Literacy Debates

Gee brings power in society into the discourse about literacy, and the political atmosphere he describes  encourages the types of approaches to education in place due to economic gaps. The basic skills centered learning and what Gee calls a more innovative approach depends on the attitude formed toward students from different economic backgrounds. From what I have observed, school districts with more funding tend to focus on the education of the student, tend to trust students, and students who excel are encouraged to take on more challenging tasks and coursework. School districts with less funding focus more on discipline than education, are suspicious of students, and students who do well are as neglected as students who need more guidance in certain subjects. Additionally, the students from the latter category are often accused of cheating when they accomplish tasks with more ease than expected and are asked to "show their work" in situations where the students from the wealthier districts are simply assumed to be "gifted." From Gee's perspective, this is a matter of education failing to democratize. There is also the component of lowered expectation for the districts and schools where students are not expected to do well. One example from my own experience deals with a standardized writing test that was designed to determine how students will place into high school English classes. We prepared for this test in our English class before entering high school, and our class happened to have a particularly enthusiastic and innovative teacher (from this you can safely assume that she was new and ended up leaving education after a few years). She informed us that our school had a lower set of standards than others for assessment and that she refused to grade us based on those lower standards because she found them patronizing. It was perhaps the first moment in my education when a teacher interrupted her performance to give us information about where we, as students, stood in society. Subsequently, the recognition of situations where the expectations of different kinds of literacy were apparent to me allowed me to analyze my own circumstances, or as Gee states: "One does not learn to read texts of type X in way Y unless one has had experience in settings where texts of type X are read in way Y" (41).

Methods in Intercultural Rhetoric: Focus on Discourse Analysis and Text Linguistics

In “Social Languages, Situated Meanings, and Cultural Models” Gee refers to language varieties as social languages (registers) and discusses speaking as an act that reveals who we are and what we are doing. Different social languages express different versions of the speaker, which is in conflict with the notion of a stable and constant self with a central identity. This observation in linguistics appears to me as a shift away from the sense of self in modernism. Theresa Lillis’s article “Ethnography as Method, Methodology, and ‘Deep Theorizing:’ Closing the Gap Between Text and Context in Academic Writing Research” contains moments of this struggle with postmodern identity. In example 7, a writer states that when writing in English, one has to imagine how an English person would write. The insider perspective demonstrates the identity split that is on the surface for non-native speakers as opposed to Gee’s example of Jane, who did not recognize the difference in language she brings to various situations. The writer in Lillis’s example composes while aware of the identity that is temporarily taken on in order to produce writing that fits in as the work of an English-speaking person. As an outsider, one’s social identity is easier to make conscious, for everything in the environment is a reminder of this status. As the social identity interacts and intersects with the writing identity, the writer brings many complexities to the composition. How much a non-native speaker of English brings in his or her social languages into speaking and writing depends on the context. In some communities, practices like code switching are acceptable, but if the student is isolated from that environment in their personal, academic, and/or professional life, one identity shifts to make room for a new one. The new identity hopes to communicate more efficiently within its present environment. The language constructs not only identity but self-perception. Given the privileged status of English on a global scale, self-worth is directly connected to how well a student imitates that idea of an English person in Lillis’s article. The speaker or writer measures up his or her own identity in society based on the ability to adjust in communicating with an audience that views him or her as an outsider. 

From Contrastive Rhetoric to Intercultural Rhetoric

In “From Contrastive Rhetoric to Intercultural Rhetoric: A Search for Collective Identity,” Xiaoming Li offers alternatives to dominant discourse. I found it interesting that she initially wanted to establish her position through her language identity, describing herself as feeling more Chinese than American based on her effortless use of Chinese and need to have her articles in English proofread. I don’t know if writing is ever effortless unless she is referring to non-academic writing. In the case she was referring to non-academic writing, the comparison to her need to have articles proofread when she writes in English is not necessarily fair. The tie between language and identity certainly has many arguments that can be made for it, many of which I do not disagree with; however, relating what people do with their first language to their general identity is where I see the issue with contrastive rhetoric. She seems to set herself up as an author who has adapted to the essentializing and stereotyping as the Other while asking the reader to do none of that work with his or her own first language, probably out of consideration that many readers will have English as their first language. The treatment of English as such never asks the speaker or writer to construct that language based identity, and discussing some general features of English writing (the most popular of which seems to be “directness”) is only for the sake of establishing a norm against which other languages are measured.

