[Teaching_Composition] NEW MODULE

[danentwi]

Laura, all-

Just to get this off my chest: I really don't like the terms "native" and 
"non-native" (they're rather heavily loaded terms) nor do I care for the term 
"mother tongue"; in fact, I'm not sure if I've yet found a good term, so I 
come up with long constructions like "student writers whose first language is 
not English." Perhaps someone out there can help with this?


One thing I like to tell student writers whose first language is not English: 
"native" speakers/writers often write in ways that exhibit features similar to 
those found in the writing of "non-native" speakers/writers. I tell students 
this to underscore the basic fact that learning to write is *difficult*--no 
matter what. Many are encouraged when they realize their fellow students born 
in the States are having the same troubles.

One difference I've found between one group and the other (I generalize): 
students who learned English in other countries are typically better at 
understanding the metalanguage of grammatical terms. However, I also make it a 
point to remind *all* writers that there are important, major differences 
between *style,* *usage* and *grammar.* "Grammar" is often a catch-all phrase 
("I need to work on my grammar." Or, "Can you fix my grammar?"), but I think 
that more often than not students grapple with style/usage.

I highlight these differences for several reasons:

1. pointing out the differences between style, usage, and grammar is a great 
entry into a conversation about rhetoric, writing, and language

2. most students want concrete, hard-and-fast, black-and-white answers to 
their questions; they're often looking for *rules*; pointing out these 
differences leads to a discussion about the *limited value* of rule-based 
thinking about how the English language works, and how it appears in written 
form

3. by pointing out these differences, I can discuss with students the idea 
that there are significant differences between spoken and written English, and 
this in turn often opens the door to an exploration of what "Standard English" 
is and what it *means*

4. I like to talk to students about *choices* rather than rules. I love Joseph 
Williams' discussion of rules vs. choices in his book _Style: Ten Lessons in 
Clarity and Grace_. For example, he suggests that there are 9 ways to end a 
grammatical sentence. This way of seeing things sheds a wonderful light on how 
one might discuss, for example, "fragments."

I'd also like to revisit Chris Anson's introductory post, in which he writes:

"In spite of the growth of world English(es) and attempts in the U.S. to erase 
or marginalize other languages through English-only legislation, many of our 
campuses continue to be linguistically diverse, enrolling students with a 
spectrum of language characteristics and influences that variously affect 
their oral communication, the rhetorical and pragmatic/discursive features of 
their writing, and their control of surface features as well."

Rather than say that campuses are linguistically diverse *in spite of* the 
growth of World Englishes, I would like to argue that it is often *because of* 
the growth of World Englishes that we experience linguistic diversity on our 
campuses. Several scholars of World Englishes argue that the status of English 
as a global language means that we can no longer (we have never really been 
able to, really) point to any *one* standard for English speech or writing. 
How many times has your spellchecker flagged a Canadian/British/Australian 
vocabulary word? Would an American be okay with "whilst" or "learnt"? Probably 
not. The idea that the spread of English means we should think of *standards* 
(English as a pluricentric language) rather than *a standard* is one that 
Compositionists will need to begin to explore. What are the implications for 
us writing teachers? Those who have learned their English in locations outside 
the US have typically done so for particular reasons and purposes, and have 
learned a local or regional variety that suits those purposes and reasons.

If one of the wonderful things about English is its ability to change and 
grow, why are we so bent on excluding certain forms/varities/constructions 
from the written language? Often times I find the "mistakes" of some writers 
to be beautiful, poetic, ingenious variations. After all, as writing teachers, 
how do we strike a balance between (as Bakhtin would say) the conservative, 
centripetal forces at work to maintain linguistic "stasis" and the creative, 
dialogic, centrifugal forces at work to "break apart" and change language? How 
do we negotiate "standards" and "communication"? (I don't think Americans 
*misunderstand* terms like "whilst" or "learnt"; we just recognize them as 
"incorrect" forms)

Dave Nentwick
Syracuse University


>Funny story time--But here's a twist--Last week I had a female student come 
into >my office stunned because I had commented on her paper that I would be 
happy to >help her if she was having trouble because she was an ESL student. 
She was born >and raised in New Jersey. She was half laughing, though, because 
when she showed >her paper to her roommates, they agreed with my comments. She 
said, "They totally >saw what you were talking about. I guess I should have 
proofread it before >turning it in." She only came in to see me to let me know 
she was not an ESL >student so I didn't have to worry about her. Oops.
>
>Laura Card, PhD
>English Department
>Brigham Young University