This class has taught me that rhetoric wasn’t taught to me as rhetoric. I’m so used to writing by standard English that rhetoric is an afterthought. Before this class I never thought about the audience or genre. It never crossed my mind that the expectation of writing well was following the set standard of English. I didn’t think that there was a linguistic hierarchy. I didn’t know it was used to oppress other languages as well. Writing has become so mechanical that all writing is essay writing and not storytelling.

While reading I can’t recall thinking about rhetoric, but now that I understand how rhetoric is used and how to observe genre, audience, and urgency.

With this newer knowledge of rhetoric, I think my writing style has changed a bit more. Since my focus has shifted away from grammar and more towards the message going out, I think my style is more casual like Amy Tan. I’d say now my written English is a mix of standard and conversational English.

The first essay felt easiest to write, since it was about me and language. I’ve written about the topic before for anthropology. If I were to rewrite the essay at the end of the semester, I think there would be a different understanding of the power of the languages that I know and how that power translates through me. Not to mention how these ideas of rhetoric can be applied to the other languages I know. I know I reflected a bit on the social status of what picking different foreign languages did in my school. However, I could have expanded on how that reflects when I speak in public places and interact with other people. Especially, since I traveled to Japan and had to speak Japanese.

Similar to the language narrative, I was familiar with interviews and writing reflections, but I never thought if the process like oral history. There is a difference because oral history is closer to preserving culture and storytelling, but I wouldn’t notice that difference without rhetoric and questions surrounding heritage. I also hadn’t thought of using oral histories as a primary source for a research paper. If I were to add to my paper, I would add more about the idea of oral history and then outline more of the cultural differences between me and my mom. I would have also asked my mom more questions that targeted pop-culture, like foods, clothing, and the activities she would do with friends. Then compared them to how those things have changed or stayed the same between us. Not to mention more about high school life which I would imagine is vastly different.

As for the research paper, that was one of the most challenging subjects I’ve had to write about. I find writing about the functions of English to be a polar end of topics to write about. Writing and thinking about the functions of theory is so much harder than talking about the content that comes from the theories. Due to this difference in topic, I found choosing a topic to be difficult. Using English as a form of re-education is a topic that I’ve learned in several humanities classes so applying the topic to rhetoric was intriguing. I got to further understand the use language hierarchy and the importance of accepting other English in academia. Not sure how much I would change about the paper since it was recently written. There is more to be investigated with how students feel after writing in their English. There is also so much to debate within standard English as well, again hard not to speak on the content of the power of standard English. I read them better partially because I understood the goals of their messages. Researching rhetoric was also new to me. Again, focusing on theory and reading about it to use in my paper felt more challenging than finding previous peer reviewed papers.

The last time that I participated in a class that had peer review the conversations didn’t involve rhetoric it was all content. And when it wasn’t content it was grammar. Having those two options didn’t leave room for engaging certain audiences or adding personal language to the papers. At my previous college, writing was at the center of all education and the expectation for each student was very high, it never occurred to me that what that looks like is flexible to change. I also never questioned it either. Now I think I question the use of language more to understand who the message is for. I also haven’t written a self-reflection in a while. This again feels challenging because I feel the need to critique and say what could have gone better because I’m so used to doing that for lab conclusions. Reflecting on growth isn’t easy either, because I am not aware of how I’ve changed, but its probable that its happened.  

Overall, my understanding and practice of rhetoric got much better by the last essay. I see writing for academia in a much different light after understanding the bias of standard English. Since writing has been so mechanical and reading similar it’ll be different now understanding rhetoric. Neither writing nor reading has to be so ridged and won’t always have the same audience and urgency. I’ve noticed that in other classes readings take a more personal and emotional approach that I wouldn’t have noticed before.

The research paper was most challenging, I’ve never written about rhetoric. It was challenging to find research papers that mention rhetoric for my essay. It was nice that the topics were only limited to the past readings. If there were more reading to chose from that would have been nice too. Overall a good assignment.

