[Teaching_Composition] NEW MODULE

[danentwi]

Chris-

Don't worry about calling me "Derek." During the Spring 06 semester, I had a 
student 
who emailed her messages to "Dan." I think you''ve inadvertantly helped me 
create a 
new persona!    ;-)

No apologies necessary, no offense taken.

In turn, sorry if it seemed that I was not reading you as someone in favor of 
linguistic 
plurality. Indeed, it's clear from your post that you see the potential for 
linguistic 
homogenization inherent in English as a global language, and that you don't 
take kindly 
to English-only ideology/legislation.

I guess what I was trying to emphasize the distinction between "despite" and  
"because 
of." I read the intent of your post as pointing to the increasing 
"common-ness" of the 
English language (the spread of English as  a global language) as a factor of 
linguistic 
homogenization. Did I read you correctly?

My argument is that the global spread of English *contributes* to linguistic 
diversity on 
our campuses. For example, as English takes hold as a second or third 
language, or a 
lingua franca, in places around the world, more people learn English and thus 
have a 
better opportunity for studying abroad in an English speaking country. That 
is, even 
though English is becoming the language of the world, that English is not 
monolithic and 
students come to American campuses with many *Englishes*, most of which could 
be 
labeled "non-standard>"

One thing about English around the world: it's often associated with America 
and things/
ideas American. This sociolinguistic factor results in an increased desire, I 
think, to study 
in the States. So students with some faciltiy/fluency in English are more 
likely to come to 
the US for college study, and they bring their own local/regional varieties of 
English with 
them. Often, these varieties serve quite well where these folks come from, but 
when they 
arrive here their English marks them as "foreign," "ESL," "non-native" or what 
have you.

I agree with those who have pointed out their admiration for students who 
choose to 
study in English when it is a second or third or fourth language for them. I 
have some 
fluency in French, but I don't know if I would be brave enough to enroll in a 
graduate 
program at a French language institution. When more people around the world 
learn 
English, more of them become eligible to take, and pass, the TOEFL, and 
thereby 
become eligible to study here.  This is what I mean when I say "because of."

What is unfortunate is that, as you point out, when these varieties of English 
appear on 
our campuses, students run smack into forces at work to marginalize and erase 
them. 
Varieties that are born of community-building and communicative need elsewhere 
become markers of exclusion here.

I really enjoy Dissanayake's discussion of "Indian English" in literary works. 
He 
celebrates the new collocations, the new lexical values assigned to existing 
words, the 
morphological creativity, and so on that we see in emerging varieties of 
English around 
the world. Pennycook takes up this issue as well (_Cultural Politics of 
English as an 
International Language_). And I like Canagarajah's book too (Geopolitics of 
Academic 
Writing), for his discussion of how the conventions of Western academic 
writing/
publishing work to marginalize writing and knowledge production by 
"non-native" writers.
And I agree with you: Nettle and Romaine's book is a must for all of us as we 
try to make 
good sense out of how to live and work in a world where, as some have argued, 
English 
has achieved the status of a global language.

best,

Dave (Derek)

>===== Original Message From Chris Anson <chris_anson@ncsu.edu> =====

>Derek: I'm actually in favor of linguistic plurality, if that's not
>obvious in what I've written to this list. I think there are forces
>here that would like to erase as much diversity as possible, both in
>English (dialects of American English, _especially_ dialects of
>African American English, and varieties of world English spoken by L1
>English speakers or speakers of English as a parallel language in
>other parts of the world) and in "foreign languages." (I have always
>thought that English-Only legislation is one of the most ironic
>things lawmakers have ever cooked up. Here we are, forcing English-
>speaking American students to learn foreign languages and supporting
>the enterprise with great energy, while we send a message to speakers
>of other languages that theirs is not wanted, or that they should
>"learn English or else." A number of years ago, the (I think) San
>Diego public schools experimented with bilingualism across the board:
>students  _all_ took some content courses in English and other
>content courses in Spanish, so that both groups were equally
>advantaged and disadvantaged in learning the content--but more to the
>point, everyone learned both languages at the same time. That's
>always struck me as very cool. Then we find out just a few months ago
>that a Mexican kid is suspended from a school in Texas for saying
>something in Spanish to a friend. God help us. Would an Anglo kid
>have been suspended for that?)
>
>It could be that the growth of world English(es) has occasioned
>greater linguistic diversity in our colleges and universities, and if
>so, that's terrific. And yes, if it pushes us away from monolithic
>conceptions of "standard English," good. Of course, there are other
>reasons to be concerned about world English, especially in its
>hegemonizing factors and its potential contribution to the continuing
>death of indigenous languages--see Nettle and Romaine 2000, on
>English as a "killer" language.
>
>Anyway, as a kid who came to the U.S. speaking a strong version of
>British English from my (English) parents, but having spent all of my
>elementary school years living with them in a town near Paris and
>attending a local (French) ecole communale, I hear you.
>
>Chris Anson
>
>
>On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:59 PM, danentwi wrote:
>
>>
>> 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

>
>--
>Chris M. Anson [Web site]
>Professor of English
>Director, Campus Writing and Speaking Program
>Box 8105, North Carolina State University
>Raleigh, NC  27695-8105
>(919) 513-4080