Canagarajah, A. Suresh. "The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued." College Composition and Communication June 57.4 (2006): 586-619. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The authors are exploring the pedagogical implications that might arise with Horner and Trimbur’s essay about English Only and College Composition and asking themselves how they can start incorporating their long term ideal of composition study into their classrooms today. They explain that the classroom is already a place to negotiate and change policy, that the teacher has the authority to do so as they are already enforcing the monolingual policy by teaching language as they do now. They speak about the varieties of English found throughout the world and present studies that show students can acquire a an understanding of the dominant form of English more readily if their own dialect of English is not marginalized. They address issues brought up by linguists about the dangers of the “Curse of Babel” and show why those fears are illegitimate. The author goes on to present their own strategy of incorporating multiple dialects of English into the academic world – through the use of Code Meshing. The author provides examples of different vernaculars meshed within the dominant codes of academic English.
Harold, Brent. "Beyond Student Centered Teaching." Change Oct 4.8 (1972): 48- 53. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The author is speaking about the evolution of classrooms away from Teacher centered and towards Student centered, but speaks to the negative effects of this change, including: apathy, passivity, irregular attendance, and even cynicism within the students. He speaks of the impression people have that the old structured ways that classrooms were run at least gave the student a purpose to move towards, whereas with the student centered the classroom leaves all involved in an aimless pursuit. The author believes that the failure of Student Centered teaching is that the reforming of the classrooms didn’t go far enough. He believes the issue lies in a few areas. One aspect is in the Idealism of the classroom – where students never speak of themselves in reality, but are only viewed as abstractions in ideals being discussed. He next explains that the evolution of education has taken the role of advocate away from the instructor, who is now to play a neutral role in forming the student’s mind. This neutrality of the instructor is transferred to the students, who rather than taking a firm stand on subjects, can find value in all opinions. Writing itself encourages the student to remove themselves from the ideas they are discussing, to abstract their theories so as not to directly indicate their influence on their personal lives. The author describes his idea for a course which remedies these problems without regressing to the authoritarian style of old.
Holquist, Michael. "Answering as Authoring: Mikhail Bakhtin’s Trans- Linguistics."Critical Inquiry Dec 10.2 (1983): 307-19. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The author begins by discussing Bakhtin’s ability to recognize differences where others see only unity, and how even his works reflected this need to preserve the multiplicity he saw in words and language. It is the author’s belief that Bakhtin’s main focus throughout his career was exploring the relationship between the Self and Other – which is why we can describe his work as the exploration of Dialogism. He speaks of the distinction between Bakhtin and Saussure – going into detail of the differences between the two theories take on communication and language. The author explains Bakhtin by describing that unlike machines which must take information in sequentially, humans communicate simultaneously, becoming both listener and speaker interchangeably throughout discourse. The speaker, or writer, must keep in mind what exactly he is talking about and the audience that he is addressing with his speech; this is where stylistics in speech and writing can find expression.
Horner, Bruce, and John Trimbur. "English Only and U.S. College Composition."College Composition and Communication Jun 53.4 (2002): 594- 630.JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The authors discuss the development of college curriculum from Classical to Modern. The current debate concerning English Only Curriculums is at the center of their research and they wish to shed light on the tacit acceptance of our modern monolingual composition instruction. They go into detail about the policy changes during the last 150 years and the slow favoring of English as the only language for composition study. Oratory and Translation was looked down upon as a waste of time and instead a mastery of written English was favored as the more intellectual act. They discuss the English Only debate and the implications of both sides, discussing the subtle implications that each side of the debate might have and the many similarities they actually hold. The later part of the essay speaks to composition instructors on how they should change their thinking in regards to the unspoken English Only policy and pedagogy –perhaps encouraging a bilingual language program.
Rothschild Ewald, Helen. "Waiting for Answerability: Bakhtin and Composition Studies." College Composition and Communication Oct 44.3 (1993): 331- 48. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The first part of the essay goes over the many ways that writers have utilized Bakhtin’s theories for their own theorizing of language and composition. He brings in several examples from these authors to briefly demonstrate how they were able to use Bakhtinian ideas to their advantage – even in conflicting areas of research. The author asks the reader to consider the interesting position Bakhtin is in, where he be used by both sides of an issue – he concludes that Bakhtin must have been misinterpreted. He suggests this may also reveal a debate between social constructivists and externalists which would lead to a consideration of Bakhtin’s term Answerability which has been ignored in the academic community. The author discusses what it would mean to teach with Answerability as a foundation and provides examples of ways other instructor have used it in the classroom.
