How Multilingual Writing Expands Poetic Expression

There is a particular kind of silence that happens when a word in one language has no equivalent in another.

Not the silence of absence — but of precision. The Portuguese saudade, the Japanese mono no aware, the Arabic ya'aburnee. Words that carry whole emotional histories inside them, that have evolved over centuries to name something specific to the culture that made them. You can approximate them in English. You can write three sentences circling their meaning. But you cannot translate them, not really — because translation is not the goal. The feeling is the goal, and some feelings were named first, and most accurately, in languages that are not English.

This is the central argument for multilingual poetry. Not that mixing languages is technically interesting, or that it reflects a cosmopolitan identity, or that it challenges the reader in a productive way — though it does all of these things. The deeper argument is this: some things can only be said in the language in which they were first felt.

The Language You Dream In Is Not Always the One You Write In

Most discussions of multilingual poetry treat it as a deliberate aesthetic choice — a technique adopted by writers who want to expand their formal toolkit. And it can be that. But for a significant number of the poets working in this mode, writing in more than one language is not a choice at all. It is the only honest account of their inner life.

Gloria Anzaldúa, in Borderlands / La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987), did not simply include Spanish alongside English for stylistic effect. She was documenting the reality of a consciousness formed at the intersection of two languages, two cultures, and two histories of violence. Her code-switching was not decoration — it was testimony. To write in English alone would have been to lie about what it felt like to exist in the borderlands, to choose one inheritance over another and pretend the choice was natural.

Paul Celan wrote in German — the language of his persecutors, the language in which orders were given for the murder of his parents — because it was also his mother tongue, the language he thought in, the language of his earliest intimacies. His multilingualism (he also wrote in French and Romanian, and translated widely) was inseparable from his engagement with what language itself could and could not do in the aftermath of the Holocaust. In the poem Todesfuge — written in German, untranslatable in the fullest sense — the language itself becomes the site of the wound.

These are not extreme examples chosen to make a theoretical point. They are the center of what multilingual poetry is actually about: the relationship between identity, history, and the specific tongue in which experience was lived.

What Happens to Meaning at the Border of Two Languages

When a poet shifts language mid-poem — or mid-stanza, or mid-sentence — several things happen simultaneously, and not all of them are comfortable.

The reader who does not speak the second language is stopped. Not excluded, exactly, but slowed. Forced into a different relationship with the text, one in which understanding is partial, where tone and sound must carry more weight than meaning. This is not a failure of the poem. It is the poem doing something that a monolingual poem cannot: staging, at the level of the reading experience, what it feels like to encounter something you cannot fully access.

The reader who does speak both languages has a different experience — one that is often described as a kind of doubling. They hear the poem twice simultaneously, in two registers, and the gap between them becomes meaningful. What does it mean that this image was expressed in Spanish rather than English? What does the choice of French carry here that Italian would not? The multilingual reader is asked to notice language itself, not just to pass through it toward meaning.

Samuel Beckett, who famously chose to write in French after the Second World War and then translate his own work back into English, described his reason plainly: French made it easier to write without style — by which he meant without the accumulated habits and expectations of his native tongue. Distance from one's own language, it turns out, can be a form of precision. The translation of his own work was never an afterthought — Beckett's English and French versions of the same play often diverge significantly, because the second language revealed something the first had obscured.

Untranslatability as a Poetic Device

The untranslatable word is not a problem to be solved. It is a resource.

When Aimé Césaire coined négritude — writing in French, within a movement that was itself a response to colonial imposition of French culture — he was not simply naming a concept. He was constructing a term that could not be fully absorbed into the dominant linguistic framework, that would remain visible as a foreign body inside the language of the colonizer. The word itself performed resistance.

This is the political dimension of multilingual poetry that is most often flattened by well-intentioned readings. When a poet from a colonized or diasporic background writes in their ancestral language — Quechua, Gaelic, Yoruba, Māori — alongside the dominant colonial language, the ancestral tongue is not merely a stylistic texture. It is a refusal. It insists on the existence of a world that was declared peripheral, marginal, disappearing.

The untranslatable word does not ask to be decoded. It asks to be held.

The Question of Audience — and Whose Comfort Matters

Multilingual poetry forces a question that monolingual poetry never has to ask: who is this for?

The conventional answer — that poetry should be accessible to all readers — quietly assumes that all readers are the same, that the default reader is the monolingual English speaker, and that everything should be translatable into their experience. Multilingual poetry refuses this assumption. It says, explicitly, that some poems are written from a particular linguistic community, not merely about it. That the reader who shares the second language will find something in this poem that no translation can give.

This is not exclusivity for its own sake. It is honesty about what language is: not a neutral vehicle for meaning, but a site of belonging, memory, and power. A poem that moves between Spanish and English is not simply a bilingual text — it is a poem that takes sides in the history of those two languages on the American continent. A poem that includes phrases in a dying language is an act of preservation that no footnote can replicate.

What This Means for You as a Writer

If you write in more than one language, the first question to ask is not how to include both — it is why a particular moment calls for one over the other.

Not: this sounds more poetic in French. But: what does this language carry that the other does not? What does this word know about this feeling that its translation has forgotten?

If you write in one language, multilingual poetry is still worth studying — not to imitate its form, but to understand what it reveals about the language you do use. Reading Anzaldúa or Celan or Édouard Glissant changes how you hear English. It makes the assumptions inside it visible. And a writer who cannot see the assumptions inside their own language is a writer working with limited tools.

Every language encodes a way of seeing. Multilingual poetry makes that visible — by placing two ways of seeing side by side, and letting the reader feel the gap between them.

That gap is where the poem lives.

Looking to go further in your writing journey? Explore our full collection of writer tips, or browse our website to see these ideas come to life.

We also welcome new voices — if you’d like to share your work, submit your writing and join the Raw Literature community.