Join the Conversation!
I've recently done a complete 180' in how I view English Composition. Below is a short essay which covers where I presently stand in my views. I'm interested in hearing where others stand in regards to this topic, so you'll find an open forum below my work. I look forward to hearing about what you think about my position and finding out where others are in respect to mine. Enjoy!
Language sets humans apart from all other species on the planet. Our means of communication is so advanced and intricate that even we don’t yet know what to make of it. This search for understanding can be seen by the countless explorations of language going back thousands of years. Today, we’re still grappling with the same questions: What does it mean to communicate effectively? Is communication something that can be taught? These questions are very important to the field of Composition because that’s at the center of the field – effective communication. Questions of form, style, content and a host of other factors can play into a students writing, but all of this boils down to one issue: how to get the student to write. The works of modern literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin seem to throw new light on the questions of composition instruction. His works might be a key to shifting our present writing instruction away from the formulaic and often marginalizing structure we box students of writing in. Through a use of Bakhtinian theories and student centered pedagogical strategies, it is my position that Composition instruction can reinforce what ultimately seems to be the central aim of writing in general: Communication.
Writing at the university level - academic writing - has a generally agreed upon and definite form today. This present structure, however, hasn’t always been held to be the proper or ideal form for writing at the college level. A reading of Bruce Horner and John Trimbur’s monumental work called “U.S. Only and College Composition” will reveal that the road we’ve taken to this regimented style of academic writing didn’t have to be taken. In fact, they explain that “the settlement arranged by the moderns can be seen in terms of a chain of reifications that has settled into our own contemporary beliefs and practices as writing teachers” (Horner, Trimbur 596). Many composition instructors perpetuate this belief by their continual acceptance of its import. Writer and Professor Peter Elbow describes his reluctant definition of what has been deemed “Standard Written English” when he describes that it is “the usage, grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling that will pass muster with most university faculty…as correct or at least acceptable” (Elbow 642). To have a standard of writing in English means that we have the ability to separate those who fail to meet those standards, thus disregarding their voice in favor of one more conforming to the norm.
But what happens to those voices that are marginalized by these standards? Many will walk a fine line between reaching those normative standards and running the risk of being silenced completely. As writer Min-Zhan Lu describes, “particularly students who seem quick to admit that they are ‘not good’ at writing because they have been identified at some point in their education as needing special – remedial, laboratory, or intensive- instruction in the ‘basics’”(Lu 471). However, many of these students come from backgrounds with languages other than English - and English wasn’t always the dominant language for education in effective communication. Horner and Trimbur describe a Harvard report written by David Russell that explains classical education systems where “students not only manipulated language (and languages) they did so in progressively more sophisticated ways throughout their schooling, leading up to full-blown public speaking and debate” (Horner, Trimbur 600). If the ultimate goal of composition instruction is to get students to communicate through writing effectively, then our current educational system is doing a disservice to those who don’t meet the exclusive standards we have set – this is especially highlighted by the fact that education had previously utilized multiple languages to instruct students in writing.
The transition to a single language – a monolingual - educational system didn’t happen all at once, as Horner and Trimbur describe it, rather it was a steady process which actually involved those of all language backgrounds. Classical instruction incorporated a deep understanding of Greek and Latin in their curriculum, in fact, “the old-time college system [with] the study of the classical languages provided students with cultural literacy, mental discipline, and the ability to write and speak well in English” (Horner, Trimbur 599). However, despite this, modern instructors began to feel that “the traditional oral method of language learning is characterized as ‘slovenly,’ ‘slip-shod,’ and ‘inexact,’ producing only ‘that lazy, mongrel dialect ‘Translation English’” (Horner, Trimbur 600). By removing lessons focused on Greek and Latin instruction, “it created a moment of flux in which the linguistic terrain of the curriculum appeared, at least briefly, to be up for grabs” (Horner, Trimbur 601). Given this opening, one prominent voice at an MLA conference, Theodore W. Hunt, suggested “that the one-third [of time] allotted to language and literature be divided equally among the major languages – Latin, Greek, French, German, and English” (Horner, Trimbur 602). However, his suggestion was not taken and “English was elevated to preeminent status in the curriculum, and the other modern languages were, in effect, assigned their limited spheres of influence, territorialized as national literatures” (Horner, Trimbur 602). The university curriculum went from incorporating a multilingual style which allowed the students to expand their understanding of language through the study of many, to a monolingual system which ultimately excludes those of other native languages. Without analyzing the benefits of a monolingual system, we’ve continually promoted its use at all levels of education unquestioningly – and “by remaining unexamined, [it] continues to exert a powerful influence on our teaching, our writing programs, and our impact on U.S. culture” (Horner, Trimbur 595).
