From TAMUCC Wiki

SGarza: Comment-QuestionFromCaleb2

"The fields institutional responsibilities to novice writers continue to expose it to every vibration in public expectations for the use of a nationalized written dialect, Edited American English. Yet it equally continues to adjust its practices to various specialized goals and cultural distractions, all of which challenge many of those public expectations about language instruction even as they create important new academic customs"...Miller makes this comment in regards to the always changing nature of composition studies. Miller also notes that composition studies have always called for traditional English, while asking for a very expressive and personal writing style. In this quote, and the context of this quote, it is apparent that composition studies acts as both a means to standardize language, and as a means for expression and change. If I were to guess, I'd say that composition studies helped to standardize the English language in the past, while it currently seems to question and pick apart standardized English as a cohesive national language. In this regard, it seems that composition studies is both a means to protect and uphold the dominant culture, while simultaneously working as an agent to enact cultural change and progression. I guess my question would be, Is composition studies a consolidating field, or a a field wrought with questioning and inclusion? Additionally, what elements of the academic world help make composition studies both a tool for the majority and minority cultures? I hope to learn more regarding these issues as we continue in this book, and this class.

Retrieved from
Page last modified on January 25, 2011, at 02:10 PM CST