Language Support in Focused Inquiry - Faculty Learning Community
2008-2009
Katherine Elliott
Jeffrey Murray
Janet Newland
Wendy Nugent
Vicki Pallo
Patricia Strong
Writing Center Coordinator
Focused Inquiry Faculty
Focused Inquiry Faculty
Focused Inquiry Faculty, FI Language Resource Center
Focused Inquiry Faculty
Director of the Campus Writing Center
elliottkl@vcu.edu
jwmurray@vcu.edu
jdnewlan@vcu.edu
whnugent@vcu.edu
vpallo@vcu.edu
prstrong@vcu.edu
Working Bibliography
Articles of interest
Chiang, Yuet-Sim D., and Mary Schmida. “Language Identity and Language Ownership: Linguistic
Conflicts of First-Year University Writing Students.” Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition:
Issues in the Teaching and Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL. Eds. Linda Harklau, Kay M.
Losey, and Meryl Siegal. Mahway, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 81-96.
Cummins, Jim. “Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.” The
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10.2 (2007), 221-240.
Hagemann, Julie. “A Metalinguistic Approach: Helping Students Acquire the Language of the Academy.”
Academic Literacy in the English Classroom: Helping Underprepared and Working Class Students
Succeed in College. Ed. Carolyn R. Boiarsky. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 2003.
Kubota, Ryuko and Al Lehner. “Toward Critical Contrastive Rhetoric.” Journal of Second Language
Writing 13 (2004): 7–27.
Lai, Hsuan-Yau Tony. “English as an International Language? Taiwanese University Teachers’ Dilemma
and Struggle…” English Today 95, 24.3 (September 2008): 39-45.
Lotherington, Heather, Michelle Holland, Shiva Soteudeh, and Mike Zentena. “Project-Based Community
Language Learning: Three Narratives of Multilingual Story-telling in Early Childhood Education.”
The Canadian Modern Language Review 65.1 (Sept), 125-145.
Phillipson, Robert. “Lingua Franca or Lingua Frankensteinia? English in European Integration and
Globalization.” World Englishes, 27.2 (2008): 250–267.
Shan, Fan. “The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition.”
College Composition and Communication 40.4 (1989): 459-466.
Steinman, Linda. “Literacy Autobiographies in a University ESL Class.” The Canadian Modern Language
Review 63.4 (June), 563-573.
Annotated Bibliography: A collection of readings representing our various research interests
in the FLC. (Vicki Pallo)
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and World Englishes (WE)
Atkinson, Dwight. “Contrasting Rhetorics/Contrasting Cultures: Why Contrastive Rhetoric Needs a
Better Conceptualization of Culture.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 277–289
Taking a more theoretical approach, Atkinson explores the definition(s) of culture and their relevance to
the study of Contrastive Rhetoric (CR). He observes that “One of the distinctive characteristics of CR is
that it actively uses the notion of culture to explain differences in written texts and writing practices. So
far, however, CR has been seriously limited in this respect—the view of culture most widely assumed in
accounting for textual forms and practices has been overwhelmingly a received one (Connor, 2002)”
(287). As such, he suggests several approaches to the definition of culture: (1) received culture versus
postmodern culture versus cultural studies culture; (2) culture as product versus culture as process; (3)
culture in the head versus culture in the world; and (4) big culture versus small culture” (279). While he
does not attempt to apply these definitions directly to CR or engage in a more practical discussion of the
interrelationship between culture and writing, his ideas on rethinking culture might be useful in a study
focused on exploring the subtleties of culture and its impact on ELLs.
Berns, Margie. “World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca, and Intelligibility.” World Englishes,
27.3/4 (2008): 327–334
ABSTRACT: This paper tests claims concerning the English as Lingua Franca (ELF) movement’s position
within the world Englishes paradigm. To do so, it considers the writings of Jennifer Jenkins, a leader in
this movement, on what she calls “phonological intelligibility”, and the writings of Larry Smith, an
established scholar on intelligibility in cross-cultural communication. The mutual intelligibility of
Expanding Circle users of English is a primary concern to ELF researchers, and Jenkins has identified
Smith’s work as the foundation for her investigation of core phonological features to use in
pronunciation teaching. The paper aims to determine the extent to which Jenkins’ theoretical views on
intelligibility correspond to Smith’s concept of understanding as a central issue in international
communication.
Cogo, Alessia. “English as a Lingua Franca: Form Follows Function.” English Today 95, 24.3 (September
2008): 58-61
In this article, the author is responding to a previously written article by Mario Saraceni, as well as
offering her views on the nature of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). In the process, she questions some
of the distinctions made by Saraceni and others between ELF and World Englishes (WE). While there is
not much detail provided in the discussion, it does offer some basic ideas regarding the
definitions/distinctions of these two approaches to International English, as well as demonstrating one
perspective on the overall issues.
