Clarifying the Multiple Dimensions of Monolingualism: Keeping Our Sights on Language Politics.

While we in composition studies may have grown more sensitive to and welcoming of cultural and linguistic differences in the classroom, we remain far from united in pursuits to combat explicitly in our pedagogies the politics of standardized English. To move toward linguistic justice, we call for unified intention and action across our field to explicitly combat the very monolingualist ideologies so many of us, no matter our good intentions, uphold and perpetuate in our classrooms and institutions. One issue preventing unified approaches in contesting monolingualist ideologies, as we see it, is that we do not forefront in our minds and our practices the material consequences of monolingualist ideology, nor have we come to a holistic consensus on the monolingualism paradigm. With this article, we hope to clarify just what it is we’re rejecting when we contest monolingualism, and, in so doing, be better prepared to combat more explicitly the harms of linguistic hierarchies. During the spring 2016 semester, Missy’s department at City College of New York, CUNY embraced her request to propose a new course outcome for the first-year composition curriculum that reflected current disciplinary theories for better attending to linguistic diversity. Missy, excited at the opportunity and determined to craft an outcome that would endure, sought the expertise of scholars participating in a Transnational Writing Group on Facebook. She asked for feedback from the group and offered one option of an outcome to consider: “Acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources, and draw on those resources to develop rhetorical sensibility.” While all responses from the group were helpful, one made her pause. Ligia Mihut shared the following outcome that her department at Barry University includes in its first-year-writing curriculum: “Students recognize the extent to which cultural standards, institutional practices, and values oppress, marginalize, alienate, or create/enhance privilege and power.” Missy was at once refreshed by the explicitness of this outcome and hesitant to move forward with it, or some version of it, as the outcome she proposed at City College. Fully endorsing the notions captured in the outcome and believing wholeheartedly that City College should be an institution leading the pursuit to approach linguistic diversity with utmost care, Missy pondered over her hesitance. She questioned whether her department and institution were ready for such explicit stances on the oppressive nature of standardized English. And she suspected her version of the outcome, which focused more on honoring diversity and honing rhetorical sensibility, would be more welcome and still a worthy step in the right direction, albeit modest and, admittedly, not fully capturing what the field has long known about the oppressive role of standardized English. We believe that this discrepancy—what Missy felt was truly needed and just given her pedagogical position to explicitly combat standard language ideologies versus what she believed was feasible given the dominance of English monolingualism that persists at City College and across US higher education—is representative of the current state of composition studies when it comes to dealing with the politics of linguistic diversity. While we in composition studies may have grown more sensitive to and welcoming of cultural and linguistic differences in the classroom, we remain far from united in pursuits to combat explicitly in our pedagogies the politics of standardized English. We struggle to detach from the powers of standard language ideology, so deeply engrained within our discipline and professional identities. While most writing teachers would readily agree that standardized English (hereafter *SE){1} will “create/enhance privilege and power,” many may still be more reluctant to proclaim and denounce how standard language ideology serves to “oppress, marginalize, alienate.” We miss out on important opportunities to combat monolingualist ideology when we focus only on cultivating in students a “rhetorical sensibility” and on fostering attitudes whereby students see “linguistic differences as resources,” as did Missy’s initial version of a course outcome. Inviting and celebrating language varieties is useful in confronting assumptions about tacit English-only policies (Horner and Trimbur) and in deconstructing the myth of linguistic homogeneity (Matsuda “Myth”). However, we hope to emphasize that inviting and including language differences in the classroom and in writing, in and of itself, is far from sufficient. On its own, over decades of use, inviting writing differences into composition classrooms might begin to dismantle and quiet the harms caused by monolingualist ideologies. While a steady pace toward adjusting centuries-long ideologies and rhetorical expectations is in order, if we are to have any real hope of combating the harms of linguistic hierarchies, we must further address students’ and our unchecked affinities for *SE, as well as our complicity with the material harms caused by our profession’s perpetuation of standard language ideology. Thus, to the extent that inviting language differences is the best vehicle in the field to unite the front against monolingualism, a focus on language difference in our research and teaching needs to be preceded by more explicit attention to how standardized languages have historically suppressed linguistic varieties and oppressed their users. Said simply, we believe we need to do more than acknowledge, invite, and honor the linguistic diversity in our classrooms; we must do more than help students understand how language works and how to negotiate their own interests and languages alongside standardized varieties and conventions. We must also, together and at last, confront the field’s distancing from, indeed resistance to, facing the material harms caused by the very monolingualist ideologies so many of us, no matter our good intentions, uphold and perpetuate in our classrooms and institutions. To move toward linguistic justice, we call for unified intention and action across our field to explicitly combat what we see as multiple facets of monolingualism. One issue preventing unified approaches in contesting monolingualist ideologies, as we see it, is that we do not forefront in our minds and our practices the material consequences of monolingualist ideology, nor have we come to a holistic consensus on the concept of monolingualism. With this article, we hope to clarify just what it is we’re rejecting when we combat the monolingual paradigm, and, in so doing, be better prepared to combat more explicitly the harms of linguistic hierarchies. In what follows, we first synthesize decades’ worth of scholarship that illustrates the harms caused by monolingualist ideology. Then, we parse out distinctions across four competing definitions of English monolingualism, which helps us not only to highlight monolingualism’s distinguishable strands but also to reveal that some uptakes of monolingualism may lead us to stray too far from attending to its material consequences, which harm speakers and writers and tarnish the ethical goals of our work as literacy and language professionals. Indeed, as we show, the uses and meanings of monolingualism are multiple and have thus not always been consistently or fully considered in composition scholarship. Following our discussion of monolingualism and its multiple dimensions, we conclude with practical classroom and administrative applications, including a proposed learning outcome that instructors and WPAs might consider adopting in order to work more explicitly against the harmful consequences of *SE in and beyond the composition classroom. Keeping Our Sights on Material Consequences We believe that building solidarity in tackling monolingualist ideologies is necessary as we move forward with teaching and research in today’s linguistically diverse classrooms and communities. Monolingualism is an ideological paradigm that restricts and actively works against language difference in multifaceted ways, as we’ll unpack further. However, before revealing the various strands of monolingualism we must all attend to, it is critical that we recall some of what we have learned in composition studies about the many material consequences they create. Monolingualism is an ideology of many violences at the microand macro-levels. At its worst, it can lead (and has historically led) to a silencing and even eradication of languages and varieties as well as brutal penalization of speakers of non-preferred languages. At their best, though still oppressive, monolingualist ideologies “devalue other languages and language varieties and by extension their speakers” (Richardson 109); monolingualist ideologies privilege a “linear, container-bound approach to writing” and overlook the power non-privileged genres and modes may afford speakers of other languages and varieties (Gonzalez; see also Shapiro). In the US, monolingualism has served the project of colonization and nation building, helping to identify the look and character of US insiderness and, hence, outsiderness, indicating divisions along lines of nation, race, and class (Canagarajah “Clarifying”; Horner “Introduction”; Horner and Trimbur; Lyons; Mangelsdorf; Pratt “Arts”; Trimbur; Villanueva). As Ellen Cushman puts it, “The primacy of English in composition studies and classrooms at its very heart maintains an imperialist legacy that dehumanizes everyone in different and differing ways” (236). In its insistence on a particular kind of English, monolingualism has complied with “the project of racism” (Winant 40; Inoue), working to continually marginalize and recolonize non-White, non-standard English speakers, marking their languages as deficient, their differences as error and incompetence (Lu “Redefining”; Richardson). Moreover, the varieties of English