Basic Writing and ESL composition have been criticized as pigeon-holing non-elite students, keeping them from advancing as quickly in academics, and making it more difficult for them to compete with the economically and politically  more advantaged social classes.  Historically, calls for “basic skills,” “Basic Writing,” and “English-only” have been in response to perceived threats by those in social and political power from upwardly mobile groups (Shor, “Our Apartheid,” Berlin, Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures, Horner, “The Birth of Basic Writing”).

The arguments criticizing the ideology behind Basic Writing and ESL composition claims that English composition theory assumes a context of a mythical monolingual “norm” in which English-only students are writing for English-only readers.  This norm, it is argued, simply doesn’t exist (Horner and Trimbur, in “Introduction:  Cross-Language Relations in Composition”).  “Regular” composition courses are separated from ESL and Basic Writing courses as well as any courses involving writing in other languages.  Students in Basic Writing and ESL writing courses are impeded from moving through college as quickly as their counterparts who jump right into college composition through passing various assessments which are designed with just their skills in mind (Shor, “Our Apartheid”).  The premise is that students must learn to imitate one specific form of English without which students will fail as citizens and as job seekers after college.  Implicit, and often explicit, is the notion that speaking languages other than English is a distraction, notable mainly for the possibility of interference with proper speaking and writing of English (Horner, “Introduction:  Cross-Language Relations in Composition”).  Furthermore, the Standard English of U.S. composition, based on western rhetorical traditions has been criticized as too narrow, unhelpful, or not valid for the majority of the English speakers of the world who come from different traditions.  As Helen Fox declares in Listening to the World, “the dominant communication style and world view of the U.S. university, variously known as ‘academic argument,’ ‘analytical writing,’ ‘critical thinking,’ or just plain ‘good writing,’ is based on assumptions and habits of mind that are derived from western—or more specifically U.S.—culture, and that this way of thinking and communicating is considered the most sophisticated, intelligent, and efficient by only a tiny fraction of the world’s peoples” (xxi).

Are these challenges to Basic Writing and ESL composition valid?   Should our notion of the English language widen beyond a static “target” that Basic Writers and ESL writers need to imitate?  Min-Zhan Lu posits that with the myriad variations of English used in the U.S. and the world today, it is more important for students to understand how to use and negotiate between these languages than it is for them to imitate one “target” language (“Living-English Work”). 

I propose a literature review of recent writings on linguistic diversity in the classroom and nonstandard “Englishes.”  If these criticisms of the ideological and pedagogical underpinnings of Basic Writing, and ESL composition hold, what should composition pedagogy and curriculum look like to meet the needs of these “non-standard” English writers? 

I would like to explore the idea that multilingualism and multiculturalism deserve a prominent place in composition in this country.  As Helen Fox says, “If faculty want to encourage a deeper, more meaningful multiculturalism, we need to recognize that many of our students have been brought up to think and express themselves very differently and that these ways are worthy of our attention and understanding.”  Horner chimes in with a similar theme:  “While the ‘globalization’ of English might seem to be bringing about a more monolingual world, in practice it has meant more of a ‘dispersal’ and fragmentation of English, leading to both more interlanguage contact and the establishment of more varieties of English” (Horner 572). 

In terms of preparing students for a postmodern world, don’t we have the responsibility to help them to communicate in this new world of greater interlanguage contact and greater varieties of English rather than training them to imitate a standardized, minority English?  Do we as composition teachers need to be translators of cultures as well as different types of writing (Xing Lu, “Rhetoric in Ancient China—Perceptions and Methodology”), helping students to negotiate different forms of English for different audiences and purposes (Horner)?  If basic skills courses were begun as a politically-motivated tactic of repression, does that premise negate that a certain set of basic language skills is in fact necessary to survive in the world outside of college?  What might these “basic skills” be?  Where do “linguistics of contact” fit in, focusing on “modes and zones of contact between dominant and dominated groups, between persons of different and multiple identities, speakers of different languages” (Pratt, in Horner).  What will the “globalization of composition” look like, following our globalized, post-modern reality?  What in fact are the best ways to familiarize students with these greater varieties of English?  If, in our post-modern, fragmented, decentralized, globally-connected world we need to move beyond calling on students to imitate one Standard English, what should composition pedagogy and curriculum look like?