemic-chart-ia.php (Accessed on 25/05/25)
NALDIC (2016) ‘What is translanguaging?.’ Available at https://ealjournal.org/2016/07/26/what-is-translanguaging/ (Accessed on 25/05/25)
Ponorac, J. (2022) ‘Culture and Language,’ Available at: https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en/blog/culture-and-language#:~:text=The%20relationship%20between%20language%20and,of%20identifying%20language%20and%20culture (Accessed on 25/05/25)
Ramejkis, A. (n.d.) ‘#amazines workshops 23/24 some feedback and reflections’ Available at: https://artslondon-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/i_holmes_arts_ac_uk/EamkKnaSxQBFgL-Q3qqhFwoBJ-fb4adjjaDdGfLH8QV1OQ?e=ouaEsI (Accessed 25/05/25)
Yu, J., Rai, R., Lim, M.A., and Li, H. (2023) ‘The post‑racial myth: rethinking Chinese university students’ experiences and perceptions of racialised microaggressions in the UK.’ Higher Education (2024): 88:1695–1710 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01126-5