Students from different linguistic backgrounds may engage with the academic writing process in different ways. Our goal is to create an environment where these differences are valued, and our hope is that students will use English in the way that best meets their needs while also addressing assignment expectations.
As such, we attempt to alight our actions, services, and resources at the Writing Centre with the following principles:
An academic environment that consistently reflects each of these rights may still be an ideal rather than the reality; however, much like the authors cited in the statements above, we believe that academic institutions can work towards this environment by moving towards a more inclusive view of what counts as "good" or "correct" English (Horner et al., 2011, p. 307).
To work towards these goals together, we encourage students to embrace multiple forms of English in their writing rather than assuming that only one form of English can and should be used for all academic communication. Writing is complex, and the correct choice of words and grammatical structures will depend on who you are, what you want to say, and who you are communicating with (see Horner et al., 2011, p. 308; Sanchez-Martin, 2022, p. 276). However, although North American academic English remains a privileged form of communication in most university-level writing, this does not mean that this form of English is always "better" or more "correct" than all others.
Instead, at the Writing Centre, we encourage students to bring their own dialects or version of English to the academic conversation and we will ultimately support your autonomy as a writer rather than take away your own voice or make decisions for you.
We will also explain characteristics of North American academic writing and advise you on how to follow such conventions specific to your writing at RRU. If you would like to better understand why it's still important to learn about North American Academic English, this video explains our approach:
Similarly, the resources following the references below offer a more thorough discussion of the reasons that led us to our approach.
Image credit: Markus Winkler from Pixabay
References
Baker-Bell, A. (2020). We been knowin: Toward an antiracist language and literacy education. Journal of Language Literacy and Education, 16(1), 1-12, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1253929.pdf
CCCC Executive Committee. (2015). Principles for the postsecondary teaching of writing. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/postsecondarywriting
Committee on CCCC Language Statement. (2014). Students' right to their own language. College English. 36(6), 709-726. https://doi.org/10.2307/374965
Committee on Composing a CCCC Statement on Anti-Black Racism and Black Linguistic Justice. (2020). This ain’t another statement! This is a DEMAND for Black linguistic justice! https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/demand-for-black-linguistic-justice
Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J., & Trimbur, J. (2023). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English. 73(3), 303-313.
Inoue, A. (2014). Theorizing failure in US writing assessments. Research in the Teaching of English. 48(3), 330-352.
McArthur, T. (1987). The English languages? English Today. 3(3), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400013511
Sanchez-Martin, C. (2022). Beyond language difference in writing: Investigating complex and equitable language practices. In D.L. Driscoll, M. Heise, M.K. Steward, & M. Vetter (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing (Vol. 4), (pp. 269-280). Parlor Press.