The use of standard English has been historically used to colonize and support white supremacy. It was used to re-educate Indigenous people in America and it still used to correct accents in non-native English speakers. In the span of those three hundred years the US spread English through Manifest Destiny. Claiming that cultures outside of western ideologies are wrong and by assimilating you will be less wrong, but never one hundred percent right. Language is more than communication; language is deeply rooted in culture as well. More than that, language depicts how you view the world. By teaching English to other communities and telling them they’re language and ways are wrong we are instilling white supremacy through standard English. Despite this many communities have created their own hybridization of English. However, the expectations of standard English imposed by society and instilled in the education system erase other dialects of English. This erasure of the dialects furthers the idea that standard English is not only better but a requirement to be respects and taken seriously. Inclusion of variations of English break down the barriers of white supremacy allowing more people into the conversation. Rhetoric from minority authors share a different perspective on their lived experiences and perspective that alter the mold of standard English.

While Tan’s essay saw the cup half full Gloria Anzaldua in How to Tame a Wild Tongue had a different perspective during her childhood speaking Spanish and English as a Mexican-American. She was physically punished in school for speaking Spanish but was also socially punished for speaking the wrong dialect of Spanish. Anzaldua was also told “you’re speaking the oppressor’s language by speaking English, you’re ruining the Spanish language,” and thus when you can’t choose a side you create your own language (p.55). Each time these mixed languages are created they’re done so to fit different audiences. The use of tones and pronunciation and vocabulary create the division of the language. 

In Amy Tan’s Mother Tongue, Tan shares how her Chinese mother’s version of English was never incoherent to her, but to an outsider it was. Tan was embarrassed and “limited” her perception of her. Tan grew up in the US, so her perception of her mother is how many people view imperfect English. That Tan’s mothers “English reflected the quality of what she had to say” and from that “her thoughts were imperfect” too. Judging people by the quality of their English is used too often to dictate how they should then be treated. Tan goes on to explain numerous situations where she would act as a translator because her mother alone couldn’t get simple answers.Tan uses casual language to express her personal feelings about her mother and English to how society sees her mothers English. Despite these obstacles Tan also expresses how this familial English is intimate and that this English is for them. Her lack of analogies, metaphors, and complex vocabulary ensure that anyone would be able to understand her story. Not only that, it’s through her use of language that this essay is very personal, relatable and almost conversational. Through this use of language it keeps the tone positive without shaming society for how it has treated her mother. This essay concluded with Tan wanting to write for her mother which casts a wider net for speakers of other Englishes.

Choi, a CUNY English professor gives her opinion on the importance of moving away from standard English so that her student don’t need to assimilate to standard English in Multiplicities of English and the Specter of Colonialism in the Composition Classroom. The expectation for students who may not be native English speakers to change for standard English would uphold a linguistic hierarchy. Allowing other English dismantles the need for standard English which is one of the better ways for education to “decolonize”. It’s important to note, in a separate article Decolonization is not a Metaphor by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang that letting people of color write how they want in higher academia is more significant that changing curriculum to be more “diverse”. That using a world like decolonize loses its meaning and doesn’t actually do what it means anymore. However, Amy Tan’s use of her own English does the job of decolonizing without parading the word or motive around. Choi brings in Amy Tan’s Mother Tongue to further illustrate that writers don’t to “conform to standard English”. Choi then praises Tan for “knowing your audience and making choices that are rhetorically suited to them,” because engaging your audience is more important than proving you can write in standard English.

From these ideas of preservation of home language and distancing from standard English is Langston Hughes poem Theme for English B. This poem is set up to be like a school assignment and its through this that Hughes expresses how he’s no different from a white student. The rhetoric he uses is not complex nor fits standard English, but he uses what Baldwin would call black English to describe his life in Harlem. By using this style of writing in poetry its illustrates a more personal side to the author and his perspective on the world and how he decides to use English. Since poetry is an art the ways to use language are not as strict and there is more room for interpretations and uses. By using the kind of language, one could use with a friend its bringing the audience to a more personal level of his life. If he had used a more standardized approach the meaning of the poem would change because the linguistic perspective would change. Baldwin would probably say that standard English would make the poem less black. This rhetoric through poetry further normalizes Black English and will appeal to a wider audience.

