By Riley Young
If you told someone who I grew up with that I was arguing against the importance of grammar, they would think you were mistaking me for someone else. I grew up infatuated with grammar, even taking on the nickname “Red Pen Riley,” and having my best friend tell me she “wanted her best friend back” when I centered conversations around grammar rules and corrected any small mistake. Grammar was something I could control. There was a right way to do grammar. As I transitioned from high school to college, this strongly-held belief started to crumble. In ENGL 3090, the class that trained me to be a Writing Consultant, my attachment to grammar was entirely destroyed. We read countless articles and had countless discussions about the harm grammar, from now on specified as Standardized American English (SAE), causes as a colonialist construction. Gloria Anzaldua, Ashanti Young, Laura Greenfield, Anis Bawarshi and Stephanie Pelkowski, Frankie Condon, and many more introduced us to the ways SAE can be limiting and pushed us to move beyond its constraints. The notion that there is only one correct way to write, or a singular Standard English, is conclusively false. We further explored this falsehood in a historical journey with Dr. Maria Bullon-Fernandez: “Language, Power, and the Development of English Overtime.” It was critical to examine the relationship between power and language as fundamental, providing context which situates our advocacy for linguistic justice in a much larger picture of historical hegemony. When we give into the narrative that SAE is necessary to clear communication and any attempts to dismantle it are new or unfounded, we give into standards defined by white supremacy and systems of domination. We structure our pedagogy in the Writing Center around these values, challenging monolingual norms and welcoming the use of linguistic variety as a unique and flavorful rhetorical device. I decided to take a class on social justice this quarter, as recommended by an advisor. I expected this course to exemplify the anti-colonialist, anti-Standard English pedagogy that I was becoming accustomed to. Then, the syllabus glared at me, indicating that we would be graded on our mastery of grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling, and APA formatting. I was stunned. Why would a social justice professor who has spent his whole life as a social activist be advocating for a structure that directly upholds colonialist standards? I tried not to make a judgment call based only on the syllabus. Maybe it was outdated, or leftover from a different professor who had taught the course. I didn’t have the opportunity to challenge him until he told the class that there were a lot of issues with grammar in the first assignment, and offered a class period to work through grammatical issues. He also told the class they should go to the Writing Center for help with grammar and APA. Oh boy. Now was my time. “Hi! I work at the Writing Center and actually…” He had a wonderful response to my vocalization of concern. He completely agrees–Standard English is a picturesque exemplification of colonialism. To defend his position, he explained that he feels responsible for preparing us (specifically the social workers, since it’s a social work class) to be successful out in the colonized world. I valued his response, despite my hesitation about the punitive assessment of SAE. There must be ways in which we can prepare students for success without perpetuating the very systems we claim to be against. After the next class, he asked me to stay behind to chat for a moment. He asked how I felt about his response, and further explained the pedagogical conflict he has surrounding assessing writing in academia. He told me a story about when he was in my position; he was the student telling his professor that these standards were problematic. His professor responded with an argument that struck him. While he and I may not have to worry about writing in perfect SAE, as we have the privilege and freedom to bend the rules, his professor, a Black woman, detailed that her experience required a mastery of proper academic writing. This argument struck me as well, and I find it is important to reflect on its implications. What is the middle-ground? Is there a solution? How do we approach consultations as a resistance to standard language ideologies? In what ways can we prepare students for a world which employs standardized English without enforcing it as the only way through? There seems to be no right answer. What do you think? Please let me know and I would be curious to do another post reflecting on these ideas!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
SUWC Blog AuthorsAny posts on the SUWC Blog are authored by current consultants working to improve, refine and perfect our practice as peer tutors. Find a Post!
January 2024
Categories |