1. World Englishes in
composition

2. Agenda
• Theoretical shifts in SLA
• Identity and language learning
• World Englishes and Composition (Canagarajah, 2003; 2006)
• Bilingual Creativity (You, 2008, 2011)
• Rhetorical analysis of business email exchanges in Turkey

3. Major theoretical shifts in language
studies
• Chomskian and Sassurean competence (the abstract underlying
ability to use language) and performance (actual realization) divide
in 1960s and 1970s- massive influence on language pedagogy!
• In late 70s many linguists including Halliday, Hymes reject this
distinction. Debunking the ideal speech community which was
portrayed to be homogeneous.
• It’s in the performance that we make the difference and challenge
the centrality of competence over performance. “We perform
identities with words; we also perform languages with words” (p.
73)
Earlier research in SLA treated language and language learning as an
idealized and homogenous process where learners only needed to
learn the target language and culture. Portraying learners in categories
(motivated, unmotivated, high vs low aptitude)

4. Identity research in TESOL
• In 90s, SLA researchers have not adequate addressed how
relations of power affect the interaction in target language.
• The notion of “individual” needed to be conceptualized!
• Artificial distinction are drawn between the individual and the
social- led to arbitrary mapping of particular factors. Why is
it that learners can sometimes be motivated and extraverted
sometimes the other way?
• More attention needed on poststructural theory of identity
and language as multiple, “a site of struggle”, ad “subject to
change”

5. Moving from motivation to
investment…
• The concept of motivation (instrumental vs integrative) does not
capture the complex relationships between the relations of power,
language learning and identity.
• If learners invest in a second language, they do so with the
understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and
material resources.
• You can be very motivated, but still experience disempowering
relations with the target language community due to asymmetrical
power relationships (similar to the participants in Norton’s research)
Norton (1995) asks: why is it that a learner may sometimes be
motivated, extraverted, and confident and sometimes unmotivated,
introverted, and anxious; why in one place there may be social
distance between a specific group of language learners and the target
language community; whereas in another place the social distance
may be minimal; why a learner can sometimes speak and other times
remains silent (p. 11)

6. Restrictive look at identity and language use
in earlier years of TESOL/Applied
Linguistics….
• Social Distance Theory: Shumann (1976)
“When there is great social distance between two groups, little
acculturation takes place” (p. 11) (minimal congruence between the
culture of the target language speakers and the culture of the
language learner)- You can be in contact, but there may still be a
greater social, cultural and economic distance.
• Krashen’s language learning theories:
1) Affective Hypothesis 2) learning vs acquisition 3) natural order
hypothesis 4) The input hypothesis-Krashen suggests that
comprehensible input in the presence of a low affective filter is one of
the most important causal variable in SLA All pertains to individual
rather than the social context. Are we portraying learners in
categories? (motivated vs unmotivated, introverted vs extraverted
• Dell Hymes’ communicative competence:
Hymes defines communicative competence as the goal of achieving an
effective and appropriate communication. BUT- Ability to claim the
right to speak should be an integral part of an expanded notion of
communicative competence. Who are legitimate speakers/listeners?

7. From motivation to investment
(Bonny Norton, 1995)
• “when language learners speak, they are not only exchanging
information with target language speakers but they are
constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they
are and how they relate to the social world. Thus an
investment in the target language is also an investment in a
learner’s own social identity, and identity which is constantly
changing across time and space” (p. 18)

8. Historical perspective: L2 writing at the
crossroads
• ESL as a neglected area until the 1940s
• First English language Institute was established in Unv. Of
Michigan in 1941 by C. Fries with a strong commitment to
structural linguistics—Focus on ALM
• Early 60s: ESL become a part of the US universities. The
production of written discourse was not one of the objectives of
the program
“The needs, backgrounds, learning styles, and writing strategies of
most ESL students differ dramatically from those of NS students”
(Reid)
• Matsuda, “Disciplinary division of labor”
Matsuda, P. (2001). Second Language Writing in the twentieth century. In. B. Kroll. Exploring the
dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge.