If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is? By James Baldwin, exemplifies this topic of non-standard English directly by delving into how Black a dialect of is English due to it’s purpose of creation, vocabulary, and expression. Baldwin’s message is very similar Tan’s, but distinct differences. Baldwin is using standard English to express his message and with such a dominant kind of English his message is assertive and direct. Through standard English his story is less personal and his audience is targeted at others who use standard English. Baldwin’s audience was for the elite and educated while Amy’s was for a more general audience who does not need to be in academia to understand her work.

Frantz Fanon and Baldwin’s express similar messages but from different perspectives. Baldwin expresses through complex sentence structure that it is white American’s who are only willing to educate black people when it serves them. But also says the child enters “limbo in which he will no longer be black, and in which he know that he can never become white,” and from this there is a loss of black children. By erasure of black English and replacing it with standard English the black perspective of the world is gone. However, Fanon, in Black Skin White Masks, says that there is “self-division” to speak in literal black and white. He also says that a black man can do everything to speak and be “almost white,” but he also “betrays himself in his speech.” Fanon takes the colonization of race and language to different places than Baldwin, but their messages are direct, slightly negative, and for an educated audience.

            Through use of personification Paul Laurence Dunbar gives the audience the perspective of a tree in The Haunted Oak. This tree as the titles says is haunted, haunted by the brutality that it has witness. Dunbar has created this artistic scene to depict a lynching of a black man a life that isn’t valued by others. The language used is not distinct of any race, its constructed to illustrate the events taken place. If Dunbar had used a less formal use of language from the trees perspective maybe it wouldn’t be taken as seriously. Dunbar’s use of language engages a wide variety of readers, so they can all also witness what this tree has seen.

Since poetry is more of an art it is not contrained by standard English and it can use Englishes to convey feelings and stories. Essays have more set expectation to them due to standard English. Yet, more can come from essays due to their straightforwardness and length. And the use of other Englishes can be more outstanding in essay from due to the history of using standard English. When poetry uses casual English, it doesn’t appear as such a stark difference depending on subject. Poetry allows more to be done to the language to get a message across, but essays can target a more specific audience.

From understanding how standardized English has shaped perspectives that perpetuate white supremacy and white perspective of the world it is not only important but makes sense for a modern world to step away from using standardized English. Choi, the English professor, mentions how diverse her classroom is and that this diversity is the new normal and therefore the rhetoric and language used should be different from standardized English. As Tan, Baldwin, and Hughes expressed through their works that their Englishes should not be overlooked, but should be equivalently respected to standard English. From Tan’s perspective it’s that the other Englishes shouldn’t be lesser than standardized English. From Baldwin and Fanon’s perspective other dialects of English are important to a person’s identity, because the way they speak is their perspective of the world. Therefore, a black person will never be able to be understood if standardized English is used and when standardized English is used you overrule a persons identity and perspective. Overall, English has very little use of keeping standard English because there are so many people who have their own English which makes stories more personable to have them written in the author’s own English and this use of rhetoric is important to creating the audience that you want your message to go to.

2012 – Decolonization is Not a Metaphor

Longmore, Paul K. “‘They … Speak Better English Than the English Do’: Colonialism and the Origins of National Linguistic Standardization in America.” Early American Literature, vol. 40, no. 2, June 2005, pp. 279–314. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1353/eal.2005.0038.

Anzaldúa, Gloria. (1987). How to Tame a Wild Tongue. In her Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, pp.53-64. https://english.washington.edu/sites/english/files/documents/ewp/teaching_resources/anzaldua_how_to_tame_a_wild_tongue.pdf

Baldwin, James. If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is? Archive NYTimes. 29 July, 1979.

