Human Imagination and Language: I agree with the statement that “human imagination quickly adapts new data to old language patterns or invents ways to deal with new situations”(Gibaldi 31). I would like to add two more examples to Baron’s list: (a) Poets who create, invent words in order to express new ideas. In Greek these poets are called “lexoplastes”, which means “word-creators”. (b) Words that are created to name new technology. Words like television , computer, CD-ROM or DVD did not exist a few years ago.
“…the presumed democratic character of classical Greek…”(Gibaldi 31): By doubting the democratic character of classical Greek, Baron is contradicting himself. In the previous page he seems to agree with humanist linguists’ belief that “language both reflects and influences culture and society”(Gibaldi 30). So, if the society is democratic (and no-one can say that ancient Greek society wasn’t), isn’t it safe to assume that the language (i.e., classical Greek) also has a democratic character?
Language – Ethnicity and Language – Social Discrimination: In pages 31-32, Baron refers to the conflicts that took place at the University of Athens in the early 1900’s and resulted to several deaths. However, he gives no explanations about the motives behind these conflicts. In other words, he doesn’t say the whole story. Instead, he leaves unanswered questions hanging in the air. I find this bizarre, because if he went on to explain the reasons behind these conflicts, he would have given a perfect example of the relation not only between Language end Ethnicity, but also between Language and Social Discrimination. I would like to offer this example here: At that time, the majority of the Greek people was opposed to any linguistic innovations, because of ethnic beliefs. Almost everyone shared a common vision called “The Great Idea”. They wanted Greece to regain its ancient glory, by liberating the surrounding Greek populations and reestablishing its old geographical borders. They thought of language as a very strong link with ancient Greece and weren’t prepared to allow anyone to brake this link. So, when a group suggested that modern Greek should become the official language, violent conflicts took place. Now, the group who favored modern Greek were more concerned with social inequality (they belonged to the middle class). They also shared the common vision of a strong Greece, but supported that the only way to achieve this was first to abolish social discrimination through language – anyone who couldn’t use the ancient-like Greek was considered inferior – and then to promote progress through practical, technical education, and not classic education. So, this was a “two in one” situation: ethnicity and social discrimination. In 1922 Greece tried to expand its borders and failed. After this, “The Great Idea” lost ground and modern Greek was accepted as the official language.
The Official-Language Question: I found what Baron writes about this very confusing (Gibaldi 32-35). Practically speaking, isn’t English the official language of the United States?
His prediction that “Minority-language rights will become a highly visible problem as the European Community moves toward unification…”(Gibaldi ) is arbitrary and probably false. Minority-language rights within the European Union are protected by Law. To give a simple example, every European country is obliged to provide all its citizens with education in their own, native language. So, there shouldn’t be any problems. As he states “observers point out that linguistic violence generally occurs when language rights are suppressed, not when they are guaranteed”(Gibaldi 33).
Associative Reading: The spreading use of computers makes many scholars predict “that the linear consciousness imposed by books, will shift to a more vertical, associative way of reading”(Gibaldi 41). Actually many books are already forcing their readers to shift towards this direction. In Children’s Literature many postmodern books present two or more narratives at the same time. These books are called “Manifold Narratives”.
Models of “The” Writing Process: Lunsford admits that “attempts to provide speculative conceptual maps or formal models of writing have stirred considerable controversy, especially as they suggest claims of wide generalizability or as they may valorize certain ways of writing”(Gibaldi 84). No model can successfully describe “the” writing process, simply because “the” one and only writing process does not exist. Different individuals have different processes. In this aspect I consider such models to be useless.
Questions about Readers: Flynn’s research is analyzed on pages 85 and 86. Flynn confronted the assumption that all readers behave in the same way, by supporting that women do not use the same reading process with men. In doing this though, she assumed that all female readers behave in the same way. I have my doubts about this assumption of hers.
The Concept of Text: “…so rhetoric and composition studies destabilize the concept of text, opening it up and hence bringing into view many kinds of discourse formally excluded from examination.”(Gibaldi 87). As far as I know, this has not influenced the “concept of text” in ISU composition classes. In these classes texts are produced in the form of essays that aim to convince a certain audience.
The Menace of Graduate Student-Teachers: I have come across the same story about the “damage” we, graduate student-teachers, bring to composition teaching, over and over again in many of my readings. However, the author always seems to accept the situation as a “necessary evil”. He/she does not even dare to “dream” how composition teaching could be like. What do these people suggest?