Espinoza-Aguilar, Amanda. “Analyzing the Rhetoric of the English Only Movement.” Language Ideologies:Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement.Ed. Roseann Duenas Gonzalez. Vol. 2. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2000. 268-288.

Summary:
“This essay examines the literature and influence of U.S. English, the largest, most organized special interest group that promotes an ELA. By comparing both older and more recent U.S. English literature, I will show how this group has learned to mask its rhetoric to gain support across demographic lines. Its rhetoric convinces many people, regardless of ethnicity, to accept and support legislation which promotes linguicism and xenophobia, thereby devaluing ethnic cultural pride and identity. First, I explain how and why ELA advocates convince minorities and Whites to support them. In doing so, groups such as U.S. English can statistically claim that many Americans favor English-language legislation, regardless of their ethnicities. Second, I examine the rhetoric of U.S. English literature and documents found on its Web site. Next, by using U.S. House of Representatives and Senate bills, I demonstrate how U.S. English has imposed its agenda of xenophobia on unsuspecting politicians and voters. Finally, I discuss the future implications and the repercussions that imposing an official language policy will have and already has had on U.S. citizens, thereby demonstrating how Official English rhetoric promotes discrimination” (269-70).

Methodology: literature review

Cited: Philipson, Fishman,

Provocative Quotes:

“Their (dominant groups) goal now is not to colonize land but to colonize minds through English-linguistic imperialism and xenophobic language policy, which establish the English-linguistic hegemony” (268).

“English Only (EO) and English Language Amendment (ELA) proponents employ discourses of fear to convince both Whites and minorities that multilingual U.S. citizens and immigrants, and their resistance to assimilation, are threats to the stability of the United States. Consequentially, English Only advocates are guilty of English-linguistic imperialism since they want voting Americans, in general, to support the idea that English should legally and officially become the dominant language of the United States” (268-9).

“Many literacy experts and linguistics scholars see ELA and English Only activists as modern agents of colonialism and linguistic imperialism who rhetorically plant seeds of fear into the minds of mainstream and minority voters alike” (269).

“Among the reasons that mainstream Americans support this legislation are star power, nativism, and status preservation. While minorities are often convinced by these reasons, they are also concerned about being deported and feel obligated to appear patriotic toward the United States….gender, income, and education also play a role in who supports official language policies” (270).

“In the United States , language minorities and immigrants are often disenfranchised. Those with power fuel the fear of the disempowered by bombarding them with rhetoric which suggests that if they maintain their native languages, cultures, and beliefs, they will not (and most definitely their children will not) “make it” in this country” (273).

Pecocari, Diane. “Plagiarism and International Students: How the English-Speaking University Responds

Summary:
In this essay, Pecocari sets out to “(1) to determine whether the English-speaking academic discourse community can be said to have a common view of plagiarism and (2) to explore the policies and practices universities have in place for dealing with plagiarism and assess how appropriate they are for international students” (230) and after surveying and analyzing documents on plagiarism of a number of American, British and Australian Universities discovers that they do have some common conception and set of ideas about plagiarism but the measures to handle the cases are more punitive than corrective which, he claims, can be counterproductive particularly international students who may commit unintentional plagiarism.

Methodology: survey, data analysis,

Cited: Pennycook, Deckert, Howard, Scollon, Leki

Provocative Quotes:

“Teachers who have limited contact with international students may not recognize or fully understand unintentional misuse of sources. By following harsh, legalistic procedures, they may initiate disciplinary proceedings ending in punishing students who do not really understand their crime” (232).
“treating plagiarism as a crime may be a counterproductive approach to inadvertent plagiarism” (239).

“Given such a range of penalties, it may seem that there is ample scope for making the punishment fit the crime. But when plagiarism is unintentional, a productive response is to educate about, rather than punish, the offense, and only six institutions offer a constructive, rather than a punitive, option” (241).