In response to what she observed in her research on writing in school in China, she argued against the notion that “given the fluidity of the postmodern world, culture as indicating a bounded notion is no longer a useful category” (15). She constructs a belief to argue against and states that China has not lost its cultural identity, creating the impression that fluidity is somehow completely neglectful of culture. The problem she fails to address is that naming distinct qualities about one culture ignores similar trends happening in different forms in other cultures. For example, when she borrows Chaim Perelman’s definition of argument as attempting to change the state of affairs (16), she connects this to why argument is not taught in Chinese writing, for the culture does not welcome threats to social and political stability. She contrasts “democracy” to “dynasty.” As a reader, I wonder why she chooses not to address how the US population and government react to threats to stability. No matter how much we ask student to make an argument in writing classes, the status quo is powerful and change causes great anxiety. She reinforces the dominance of the English speaking “democracy” by not questioning its relationship to stability the same way she addresses that of China. And while I do not altogether disregard the observation she makes and its possible relationship to writing, it is an example of a generalization I find to be damaging ad have previously come across in non-academic areas of the institution. 

Contrastive Rhetoric

The relationship between perceptions about culture and power in the context of learning English as a second language was unexpected for me in this set of readings, but it reminded me of several occasions where I observed essentialized cultural labels placed on the Other and this relationship also reminded me of the labels that occur in the non-ESL composition classroom.

Throughout my encounter with the arguments in these readings, I consistently recalled the labels I feel are encouraged to place on undergraduate students. Having a vocabulary to refer to their background, behaviors, and habits is often seen as key to understanding undergraduates and therefore be able to teach them. There is a great deal of anxiety associated with being out of touch with the undergraduate student’s mind. In the writing program, much emphasis is placed on being cultural relevant to the student, and there is little concern for when this becomes patronizing. The damage for learners of English is far greater.

The analysis of how the students’ cultures affect their learning of a second language and the competence in speaking and writing in that language contains useful observations, but at times, those observations seem to Other students more than inform about the first language or the culture of the student. Students are more than traditions and generalizations. When reading about parallel constructions in Arabic, indirectness and the lack of expression of personal views in Chinese, the specific-to-general pattern in Japanese, and digression in German, I have both an interest and an appreciation for how this information was collected. While I do not want to appear dismissive of the research, I feel that the features that stand in contrast to English in the discussed languages could be seen in the writing of native speakers without being said to be problematic.

After turning to Ryuko Kubota’s “Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses: Implications for Applied Linguistics Research and ELT,” the cultural politics in this became obvious. Navigating the dominant language looks less like being able to use its cultural capital to one’s advantage and more about expressing oneself as a Westerner. Students are then not only asked to satisfy the goal of speaking and composing in English but to think like an English-speaking person. The knowledge about the learner’s language and culture is then not being used to be able to better communicate with them as students but to overcorrect them, linguistically and culturally. In addition to the corrections based on the knowledge of cultural differences, Kubota mentions that “in the field of contrastive rhetoric, recent studies have debunked cultural myths that Japanese written discourse is characterized by culturally specific features such as reader responsibility, ki-shoo-ten-ketsua, and delayed introduction of purpose . . . (15). The already problematic labeling taking place is at times inaccurate, so we must consider the power excreted over those already Othered by defining, sometimes erroneously, their cultures.  

Week 4: Writing in the Context of Global Englishes

In “Chinese White-Collar Workers and Multilingual Creativity in the Diaspora” Xiaoye You presents the role of creativity in expanding circle countries. The place of English in their identity is especially interesting given You’s description of them as having experienced diaspora, and if diaspora is viewed as a type of consciousness and a mode of cultural production, the forum users  spatial displacement  is pacified by the play with language and culture. Stepping outside of the print context, it is evident in the bilingual creativity of the white-collar workers that they make use of American sayings and evoke Christianity in their discourse. It did not occur to me prior to reading this article that referring to the Christian concept of God when discussing their personal journeys does not mean they are Christian. The use of language to play with values and ideas associated with the English language is especially interesting with the reference to the “no pain no gain” motto. On the forum, the line is questioned when the diaspora proves to be pain without gain, which interrogates not only this particular line but the entire culture that employs it to reflect on hard work and achievement. Questioning values expressed in English and therefore associated with the English speaking world appears even stronger when the deconstruction takes place in English. This is perhaps because the use of English of these particular workers is a gesture of stepping into the English or American culture, a way of testing it, or finding a comfortable space within it. Considering that the English language is interwoven with the experience of the diaspora, it is also fascinating that when forum users choose English to express and sooth themselves using the language that granted them the opportunity to step into the same city-space that isolates them.  The language that is part of the stressful and lonely life is the language in which they share stories of their hometown memories and traditions. It is also not only the language or the topics discussed that appear to bring comfort to the posters on the forum, it is also some of the ways in which their use of the language is not standard. For example, when You says that the syntax makes a forum user sound like she is speaking Chinese, we observe that English is used to communicate at a certain comfort level that still indirectly references first languages, without compromising the fluidity with which their stories are told.