Where does Bakhtin fit amidst all this talk of institutionalized education? Author Helen Rothschild Ewald in speaking of Bakhtin says, “He’s handy when you want to subvert hierarchies and infiltrate hegemonies. He’s handy when you want to foster openness and to encourage diversity” (Rothschild 332). This seems to be just what we need in Composition studies, especially following its fairly recent move to monolingual instruction. Bakhtin’s “sense of the world’s overwhelming multiplicity” is a sense we must share and incorporate into our university writing programs (Holquist 307). In order to open the doors that have been shut, we would be required to acknowledge the diversity of humans in all our aspects; to take on the mindset of Bakhtin who “always sought the minimum degree of homogenization necessary to any conceptual scheme, feeling it was better to preserve the heterogeneity which less patient thinkers found intolerable – and to which they therefore hurried to assign a unitizing label” (Holquist 307). In fact, even the rhetoric of unity spoken of throughout university discourse which promotes Standard Written English, in reality, maintains the hegemonic structures it was built upon. However, those writing within the university standards will find themselves ultimately restricted, because “teaching submission to discourse conventions creates a monolithic, and in this way, distorted, sense of how much room to maneuver exists within any given discourse situation” (Rothschild 335). By restricting composition we are restricting ourselves to the confines dictated by the university which doesn't necessarily reflect the reality that we actually exist within.
What would university composition look like if they incorporated a Bakhtinian theoretic in composition study? Helen Rothschild Ewold believes that “first, this pedagogy assumes that any learning, whether ‘organized conversationally, collaboratively, or in the most authoritarian manner,’ is social, and that its socialness is ‘beyond conscious reproduction’” (Rothschild 336). It appears that we cannot escape the social aspect of our existence - no matter how singularly minded the standards of university writing become. To accept this social aspect would be to step back into reality rather than fight against it – as we have been by imposing a rigid standard to writing. Secondly, Rothschild explains that “this pedagogy directs attention ‘less to models of thinking than to representations of thought in texts – texts by students as well as professional writers’” (Rothschild 336). These thoughts can manifest themselves in diverse ways - in languages other than English, and even in forms that break the standards of academic writing. However, this move doesn’t take away from the effect of writing as we’ve come to see it academically; in actuality it “offer[s] a compelling argument for the return of aesthetics as a central concern in rhetoric and composition since language, in Bakhtin’s terms, is always a potentially aesthetic medium” (Schuster 595). There’s a lot of room to move once we remove the barriers set up by the current standards for writing at the university level. As it is, “composition theorist for the most part come to agree that writing is never the business of the author working alone, but always the result of his or her interaction with the world, and, more specifically, with the readers and subjects (heroes) of the world” (Rothschild 341). The social aspect of our lives seems to be understood as central not only to Bakhtin, but even to educators themselves.
Educators do have a general understanding of the significance that sociality has in learning, however, incorporating “a dialogic classroom will not come easy” (Rothschild 344). If in fact an instructor does attempt to make some changes to the classroom dynamic, perhaps by “reconfiguring seating arrangements, introducing interactive activities into syllabi, and promoting a classroom environment that fosters collaborative learning”, there is still no guarantee that the class and even the instructor won’t “repeat old patterns of monologic discourse in these new settings” (Rothschild 344). What is necessary, as writer and professor Brent Harold explains, is to “restore vitality to classroom writing by having it relate to the human situation,” to bring it back to reality and acknowledge the social aspect of our lives (Harold 52). He continues by emphasizing the importance of getting students “analyzing the relationship between [their] own experience and background – economic, political, and so on – and the model of the world proposed in some literature” (Harold 52). By incorporating one’s own experience, by “taking ownership of English, or appropriating the language by confidently using it to serve one’s own interests according to one’s own values, helps develop fluency in English” (Canagarajah 592). This use of one’s own interests can go in many directions and shouldn’t be restricted by academic standards. The use of multiple languages or unique stylistics should be accepted because “a classroom based on ‘standard English and formal instruction limits the linguistic acquisition, creativity, and production among students” (Canagarajah 592). The student-centered classroom will better embrace the social element that exists within all creativity, in this case, composition instruction. No matter what unique form the writing may take, ultimately, if the content of the work is sound and the communication of the writer’s idea is clear, there should be no issue as to what shape their work takes.