Hamp-Lyons, Liz and Alan Davies. “The Englishes of English Tests: Bias Revisited.” World Englishes 27:1
(2008): 26–39
Through an examination of English language proficiency tests (such as the TOEFL), the authors question
the notion of imposing a “standardized” form of English on students throughout the world. In this way,
they reflect the ongoing debate in the “World Englishes” (WE) discipline concerning the use of “norms”
in English proficiency. Of particular concern here are the potential consequences for a student whose
own understanding and use of English does not meet the expectations of these norms (which are often
based on the English used in “inner circle” societies such as the UK or the U.S.). Much of their attention
in the article is devoted to explaining the numerical results of their research, as well as the limitations of
their study.
Lai, Hsuan-Yau Tony. “English as an International Language? Taiwanese University Teachers’ Dilemma
and Struggle…” English Today 95, 24.3 (September 2008): 39-45
Using a focus group comprised of several teachers of English at universities in Taiwan, Lai attempts to
explore the different perceptions these educators have when it comes to addressing the English needs
of their students. They discuss such issues as pronunciation, understanding cultures, having a “base” or
“standard” form of English as a reference for their instruction, and whether or not certain nations (such
as the UK and the U.S.) have a prior claim to English, making them the “standard bearers” so to speak.
Along the way, Lai offers some basic explanations of the terminology and debate surrounding English as
an international language.
Phillipson, Robert. “Lingua Franca or Lingua Frankensteinia? English in European Integration and
Globalization.” World Englishes, 27.2 (2008): 250–267
This paper demonstrates the at times intensely politicized debate within the discipline of “World
Englishes” (WE) and “English as a Lingua Franca” (ELF). Written with specific attention and concern to
the growing impact of English and particularly American English on the EU, as well as the cultural
implications of such impact, the author critiques the current policies and goals of the EU as they relate
to European academics and the multilingualism of its various members. Of chief concern for the author
is the seemingly close association between English and the “colonial” projects of the past, present and
future.
Contrastive Rhetoric
Jarratt, Susan C., Elizabeth Losh, and David Puente. “Transnational Identifications: Biliterate Writers in
a First-year Humanities Course.” Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2006): 24–48
Through a thorough research process, the authors collected data from questionnaires, focus groups, and
reviews of a culminating project for a year-long writing emphasis course that had a very particular
cultural and political (U.S.) perspective. They then provide an in-depth look at the writing experiences
and challenges of three biliterate writers (with backgrounds in Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, and
Vietnamese languages) in this course, evaluating their experiences with both their first and second
languages. In addition to establishing the results of their research, the authors also provide a basic
review of the foundational principles of contrastive rhetoric (CR) as well as the current debates around
this discipline. The most useful aspect of this article, perhaps, is the insight one can gain from the
reflections of the individual students that are discussed at length in the essay.
Kubota, Ryuko and Al Lehner. “Toward Critical Contrastive Rhetoric.” Journal of Second Language
Writing 13 (2004): 7–27
In this piece, the authors provide a thought-provoking critique to the discipline of contrastive rhetoric
(CR) in its traditional form. In particular, they focus on the way in which CR has engaged in an emphasis
on cultural difference that leads to “othering” and a reinforcement of already existing power structures
that promote Western ideologies. At the same time, they attempt to illustrate an alternative to this
approach in the form of “critical contrastive rhetoric.” This revision of the discipline, they argue, allows
for a more pluralistic and hybrid approach to notions of power and cultural difference. As they indicate
in their abstract, “When put into practice, critical contrastive rhetoric affirms multiplicity of languages,
rhetorical forms, and students’ identities, while problematizing the discursive construction of rhetoric
and identities, and thus allowing writing teachers to recognize the complex web of rhetoric, culture,
power, and discourse in responding to student writing” (7).
Thatcher, Barry. “Rhetorics and Communication Media Across Cultures.” Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 3 (2004): 305–320
In an attempt to broaden the factors that impact rhetorical challenges facing L2 learners, Thatcher
suggests that we must, in addition to looking at formal written texts, also consider other forms of
communication such as orality, email and hypertext. As products of our increasingly global environment,
he argues that these other forms of communication can also help shape rhetorical patterns. As a result,
he sees a need for a more cross-cultural approach to understanding L2 literacies.
Wang, Junhua. “Toward a Critical Perspective of Culture: Contrast or Compare Rhetorics.” J. Technical
Writing and Communication, 38.2 (2008): 133-148
Wang’s discussion provides a brief overview of the theories of contrastive rhetoric (CR) in the last few
decades as well as a summary of the current critiques of CR. At the same time, he offers a revision to the
definition of culture that allow it to address current, more globalized, world in which we live. In this way,
he points to a need for a new, more fluid method of comparative rhetoric studies that reflects the way
in which language and communication so easily transcend national and cultural boundaries.