First Major Approach to the Study of Language: Composition Studies

5

Christian Stuart

UW Department of English

PhD Exam Reading Lists (Autumn 2006)

Committee: Juan Guerra (Chair), Sandy Silberstein, Yasuko Kanno

Major Approach to the Study of Language:
Composition Studies
This first approach to the study of language is all about composition—historical aspects, theory and pedagogy, and basic writing. I see this section as the complement to my interest in second language writing theory and pedagogy by specifically establishing a foundation from which to explore the murky, problematic space between first and second language writing. Ultimately, the lists in this first area represent a point where several major questions intersect: How does the distinctly “American” foundation of composition pedagogy play a role in the politics of both mainstream and basic writing theory? How does the “quasi-ESL” atmosphere of the basic writing classroom bridge (or widen) the gap between traditional first year composition and second language writing? And how does institutional discourse at both the macro level (policymakers and writing scholars) and micro level (teachers and students in the classroom) construct and control different images of “good writing,” how it’s taught, for what purposes it should serve, and who has the potential to be a good writer in the first place?

I. History

This list provides an historical overview of the development of writing pedagogy, specifically in how the field of composition has its roots in the creation of the “American university,” and how the different schools of thought emerged within the field through struggle and negotiation for professional identity and a place within the university.

Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Connors, R. (1997). Composition-rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory and pedagogy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Crowley, S. (1998). Composition in the university: Historical and polemical essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Goggin, M. (2000). Authoring a discipline: Scholarly journals and the post-World War II emergence of rhetoric and composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harris, J. (1997). A teaching subject: Composition since 1966. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, S. (1991). Textual carnivals: The politics of composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

II. Theory and Pedagogy

This list addresses in detail the different “controversies” that have shaped the schools of thought within the field of composition studies, how these oft-turbulent theories inform (or are distanced from) practice, and where the field currently finds itself in regard to the connection between theory and pedagogy.

Carroll, L. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbondale: SIU Press.

Fulkerson, R. (1996). The Toulmin model of argument in the teaching of

composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, and D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited;

Argument redefined (pp. 654-687). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fulkerson, R. (2005). Composition at the turn of the twenty-first century. CCC, 56(4), 654-687.

Halasek, K. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: Bakhtinian perspectives on composition studies. Carbondale: SIU Press.

Kent, T. (Ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Miller, R. (1994). Fault lines in the contact zone. College English, 56, 389-408.

Pratt, M. L. (1999). Arts of the contact zone. In G. Stygall (Ed.), Academic discourse: Readings for argument and analysis (pp. 481-495). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. (Original work published 1991)

Tate, G., Rupiper, A., & Schick, K. (Eds.). (2001). A guide to composition pedagogies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Villanueva, V. (1997). Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Selections:

·  Bartholomae, D. Writing with teachers: A conversation with Peter Elbow. 479-488.

·  Bartholomae, D. Inventing the university. 589-620.

·  Bartholomae, D., & Elbow, P. Interchanges: Responses to Bartholomae and Elbow. 501-510.

·  Berlin, J. Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories. 233-248.

·  Bizzell, P. Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. 365-390.

·  Bizzell, P. “Contact zones” and English studies. 735-742.

·  Bruffee, K. Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” 393-414.

·  Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. 77-96.

·  Elbow, P. Being a Writer vs. being an Academic: A conflict in goals. 489-500.

·  Flower, L., & Hayes, J. A cognitive process theory of writing. 251-276.

·  Hairston, M. Diversity, ideology, and teaching writing. 659-676.

·  Hartwell, P. Grammar, grammars and the teaching of grammar. 183-212.

·  Kinneavy, J. The basic aims of discourse. 107-118.

·  Myers, G. Reality, consensus, and reform in the rhetoric of composition teaching. 415-439.

·  Trimbur, J. Consensus and difference in collaborative learning. 439-456.

Vitanza, V. (1991). Three countertheses: Or, a critical in(ter)vention into composition

theories and pedagogies. In P. Harkin & J. Schilb (Eds.), Contending with words: Composition and rhetoric in a postmodern age (pp. 139-172). New York: MLA.

III. Basic Writing

The readings in this list investigate how disadvantaged students negotiate their status as “remedial writers” separate from the mainstream and the proposed strategies these students (and their writing teachers) can use to achieve academic success, both in the composition classroom and in their academic lives in general.

Bizzell, P. (2000). Basic writing and the issue of correctness; or, What to do with “mixed” forms of academic discourse. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(1), 4-12.

Brodkey, L. (1997). On the subjects of class and gender in “The literacy letters.”