All change takes time. However, as writer and professor A. Suresh Canagarajah points out, “teachers don’t have to wait till these policies trickle down to classrooms. They have some relative autonomy to develop textual practices that challenge dominant conventions and norms” (Canagarajah 587). Teachers should begin to gear their classrooms to a more open, social forum that’s more accepting than restricting. This is important because while we wait for the bigger system to change, the creativity of students is still at risk of being stifled by the institutions call for conformity, or as they refer to it – unity. Moving away from such a strong concern for strict academic form in writing is necessary because “not everything that matters can be pointed to on a page. Indeed, much of what really matters in writing is immanent (Schuster 603). When instructors are more concerned about the form writing takes on the page, they run the risk of taking less notice of the content or ideas that remain beneath. Although, “it is much safer to point to poor usage, awkward construction, a botched paragraph,” it is still more important to take notice of “metaphors such as voice, style, tone, [and] image” as well (Schuster 603). It’s my view that the main reason we communicate with each other is to share our thoughts that arise from our experiences. Those thoughts can take as unique a shape as the individual they are born from. So long as they are conveyed as clearly and effectively as possible, and ultimately as long as understanding is reached, then communication has been achieved. Placing restrictions on the way we form our expressions seems unnecessary if communication takes place without normative standards.
Works Cited
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.
Elbow, Peter. "Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond "Mistakes," "Bad English," and "Wrong Language"" Journal of Advanced Composition 19.3 (1999): 359-88. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. 3rd ed. N.p.: NCTE, 2011. 641-72. Print.
Harold, Brent. "Beyond Student Centered Teaching." Change Oct 4.8 (1972): 48-53. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
Holquist, Michael. "Answering as Authoring: Mikhail Bakhtin’s Trans-Linguistics." Critical Inquiry Dec 10.2 (1983): 307-19. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
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.
Lu, Min-Zhan. "Professing Multiculturalism." College Composition and Communication Dec 45.4 (1994): 442-58. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. 3rd ed. N.p.: NCTE, 2011. 467-83. Print.
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.
Schuster, Charles I. "Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist." College English Oct 47.6 (185): 594-607. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
I've recently done a complete 180' in how I view English Composition. Below is a short essay which covers where I presently stand in my views. I'm interested in hearing where others stand in regards to this topic, so you'll find an open forum below my work. I look forward to hearing about what you think about my position and finding out where others are in respect to mine. Enjoy!
Language sets humans apart from all other species on the planet. Our means of communication is so advanced and intricate that even we don’t yet know what to make of it. This search for understanding can be seen by the countless explorations of language going back thousands of years. Today, we’re still grappling with the same questions: What does it mean to communicate effectively? Is communication something that can be taught? These questions are very important to the field of Composition because that’s at the center of the field – effective communication. Questions of form, style, content and a host of other factors can play into a students writing, but all of this boils down to one issue: how to get the student to write. The works of modern literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin seem to throw new light on the questions of composition instruction. His works might be a key to shifting our present writing instruction away from the formulaic and often marginalizing structure we box students of writing in. Through a use of Bakhtinian theories and student centered pedagogical strategies, it is my position that Composition instruction can reinforce what ultimately seems to be the central aim of writing in general: Communication.
Writing at the university level - academic writing - has a generally agreed upon and definite form today. This present structure, however, hasn’t always been held to be the proper or ideal form for writing at the college level. A reading of Bruce Horner and John Trimbur’s monumental work called “U.S. Only and College Composition” will reveal that the road we’ve taken to this regimented style of academic writing didn’t have to be taken. In fact, they explain that “the settlement arranged by the moderns can be seen in terms of a chain of reifications that has settled into our own contemporary beliefs and practices as writing teachers” (Horner, Trimbur 596). Many composition instructors perpetuate this belief by their continual acceptance of its import. Writer and Professor Peter Elbow describes his reluctant definition of what has been deemed “Standard Written English” when he describes that it is “the usage, grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling that will pass muster with most university faculty…as correct or at least acceptable” (Elbow 642). To have a standard of writing in English means that we have the ability to separate those who fail to meet those standards, thus disregarding their voice in favor of one more conforming to the norm.
