In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 t h e “ s ta n da r d e n g L i s h ” fa i rY ta L e A Rhetorical Analysis of Racist Pedagogies and Commonplace Assumptions about language Diversity Laura Greenfield In a recent first-year seminar on language diversity in contemporary America, I began the term by having students read the first chapter in Rosina Lippi-Green’s (1997) English with an Accent, in which the author presents five “linguistic facts of life” for novice linguists to consider. I chose this text precisely to help the students in the course begin our discussions with a common set of premises—a grounding in assumptions about the nature of language upon which almost all linguists, regardless of their politics or subspecialties, agree. I broke the students into small groups and asked each group to tackle one of the “linguistic facts of life” presented by Lippi-Green, report back to the class in their own words the linguistic truism, and illustrate that point with a relevant observation they could glean from their own experiences. These truisms included All spoken language changes over time. All spoken languages are equal in linguistic terms. Grammaticality and communicative effectiveness are distinct and independent issues. Written language and spoken language are historically, structurally, and functionally fundamentally different creatures. Variation is intrinsic to all spoken language at every level. (10) As we moved from group to group, some students struggling more than others, some making not-so-quiet whispers to one another such as “So she’s saying we don’t know anything if we disagree with these points?” (well, yes), some needing some clarification from me in order to decipher the text, it became quickly apparent that this process would not simply be a matter of reading Lippi-Green’s report on the present state 34 WRI T I NG C EN T ERS A N D T H E N EW RAC I SM of linguistic knowledge and moving forward in agreement in order to interrogate more complex issues. In fact, as Lippi-Green herself notes, “The least disputed issues around language structure and function, the ones linguists argue about least, are those which are most often challenged by nonlinguists, and with the greatest vehemence and emotion” (9). A relatively open-minded and linguistically diverse bunch themselves , many of the students were willing to participate in what was for them a bit of a suspension of disbelief and move forward tentatively as though these statements were indeed true. Importantly, one student towards the end of the activity raised her hand and asked something to the effect of, “If all linguists are in agreement about these phenomena, why is it that most people in general don’t know about them or disagree with them?” It was an excellent question, and while it took me a second to collect my thoughts and fumble through an answer for her, my own more focused reflection on such a question after class helped me clarify an argument I have been striving to develop throughout much of my academic career. Why do many people hold opinions in such stark contrast to linguistic evidence? I argue that the “new racism” described in this volume by Victor Villanueva (26)—a “racism that still exists, even if its form has changed”— is deeply entrenched in our discourses about languages. As I will show in this chapter, the unresolved racism in the U.S. education system has given way to a particular rhetoric about language diversity and education that has drastically skewed our understandings of linguistic phenomena. While linguists agree upon a basic set of premises about the nature of language, the general public and even the most well-meaning educators hold beliefs in stark contrast to this knowledge. Our assumptions about language are guided more often by a rhetoric that feeds on our unconscious racism than they are by our intellectual understanding of linguistic fact. (The unconscious emotional impulses driving racist beliefs may explain why many people, when confronted with the seemingly mundane observations of linguists, react with extreme skepticism, disbelief, and even anger.) Racism, as Villanueva’s historical account in this collection shows, is—though material in its effects—a function of rhetoric. Working from this assumption, I intend to dig beneath the rhetoric contemporary writing teachers and writing center tutors use to rationalize inherently racist pedagogies surrounding language diversity. To demonstrate the racism in many common assumptions about language difference, I will work [3.17.150.89...

Share