PDF Submission
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts LANGUAGE DIVERSITY AS POLICY: THREE LESSONS FROM THREE DECADES A Thesis in English by Scott Andrew Wible © 2006 Scott Andrew Wible Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2006 The thesis of Scott Wible was reviewed and approved* by the following: Cheryl J. Glenn Professor of English Thesis Advisor Chair of Committee R. Keith Gilyard Distinguished Professor of English Elaine B. Richardson Associate Professor of English John L. Selzer Professor of English Patrick W. Shannon Professor of Education Robert L. Caserio Professor of English Head of the Department of English *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. iii ABSTRACT The aims of “Language Diversity as Policy” are threefold: to deepen rhetoric and composition scholars’ understanding of what language policies are; how political and social agendas propel these policies in specific directions; and what purposes language policies can serve in scholars’ efforts to set the topics and terms for debate in public dialogue about the increasing linguistic diversity in the U.S. To fulfill that aim, I revisit and reread two language policies created by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in the past thirty years, the 1974 “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” resolution and the 1988 National Language Policy. Here I analyze how compositionists in the Brooklyn College-based Language Curriculum Research Group and the CCCC Language Policy Committee wove the principles at the heart of these language polices into our professional and civic practice. I then build on the results of these studies to illuminate the National Language Agenda, drafted by the U.S. Defense Department to articulate the nation’s language needs in a post-September 11 world. Here I consider how rhetoric and composition scholars can join with other language scholars to engage this next important debate about language politics and national identity. This dissertation analyzes how scholars, civic groups, and government agencies have used language policies as tools to make specific arguments for preserving linguistic diversity in education and in society. Each of the three language policies in this study makes claims about how language, literacy, and cultural diversity can support the creation of specific political, cultural, or economic arrangements in the U.S. Just as significantly, the authors of these language policies create them to focus their efforts for developing and managing the nation’s language resources in ways that would bring about these desired ends. For these reasons, I contend, studying the history of two CCCC language polices as well as scholars’ responses to them can help compositionists to invent pedagogical and political strategies for working in our classrooms, our academic institutions, and our communities in ways that build a broader public commitment to meeting our nation’s various—not just security- or economic-related—language needs. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments……………….………………………………………………………v Chapter 1. Introduction……………………...…………………………..…....................1 Defining Language Policy……………………………………………………….11 Scholarly Contributions of Dissertation Project…………………………………16 Theoretical Grounding…………………………………………………………...34 Mapping Chapters………………………………………………………………..37 An Exigent Moment……………………………………………………………...40 Chapter 2. Pedagogies of the “Students’ Right” Era: The Language Curriculum Research Group’s Project for Linguistic Diversity………………………43 Composition’s Debate over Students’ Language Rights…..…………………….47 The LCRG’s Broad Strategy for Curricular Reform…………………………….60 Bridging the Gap between Sociolinguistics and Composition…………………..65 Valuing the Black English Vernacular in Composition Classrooms…………….68 Prompting Teacher Reflection on Racial and Linguistic Difference…………….74 Losing the Battle for Reform: “Back-to-Basics” Again…………………………80 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….89 Chapter 3. The National Language Policy: Composing a Professional and Civic Identity for the CCCC……………97 Political Discourse of the Reagan Era………………………………………….102 The English-Only Campaign for a National Language and Culture……………110 The CCCC’s Mission to Promote a Multilingual Society……………………...121 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...149 Chapter 4. Make Policy, Not War: Engaging the Defense Department’s National Language Agenda……..160 The National Defense Education Act…………………………………………..166 Reading the Military’s Roadmap for Language Transformation………….…...181 Shaping the Vision of the National Language Agenda………………...………192 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...218 Chapter 5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….226 Defining Language Policies…………………………………………………….228 Pedagogical Invention through Language Policies……………………………..233 Revising Definitions of Academic Writing…………………………………….238 Policy Writing, Institutional Redesign………………………………………….246 Reading Language Policy, Realizing Possibilities……………………………...257 Notes……………………………………………………………………………………259 Works Cited……………………………………………………...…………………….285 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My deepest thanks goes to Cheryl Glenn. Throughout the past four years, she has provided me with a remarkable model of professionalism while also becoming a good and caring friend. I am also indebted to each of my committee members, Keith Gilyard, Elaine Richardson, Jack Selzer, and Patrick Shannon, for their help at every stage of this project. They pushed me to identify the critical questions that needed to be answered and stimulated my thinking about the relevance of this project to our larger field. I am deeply grateful to the family of Wilma R. Ebbitt for their ongoing support of the graduate program in rhetoric and composition at Penn State; their generous gifts afforded me the time and resources to travel to the NCTE Archives and to participate in the RSA Institute in May 2005. A College of Liberal Arts dissertation fellowship also gave me time away from teaching to complete the final draft of this dissertation during the spring 2006 semester. Thanks also goes to Jonathan Green, formerly of the Ford Foundation, and Margaret Chambers of NCTE, who expertly steered me through the archives. Thank you, as well, to the Ford Foundation for granting me permission to quote materials from its files. Geneva Smitherman and Carol Reed gave generously of their time to talk about the history and implications of the Language Curriculum Research Group’s work. I thank Deborah Holdstein, editor of College Composition and Communication, and the CCC referees, Victor Villanueva and John Trimbur, whose insightful readings on an earlier version of Chapter Two helped me to shape it into its present form. Stuart Selber, my frequent running partner during my semesters in State College, helped me to get much needed time away from the computer and always encouraged me to keep plugging away at this project. Jon Olson gave me the opportunity to work in the Graduate Writing Center, which proved to be one of the most rewarding and intellectually challenging jobs I have ever had. The hours of talking about writing with fellow graduate students from so many different countries and language backgrounds deepened my appreciation of the ways beliefs and attitudes toward language affect how students negotiate the demands of their academic and personal lives. vi I would like to thank my colleagues at Penn State who made the graduate program such a stimulating and rewarding place to study, live, and work, especially Aesha Adams, Tim Arner, Kevin Browne, Tony Ceraso, Jamie Ebersole, Jordynn Jack, Jay Jordan, Jodie Nicotra, Vorris Nunley, Jeff Pruchnic, Marika Seigel, Stephen Schneider, Stacey Sheriff, and Dustin Stegner. My friends Chris, Scott, Brian, Dave, Jim, Jeremy, Nate and Danielle, Lisa, Monica, and Andy and Katie have kept me going for the past six years with their quirkiness, their laughter, and their willingness to let me talk on and on about anything and everything other than my dissertation. I want to thank the Wible and Holesa families for their encouragement of my work over the past several years even when it has kept me from making it back home as often as I would like. And I want to thank, too, the Limerick and Enoch families for always being caring enough to ask how my dissertation was coming along. A heartfelt thanks also goes to Robert and Barbara Enoch and Robbie. I have become a better scholar and a better person because of what I’ve gained from their positive outlook on life and their deep affection and support for one another. My grandmother, Anne Holesa, has inspired me with her strength and perseverance, while my brothers, Brad and Andrew, through their own examples of pursuing work that sparks their passions, have inspired me to devote the past two years of my life to this project. And I will never be able to fully thank my parents, Bernie and Liz Wible, who have been unwavering in their support of me, even through the many periods when the going seemed very slow. Thanks to Lucy Enoch for the many walks along Wagon Hill that helped me to reenergize and refocus late in the day. And finally, my loving thanks goes to Jess. Not a single page of this dissertation would have been written without the humor, wisdom, and love she has shared with me over the past six years. 1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction During this present moment when various current national constituencies are “discovering” the importance of writing, let’s make sure they understand