But what happens to those voices that are marginalized by these standards? Many will walk a fine line between reaching those normative standards and running the risk of being silenced completely. As writer Min-Zhan Lu describes, “particularly students who seem quick to admit that they are ‘not good’ at writing because they have been identified at some point in their education as needing special – remedial, laboratory, or intensive- instruction in the ‘basics’”(Lu 471). However, many of these students come from backgrounds with languages other than English - and English wasn’t always the dominant language for education in effective communication. Horner and Trimbur describe a Harvard report written by David Russell that explains classical education systems where “students not only manipulated language (and languages) they did so in progressively more sophisticated ways throughout their schooling, leading up to full-blown public speaking and debate” (Horner, Trimbur 600). If the ultimate goal of composition instruction is to get students to communicate through writing effectively, then our current educational system is doing a disservice to those who don’t meet the exclusive standards we have set – this is especially highlighted by the fact that education had previously utilized multiple languages to instruct students in writing.
The transition to a single language – a monolingual - educational system didn’t happen all at once, as Horner and Trimbur describe it, rather it was a steady process which actually involved those of all language backgrounds. Classical instruction incorporated a deep understanding of Greek and Latin in their curriculum, in fact, “the old-time college system [with] the study of the classical languages provided students with cultural literacy, mental discipline, and the ability to write and speak well in English” (Horner, Trimbur 599). However, despite this, modern instructors began to feel that “the traditional oral method of language learning is characterized as ‘slovenly,’ ‘slip-shod,’ and ‘inexact,’ producing only ‘that lazy, mongrel dialect ‘Translation English’” (Horner, Trimbur 600). By removing lessons focused on Greek and Latin instruction, “it created a moment of flux in which the linguistic terrain of the curriculum appeared, at least briefly, to be up for grabs” (Horner, Trimbur 601). Given this opening, one prominent voice at an MLA conference, Theodore W. Hunt, suggested “that the one-third [of time] allotted to language and literature be divided equally among the major languages – Latin, Greek, French, German, and English” (Horner, Trimbur 602). However, his suggestion was not taken and “English was elevated to preeminent status in the curriculum, and the other modern languages were, in effect, assigned their limited spheres of influence, territorialized as national literatures” (Horner, Trimbur 602). The university curriculum went from incorporating a multilingual style which allowed the students to expand their understanding of language through the study of many, to a monolingual system which ultimately excludes those of other native languages. Without analyzing the benefits of a monolingual system, we’ve continually promoted its use at all levels of education unquestioningly – and “by remaining unexamined, [it] continues to exert a powerful influence on our teaching, our writing programs, and our impact on U.S. culture” (Horner, Trimbur 595).
Where does Bakhtin fit amidst all this talk of institutionalized education? Author Helen Rothschild Ewald in speaking of Bakhtin says, “He’s handy when you want to subvert hierarchies and infiltrate hegemonies. He’s handy when you want to foster openness and to encourage diversity” (Rothschild 332). This seems to be just what we need in Composition studies, especially following its fairly recent move to monolingual instruction. Bakhtin’s “sense of the world’s overwhelming multiplicity” is a sense we must share and incorporate into our university writing programs (Holquist 307). In order to open the doors that have been shut, we would be required to acknowledge the diversity of humans in all our aspects; to take on the mindset of Bakhtin who “always sought the minimum degree of homogenization necessary to any conceptual scheme, feeling it was better to preserve the heterogeneity which less patient thinkers found intolerable – and to which they therefore hurried to assign a unitizing label” (Holquist 307). In fact, even the rhetoric of unity spoken of throughout university discourse which promotes Standard Written English, in reality, maintains the hegemonic structures it was built upon. However, those writing within the university standards will find themselves ultimately restricted, because “teaching submission to discourse conventions creates a monolithic, and in this way, distorted, sense of how much room to maneuver exists within any given discourse situation” (Rothschild 335). By restricting composition we are restricting ourselves to the confines dictated by the university which doesn't necessarily reflect the reality that we actually exist within.