Schuster, Charles I. "Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist." College English Oct 47.6 (185): 594- 607. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
Briefly summarizes the colorful life of Bakhtin and explains that although he is considered a Literary Theorists, many of his ideas can breathe life into Rhetorical studies. The author explains how Bakhtin takes Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle –Speaker, Listener, Subject- and replaces Subject with Hero. He explains that this is very important to Rhetorical theory because before this change, theorists would discuss how the Subject was being treated – Bakhtin’s change would make the Subject, or Hero a main player in discourse. The author says that at the center of Bakhtin’s theories about rhetoric is Dialogue. All three aspects hold equally important roles in the dialogue so as to render the triangle of Aristotle’s into a circle by Bakhtin. He goes over excerpts from Bakhtin where Bakhtin describes the word as belonging to someone only when they use it in their own way, with their own personal touch. Language is a constantly changing mixture that changes depending on the context of its use. Style and language are inseparable for Bakhtin, they are one in the same. Different elements brought from intonation, accent, language all act to produce a unique style in student writings.
Welch, Nancy. "One Student’s Many Voices: Reading, Writing, and Responding with Bakhtin." Journal of Advanced Composition Fall 13.2 (1993): 493- 502. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014
The author explains the uses of a Bakhtinian analysis to review student papers. Rather than using vague corrections like “ending is flat” the teacher should engage in the dialogue that the student creates with their writing. When teacher use these standard, authoritative methods of correction they are reinforcing the belief that they are the absolute authority that the student must conform their writing to. According to Bakhtin all language is dialogic, and the student is writing developed from a mix of authoritative and personal voice – from their own experience and what they have been influenced by socially. The words a student uses don’t belong to them, the words themselves have a long and encompassing history that comes along with them which the students use for their own purposes. When the teacher sees that the voices in the text don’t help the writers aim, that they don’t communicate their main point, then they can point this out to the student. The teacher must approach the students text not as a grand judge, but as a reader that can tell them where the text doesn’t work to communicate their intended message.
The authors are exploring the pedagogical implications that might arise with Horner and Trimbur’s essay about English Only and College Composition and asking themselves how they can start incorporating their long term ideal of composition study into their classrooms today. They explain that the classroom is already a place to negotiate and change policy, that the teacher has the authority to do so as they are already enforcing the monolingual policy by teaching language as they do now. They speak about the varieties of English found throughout the world and present studies that show students can acquire a an understanding of the dominant form of English more readily if their own dialect of English is not marginalized. They address issues brought up by linguists about the dangers of the “Curse of Babel” and show why those fears are illegitimate. The author goes on to present their own strategy of incorporating multiple dialects of English into the academic world – through the use of Code Meshing. The author provides examples of different vernaculars meshed within the dominant codes of academic English.
Harold, Brent. "Beyond Student Centered Teaching." Change Oct 4.8 (1972): 48- 53. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The author is speaking about the evolution of classrooms away from Teacher centered and towards Student centered, but speaks to the negative effects of this change, including: apathy, passivity, irregular attendance, and even cynicism within the students. He speaks of the impression people have that the old structured ways that classrooms were run at least gave the student a purpose to move towards, whereas with the student centered the classroom leaves all involved in an aimless pursuit. The author believes that the failure of Student Centered teaching is that the reforming of the classrooms didn’t go far enough. He believes the issue lies in a few areas. One aspect is in the Idealism of the classroom – where students never speak of themselves in reality, but are only viewed as abstractions in ideals being discussed. He next explains that the evolution of education has taken the role of advocate away from the instructor, who is now to play a neutral role in forming the student’s mind. This neutrality of the instructor is transferred to the students, who rather than taking a firm stand on subjects, can find value in all opinions. Writing itself encourages the student to remove themselves from the ideas they are discussing, to abstract their theories so as not to directly indicate their influence on their personal lives. The author describes his idea for a course which remedies these problems without regressing to the authoritarian style of old.