9. Moving away from the division
of labor
Earlier approaches:
• TESOL has not been too daring in working with new textual options. It referred
to L1 composition for norms (e.f. writing as a neat and pure domain)
(Canagarajah)
• Assumption that ESL writing can be broken down neatly into linguistic
components and that linguistic difficulties will disappear with ESL remedial
instruction.
Past decade:
• Second language writing as an integral part of both composition studies and
second language studies (Matsuda).
• Attempts in pluralizing composition from an angle of World Englishes
(Canagarajah)
“ Literacy practices of code-meshing are not unusual. Students mix codes to
negotiate the meaning of English texts and to compose stories or journals in
expressive, creative or reflective writing. Much of this research literature
demonstrates that rather than hampering the acquisition of English, the
negotiation of codes can indeed facilitate it” (Canagarajah, 2006, p. 601)

10. Questions for today…
• How do we practice SRTOL? Why is there a need to segregate
codes in composition classrooms? What are some of he
repercussion of this linguistic segregation?
• What’s the role of WE in academic writing and composing?
• What sorts of pedagogical practices legitimize the use of WE
in the classroom (in multiple domains and genres)?
• What sorts of theoretical shifts do we need to adopt a
translingual/multilingual writing models? (language, rhetoric,
text, people, flows)
• How can we continue to fight with exclusionary language
practices in writing studies?
• How do we strike a balance to maintain students’ vernacular
varieties while also teaching them the mainstream ways of
doings?

11. Your
questions/comment
s for today

12. Erin asks…
• How can we facilitate this learning-by-doing in our pedagogy,
in a way that allows student work to use language creatively,
to incorporate their voices and language varieties in a way
that doesn't compromise the academic context of the
assignment? I like Canagarajah's suggestion of creating
codemeshed academic texts, but I wonder how this works in
practice: How does it get presented to students? What this
would look like in an assignment? How would this be adapted
for students who already speak/write in a more standard
form?

13. Samuel says…
• A very strong argument that runs through their articles is that
it is not every time that lexical and syntactical varieties of WE
are derived from native language interference; some times, it
is the result of certain contextual demands. This is what leads
You to investigate the rhetorical strategies in the postings of
the virtual community of white-collar Chinese workers as
independent linguistic practices from the influence of Chinese
language. Canagarajah also identifies his student's expression
"can be able to" not as the result of native language
interference, but as a conscious choice motivated by
"ideological considerations." So while WE continue to be
shaped by globalization, and native language interference, it
can also be seen as an autonomous linguistic entity that
merits inclusion in multicultural classrooms; and that also
requires careful research methods as an object of inquiry.

14. Neil says…
• I’ll note that I find the terms “expert” and “novice” that
Canagarajah advocates as opposed to native or non-native
speaker in these cases to be useful ones and perhaps
especially useful in this discussion of World Englishes, as they
can serve for a rhetorical reframing of the need for expert
speakers of one of the Metropolitan Englishes to learn to be at
least a novice speaker if not attempt to attain some expertise
in the World Englishes with which they are most likely to come
into contact with.

15. Moria says…
• While I think that in "The Place of World Englishes"
Canagarajah models much of the pedagogical work needed to
empower student to negotiate the above impediments in
academic settings (and You furthers this ideology in his two
pieces), I argue that much of this empowerment comes from
both novice and expert speakers alike sharing the stories of
their linguistic navigation journeys. Just as literacy narratives
offer writing researchers a way to conceive of the many
literacies writers bring to bear across a range of writing
situations, language participation narratives (I think that'd be
a good name) offer speakers to contextualize and reflect on
the strategies they used as they entered into new discourse
communities. Canagarajah offers on excellent exmaple of such
a narrative in his "A somewhat..." piece.

16. Sarah says…
• I want to spend the rest of the space of this post to examine a single
small part of Canagarajah’s article (2006:593) in which he suggests a
fundamental shift in pedagogy that would allow students to study
language and grammar in a descriptive way, rather than in the
prescriptive way that it is typically taught in writing courses: “Rather
than teaching grammatical rules in a normative and abstract way, we
should teach communicative strategies—i.e., creative ways to
negotiate the norms relevant in diverse contexts.” I think this kind of
shift—which I would argue can only be achieved by introducing
linguistics into students’ schooling in secondary school, or really AT
ALL, as some people never take a linguistics class throughout their
lives—is exactly what we need to prompt students to start thinking
about language and grammar in ways that will challenge the popular
language ideologies that privilege standard language and devalue
“deviations” from it.