What would university composition look like if they incorporated a Bakhtinian theoretic in composition study? Helen Rothschild Ewold believes that “first, this pedagogy assumes that any learning, whether ‘organized conversationally, collaboratively, or in the most authoritarian manner,’ is social, and that its socialness is ‘beyond conscious reproduction’” (Rothschild 336). It appears that we cannot escape the social aspect of our existence - no matter how singularly minded the standards of university writing become. To accept this social aspect would be to step back into reality rather than fight against it – as we have been by imposing a rigid standard to writing. Secondly, Rothschild explains that “this pedagogy directs attention ‘less to models of thinking than to representations of thought in texts – texts by students as well as professional writers’” (Rothschild 336). These thoughts can manifest themselves in diverse ways - in languages other than English, and even in forms that break the standards of academic writing. However, this move doesn’t take away from the effect of writing as we’ve come to see it academically; in actuality it “offer[s] a compelling argument for the return of aesthetics as a central concern in rhetoric and composition since language, in Bakhtin’s terms, is always a potentially aesthetic medium” (Schuster 595). There’s a lot of room to move once we remove the barriers set up by the current standards for writing at the university level. As it is, “composition theorist for the most part come to agree that writing is never the business of the author working alone, but always the result of his or her interaction with the world, and, more specifically, with the readers and subjects (heroes) of the world” (Rothschild 341). The social aspect of our lives seems to be understood as central not only to Bakhtin, but even to educators themselves.
Educators do have a general understanding of the significance that sociality has in learning, however, incorporating “a dialogic classroom will not come easy” (Rothschild 344). If in fact an instructor does attempt to make some changes to the classroom dynamic, perhaps by “reconfiguring seating arrangements, introducing interactive activities into syllabi, and promoting a classroom environment that fosters collaborative learning”, there is still no guarantee that the class and even the instructor won’t “repeat old patterns of monologic discourse in these new settings” (Rothschild 344). What is necessary, as writer and professor Brent Harold explains, is to “restore vitality to classroom writing by having it relate to the human situation,” to bring it back to reality and acknowledge the social aspect of our lives (Harold 52). He continues by emphasizing the importance of getting students “analyzing the relationship between [their] own experience and background – economic, political, and so on – and the model of the world proposed in some literature” (Harold 52). By incorporating one’s own experience, by “taking ownership of English, or appropriating the language by confidently using it to serve one’s own interests according to one’s own values, helps develop fluency in English” (Canagarajah 592). This use of one’s own interests can go in many directions and shouldn’t be restricted by academic standards. The use of multiple languages or unique stylistics should be accepted because “a classroom based on ‘standard English and formal instruction limits the linguistic acquisition, creativity, and production among students” (Canagarajah 592). The student-centered classroom will better embrace the social element that exists within all creativity, in this case, composition instruction. No matter what unique form the writing may take, ultimately, if the content of the work is sound and the communication of the writer’s idea is clear, there should be no issue as to what shape their work takes.
All change takes time. However, as writer and professor A. Suresh Canagarajah points out, “teachers don’t have to wait till these policies trickle down to classrooms. They have some relative autonomy to develop textual practices that challenge dominant conventions and norms” (Canagarajah 587). Teachers should begin to gear their classrooms to a more open, social forum that’s more accepting than restricting. This is important because while we wait for the bigger system to change, the creativity of students is still at risk of being stifled by the institutions call for conformity, or as they refer to it – unity. Moving away from such a strong concern for strict academic form in writing is necessary because “not everything that matters can be pointed to on a page. Indeed, much of what really matters in writing is immanent (Schuster 603). When instructors are more concerned about the form writing takes on the page, they run the risk of taking less notice of the content or ideas that remain beneath. Although, “it is much safer to point to poor usage, awkward construction, a botched paragraph,” it is still more important to take notice of “metaphors such as voice, style, tone, [and] image” as well (Schuster 603). It’s my view that the main reason we communicate with each other is to share our thoughts that arise from our experiences. Those thoughts can take as unique a shape as the individual they are born from. So long as they are conveyed as clearly and effectively as possible, and ultimately as long as understanding is reached, then communication has been achieved. Placing restrictions on the way we form our expressions seems unnecessary if communication takes place without normative standards.
Works Cited
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.
Elbow, Peter. "Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond "Mistakes," "Bad English," and "Wrong Language"" Journal of Advanced Composition 19.3 (1999): 359-88. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. 3rd ed. N.p.: NCTE, 2011. 641-72. Print.
Harold, Brent. "Beyond Student Centered Teaching." Change Oct 4.8 (1972): 48-53. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
Holquist, Michael. "Answering as Authoring: Mikhail Bakhtin’s Trans-Linguistics." Critical Inquiry Dec 10.2 (1983): 307-19. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.
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.
Lu, Min-Zhan. "Professing Multiculturalism." College Composition and Communication Dec 45.4 (1994): 442-58. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola. 3rd ed. N.p.: NCTE, 2011. 467-83. Print.
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.
Schuster, Charles I. "Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist." College English Oct 47.6 (185): 594-607. JSTOR. Web. 5 May 2014.