Week 3: Linguistic Heterogeneity

In “Critical Hip-Hop Language Pedagogies: Combat, Consciousness, and the Cultural Politics of Communication,” H. Samy Alim talks about producing consciousness-raising pedagogies and identifies schools as places of combat, which appears to be rather dramatic language, but in the context of the promise of economic independence and upward mobility upon cleaning up language, language ideology is indeed combat. Considering the relationship between language and identity, adjusting to the standard as one’s only used language does attempt to revise the self. Maintaining the non-standard while knowing which situations require the switch to the standard is often cited as the less radical alternative; however, I see no less of the standard’s claim to privilege in this since it also implies that the standard is the language that will help one with employment and communication with people and institutions that are of importance. The non-standard, by contrast, is then the language that does not help and is not for the situations deemed “important.” The two arguments I know will be used in response are that situations that are not related to education and the professional world are still important and therefore the language used in those situations is not a lesser (simply different) and that the importance of having a desirable place in the labor market cannot be undermined. The former seems to be a linguistic case of separate but equal while the latter acts in support of a prejudiced economic system (simply accepting the world as it is). Arguing for the importance of non-professional situations ignores the dominant cultural view that perceives the non-standard varieties as disrespectful, which is seen in Alim’s conversation with a Haven High teacher, who also identified the vernacular as saying “whatever you want” (164). And despite Pennycook’s discussion of the pervasiveness of hip hop, it’s noteworthy that when he quotes Bozza’s claim that it is an international language that defines the image of teenagers (90), the non-standard is presented as a language limited to a period of time in the human lifespan that is popularly characterized by immaturity. Still, with all the arguments I face, including my own, I am conflicted about the hegemony of the standard and the consequences of its use and the lack of its use.

In Alim’s article, once students began to reflect on ties between linguistic supremacy and discrimination, the argument for the standard as access to upward mobility possibly becomes less significant. Speaking the standard did not help the woman when she was discriminated against in the housing market, nor is the case of discrimination any less damaging in the example of a man who was let go from his job because English was his second language (172). The example of the Latino man is a reminder that the standard, the English language, and fluency in English are not available to everyone, so when an argument is made for the standard with economic reasons as the supporting evidence, it is important to think of those who are still left behind in this defense of the standard.

Week 2: Language Ideologies: Standard English, Globalization and World Englishes

Week 2: Language Ideologies: Standard English, Globalization and World Englishes.

       Kingsley Bolton’s “Creativity and World Englishes” and James Paul Gee’s chapter on ideology from Social Linguistics and Literacies both speak to the power of fears that conflicting ideologies perpetuate. Gee emphasizes that “people often (but not always) see the world the way they need or want it in order to sustain their desires, power, status, or influence” (5), and postcolonial narratives are among the many threats to ideologies that value elevating the mainstream or the dominant rather than building an awareness of the global. If ideas are shaped by environments, how does an environment become global and inclusive to realize the relevance of bilingual creativity? The literary approach to bilingual creativity that Bolton cites Kachru describing “exemplifies the need to reconceptualise linguistic views of bilingual creativity and the bilingual/multilingual grammar, defined rather by patterns of code-mixing, switching, and discourse than by norms of morphology and syntax” (459). Furthermore, Pico Iyer claims that the work of postcolonial writers captures English literature while transforming the language by moving across borders and through cross cultural mixing (460). According to Iver, the common place of these authors is dislocation; therefore, if the environment that forms ideologies is indefinable, ideas formed in this space are increasingly inclusive and theoretical.

       It is not unlike Gee’s example of the perception of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as less adequate than the standard. He corrects this notion and states that “since non-standard dialects are freer to change on the basis of the human child’s linguistic and cognitive systems, non-standard dialects are, in a sense, often ‘more logical’ or ‘more elegant’ from a linguistic point of view” (11). The relationship that non-standard dialects have with mainstream society is related to that of English literature and postcolonial literature. Both transform the language from a periphery and are closer representations of the English language and society than the mainstream because of the freedom to transform according to changes that happen in languages and cultures.

       Bolton and Gee also encounter a similar economic conflict. Gee states that Marx “Believed that our knowledge, beliefs, and behavior reflected and were shaped most importantly by the economic relationships (relations of production and consumption) that existed in our societies” (7). Bolton contextualizes the study of English literature and language and points to the issues that are encountered in multiculturalism, despite its intentions. He quotes Miyoshi, who discussed the focus on cosmopolitanism and the neglect of economic isolation as playing into the hands of capitalism. The discussion of economics in the context of language brings to light the role language has in controlling economic power. The standard is valued because it is expected when entering institutions from which one can profit, which is at least partly why the standard is expected in education. Looking at this in the context of Bolton’s article, multicultural studies and literature also have to subvert this economic power. The connection between Bolton and Gee’s arguments is also seen in Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows because of Alastair Pennycook’s concern with globalization and a discussion of global Englishes that is not limited to homogeny and economic policies controlled by a superpower.