Holquist, Michael. "Answering as Authoring: Mikhail Bakhtin’s Trans- Linguistics."Critical Inquiry Dec 10.2 (1983): 307-19. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The author begins by discussing Bakhtin’s ability to recognize differences where others see only unity, and how even his works reflected this need to preserve the multiplicity he saw in words and language. It is the author’s belief that Bakhtin’s main focus throughout his career was exploring the relationship between the Self and Other – which is why we can describe his work as the exploration of Dialogism. He speaks of the distinction between Bakhtin and Saussure – going into detail of the differences between the two theories take on communication and language. The author explains Bakhtin by describing that unlike machines which must take information in sequentially, humans communicate simultaneously, becoming both listener and speaker interchangeably throughout discourse. The speaker, or writer, must keep in mind what exactly he is talking about and the audience that he is addressing with his speech; this is where stylistics in speech and writing can find expression.
Horner, Bruce, and John Trimbur. "English Only and U.S. College Composition."College Composition and Communication Jun 53.4 (2002): 594- 630.JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The authors discuss the development of college curriculum from Classical to Modern. The current debate concerning English Only Curriculums is at the center of their research and they wish to shed light on the tacit acceptance of our modern monolingual composition instruction. They go into detail about the policy changes during the last 150 years and the slow favoring of English as the only language for composition study. Oratory and Translation was looked down upon as a waste of time and instead a mastery of written English was favored as the more intellectual act. They discuss the English Only debate and the implications of both sides, discussing the subtle implications that each side of the debate might have and the many similarities they actually hold. The later part of the essay speaks to composition instructors on how they should change their thinking in regards to the unspoken English Only policy and pedagogy –perhaps encouraging a bilingual language program.
Rothschild Ewald, Helen. "Waiting for Answerability: Bakhtin and Composition Studies." College Composition and Communication Oct 44.3 (1993): 331- 48. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
The first part of the essay goes over the many ways that writers have utilized Bakhtin’s theories for their own theorizing of language and composition. He brings in several examples from these authors to briefly demonstrate how they were able to use Bakhtinian ideas to their advantage – even in conflicting areas of research. The author asks the reader to consider the interesting position Bakhtin is in, where he be used by both sides of an issue – he concludes that Bakhtin must have been misinterpreted. He suggests this may also reveal a debate between social constructivists and externalists which would lead to a consideration of Bakhtin’s term Answerability which has been ignored in the academic community. The author discusses what it would mean to teach with Answerability as a foundation and provides examples of ways other instructor have used it in the classroom.
Schuster, Charles I. "Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist." College English Oct 47.6 (185): 594- 607. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
Briefly summarizes the colorful life of Bakhtin and explains that although he is considered a Literary Theorists, many of his ideas can breathe life into Rhetorical studies. The author explains how Bakhtin takes Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle –Speaker, Listener, Subject- and replaces Subject with Hero. He explains that this is very important to Rhetorical theory because before this change, theorists would discuss how the Subject was being treated – Bakhtin’s change would make the Subject, or Hero a main player in discourse. The author says that at the center of Bakhtin’s theories about rhetoric is Dialogue. All three aspects hold equally important roles in the dialogue so as to render the triangle of Aristotle’s into a circle by Bakhtin. He goes over excerpts from Bakhtin where Bakhtin describes the word as belonging to someone only when they use it in their own way, with their own personal touch. Language is a constantly changing mixture that changes depending on the context of its use. Style and language are inseparable for Bakhtin, they are one in the same. Different elements brought from intonation, accent, language all act to produce a unique style in student writings.
Welch, Nancy. "One Student’s Many Voices: Reading, Writing, and Responding with Bakhtin." Journal of Advanced Composition Fall 13.2 (1993): 493- 502. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014
The author explains the uses of a Bakhtinian analysis to review student papers. Rather than using vague corrections like “ending is flat” the teacher should engage in the dialogue that the student creates with their writing. When teacher use these standard, authoritative methods of correction they are reinforcing the belief that they are the absolute authority that the student must conform their writing to. According to Bakhtin all language is dialogic, and the student is writing developed from a mix of authoritative and personal voice – from their own experience and what they have been influenced by socially. The words a student uses don’t belong to them, the words themselves have a long and encompassing history that comes along with them which the students use for their own purposes. When the teacher sees that the voices in the text don’t help the writers aim, that they don’t communicate their main point, then they can point this out to the student. The teacher must approach the students text not as a grand judge, but as a reader that can tell them where the text doesn’t work to communicate their intended message.