Response for 2/11

Note: I am having some problems formatting this blog entry, hopefully I'll have it worked out before class.

All of the readings for this week share a common theme; they either discuss or mention issues related to the internet and composition. In addition to this, they investigate the changing role of teachers and English departments in general, and how technology and understanding of our current world can affect us.

In “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued, Canagarajah discusses the spread of “World English” (later referred to as WE), and the place it can and will take beside “Metropolitan English (or ME.) Canagarajah makes some good points, such as suggesting the terms “novice” and “expert” replace the frequently used “native” and “non-native”. Furthermore, Canagarajah cites reports that non-native (excuse me, novice) speakers will outnumber native speakers in the coming decades. Canagarajah implores educators to take this into account, and to begin integrating WE into their curriculum.

Canagarajah sees the use of WE in classrooms as beneficial, stating that "[v]ernacular is an asset in the learning of mainstream languages" (Canagarajah 592) Canagarajah talks about the CCCC sponsored Student's Right to Their Own Language. As per Canagarajah’s suggestion, I looked this statement up:

"We affirm the students' right to their own patterns and varieties of
language -- the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they
find their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that
the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity. The claim that
any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group
to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for
speakers and writers, and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of
its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its
heritage of dialects. We affirm strongly that teachers must have the
experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and
uphold the right of students to their own language."

Although respect of diversity and an understanding of our multicultural society is important, I find the rest of this to be a somewhat unrealistic expectation for modern classrooms. With our current state of overcrowding and a lack of qualified teachers, I don’t think sparse resources should be used on encouraging students to write in AAVE or other dialects.

Another method that Canagarajah introduced that I found interesting was “code meshing.” While similar to code switching (the practice of switching from a non-standard dialect to a standard one or vice versa, depending on the situation), code meshing involves using non-standard vocabulary in multilingual situations. Canagarajah points out that “Though code-meshing was used in classical rhetoric as a high-brow activity (i.e. inserting Greek or Latin without translation into English texts), I am presenting this notion as a popular communicative strategy in multilingual communities, and developing it even for cases outside such elite bilingualism.” (598 Canagarajah)

I found this idea very interesting; using what was a formally elite activity as modern rhetorical strategy involving non-standard dialects. My only issue would be comprehension, just as I get somewhat frustrated when forced to look up Latin, Greek or French translations (thanks Henry James…at least you provide endnotes), I feel that not everyone would be able to understand all of the vocabulary from AAVE or another dialect.

Sometimes, we have a moment.

No, I’m not going to do this throughout my response. I promise. Kathleen Blake Yancey, the author of “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key” makes frequent use of repetition in her article, such as the oft repeated “We have a moment.”

I thought that Yancey made many good points, although I found her to be longwinded in some parts of her essay. I enjoyed her parallels between the modern digital revolution that is taking place, and the increased literacy that occurred in the 19^th century. In regards to increased composition on the internet, I didn’t share her continued shock that THIS WAS TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. Yancey seems flabbergasted that students would be interested in writing when no grades or requirements are forcing them.

Throughout her essay, Yancey advises English teachers at all levels to integrate technology, and warns of what may happen if they fail to. She cautions against anachronistic English departments, and cites statistics that suggest the departments are shrinking and in some cases disappearing (perhaps it is aliens). She follows this data with the statement “the number of tenure-line jobs in English continues its now altogether-too-familiar decline (which makes the continuing increase in tenure-line jobs in rhetoric and composition all the more remarkable). (Yancey 303) I have to admit, the statement in parenthesis there made me perk up. It also made me wonder what state the English department will be in ten or twenty years from now. Will there be less focus on literary theory and literature in general, and a shift towards composition and rhetoric? Or will there be little change at all? And how will English classes change? Should freshmen composition classes use blogs, as this next article suggests? (Note: I must have Microsoft Word 2003, because it shows blog and blogs as being misspelled. So much has changed in the last few years!)

Given the structure of our class, I found “Moving to the Public: Weblogs in the Writing Classroom” to be a relevant read. Charles Lowe and Terra Williams discuss the difference between a controlled online discussion, such as in WebCT or Blackboard, and the freedom of a blog, a situation in which a member of the public can comment on a students writing. I honestly hope someone stumbles across our blogs, and has comments to add. To be honest, I’ve contemplated linking them on a message board I frequent, but I decided against it.

Lowe and Williams go on to list the advantages blogs hold over other online projects; the two main advantages being that they are easier to create and readers can leave comments. In my experience so far, I have found blogs to be more fun than the traditional online classroom software. I enjoy leaving comments on other students blogs, and feel that our blogs have a more personal touch than merely posting on Blackboard.

I found “Writing Into the 21st Century: An Overview of Research on Writing, 1999 to 2004” to be a much dryer read than the other articles. I liked the fact it was a research article though, especially given our discussion last week about research in the composition and rhetoric field. I have to admit, I was somewhat let down, after reading that “[o]ur research team included six members with diverse interests, including expertise in deaf education (Dimling and Wolbers)” (Juzwik et al 458), I expected (and was looking forward to) there to be some information about deaf students and composition, I found none.

I think this article did a good job highlighting a deficit in composition research, mainly that “early practices and acquisition of writing in childhood and youth” (Juzwik et all 471) are neglected in research.