2/22/2023 0 Comments Linguist theory![]() While nowadays very few scholars of composition would advocate this view, it remains the default approach taken by many composition teachers. In other words, frequently language difference, redefined as error, has often served as proxy for discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities and those of lower social classes. Not surprisingly, most such students have been members of subordinate ethnic, racial, and class backgrounds. In the past, those students whose writing was perceived to be different from correct English, or SWE, have been either removed from schools or relegated to special writing classes to remediate them. Rose (1988) has put it, teachers taking this approach have engaged in “cognitive reductionism” by making facile leaps linking writing to cognition.Ĥ We identify this approach as “eradicationist” insofar as those taking it define difference in language as error, and thus something to be eradicated, or else the students themselves are to be eradicated from the university as unable to use language correctly. So, for example, particular features of students’ writing have been cited as evidence that they remain at a cognitively undeveloped state (Berg, Coleman,1985 Lunsford, 1979 Hays, 1983 Hays, 1988), or that they are trapped in an “oral” rather than “literate” mindset (Farrell, 1978 Ong, 1978). Teachers taking this approach view difficulties they experience in comprehending students’ writing as evidence of defects not only in the students’ language but also in their thinking. Thus, this approach takes students’ spoken language and thinking to be transmitted directly to their writing. This approach is aligned with several key assumptions associated with the ideology of monolingualism: the assumptions that there is a single correct form of language that writers are to use, known as Standard Written English (“SWE”) that knowledge of that language, once acquired, will remain and is applicable to all situations that there is no need to learn any language other than English and that any perceived deviation from English represents an error caused by either students’ ignorance of correct English or their failure to adequately proofread their writing to correct it.ģ One further assumption behind this approach is that writing is a relatively transparent medium for speech and thought. The initiation of that course and the institutionalization of the requirement that all undergraduate students take that course have been dominated by what we are calling an “eradicationist” approach. ![]() It focuses primarily on the course in composition – or academic writing – that most of these students have been required to take during their first year of university study. writing teachers to better understand and teach writing to undergraduate students in U.S. that emerged initially as an effort by U.S. We explore the implications of these competing frameworks for understanding language and language relations for the learning and teaching of writing.Ģ Composition is a field of scientific inquiry restricted primarily to the U.S. Instead, it adopts a framework for understanding and engaging in both spoken and written language variously identified as “plurilingualism,” “postmonolingualism,” or “translingualism,” the term we use. ![]() ![]() The fourth approach responds to shifts in global migration patterns and in the linguistic and social identifications of students and faculty by rejecting monolingualism as either the statistical or cultural norm. That ideology treats monolingualism as the norm for language both statistically and culturally. Three of these approaches are aligned with beliefs associated with an ideology of monolingualism: what we call the “eradicationist” approach, the “second language learning” approach, and the “accommodationist” approach. teachers and scholars of postsecondary writing – a field known as “composition.” We delineate four approaches to written error in composition. 1 In this chapter, we review the ways in which linguistic theory has been applied to the question of written error by U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |