• Bizzell (1986)

    Date: 2009.10.14 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Tags: ,,

    Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 7
    Date: 14 October 2009

    Patricia Bizzell (1986, 294) hypothesises that “basic writers” are the least well prepared for entering tertiary study. She continues by breaking down her reasons for believing this, and it is not just because their writing is not academically suitable, but as Jen pointed out, they may not necessarily think academically (or even be able to think academically).

    Bizzell’s reference to “basic writers” is not regarding speakers of other languages, but rather Bizzell is referring to speakers and therefore writers of non-Standard English and dialects distinct from Standard English.

    Perhaps, a definition of Standard English will help us understand Bizzell’s initial premise. Standard English is itself a dialect of English just like non-standard English, and the many manifestations thereof, found in the various local and regional English dialects. Formal writing and the Standard dialect of English have a recognised convention for vocabulary, grammar and spelling. There are some excellent explanations regarding the subject of Standard English at the following address: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/standard.htm. Richard Hudson’s paper in particular provides a very straightforward understanding. His table of Standard and non-Standard sentence structures is very helpful for understanding what Bizzell is referring to. Hudson (2000) uses examples such as “I did it” and “I done it”, or “Come quickly!” and “Come quick!” (Note: In both cases the first example is Standard English).

    Local and regional dialects can and do differ from the standard both in their vernacular and their grammatical structure. Dallas mentioned African-Americans in his post. I think this is an excellent example and no doubt pertinent to Bizzell’s thinking. Bizzell is writing from an American perspective. Of course Bizzell’s argument is not exclusive to African-Americans, this would also affect school leavers who communicate in the Southern dialect or elements of the Hispanic community or as stated above, any non-standard English dialect. Why I like the African-American example is because we’ve all been exposed to it in popular culture. We’re exposed to it on television, at the cinema, while listening to Hip-Hop and so on.

    Bizzell (294) is very quick to dispel the misconception that non-Standard dialects are incapable of conveying complex thought. Steven Pinker (2008, 29) informs us the dialect of English spoken by a significant number of African-Americans is called Black English Vernacular (BEV). Pinker illustrates the difference between BEV and Standard American English (SAE) when he compares “Don’t nobody know” (BEV) and “Doesn’t anybody know?” (SAE), but Pinker is also quick to point out that non-Standard dialects are as equally complex as the Standard when he explains that in some cases BEV is more precise than Standard English. This is demonstrated by his BEV example, “He be working means that he generally works…[and] He working means only that he is working at the moment that the sentence is uttered. In SAE, He is working fails to make that distinction” (30).

    We should bear in mind that Bizzell’s hypothesis is not limited to the college freshers in the United States. Each and every one of us in this tutorial group uses the Australian English dialect, which can be further broken down to regional variations, each with its own vocabulary, I’m sure we’ve all heard “I done it” being used. Many Australians exhibit non-Standard features, such as double negatives, incorrect word tense usage, and colloquialisms like “uni” instead of “university”, which add an element of familiarity that may not be appropriate for academic writing. Furthermore, Koral’s posts’ regarding grammar shows that we are not immune to the pitfalls of “basic writing”.

    Bizzell doesn’t just simply stop at basic writing, she moves through a series of conclusions that arrives at basic writers thinking a certain way. That the basic writers’ way of thinking as dictated by their dialectical framework is incompatible with the academic dialectical framework for thinking.

    At this point I get a sense that Bizzell is writing from a postmodern worldview perspective. I believe this because her claim that different dialects and discourse conventions equals different thinking suggests a structuralist, or semiotician understanding. That is to say, the basic writers’ understanding of culture and the world is through the construct of language. Bizzell’s (298-301) extensive references to William Perry further suggest this to me, especially as Perry asserts his relativistic view of the world (i.e. no “Absolutes”).

    If this is so, then it makes sense as to why Bizzell believes that the basic writer may not be able to think academically. If one’s worldview is constructed upon and understood through one’s dialect and if the basic writer is unable to discern Standard English (the preferred dialect for education), then the academic worldview; the worldview understood through Standard English will be foreign also. Perry’s understanding is to the degree that he believes the basic writers’ worldview and the academic worldview would be in conflict.

    Ultimately, Bizzell suggests that the basic writer will be more acutely aware that the requirements of tertiary education are different from any previously held notions due to the bigger immediate hurdle of overcoming the linguistic differences. Those linguistic or dialectical differences represent a greater distance between their home worldview and the academic worldview and consequently, the basic writer may feel that the academic worldview threatens their own, but because of the pre-eminent position Standard English has in academia and the workplace they may have a more accepting recognition for change.

    References:
    Bizzell, Patricia. 1986. What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication. 37(3): 294-301.

    Hudson, Richard. 2000. The Language Teacher and descriptive versus prescriptive norms: The educational context. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEhudson.htm
    (accessed October 13th, 2009)

    Pinker, Steven. 2008. The Language Instinct: The new Science of Language and Mind (Popular Penguins Edition). Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin Group (Australia).