“Because the conventions for citation are not universal, both students and their teachers need policies that permit new practices to be absorbed gradually, like all other new skills, and that allow students a margin of error as they try to hit a new target. Unfortunately, the majority of institutional responses to plagiarism surveyed here deny students that support” (244).

Sugimioto, Taku and James A. Levin. “Multiple Literacies and Multimedia: a Comparison of Japanese an American Uses of the Internet.

Sugimioto, Taku and James A. Levin. “Multiple Literacies and Multimedia: a Comparison of Japanese an American Uses of the Internet. Glonal Englishes adn the World-wide Web. Ed. Gail E. Hawisher adn Cynthia L. Selfe. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. 133-153.

Summary: “This chapter explores the multiple litreracies realized by new multimedia, based on case comparisons of Japanese and American uses of the Internet. The analyses of the cases will range from relatively superficial issues like different emoticons (that is, simple character sequences that express emotions) used by Japanese and American users of e-mail to issues raised by Web-based electronic publishing. We will examine some of the ways that uses of the Internet for communications, self-expression, and learning are culturally grounded” (Sugimoto and Levin133). In this chapter, Sugimoto and Levin demonstrate that there are differences between American and Japanese uses of Inernet-based technologies and the differences are the markers of cultural adaptation as opposed to wholesale adoption of technologies developed in other cultures.

Methodology: case studies, analysis

Cited: Buten, Honda, Sanderson, Ikeda

Provocative Quotes:

“The Internet is a powerful medium for international and intercultural communications. Language barriers are the most obvious obstacle to mutual understanding. But we tend to overlook the more visible and subtle barriers, which result from the cultural embededness of literacy practices on Internet. Communications and literacy practices on the Internet has cultural ancestors. If we ignore these, then any mutual understandings are in danger” (152).

Connal, Louise Rodriguez. “Transcultural Rhetorics for Cultural Survival.” Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement. Ed. Roseann Duenas Gonzalez. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2000. 318-332.

Summary: Connal proposes a pedagogy of transcultural rhetoric to address the need of increasingly diverse body of students in U.S. classroom. “One of the many questions this situation raises is how the students who carry the cultural and linguistic marks of diversity can flourish in the classroom and benefit from knowing—two or more languages and rhetorical styles. What follows is an attempt to respond to this question using my experience as a Puerto Rican woman and a writing teacher, as well as insights from postcolonial theory and feminist writing” (318).

Methodology: critical analysis, literature review,

Cited: Anzaldua, Bhabha, Spivak, Pratt, Trimbur, Said

Provocative quotes:

“English as the sole prerequisite of success in U.S. society is a rationalization that informs public policy much too often…Therefore many minorities within the United States feel coerced into assimilation by the prevailing practices of our educational system” (319-320).

“The transcultural rhetoric I use in my teaching can loosely be defined as a rhetoric that crosses and includes multiple languages, genres, and styles. Transcultural rhetoric expresses the sensibilities of people whose cultures are hybridized—people who affiliate with two or more cultures, languages, or dialects. Transcultural rhetoric is the argument for using and appreciating the different critical and cultural awareness that hybrid people can contribute to our society and knowledge base” (321-2).

“…transcultural rhetoric, of necessity, requires a willingness to cross into another person’s style, point of view, and so forth” (322).
“The challenge to the notion of cultural and linguistic purity or concepts such as English Only makes hybridity a useful alternative in cultural and linguistic education” (323).

“The idea of English Only seeks to eradicate differences that exist as a consequence of enslavement, immigration, and colonization of other nations. Yet these differences exist, and the pedagogy and language we use should address them” (325).

“The existence of hybridized student populations in our classes, indeed throughout the world, call for teaching that crosses barriers. As teachers owe should practice the “pedagogical arts of the contact zone” (Pratt 1991, 40). In other words, difference and diversity should not be interpreted as signs of crisis, Instead they should be embraced and celebrated in both our rhetoric and our pedagogy “ (326).

“The concept of transcultural rhetoric is important because it reveals the creative practice that is in fact already a part of the composing processes we teach in our composition classrooms” (330).