17. Meg says…
• After reading these articles, especially those of Canagarajah, it
strikes me how much of our [those of us that stand in some
fashion on the periphery of a given writing situation] academic
writing is about “passing” in some fashion. Canagarajah
councils that his audience (other non-Western academics) to
name-drop articles/books that are unavailable, to write
theoretical papers rather than empirical ones, which use non-
western methods of data collection, and, to above all, be
thoughtful about the ways in which they infuse the text with
their own voices (204). He controls his language use by
identifying “sections in the RA *research article+ that would
tolerate a different discourse more easily” (204). In other
words, he inserts himself quietly, so as to get passed the
lurking eyes of the reviewers.

18. Meg wonders…
But, thinking about myself as on the periphery trying to gain
access to a discourse community, I have some questions that I’m
left with at the end of our reading.
• Are these “small steps” that Canagarajah identifies really
moving us towards a pluralized understanding of English in any
meaningful and lasting way? Or, is this simply a token move?
• How do you strike a balance between “passing” and “code-
meshing” in such a way that you gain access without losing
your sense of voice in a text, without setting too much of
yourself aside?
• To what degree is gaining access to the “inside” always also
about the loss of something of ourselves?

19. Canagarajah(2006)--
Motivation
• Linguistic Pluralism: Developments in English language
necessitates a need to be proficient in negotiating a repertoire
of World Englishes.
• In the context of the sociolinguistics changes in the use of
English, we need to move away from monolingual pedagogies
in composition to a multilingual literacy model that embraces
multiplicity of varieties and even languages.
• Rather than developing a mastery in a single variety or
language, students should strive for competence in variety of
codes and discourses (p. 592)

20. The era of linguistic pluralism
• Rather than simply joining a speech community, students
should learn to shuttle between communities in contextually
relevant ways.
• Then we become less concerned with “correctness”. Language
errors may in fact be seen as learner’s act of negotiating and
exploring different language codes and discourses.
• Speech accommodation theory, L1 is not a hindrance to L2,
but a resource. Multilingualism adopt many “negotiation
strategies”, promote “tolerance and patience” and corporate
with their interlocutors.

21. Composition and WE
• What are some of the areas we permit the use of non-
Standard variation of English or WE?
• Why is there a need to segregate codes in composition
classrooms? What are some of he repercussion of this
linguistic segregation?
There is a need to go beyond the policy of tolerance (and make
active use of/promote the use of vernacular varieties)

22. Multilingual Writing Models: Discuss what both
scholars propose (p. 597). What’s Canagarajah’s
main critique?
Peter Elbow Suresh Canagarajah

23. Code meshing versus code-
switching
• Canagarajah asserts that code-meshing calls for
multidialectialism demanded by globalization. He says
minority students “have to not only master the dominant
varieties of English, but also know how to bring in their
preferred varieties in rhetorically strategic ways” (p. 598)
• How can we accommodate more than one codes within the
limits of the same texts?
• What are some of the ways of teaching discursive strategy of
code-meshing so that minority students can get to see their
own variety in academic texts?
“working from within the existing rules to transform the game?

24. Scholars who use multivocal literacy and
multilingual writing
Not limited to…
• Gloria Andzaldua
• Samy Alin
• Geneva Smitherman
• bell hooks

25. • Students don’t have to edit the vernacular variations.
• We NEED TO make space for vernacular voices in composition
which can also enable students to personally engage in the
process of textual change/innovation (The negotiation of
codes can facilitate the learning of standard English).
• “Not every instance of nonstandard usage is an unwitting
error; sometimes it is an active choice motivated by
important cultural and ideological considerations” (p. 609)

26. Full disclosure
• What do you think about Canagarajah’s disclosure about his
own position and practice on code-switching and code-
meshing?

27. Bilingual creativity/efficiency
in business email exhanges
• What are some of the rhetorical/lexical/discourse level
innovations do you see in these transnational business
exchanges?

28. Group Work: Narrative analysis
(if time allows)
Analyzing language choices and content of the immigrant narratives:
• What identities are narrated in these excerpts? Which events in
their learning trajectory have become particularly significant and
which have likely been omitted as a result of this choice?
• What are some of the emerging themes you see in these narratives?
How do they negotiate their identities? How is second language and
culture learning represented?
• Examine the audience the narrator chose to address.
• What are the implications of this linguistic choice for their
narrative? Were the stories elicited in two languages or just one? Is
it possible that proficiency or attrition have influenced the manner
of the presentation or the amount of detail offered by the narrator?
REPORT YOUR FINDINGS TO THE WHOLE CLASS