What Is English?

Jejak PandaSelamat Membaca Di Situs Kesayangan Anda
judi bandarq online
            This is my fourth year teaching a course called Pre-Teaching Secondary English, for first and second year students who are considering becoming middle or high school English teachers.

            Each year, one of the first orders of business is to define English as a field, which is a surprisingly difficult task.  We begin by reading an article called “What Is English?” by H. A. Gleason, which was published in 1964 but that raises many questions that remain remarkably relevant more than fifty years later.

            I begin by asking the students to define English as a field, and then to list all the relevant subfields of the discipline.  Gleason never provides a neat and tidy definition, but you can extract one from his conclusion.  I would paraphrase it as “The understanding, manipulation, and appreciation of language.”  His subfields are simple—literature, composition, and grammar.

            My students come up with more varied and interesting definitions, and collectively their list of subfields is tremendous.  Here’s the list they came up with this year.  (Mind you, this is their list and not necessarily mine!):

·      Literature and fiction (including poetry).
·      Drama and theater.
·      Creative writing (including poetry slam).
·      Composition/writing.
·      Rhetoric/speech/communications.
·      Grammar/linguistics.
·      Journalism.
·      Reading.
·      Pedagogy/educational methodology.
·      Language arts (spelling, vocabulary, phonics).
·      Translation/literature in translation.
·      Comparative literature.
·      Culture studies.
·      Film study.
·      Visual literacy (including the fine arts).
·      Digital literacy.
·      Media studies.
·      Literary criticism/analysis/interpretation.
·      Gaming/game theory.

In our discussion, the students liked Gleason’s shift toward the use of Language as a term to replace English, and emphasized that the field should include the consumption, interpretation, and production of language (much like Gleason’s emphasis on understanding, manipulation, and appreciation).  But unlike Gleason, my students wanted to explore the idea of text and what constitutes a text.  Perhaps this is the influence of their digital literacies, but virtual texts and visual texts and performance texts were, to them, as valid as books, and as worthy of study. 

They also were interested in the way language is used—for communication and persuasion, of course, but also as a source of personal and cultural identity (which itself can be defined many ways).

By the end of that second class, I think they were both overwhelmed and excited by the breadth and possibility within the field.

The thrust of my argument to them was that—as Gleason points out early in his piece—the field of English has never been static.  In fact, it has been perhaps the most dynamic of what we might consider the core disciplines of current education (math, science, English, and history).  But because of this dynamism, this volatility, the field is also vulnerable to outside forces.  In short, either we define our own field or we let others define it for us.

I think this point, so valid in 1964 but at least as valid today, must be taken very seriously.  Legislators, journalists, and so-called education reformers have all been guilty in recent years of defining our field as one necessary to create productive workers who can help large corporations compete in a cut throat global market place.  But even if we accept this as a necessary element of the discipline (and I hesitate to do so), where does such an emphasis place poetry?  Or film study?  Or the fine arts, or creative writing, or literary criticism, for that matter?

Several years ago, the Department of Modern and Classical Languages redefined itself as the Department of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages.  Currently, many English Departments are discussing changing their undergraduate majors, and one basic decision that needs to be made is how to define themselves.  Will we continue to emphasize a traditional focus like literature and maybe composition, or do we choose to make much more significant changes?

One very real and valid concern is that this discussion is being driven more by market concerns and misplaced fears than by a real need to redefine the major.  While I respect that concern (and I do think that the apparent fear among many undergraduates that the English major is not marketable is being driven more by yellow journalism and political careerism than by reality), I do think we should think more broadly and creatively about our field. 

At the very least, the discussion is healthy and necessary because it gives us that important opportunity Gleason emphasizes to take control of our own field.  I’m curious what your definition would look like.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Habit Of Reading

Jejak Panda Hai.. Bertemu Lagi Di Website Kesayangan Anda situs bandarq When I was an undergraduate, I loved being an English major because I could do my school work just by taking a novel and going to read it outside somewhere.   I had a few favorite spots, like the courtyard outside the Benton Museum with its tall oaks, fountain, and statue of Bacchus, or this hidden courtyard outside the Young Building which always smelled of the katsura trees planted there. In grad school in California, there were several great coffee shops where I used to love to read, especially this place called Café Mokka.   I’d drink way too much coffee, read, and write letters to people back east. In the early years of my teaching career, I used to assign tasks to myself, mostly to fill in gaps.   One winter I read all the Shakespeare plays I had never read, about twenty-five in all, even Cymbeline and Coriolanus . Later, I created an elective called the Contemporary Ame...
Read more

Better Teachers: Teacher Education, Standardization, And Natural-Born Teachers

Jejak Panda Terima Kasih Telah Kunjungin Web Kesayangan Anda bandarq terpercaya Although I spent most of the last few days shoveling snow, I did manage to enjoy some reading. I almost finished Marilynne Robinson’s Lila , and I finished Elizabeth Green’s Building a Better Teacher:   How Teaching Works (and How to Teach It to Everyone) .   Green’s book, along with Dana Goldstein’s The Teacher Wars, were on the NY Times ’ 100 Notable Books of 2014 list. Whereas I loved Goldstein’s book, I can’t say the same for Green’s book.   Part of my lack of enthusiasm may be the fact that there is more focus on math than English, but I also think Green gives too much due to corporate reformers, she limits herself to too few examples (from her evidence, one would think the Mecca of pedagogical innovation is Michigan), and she comes to few conclusions.   One thing I do like in Green’s book is her attempt to explore the notion that great teachers ar...
Read more

New Opportunities For A New School Year

Jejak Panda Selamat Datang Kembali Di Blog Kesayangan Anda bandar ceme             Virginia Woolf famously wrote that “on or about December 1910, human character changed,” referring to the shift toward Modernism.             I’m not going to make nearly so grandiose a pronouncement, but we enter this new school year with many changes—some of them dramatic—to the educational landscape, especially here in Connecticut but also across the US.             For one thing, we have a new Commissioner of Education, Dianna Wentzell, who, although she served under Stefan Pryor in the Malloy administration, does have the advantage of having actually been an educator.   In fact, she spent more than a decade teaching, and even taught in an urban district.   It’s unfortunate that widely supported l...
Read more