Choi, Christine. “Multiplicities of English and the Specter of Colonialism in the Composition Classroom.” Victorian Studies, vol. 64, no. 2, Wntr 2022, pp. 276+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A718117249/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=cf37a274. Accessed 16 Apr. 2024.

Dunbar, Paul L. The Haunted Oak. Poetry Foundation.

Fanon, Frantz. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. “The Negro & Language”, pp. 8-27.London: Pluto Press.

Hughes, Langston. Theme for English B.

Tan, Amy. Mother Tongue.

This was an interesting assignment. It was fun to interview a family member and to have them be apart of the assignment. I liked chatting about their life and learning things I didn’t know before, even though we’re a close family. I do, however, think that we should’ve been aloud to interview any person we know or a stranger if they’re willing. I don’t think I really explained to my family member where her information was really going or who would be reading it. But it wasn’t a deep interview, so I guess it’s fine. I think the writing prompt for the interview was good too. Its nice to do a compare and contrast to a family members life. It was also nice to hear other peoples interviews. The interview could have gone on a lot longer than ten minutes, but transcribing more than ten minutes would have taken a lot of time out of the assignment. Overall, I was better than I expected.

For this oral history I interviewed my mother. My mother grew up in New York. She had two parents and two siblings, she’s the eldest. Their dad worked in the music business and their mother was a stay-at-home mother. They had full time help, so the burden of being another parent wasn’t a job my mom had to do. On my grandmother’s side, our family lived in New York City a generation or so prior, and my grandfather was a first-generation Italian American. My family is Jewish, but they weren’t very religious.

            In this interview we spoke about the family dynamic that she grew up around. We also discussed the travel her family did together. We talked a bit about how her family didn’t spend a lot of time together. I learned a lot about the early relationship she had with both her parents.

            Even though my mom grew up in the traditional white picket fence house with a nuclear family the relations she had with her siblings and parents weren’t as cookie cutter as I expected. Since her father didn’t work an office job it led to a different kind of life for my mother. As for her mother, it wasn’t clear what she did during the day, but she didn’t work, nor did she take care of the children. A big part of my mother’s life was being raised by nannies from various countries. From this lack of structure in her life she felt lost amongst her family. This family structure was isolating and left my mother unheard.

Before this interview I knew our family is different and modern, but hearing how my mother grew up illustrates how different families are now. Growing up with a single parent wasn’t acceptable or ideal when my mother was growing up, but now it’s more common. As for how my childhood was. Growing up as an only child is so different than what people with siblings have. I’ve always been noted as a person who doesn’t have siblings. That’s one cultural aspect that hasn’t changed.

My mother didn’t entertain like her parents did and my mother never put me in an environment where adults were drinking or smoking. The culture I grew up in was also much different than how she grew up. My mother worked a daily job, so it wasn’t as diverse as working in the music business like her dad. My mother wished her family was more religious, so we went to temple a few times, but it was too traditional, and we didn’t fit in. Despite that I was bat mitzvahed which is relatively new. Women weren’t bat mitzvahed as frequently when my mother was growing up.

The relationship I have with my mother is completely different from how she grew up. Since our family is just us, I was able to be close to my mother and have rely on her to be an emotional outlet. My mom was always attentive my needs even if she wasn’t there. Despite her having to work full time, it never felt like she was gone for long. My mother has always cared about my input on decision making and what activities we do together.

As for growing up in New York City. My mom and I both traveled around a lot with friends for dinner and activities. The city has probably changed most in comparison to our lives.

In conclusion, the expectations of family shaped my mother’s childhood more than she probably realized and if she didn’t have those expectations her family life might have been better. Our family now has more freedom and much less expectation that most. Our closeness shows how much spending time together strengthens family.

Me: So this interview is supposed to gather information about your childhood and New York during your childhood and Ill use that information to compare it to my childhood. I don’t have specific questions you can just tell me about family life..

*I started by talking about going to restaurants *

Mom: we had some special ny kinds of experiences that are things I remember dearly and now its super common to have second houses, ski and go out to eat. We had a second home in Vermont … skiing was a small aspect to why we chose Vermont.

