Everything in here could be the result of a drastic mis-reading.
In 621, we just finished exploring the theory of SWE (Standard Written English) as being equivalent to a foreign language. Meaning, there is spoken English and Written English. The reason being it explains many of the errors which arise in the work of Basic Writers.
I do not profess to know the theory in full detail or to understand it in such a way where I can stand as staunch proponent or opponent of it, but given the limited knowledge and acquisition we have gone through thus far in concern to this theory, I feel its implementation may be problematic. As a method of composition, I see it having a vast amount of benefits which put the detractors to sleep rather quickly. Taken to its extreme, it removes written English from culture, thus creating a universal written form which could even cross the Atlantic, while allowing linguistic subcultures to exist without conflict. It standardizes the curriculum to where we acknowledge the existence of the cultural spoken language and the universal written language, removing the hierarchy and aristocratic notions who speaks proper English. It simply forms a sense of cohesion and answers many of the questions on how teach English.
Yes, there would be a period where all hell breaks loose, no one knows what to read or write, teachers chain smoke with their students, cats sleep with dogs, while all sorts of other confusions and hypocrisies frolic through the education system. But isn’t that expected of all major changes?
What I am more concerned about is artistic aspect of writing. If we approach this teaching of SWE as that of a different language, effectively removing it from vocalization and culture, don’t we run the risk of losing the flavor which come along with it? Someone who knows the theory better than me may want to chime in at this point. But developing this universal structure, I feel that we remove the individual from the writing. Voice is non-existent. Vivid detail will just become detail. Would SWE even be considered a living language at that point? Without the influence of cultural vocalization and trying to find the balance between the two, SWE will essentially remain a stagnant form. A student in class brought up the scenario of the Middle East where they all read and write the same language but speak a different one depending on their culture. It is in some way the full realization of this view of SWE being a separate language.
When I started writing this, I was primarily concerned with how this view potentially removes the personal element to writing, but now I see it as a little more destructive. It basically changes the conception of what English is in order to meet the needs of the students. Agree or Disagree? Is this really what we want? It is not even a theory but just a given that we need to help our students in any way possible, but are we necessarily helping them by altering the language itself? I just can’t justify it. I feel that is what I don’t like about this view in the end. Although I hate the idea of changing the language, I am much more concerned about how this represents a P.C. view of teaching which ends up in being so concerned about the students self-awareness that we drastically alter the subject material for this concern and not the actual student.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
At this point, this blog will primarily serve as a academic/teaching blog. I teach Introduction to Composition and Short Story writing at the University level. No, I am not a professor. I am a Graduate Student taking classes while teaching. This will be my musings on what it means to be a teacher, my students and how much I am learning from them, and the other nuances of entering into this....stage of life?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(13)
- ▼ 02/17 - 02/24 (1)
About Me
- Kevin L.
- If you are reading this, then you already know me and there is little reason for me to elaborate on myself.
2 comments:
Kevin,
For me, Horning's ideas are very valuable from a practical standpoint. Even if one doesn't buy anything else about her theory, I can't understand how anyone would deny certain differences between oral and written language, especially those relevant to translation from the oral. For example, punctuation is invisible in the oral language, but must be represented in the written language (even if dialect is being used). In working with two of my BW tutees, I've noticed struggles with representing oral punctuation in written form. So if taken for its practical purposes, I think Horning's theory is very helpful.
In Matthew's example of Standard Arabic (Fusa?), the people of the Middle East do not view the Standard as an oppression of their dialect. Rather, the Standard is a practical means of communicating with others regardless of dialect, socio-economic status, culture, religion, or geographical upbringing. In fact, if I were an Egyptian, I would be put at a disadvantage if I wasn't taught the Standard because my teachers felt it would "oppress" or "degrade" my dialect. In our (hyper)Political Correctness, I think we forget that language is a form of communication first and foremost.
Right now, I can already hear some saying, "Well, why does your language get to be the standard?" First off, I come from a rural area and can speak in a Southern accent with peculiar sayings and phrases with the best of them. Second, I communicate in oral and written language that approximates SWE because I want to be understood by others who are not from my little corner of Missouri. If I wanted to communicate in Spain, then I would brush up on my terrible Spanish and not complain that my native language was being discriminated against.
Of course, Black Vernacular is comprehensible for the most part, but its pervasive deviations from the standard are so distracting and take so much mental energy to sort through that I would argue BVE is too different to communicate effectively with speakers/writers of "standard" english. This may hold true for other dialects as well. Most likely, an Egyptian and a Jordanian could understand each other if they put enough effort into it. However, their common, standard language makes it much, much easier.
As for art, well, dialect has a place in fiction and non-fiction. This is where audience awareness comes in. If the novelist's audience is only speakers of BVE, then there's no need to make sure the writing is comprehensible to other dialects. If you want a larger audience, then you'll write your dialect in a way that other dialects can comprehend. I think Alice Walker's "The Color Purple" is a good example of this.
I see the point behind Standard Written English as a foreign language, but I simply don't buy that there is such a thing. The "standard" differs from field to field. The "standard" in fiction, for instance, is much different from the "standard" in chemistry, which is different from that in composition studies and so on.
I was just explaining to my basic writing students yesterday that whether or not to use a serial comma varies according to the style guide. It wasn't the answer they wanted to hear, but it was the truth. There are tons of "standards."
Post a Comment