DIALECT MATTERS!
Young, V. A. (2010). Should Writers Use They Own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 110–117.
In Vershawn Ashanti Young’s piece “Should Writers Use They Own English,” he discusses that standard language ideology needs to be addressed due to the exclusivity and prejudice it conveys by demonizing other dialects. He states the claim that there should be widespread knowledge of diverse languages and dialects so one can be open to understanding the convergence of them within oral and written communication. To support his claim[Logical Connectors], he challenges Stanley Fish for stating that there should be a division between standard american english and dialect spoken at home, and that instead of code switching, that which Fish defends, we should embrace code meshing, or understanding the differences of languages within our system and allowing them to coexist. Though this article was written for linguists and pedagogic academics, it resonates with me as a young black woman who has been conditioned to abandon my dialect for “Standard American English”.
“In this article, I write” isn’t tacky!
Thonney, T. (2016). “In this article, I argue”: An analysis of metatext in research article introductions. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 43(4), 411-422.
In Teresa Thonney’s “ ‘In This Article, I Argue’: An Analysis of Metatext in Research Article Introductions”she addresses the discourse of utilizing metatext in academic papers and the difference in its use between academics and students. She constructs an analysis of Metatext, metatext[Anadiplosis],she claims, has often been ignored in academics when teaching first year writers. Her research shows that metatext is a common linguistic tool that should be utilized within first year curriculum. Thus,she supports her claim by doing research on metatext in composition journals, literature journals, and other disciplines- analyzing where it is used, how and its importance when supporting a thesis statement. Though this piece is written for first year writing professors and academics, it relates to me due to the elimination of metatext within the curriculum of grade school.
Stop Only Reading the Abstract!
Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from Sources, Writing from Sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2)
In the piece “ Writing from Sources, Writing from Sentences” Howard, Serviss and Rodrigue claim that there is a disconnect between writers understanding a source and merely replicating it when composing papers. They carry out a study, which is part of the larger research of the Citation Project, in a sophomore research class at a “certified” university. They identify copying, summarizing, paraphrasing, and patch writing as a prevalent practice in research papers. Their analysis displays patch writing as an art form that merely replicates the artist, rather than garnering inspiration[Metaphor]. They address that it is critical to the integrity of research for students to be taught rudimentary skills in understanding their sources. Though this is addressed to academics and pedagogic educators, it carries importance for myself and other undergraduate students to recognize the necessity of understanding rather than just repeating the sources we utilize throughout our college career.
Why Revision Is Necessary
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378
In Nancy Sommers’ “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” she discusses the absence of revision in linear models of writing that are commonly taught to student writers. She states that the linear model prevents discovery and the difference between writing and speech. Written for pedagogic and academic readers, she conducts research based upon the claim that current models of writing process have directed attention away from the necessity of revision. By analyzing student writers and experienced writers through their writing and revision of their own pieces as well as other writing samples, she identified distinct differences regarding revision between the two groups. For students, there is a focus on vocabulary and the necessity of following “rules” they have been provided through the linear model of writing. For experienced writers, there is a focus on form and shape of argument as well as the way the piece is conveyed to the audience. Ultimately, her claim is used to support her thesis that students need to seek the dissonance of discovery in their work, giving little authority to the linear model and more authority to themselves. If the student seeks dissonance, there is chance for discovery, if they do not, they cannot[Antithesis]. This piece, though not written for me, brings to light the linear model that I was taught through grade school and have denounced in efforts to create a piece that works within a framework for both me and my readers.
In the End, There Were Six.
Thonney, Teresa. (2011). “Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 38.4 (2011): 347-62.. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 38. 347-62.
Teresa Thonney’s purpose in “ Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse ” is to address the necessity of studies that acknowledge what academic writing has in common, and to portray this to others in academia and/or pedagogues. She claims that there are six shared features that cross the boundaries of all academic writing that can be utilized by first year students. Thonney supports this claim by analyzing seven academic articles that differ in discipline. Though educators are her intended audience, it is significant to me because I am the demographic she claims could utilize the understanding of language conventions that translate across disciplines.
The Correlation
The correlation between all of these articles is evident in their basis upon improving pedagogic writing styles within the first year curriculum. Each piece reflects Teresa Thonney’s “Six Standard Moves” that she provides in her article “Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse” in which they all address the dialogue already present around their topic, state the value of their piece and address the plan using metatext, they acknowledge opposing opinions, adopt a voice of authority, use discipline specific vocabulary, and create an emphasis on their evidence. They often compare differences between “experienced” and “inexperienced”(First Year Students) writers.
My Experience with the Project
As I have navigated my way through this project, I have gained a plethora of knowledge regarding metatext, rethinking pedagogic academia, the translation of language conventions across disciplines, and various other skills. I appreciated using these articles to understand language within different frames. And while I did gain beneficial clarity, I also found drawbacks that correlate with my understanding of pedagogic discourse within curriculums. Primarily, the authors of the article are predominately white, with the exception of Prof. Tanya Rodrigue, which I believe naturally makes me hesitant when regarding “rules” or “ways of writing” within curriculum; a fear that comes from directing youth, especially youth of color, towards a particular set of “rules” or “techniques”. For my fifth article, I chose Vershawn Ashanti Young’s piece, “Should Writers Use They Own English?” because it directly correlates to the thoughts i have struggled with; thoughts that deem writing or analyzing outside of a “standard” nullifies the dialect I have been raised with. Within my head, I juxtaposed his article with the others I have read, Identifying that he too similarly uses the “six standard moves” Thonney identifies, yet unlike the other authors, does not attempt to fit his pedagogy into a set of “rules” or “techniques. The pieces themselves can be analyzed for flaws, but together, they present an understanding of rhetoric and discourse surrounding many areas of academia.[Antanagoge]