Me: I didn’t know skiing was a family event.

Mom: grandpa loved it, you know he was a roller-skater

Me: I didn’t know that

Mom: grandma was lame she always had to have the best of everything and have a private lesson. She was just unable to do anything physical even back then .

Me: so where were you and your siblings?

Mom: it was Jane and I at the time John wasn’t born yet. We’d just be skiing in a group lesson or I would ski with grandpa. We had walkmans back then so I’d listen to that while going down.

Me: was it relaxing?

Mom: I was always frightened I would fall… I think I let the fear get in the way. The layers were a hassle. My boots always hurt. It was always tedious.

Me: what was the clientele like?

Mom: well we stayed at a lodge… I don’t remember meeting many people. You have to remember grandpa was in the music business, so we were always in rooms with people of color.  It didn’t mean anything…

Me: you were more culturally aware been at the time and that was normalized for you.

Mom: absolutely.. I mean there was pot and alcohol… my parents weren’t alcoholics but they’d have a cocktail when they came home.

Me: yeah that’s not an environment that people put there kids in anymore

Mom: you have to remember we had domestic help of all nationalities. We embraced it.

Me: so you weren’t closeted to the suburbs.

Mom: we left the suburbs. To Forest Hill It was very white upper middle class..

Me: but you didn’t live in a Jewish neighborhood.

Mom: yeah, we did. There were synagogues on every corner.

Me: oh okay

Mom: everyone in my high school year book wore chai’s

Me: oh I didn’t know that … I figured you were more in the Italian side.

Mom: No, forest hills was Jewish at the time

Me: did you feel you had a split in your identity of Italianess and Jewishness?

Mom: no, I wish I had more Italian. My father had no allegiance to his family his upbringing his heritage. Nothing

Me: yeah I can tell. It’s kind of nice though to embrace something new. You wish he did. Food wise or religion wise like what kind of connection did you want… did you want a house in Italy or to go to Italy.

Mom: I wish I had known more about my grandparents and great-grandparents and about the country… I mean we had no religion. My parents were non religious.

Me: Until uncle John cus he was bar mitzvahed.

Mom: well but my parents were divorced by then and my mom did the best she could to do that for him. But my parents never went to synagogue.

Me: Then why move to a Jewish neighborhood?

Mom: Well it was a nice place and grandpa could walk to the train and commute to the city and back… at one point they thought about staying in Long Island but the commute would be too far

Me: So what did you do everyday? You stayed in queens?

Mom: I went to school and I got a job at 15. I would work after school. It was hard. My mom didn’t have much of a structure for us. Sort of not in the nurturing guiding kind of environment… my mother was never part of our school. She did nothing. I don’t rememeber much. It was hard.

Me: were you with jane all the time were you paired?

Mom: jane was much younger. She was a different kind of kid. Not volatile. She was emotional.

Me: she was a middle child.

Mom: she was disorganized. We shared a room. We had bunkbeds. It was tough going to school and getting up. A domestic always did it all. My mom got us matching outfits once and the wool was so itchy.

Me: but she [their mom] didn’t care.

Mom: she was just unaware. Wasn’t sensitive. She had a tough time, my father wasn’t an easy guy.

Me: but other than that, it’s a very different life than people have now.

Mom: well no social media. But me and my friend would travel and hangout just like you do.

Me: so its like the same.

The prompt was fine, its nothing new. However, I understand it’s something everyone can relate to. I was only able to relate to the assignment because I took a foreign language. The length was good I think too much information can make the story drone on. What I liked about the assignment was that it opinion based and from my perspective. I also liked reflecting on this time and creating imagery from a fond memory.

English may be my native language, but it is not my strongest suit. This made choosing my high school foreign language huge. First, it was the first time I got to decide about my education. Second, the language I choose will reflect how colleges assess me as well as my peers.

