World Englishes

I would like to take advantage of this blog entry to continue elaborating on the issue of code-meshing and code-switching as a way to integrate non-dominant languages and dialect in academic discourse. It is stimulating to see examples as the ones presented by Cangarajah. One can only be in favor of scholars interested in fighting monolingual, linguistically imperialistic perspectives on knowledge creation and dissemination. However, I believe there is much more to it than adopting a rather naïve position on the matter. My main argument is that such valuable cases such as the ones presented in Canagarajah’s articles are exceptional, but should not constitute a central goal in second language literacy development. By no means do I wish to suggest that they are not a desirable goal in ELL’s literacy. Instead I claim that bringing this issue to the discussion of what the teachers’ role should be does little favor beyond unnecessary problematization of the literacy classroom.

I think that it is more important, and much more feasible and efficient (time and resources wise) to focus the discussion in the way teachers should/could/would adopt multicultural attitudes to the classroom, where native languages are understood as linguistic and multicultural assets. This should be the focus of our efforts and would be a key factor in moving towards more inclusive practices in literacy development. I guess I want to suggest that professional, institutional and academic efforts should focus on these matters, rather than starting an additional debate on how code-meshing should be integrated into academic discourse. Making sure that ELL’s have access to a better quality in L2 education while maintaining and promoting their individual voices and native linguistic and cultural heritage is (while still a huge challenge) more attainable. Code-mashing and the vindication of non-dominant voices would come up as the result of such minded educational approach. It is my belief that students who have access to the tools to enter dominant academic communities but that have had a chance to maintain, recognize and be proud of their legacies will eventually not have problems adapting their academic discourse to respond to and represent their cultural richness, just like Smitherman successfully did.

In conclusion, I think:

1.  It is desirable that non-dominant languages or dialects be included in academic discourse (including code-meshing), however,
2. this should be a natural consequence (not the cause) of adopting a more multilingual approach to education where the conditions for learning English are improved and guaranteed and the cultural and linguistic heritage of ELL’s is respected, promoted and valued. Therefore,
3. promoting the use of rhetoric resources such as code-meshing is unnecessary and undesirable approach on the part of scholars. Efforts should be concentrated on the more structural goal presented in number two.