Blog 6

Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and US college composition. College   Composition and Communication, 594-630.

In an article which called for the adoption of more internationalist, multilingual stances toward the teaching of written English, Horner and Trimbur (2002) examined the historical development of the modern college curriculum in relation to a cultural logic of monolingualism and the debate over English Only legislation.  The writers argued that the exclusive teaching of English in college composition contexts was felt to be inevitable, and therefore unidirectional, monolingualist perspectives remained dangerously unexamined and profoundly influential on teaching, writing programs, and culture within the United States.  While questioning this inevitability, the writers identified a lack of connection within composition studies between the identity of the field and languages other than English.  Since my topic explores second language learners and the idea of students drawing upon first language (L1) as a resource while reading in college contexts, I find it worthwhile to review an article which analyzed the history, strategic beliefs and legislation leading to strict monolingual perspectives toward postsecondary reading and writing.  Furthermore, I believe that when considered alongside empirical studies which reveal positive impacts of the use of L1 while reading L2 texts (Seng & Idris, 2006; Kamhi-Stein, 2003), an understanding of this history and its implications might inform pedagogical choices which allow and empower students to purposefully use their own linguistic resources.

Horner and Trimbur argued that in their debates compositionists often focus on a history of the field which neglects the examination of how monolingualism has come to be the norm.  They explained that "the final defeat of the ancients by the moderns institutionalized not only a required first-year course in written English, but also a language policy that replaced the bilingualism...of the classical curriculum with a unidirectional monolingualism" (p. 595).  "The moderns" were those who, in the mid-nineteenth century, called for the abolishment of Greek and Latin requirements in the curriculum, causing a shift in thought about the cultural, mental and literary value of studying classic languages.  Oratorical traditions which focused on recitation and translation of classic languages were criticized as useless in helping students learn to write in English.  This ultimately led to the separation of other languages from English,  writing instruction which was carried out only in English, and consequently, the implicit bilingualism of the curriculum was replaced with an entirely monolingual approach.

To further defend their perspective on the history of composition in relation to how we currently think about language, Horner and Trimbur identified four strategic beliefs which were generated between 1883 and 1902, giving form to the modern curriculum, while assigning roles to English in relation to other languages.  First, the study of modern languages was seen to be less intellectually demanding than the study of Latin or Greek.  Modern languages, furthermore, were presented as texts, separate from the vernacular.  Additionally, other languages were viewed as "linguistic antecedents to English" which lacked usefulness when not viewed in relation to the mother tongue (p. 605), and finally, there was an attitude of a monolingual United States versus other multilingual nations.  This led to a view of other languages as alien, and a language policy which "purifies the social identity of U.S. Americans as English speakers, privileges the use of language as written English, and then charts the pedagogical and curricular development of language as one that points inexorably toward mastery of written English" (p. 607).  The inevitable privileging of English is what Horner and Trimbur challenge us to question.

The task, then, which the authors presented, was to reveal how turn-of-the-century assumptions about language "have become sedimented in the way we think about writing pedagogy and curriculum" (p. 608).  Such assumptions, they argued, ran parallel to English only legislation debates and attitudes toward basic and ESL writers, who are often viewed as foreign to the university, threatening, or not deserving to be there.  These students are often categorized unnecessarily (as non-native, international, etc.) and the language they produce is seen as fixed.  Horner and Trimbur asserted that contrary to commonly held linguistic beliefs, boundaries between one language and the next are actually hazy, difficult to define, or might not exist at all.  We as readers are thereby challenged to think differently about language, the way we identify our students, the meaning of academic work and "how writing programs can encourage writing in languages other than English" (p. 622).  As Horner and Trimbur argued, what seems natural and inevitable (e.g. monolingual, English-only composition classrooms), is in fact historical and subject to change.  This is what makes the historical development they describe and the article itself so significant.  By understanding what has led to such overarching monolingualist perspectives in college composition contexts, we are enabled to question these perspectives, realizing that some aspects of the bilinguialist perspectives we abandoned over a century ago might better serve a linguistically diverse student body.

Horner and Trimbur were not calling for a return to oral recitations or the translation exercises of the past.  Rather, they provoked us as readers to consider and possibly alter the way we think about relationships between languages and the inevitability of monolingual, English-only college writing classrooms.  We are presented with a compelling challenge to adopt more internationalist perspectives toward the way we view the teaching of composition.  In light of the detailed historical account provided by the authors, which explained how our current policies have formed, it is difficult not to want to accept this challenge, and rethink the inevitability of English-only classroom practices.

In relation to the idea of language as a resource, or more specifically, the topic I'm exploring which involves the use of L1 in L2 reading, Horner and Trimbur provided partial insight into why some classrooms remain so monolingual in spite of multilingual student populations.  Although more theoretical background in Second Language Acquisition along with results of empirical studies might further inform possible reasons against as well as affective consequences of shunning L1 from the classroom, an overview of the evolution of the curriculum leading to unidirectional monolingualism helps me to understand why languages other than English are not always welcome in the classroom.  This understanding leads to questioning, and new perspectives on the possibility of actually promoting the use of L1 in the teaching of English reading and writing.  If L1 is more widely accepted and turned to, I wonder if more students might be encouraged to view language as a resource and also as a right.

References

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home  language and beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of “underprepared” L2  college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 35-71.

Seng, G. H., & Hashim, F. (2006). Use of L1 in L2 reading comprehension among  tertiary ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 29-54