            In school, I felt that the language chosen now represents a part of yourself. Not only that it’s the first time that everyone in the grade is segregated by a chosen class. There was an unspoken hierarchy and stereotypes to the languages offered. In my school, we had Latin, French, Spanish, Japanese, and Mandarin. French and Spanish students not much to be said which speaks for itself. Latin students were the ones who were only taking it because it could help with the SAT or because they liked the teacher. Mandarin students had the loudest stereotypes. They were honors students, or they wanted to go into business overseas like their parents. They were cool because Mandarin is cool. I should also mention that the honors kids in my school were the coolest kids. Many of them were also varsity athletes, they did it all. As for Japanese, it was a quiet class. I didn’t even know we had it as an option. Not much is said for the students who take it, that I’ve heard of. Though through the rotation it was often contested against Mandarin over which is more difficult.

            Latin was all rules and conjugation I wouldn’t have been able to keep up with them all. Not only that, the expectation was quite high considering the other students were also honors level but quieter. I was optimistic I could reanimate Latin to a living language. Wasn’t meant to be.

            I used to aspire to speak French but sitting in that class had me thinking otherwise. I soon noticed I couldn’t separate the pronunciation of the alphabet from English to French. That wasn’t the only issue I observed, the French teachers didn’t have the best reputation. So French was eliminated.

            Spanish was the worst. I knew going into it that I wouldn’t choose it. People already assume I speak Spanish and I refuse to fall into their narrative. Therefore, I refuse to speak it. From this, I’ve given myself a mental block on the language. The saying if you can think it, you can do it. Turns out it also works in reverse. Not only did I not want to follow the herd and become what people assumed. I faced the same issue of not being able to separate the English pronunciation from the Spanish alphabet. Spanish was by far my worst grade and least enjoyable time. Not only that but the Spanish teachers have their own thing going on. They’re most abundant and each one is so different it’s like a lottery on who you’ll have, and I didn’t like my odds.

            The social status of taking Mandarin affected me more than I realized at the time. I wanted to take Mandarin. I wanted to run with the big dogs. I felt assured by my grades that I would pick it. The best part of Mandarin is they use characters for their written language, so they don’t technically have an alphabet. They do also use pin yin which is the pronunciation of characters. It may use the same alphabet as English but it’s so different that I didn’t notice overlap. The only part that tricked me up was the strict rules of stroke order. Characters must be written in order always. No way around it the strokes never lie. The basic phrases were the best to learn. Everyone who goes through the Mandarin rotation uses the phrases even if they don’t pick the language. Nihao (hello). Nihao ma (hi how are you). Wo hen hao nine (good and you)? Bu hao (not good). Unfortunately, I wasn’t interested in the culture. At this time C-Drama wasn’t on my radar and if it was, I probably would have picked Mandarin.

            My direction changed when I got to Japanese. It was the last in my rotation. The classroom was tucked away almost hidden. The walls were covered with traditional art, baseball players, and pictures of Japan. The teacher wasn’t a native speaker, his family was military, he went to the American school in Japan. We jumped in immediately to the alphabet and vocabulary. It was so different from any other language offered. The distinct alphabets created a clear separation from English with no cross-contamination. I latched on quickly to the language. From there, we were tested in class and rewarded with Hichew candy. All the kids talked about the candy you get in Japanese. Mandarin now had strong competition.

            At the end of the day, the final word of advice for choosing a language was to go by grade. That grade difference was what led me to Japanese…and the candy. My fate was sealed once I chose Japanese. I was no longer going to be a part of the It crowd. I wouldn’t be able to show off how arduous my foreign language was to learn. However, it occurred to me how limited Japanese is in high schools and that made me feel special.

Even though Japanese has its own rules, they came more naturally than English. I was also able to delve into the culture more easily than the other languages due to the popularity of Japanese culture at the time. Not to mention people are always surprised I speak Japanese. I can’t stop the assumptions that others make of me, but I can confuse the hell out of them.

I would also like to note that I did take Mandarin later in life and I can now say that Japanese is harder.

Welcome to CUNY Academic Commons. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!