In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (pp. 639-658). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1989)

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1970)

Halasek, K., & Highberg, N. P. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on basic writing. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press. Selections:

·  Bartholomae, D. The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. 171-184.

·  Bizzell, P. What happens when basic writers come to college? 15-22.

·  Delpit, L. The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. 83-102.

·  Stygall, G. Resisting privilege: Basic writing and Foucault’s author function. 185-204.

Horner, B., & Lu, M.-Z. (1999). Representing the "other": Basic writers and the teaching of basic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lunsford, A. (1997). Cognitive development and the basic writer. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 277-288). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1979)

Mutnick, D. (1996). Writing in an alien world: Basic writing and the struggle for equality in higher education. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Perl, S. (1997). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-42). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1979)

Rose, M. (1997). Narrowing the mind and page: Remedial writers and cognitive reductionisim. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 323-364). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1988)

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1997). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. In V. Villaneuva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (pp. 289-296). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1976)

Soliday, M. (2001). Ideologies of access and the politics of agency. In G. McNenny (Ed.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access (pp. 55-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation: Institutional and student needs in higher education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Stygall, G. (1999). Unraveling at both ends: Anti-undergraduate education, anti-affirmative action, and basic writing at research schools. Journal of Basic Writing, 18, 4-22.

Villanueva, V. (1997). Considerations for American Freireistas. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 621-638). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (Original work published 1991)

Second Approach to the Study of Language:

Second Language Writing and Academic Literacy

This second approach to the study of language moves from mainstream composition theory and basic writing studies to specifically looking at how second language writers negotiate identity in the face of the complex and problematic notion of “academic literacy.” The Second Language Writing list aims to provide an account of how this field has developed parallel to the emergence of major theories in composition studies, yet has also remained at a distance due to unique demands that second language acquisition theories place on writing theory and pedagogy. The Academic Literacy and Second Language Writers section provides an overview of work that is already being done in defining “academic literacy” and exploring how English language learners (and writers) acquire this literacy. And the Contrastive Rhetoric section provides a background in looking specifically at the role culture and culturally constructed notions of logic and reality play in understanding how second language writers negotiate and acquire academic literacy.

I. Second Language Writing

These readings examine the theory and pedagogy of second language writing by exploring the “controversies” in the field in relation to those in first language writing, and by tracing the paradoxical history of how second language writing has developed as a field by borrowing heavily (yet simultaneously remaining distant) from composition theory and pedagogy.

Casanave, C. (2003). Controversies in second-language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in L2 writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in the second language classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Second language writing in the Twentieth Century: A situated historical perspective. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jorday, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 14-30). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Matsuda, P. K. & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on ESL writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Matsuda, P. K. & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2005). Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Selections:

·  Atkinson, D. Situated qualitative research and second language writing. 49-64.

·  Blanton, L. L. Mucking around in the lives of others: Reflections on qualitative research. 149-158.

·  Brice, C. Coding data in qualitative research on L2 writing: Issues and implications. 159-176.

·  Casanave, Uses of narrative in L2 writing research. 17-32.

·  Ferris, D. Tricks of the trade: The nuts and bolts of L2 writing research. 223-234.

·  Hyland, K. Digging up texts and transcripts: Confessions of a discourse analyst. 177-191.

·  Li, X. Composing culture in a fragmented world: The issue of representation in cross-cultural research. 121-134.

·  Silva, T. On the philosophical bases of inquiry in second language writing: Metaphysics, inquiry paradigms, and intellectual zeitgeist. 3-16.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

II. Academic Literacy and Second Language Writers

Here, I am specifically interested in looking at how the different interpretations of the problematic term “academic literacy” shape and constrain how writing is taught to English language learners, and how, ultimately, ability to negotiate the “writing games” of academic literacy determines academic success or failure and affects the identities of not only second language writers, but second language writing teachers.

Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568.

Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75.

Casanave, C. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Elbow, P. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 327-338.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London and New York: Longman.

Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of

labor. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 773-796). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Matsuda, P. K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (Eds.). (2006). Second language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s. Selections:

·  College Composition and Communication. CCCC statement on second language writing and writers. 10-13.

·  Canagarajah, S. Understanding critical writing. 210-224.

·  Chiang, Y-S. D., & Schmida, M. Language identity and language ownership: Linguistic conflicts of first-year writing students. 89-102.

·  Currie, P. Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. 364-379.

·  Harklau, L. From the “good kids’ to the ‘worst’: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. 103-130.

·  Land Jr., R. E., & Whitley, C. Evaluating second-language essays in regular composition classes: Toward a pluralistic U.S. rhetoric. 324-332.

·  Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. Cross-cultural composition: Mediated integration of US and international students. 246-259.