1. In “Students’ Right to Their Own Language,” Larson offers what many of us would probably agree is not an unreasonable critique of “courses which limit themselves to a narrow view of language.” However, he also makes claims throughout that language is a form of communication, which implies that it is both capable of and invested in communicating. As philosophers such as Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze have explored, this is not necessarily the case, and we could make the argument that not only is Larson being just as limited as those he critiques, but his perpetuation of the “understanding” of language as somehow inherently linked with communication re-solidifies that very limitedness.
My question is: how might we approach language and teaching writing to a room of students, all who have different dialects, in a way that not only doesn’t favor one dialect over the other, but also does not favor communication over other rhetorical aspects of writing and language (for example, persuasion). That is, how do we address the multiplicity of dialects in a way that does not judge a language based on whether or not it “communicates” an understanding (because it will always fail at this, no matter what dialect).
2. In Geneva Smitherman’s retrospective to “Students’ Right to Their Own Language,” she makes understandable claims that the previous “Right to Their Own Language” campaign encountered problems because it tried to create change without changing the system; that is, “The Enlightened were, after all, attempting to effectuate change WITHIN THE SYSTEM. And even those of us who were more revolutionarily inclined recognized the folly of doing nothing while waiting for the Revolution to come.” However, she also makes claims such as: “CCCC leadership acknowledged that there was a need for more explicit teaching materials, sample lesson plans, and a more specific pedagogy,” and specifically advocates for a National Language Policy.
My question is: How are standardized, “explicit” (which I also find problematic: how can something be standardized AND explicit?) lesson plans and teaching materials are not working within and perpetuating the system – or, moreover, how is a National Language Policy not simply a reinvention or reinstantiation of this system? If “working within the system” wasn’t working, how will this be any different?
My question is: how might we approach language and teaching writing to a room of students, all who have different dialects, in a way that not only doesn’t favor one dialect over the other, but also does not favor communication over other rhetorical aspects of writing and language (for example, persuasion). That is, how do we address the multiplicity of dialects in a way that does not judge a language based on whether or not it “communicates” an understanding (because it will always fail at this, no matter what dialect).
2. In Geneva Smitherman’s retrospective to “Students’ Right to Their Own Language,” she makes understandable claims that the previous “Right to Their Own Language” campaign encountered problems because it tried to create change without changing the system; that is, “The Enlightened were, after all, attempting to effectuate change WITHIN THE SYSTEM. And even those of us who were more revolutionarily inclined recognized the folly of doing nothing while waiting for the Revolution to come.” However, she also makes claims such as: “CCCC leadership acknowledged that there was a need for more explicit teaching materials, sample lesson plans, and a more specific pedagogy,” and specifically advocates for a National Language Policy.
My question is: How are standardized, “explicit” (which I also find problematic: how can something be standardized AND explicit?) lesson plans and teaching materials are not working within and perpetuating the system – or, moreover, how is a National Language Policy not simply a reinvention or reinstantiation of this system? If “working within the system” wasn’t working, how will this be any different?
RSS Feed
