In this piece, Lu sets out to reexamine Mina Shaughnessy’s Error’s and Expectations. Using recent theories which view language as inherently suspect, Lu critiques Shaughnessy’s concept of “linguistic innocence,” or “a policy which preempts teachers attention from the political dimensions of the linguistic choices their students make in their writing” (27). At stake is the writer’s connection to the written word; Shaughnessy does not properly account for the gap between academic and home discourse. As such, Shaughnessy unintentionally limits the writers ability to move freely between different discourses at will.
Lu addresses this blind spot in Shaughnessey’s work and the following pedagogical theories by drawing from poststructalist and Marxist understandings of language. She rejects the idea that meaning is essential and independent of language, opting instead for a Marxist and poststructuralist theories which see language as inherently fraught with meaning. On the second page of her essay, Lu describes how this theoretical frameworks will address and correct this oversight in Shaughnessy:
The legacy of Shaughnessy, I believe, is the set of tasks she maps out for composition teachers. To honor this legacy, we need to examine the pedagogical advice she gives in Errors and Expectations as tasks which point to the future– to what needs to be learned and done– rather than providing closure to our pedagogical inquiry.
Lu then looks closely at three of Shaughnessy’s responses to student’s writing, critiquing her grammatical corrections. Responses like these, Lu argues, prevent Shaughnessy from engaging in the political realities of her students’ lives and writings, and “have kept her from noticing her own privileging of academic discourse” (35). Shaughnessy views academic discourse as a universal ideal, capable of communicating the human truths without the influence of politics. Lu takes issues with this understanding, and I’m inclined to agree. She concludes by critiquing how Shaughnessy’s views have been taken up by E.D. Hirsch, arguing the two share an essentialist view of language. She ends by championing Shaughnessy’s overall project, but calls for a deeper understanding the ways in which the social and political lives of writers inform their writing. I find Lu’s piece a really thoughtful way to rethink an established pedagogical theory in light of linguistic and literary theories. I could see myself using Lu’s theories on the difference and unique values of both academic and home discourse in the classroom.
Comments
Hi, Sarah. Mina Shaughnessy’s work is still very important for the “on the ground” work of teaching basic writers. I’m glad you found Lu’s reexamination useful. I’ve always wondered how Shaughnessy herself might have revised her project as the field of composition studies became more widely informed by Marxist and post-structuralist views of language. You might think about exploring more of Lu’s work in your annotated bibliography.