Blog Entry #3

Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. 2002. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.” College Composition and Communication, 53.4, 594-630.


In their article “English Only and U.S. College Composition,” Horner and Trimbur examine the historical origins of the “tacit policy of English monolingualism” in the university curriculum (594). Their purpose is to question this policy and how it became so firmly rooted within the curriculum. They “argue that a tacit language policy of unidirectional English monolingualism has shaped the historical formation of U.S. writing instruction and continues to influence its theory and practice…” (594). They acknowledge that by neglecting to understand how this policy came into existence, it will “continue to exert a powerful influence on our teaching, writing programs, and our impact on U.S. culture” (595).

Horner and Trimbur reference the institutionalization of writing instruction in the modern university when the classical curriculum was replaced with “secular education in the vernacular” (595). This movement not only established the “required first-year course in written English,” but also “replaced the bilingualism of the classical curriculum with a unidirectional monolingualism” (595). Harvard played an important role in the movement toward monolingualism by moving away from “the classical curriculum’s predominantly oral and performative pedagogy,“ and replacing it with “an emphasis on such now standard literate practices as lectures and student production of written texts” (599). Evidence of this is seen in the Harvard Reports, which discourage oral practices and call for “[replacement] of the daily oral recitations in all classes with regular written exercises” (600).

Horner and Trimbur sum up “the settlement of the modern curriculum and the roles ascribed to English and other languages” within four beliefs that formed within the first two decades of the Modern Language Association:

“1. Learning the modern languages as living, spoken languages is held to be a nonintellectual, feminine activity.
2. The modern languages are represented not as living languages but as texts in an archive.
3. The study of modern languages figures unidirectionally, not as an end in itself but as a means to mastering English.
4. English in the U.S. is represented in geographical isolation from the other modern languages” (603-606).

They address the debate over the English-Only policy through “identifying the operation of reified notions of language and sociocultural identity [in arguments advocating English-Only], revealing that there are similar notions in arguments made against English-Only the policies and for the rights of first-year composition students,” and considering the arguments‘ implications (608). However, they state that this debate focuses “squarely within the confines of the United States” and they define the task to be completed as “developing an internationalist perspective capable of understanding the study and teaching of written English in relation to other languages and to the dynamics of globalization” (624).

I would recommend this article to anyone interested in understanding how and why the policy of English monolingualism became rooted in the U.S. college composition curriculum. Unless those within the field seek to understand the history, the policy will continue to dominate over writing instruction and the “opportunities for rethinking writing in the academy” will be difficult to achieve.