1
Apling 623
Ramzi Ali
October7, 2012
Week Six: Understanding Academic Discourse “Bartolome, L. 1998”
The concept of “academic discourses” refers to more than just student’s ability to
produce standard English by using the correct phonology (sound system), lexicon
(vocabulary) and syntax (sentence structure).
In addition to these three
dimensions, less easily measured language components such as cultural knowledge
about rhetorical structures are equally important.
In the case of Mexican American students recently arrived who received their
previous education in Mexican schools often come to the U.S. classrooms already
possessing knowledge about academic rhetorical structures and communication
practices that are valued in school contexts and necessary for success particularly if
they come from middle-class backgrounds. These students may be handicapped
because of their limited proficiency in English; however, once they acquire a
threshold level of proficiency in English, they eventually are able to transfer their
Spanish academic discourse skills to English, thus guaranteeing some degree of
success in the classroom.
Ironically, Mexican American students born and bred in the United States often are
not similarly skilled. Teachers often fail to understand that academic discourse
prerequisites are not inherently part of these students’ working class, nativelanguage competency.
To overcome this problem the idea of “De-Contextualized” language was presented.
A variety of terms language have been used to refer to the so-called decontextualized language such as autonomous language, school language,
disembedded language, less contextualized language and situation-independent.
2
Author(s)
Characteristics of Decontextualized
Language
Cummins
(1994)
* Meaning is primarily conveyed via
linguistic cues, such as cohesion
devices, that are independent of the
immediate communicative context
*Comprehension depends
significantly on knowledge of the
language used
*Contextual or interpersonal cues,
such as intonation, gestures, and
facial expressions, support
comprehension of text
*Meaning can be negotiated by
participants, such as via feedback
from listeners about how the
message was understood
De Temple,
Wu, & Snow
(1991)
* Text is grounded in time and space
* There is little assumption of shared
background knowledge or context
* Thematic cues are lexicalized
* Linguistic devices, such as complex
syntactical construction and explicit
sentential connectives, transfer
directly to written paragraph
construction
*Shared physical context is
exploited
* Shared background knowledge
is utilized
* Paralinguistic cues convey
cohesion
* Use of prosodically marked
constructions that do not have a
direct written analogue
Snow (1991) 1. * Language used to “convey novel
information to audiences who are at a
distance from the speaker and who
may share only limited amounts of
background information with the
speaker” (p. 7)
* Typical of explanations and personal
narratives
Marvin (1995)
Pellegrini
(1985)
Characteristics of Contextualized
Language
*Used to negotiate interpersonal
relationships Typical of face-toface conversations
*The following resources can be
used to convey meaning: Shared
knowledge, Gesture, Interactive
negotiation of meaning, Listener
feedback
* Talk about the here-and now (p.
* Use of distant time referents
187), by referencing people,
objects and action present in the
immediate context
* Meaning is conveyed textually or by * Contextual cues and shared
language itself
knowledge is used to convey
meaning
The problem with this idea is that language production for meaningful
communication cannot be achieved outside the cultural context that gives the
produced language meaning in the place. In other words, all language is context
bound in one manner or another. Also, the use of these apparently innocuous and
“objective” terms hides the reality that dominant ideology often devalues language
3
varieties that do not conform to the prescribed rules of the standard academic
discourse.
The assumption is that the working class dialect is context bound; whereas the
standard academic discourse transcends social and cultural locations and is
therefore more universal, less localized and more autonomous.
In fact, the so-called de-contextualized language is not truly de-contextualized but
rather is contextualized using chiefly linguistic cues and strategies restricted to the
text to render a message explicit instead of relying on extra linguistic cues or cues
located outside the sentence (such as the use of body language, varying intonation,
and assumptions of shared knowledge with interlocutors).
It is important for educators of linguistics-minority students to clearly comprehend
the sociopolitical dimensions of language and literacy teaching.
The shift from a so-called context-bound to a seemingly de-contextualized discourse
often involves psychological ramifications that can be far-reaching and yet largely
ignored by most teachers. This shift can often be accompanied by the development
or exacerbation of linguistic insecurity, to the degree that students are encouraged
to abandon or repress their so called context-bound language (which is usually
devalued by the standard middle-class-oriented curriculum). This form of linguistic
coercion can produce linguistic resistance in students.
The lack of understanding about the student resistance often eclipses any possibility
that teachers may detect linguistic resistance so they can mediate it and effectively
teach the academic discourse while honoring the home discourse of their student.
For this purpose, an investigation of the construct of biculturalism is needed. There is a
need to focus on the relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation, which serves
as one window illuminating the differences among Latino students. Ethnic identity is
determined by an individual’s choices to maintain behaviors associated with the culture
of origin. Acculturation represents the extent to which the majority culture’s values,
mores, and customs have been adopted. By looking at both variables together—that is, by
using a bicultural lens— we can gain an understanding of the differences among Latino
students.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, young people under the
age of eighteen are more likely to be Latino (36 percent) than non-Latino whites (24
percent), signaling an increase in the number of potential college-age Latino
students over the next generation. Yet their prospects for educational attainment
are poor. Data show that only 11 percent of Latinos have at least a bachelor’s
degree, compared with 28 percent of non-Latino whites. Even when Latino students
attend college, they tend to leave and are less likely to return to complete a
bachelor’s degree. Latino students have the lowest completion rate of all college
students, with only 32 percent finishing. This compares with completion rates of 34
4
percent for African Americans, 47 percent for Asian Americans, and 48 percent for
whites.
Not much is known about the effect that educational environments have on decisions by
Latinos to stay in school or not. Students in noncritical- mass areas have higher levels of
acculturation but levels of ethnic pride similar to those of the critical mass group. This
suggests that although these students may have adopted many of the norms of the
majority culture, they still value, experience, and take pride in their Latino identity. Such
a finding is an evidence that ethnicity is more important to minority students than it is to
white students. In an article in the Journal of Adolescence, Jean Phinney and Linda
Alpuria report that students of color rated their ethnicity as important as religion and
more important than political orientation. By contrast, white students rated occupation
and sex roles as the most important areas. Students in a predominantly white school
environment who come from places where Latinos are a critical mass focus on finding
others who share their values and culture, while those who come from areas where there
is no critical mass of Latinos or who have mixed backgrounds strive to be around other
Latinos but feel left out if they do not speak the Spanish language. Language has always
been a salient variable in identifying level of ethnicity, and these students confirm that
speaking the language continues to be important. Two insights that educators must
consider when dealing with Latino students. First, just because Latino students blend into
the school culture does not mean they have forgotten their own culture of origin. Second,
assessing the needs of Latino students should include looking at the environment they
came from, because this will influence their reaction to the campus environment. If
educators are sincere in creating learning environments where all students are valued,
they must reflect on how their campus environments convey this message of value in
both overt and subtle ways. For example, Latino art, Latino speakers, and opportunities to
express the Latino culture express this value.