World Englishes

The readings this week, which focused on pluralization of English (World Englishes) and the politics and ideology surrounding second-language writing instruction  brought up so many controversies and questions in my mind that it will be difficult to address them all in one blog entry. Casanave’s article – with all of the arguments, counter-arguments, and counter-arguments and corollaries to the counter-arguments – made my head spin.

And so I begin discussing World Englishes in Canagarajah’s and the Matsudas’ articles. The Matsudas explain what “World Englishes” (WE) are, the point out pedagogical implications with WE, and what teachers can do to accommodate and incorporate WE in their writing programs. As we’ve discussed most of the semester, Standard Written English is a concept that is neither stable nor easily definable. Not only can we not “fix” it into an unchanging entity, but when we try, we succeed only in reinforcing the binary opposition between something that is difficult to define and constantly changing and something (WE) that is also constantly changing but ever increasing in scope and presence in composition classrooms. Grammar and composition texts reinforce this codification by attempting to assign definable rules to something indefinable (Matsuda & Matsuda 2010), and when writing teachers teach “proper grammar”, they are at risk of also “reifying” this dominant variety of English, essentially distancing and marginalizing other varieties of English (Matsuda & Matsuda 2010). Matsuda & Matsuda admit that the pedagogical implications of WE are highly complex and that teachers essentially need to maintain balance in teaching (whatever we think is) Standard Written English (SWE) in such a way as to include awareness of the dominance and power of SWE while also accommodating WE in order to put students in a position of speaking and writing in the dominant discourse when necessary (when they would be at a disadvantage not to do so) and maintaining and utilizing their own variety/varieties of English, as we know language and identity are inextricably intertwined. Their suggestions for teachers in this short article then, include the following (2010):

·      Teach the dominant language forms: In order to empower students in speaking and writing in the discourse so that they are not at a disadvantage, teachers need to teach whatever we think SWE is. Matsuda & Matsuda state that “To not make the dominant codes available to students who seek them would be doing a disservice to students, leading to their economic and social marginalization” (2010, p. 372).

·      Examine and study non-dominant varieties of English and discuss how these varieties came into existence.

·      Discuss dialectical variations vs. errors.

·      Discuss rhetorical situations that warrant non-dominant usage versus situations in which the student will have better success using SWE (think of Smitherman in Canagarajah); keep the reader’s perception, the writer’s credibility, and intentionality in mind.

·      Ensure students understand the risks involved in utilizing a non-dominant variation of English.

Canagarajah dives into the idea of accommodating  WE in the classroom a bit more in-depth than Matsuda & Matsudea do, however, in speaking of the almost infinite number of variations of English. An interesting projected statistic he presents is that by 2050, the number of people using English as a second or additional language will outnumber those who use it as their only or first language (2006). What that means for English classrooms – SLW as well as L1 – is that more and more multilingual students are going to be in our education system (from Kindergarten all the way through graduate school).

An interesting perspective – and one that Canagarajah can credibly argue – is the use of languages as tools or power and of resistance. In speaking about how Englishes change in response to colonial efforts, Canagarah shows not only the instability of Englishes but also that they can be vehicles of power in addition to being identity markers.

WE have implications not only for the classroom but also for the arena of the Internet. Both Canagarajah (2006) and Casanave found that bilingual students often take on different identities when communicating in online spaces: for Canagarajah, Almon; for Casanave, Shuuichi. Both students were able use their home-language as a base and try on and then adopt different identities online. In the case of Shuuichi, power issues were explored and played out during the various discussions, and this provided eye-opening realizations for all three participants in Casanave’s study.

While it’s interesting to note these identity transformations (additions?), power equalization, the huge mass of information available to all with Internet accessibility, and the enhanced reading/writing interactions that are possible during Internet writing space exercises, Casanave reminds us that there are serious considerations regarding the politics of Internet technology that instructors should examine:

1.     Dominant English varieties and Western concepts of visual and textual forms are taken for granted as THE default language/rhetoric of the Internet (making the Internet a virtual tool of colonializing), and

2.     Hardware and software are not equally accessible around the world. Thus, some cultures may be using outdated or obsolete technology. Casanave states that “hardware, software, and the kind of education that helps students think critically about power and justice need to be equitably accessible to all learners and teachers” (216).

It is interesting, also, that Casanave lists “the kind of education that helps students think critically about power and justice” as a common right among “students in such a world [one with almost-global access to technology]. Earlier in the chapter, she illustrates the argument on whether SLW teachers should aim to teach L2 students how to think critically in conjunction with the second-language writing instruction. She presents both sides, but here it seems as if she is joining the “teach critical thinking skills” group (which I find I belong with as well). And, I think that this technology-rich world demands that all students be taught through example and/or illustration what critical thinking in reading and writing looks like. Often, when something is not easily defined by telling what it is, we can define it by examining what it is not. Through both avenues, I think there is space to examine how to teach critical thinking (what it looks like and what it doesn’t look like) in conjunction with careful incorporation of technological tools in the SLW classroom (as well as L1 classrooms with multilingual learners).

In closing – and quite disjointed, I guess, from the rest of this – I would like to comment on Canagarajah’s illustration of Smitherman’s careful use of her WE Toolbox in her article for CCC. I think this would be an excellent illustration of how students (especially graduate students who speak non-dominant varieties of English) can incorporate those varieties into academic writing with good rhetorical effect. The concept of “code-meshing”, as Canagarajah calls it, definitely needs an illustrative example such as this to demonstrate just how to employ it.