DON'T GET ME STARTED
I have never, EVER, read anything in my academic career that made me as angry as
Cassanave's 4th chapter.. Her false neutrality is nauseating; her disdain for the work in critical literacy and composition studies on code-meshing and translanguaging is thinly veiled.
She claims that the scholars doing this work have "forgotten" past work on bilingualism. However, I would argue that the work of the new school is fundamentally different. The work in translanguaging and code-meshing is grounded in concepts of power and identity. Casssanave does an extremely poor job of representing what this work is actually about. In her biased review she actually exemplifies the problem.
Cassanave ends most sections with a "reality" statement. "Still, the reality is that English increasingly dominates worldwide enterprises..." (p. 104).
Duh. The question is WHY??? The reality is the dominance of English is related to economic gain and the legacy of White Supremacy
She has nerve to call these scholars "anti-monolingualist". That is the tricky manipulative tactics of the "pro-life" movement calling pro-choice "anti-life". Come on lady! How are you going to write for linguists and not expect to get Discourse Analysized to death?
This is my area of research and I could write a much better lit review than Cassanave. The reason I won't write one summarizing the "pro-monolingualist" view is because we have got plenty of that.
I'll start with taking all of their racist and classist assumptions and showing what translanguaging and code meshing and World Englishes is about. And I'll talk about race and I'll talk about the false dichotomy between multilingualism and multiculturalism. But not here. Cuz I can go on FOREVER.
This chapter made me too angry to speak. The questions at the end were so full of assumptions I couldn't even answer them. And I'm not going to show examples of writing with code-meshing that I have written or my students have written (although I have tons of examples) until we all give due credit to Vershawn Ashanti Young, who Cassanave mentions at the top of page 126, where she refers to "the example of Young" (not even giving him the respect of apostrosphe 's' ownership).
His point in writing this was to SHOW the meaning can be made and is intelligible and rhetorically effective without the exclusive use of Dominant American English.
I recommend everyone read this:
http://lockss.lib.uiowa.edu:8082/ServeContent?volume=12&date=2010&atitle=Should+Writers+Use+They+Own+English%3F&spage=110&issn=2168-5738&issue=1&genre=article&title=Iowa+journal+of+cultural+studies.&eissn=2168-569X&doi=10.17077%2F2168-569X.1095
Cassanave's 4th chapter.. Her false neutrality is nauseating; her disdain for the work in critical literacy and composition studies on code-meshing and translanguaging is thinly veiled.
She claims that the scholars doing this work have "forgotten" past work on bilingualism. However, I would argue that the work of the new school is fundamentally different. The work in translanguaging and code-meshing is grounded in concepts of power and identity. Casssanave does an extremely poor job of representing what this work is actually about. In her biased review she actually exemplifies the problem.
Cassanave ends most sections with a "reality" statement. "Still, the reality is that English increasingly dominates worldwide enterprises..." (p. 104).
Duh. The question is WHY??? The reality is the dominance of English is related to economic gain and the legacy of White Supremacy
She has nerve to call these scholars "anti-monolingualist". That is the tricky manipulative tactics of the "pro-life" movement calling pro-choice "anti-life". Come on lady! How are you going to write for linguists and not expect to get Discourse Analysized to death?
This is my area of research and I could write a much better lit review than Cassanave. The reason I won't write one summarizing the "pro-monolingualist" view is because we have got plenty of that.
I'll start with taking all of their racist and classist assumptions and showing what translanguaging and code meshing and World Englishes is about. And I'll talk about race and I'll talk about the false dichotomy between multilingualism and multiculturalism. But not here. Cuz I can go on FOREVER.
This chapter made me too angry to speak. The questions at the end were so full of assumptions I couldn't even answer them. And I'm not going to show examples of writing with code-meshing that I have written or my students have written (although I have tons of examples) until we all give due credit to Vershawn Ashanti Young, who Cassanave mentions at the top of page 126, where she refers to "the example of Young" (not even giving him the respect of apostrosphe 's' ownership).
His point in writing this was to SHOW the meaning can be made and is intelligible and rhetorically effective without the exclusive use of Dominant American English.
I recommend everyone read this:
http://lockss.lib.uiowa.edu:8082/ServeContent?volume=12&date=2010&atitle=Should+Writers+Use+They+Own+English%3F&spage=110&issn=2168-5738&issue=1&genre=article&title=Iowa+journal+of+cultural+studies.&eissn=2168-569X&doi=10.17077%2F2168-569X.1095
Comments
Post a Comment