Note from Steven Kellman

I am obliged to point out an error of fact in Sandra Kingery’s review of my book Nimble Tongues: Studies in Literary Translingualism. On page 1 of the book, I define translingualism as “the phenomenon of writers who write in more than one language or in a language other than their primary one.” I make it clear that it is possible to be multilingual without being translingual if, despite knowing more than one language, a writer writes only in L1. Although Ernest Hemingway spoke French and Spanish, he wrote exclusively in his native language, English. He was not translingual. Early in Nimble Tongues, I pose the fundamental question of whether the phenomenon of translingualism is worth studying, whether it makes any difference to the kind of text produced. I suggest that a fair test might be to compare the work of a translingual writer with that of a monolingual writer (whose work could presumably not be contaminated by any additional languages). Nevertheless, I point out how very difficult it is to find a writer who is genuinely, totally monolingual. As an example, I cite William Faulkner, who wrote exclusively in English, his L1, and was therefore decidedly not translingual, but whose texts show traces of French and Haitian Creole. From this, Professor Kingery concludes, invalidly, that I have broadened the category of translingual to include even Faulkner. I have not; I have simply noted that Faulkner is not a pure specimen of monolingualism. Professor Kingery faults the book for a “tendency to see translingualism everywhere,” when I have merely pointed out that true monolingualism is very rare. Literary translingualism remains the special case of writing in an adopted language.