Basic English or The Simple Language of Persons to the West

In her presentation on I.A. Richrds, Audrey explained the concept of Basic English. Richards and C.K. Ogden belived that communication and meaning could be simplified if the English language were restricted to 850 words. (If anyone is interested a list can be found at http://ogden.basic-english.org/words.html. Ogden's word list may be slightly different from Richards', but I am going to run with it!) To say that the list is basic in an understatement. On a side note, I find amusing that the concept is called Basic English, but the words 'basic' and 'English' are not on list. We would have to refer to it as 'The Simple Language Of Persons to the West' and hope that no one from another Eastern European, South American, or North American country takes offense and that New Zeland and Australia don't mind being ignored alltogether.
Whether this list is the one intended by Richards or not, the idea of only working with 850 words is limiting. I suppose there is creativity that can be found in the arragement of words, but I would still not want to read something so limited. Even with these limitations, I wondered how Basic Enlgish could be used in the teaching of grammar. Patrick Hartwell writes that "writers need to develop skills at two levels...the [second] broadly metalinguistic rather than linguistic, involves active manipulation of language with conscious attention to surface form" (579). In other words, a grasp of grammar and how to manipulate sentence structure is an important tool for a successful writer. One of the many tasks of the writing teacher, then, must be to help develop this ability. It may be possible to begin this process by using Basic English as a kind of dry run. We could teach students about the rules of grammar within a set of simple, easily understood words in order to achieve clarity as well as demonstrate language's ability to produce endless meanings with a finite number of words. Basic English could also be used with ESL students. Again, it may be easier for these students to learn English grammar using a more restricted English vocabulary. The idea of using Basic English with basic writers or ESL students does, of course, restrict the students' use of language at the outset. The question arises then, would we be doing more harm than good? In "Inventing the University," David Bartholome argues that students must find an entrance into academic discourse by bluffing: "To speak with authority they have to speak not only in another's voice but through another's code...they have to do it before they know what they are doing, before they have a project to participate in and before...they have anything to say" (622). Student's must, in other words, perform the linguistic equivalent of playing in your mother's high-heeled shoes. They must try on and experiment with the voice and authority of academia. Would, then, the use of Basic English restrict their ability to experiment? Or, is it more important to teach them the ability to use language before allowing them exposure to more complicated forms?

God(s), Truth, and Logic

In class this week, we discussed Whatley and his ideas on universal truth. Whatley believed that Truth exists, but is only accessible to God. Men will never reach universal truth, but will find much in the hunt for it. This theory reminded me of Vico's Tree of Wisdom theory. In this his theory, Vico posited that there are several types of knowledge: direct knowledge possessed by the Gods, indirect knowledge possessed by heroes, and wisdom possessed by humans. The comparison between the two ideas is not perfect, but they do share a common foundation: the idea that there is a universal/foundational/direct knowledge held by a higher being from which humans are excluded. It is the job of humans to work towards an approximation of that knowledge. Each theorists\ states that men use education to advance closer to that knowledge knowing that they will never truly arrive. What does this mean in terms of writing? Gordon Rohman describes writing as a "groping process which is really without end" (223) The idea that a writer is groping for something implies that the something already exists. It is there, waiting for the writer to discover it. The fact that the process is "without end" implies that the writer will never completely find what he is groping for. Admittedly, I am stretching Rohman's ideas somewhat, but it is still an interesting comparison. Just like Whately and Vico, Rohman's theory implies that the writer is groping toward an ultimate truth or idea that he will never truly find. Rohman also states that the act of groping is as equally important as the idea discovered. This is similar to a claim made by Whatley, who believes that "logic does not tell one 'how to find an ambiguity, but where to hunt for it'" (181). In other words, logic is the mechanism that helps the writer "grope' for his subject. He does not find it, but learns from the act of searching.

Making Connexions

In this Tuesday's class, Dr. Souder tasked us with creating connections between the mass of material we are reading in Norton and our presentation research. We are, in other words, being asked to invent. After all, is invention not the basis of the product/process problem that has dominated the last two hundred pages of Norton? Edward P.J. Corbett advances this idea in "The Topoi Revisited" stating that "it has been only since the shift of interest from the finished product to the generating process that many teachers of composition have developed a curiosity about how their students go about writing the papers that they are assigned to write" (44). The renewed focus on the product/process problem engendered an interest in empirical research. If composition is not a "nonrational" activity, then there must be a way to quantify what we can and should teach. This emphasis on research and the reproduction of results can be seen as an attempt to borrow some of the ethos shared by the scientific disciplines. David Foster writes that "experiments will test and correct hypotheses which, in turn, will form more truthful knowledge...finally, composition inquiry has adopted the scientific methodology that will allow it to make defensible truth-claims" (453). Because science is based on fact, composition studies will, in theory, carry more weight if they are conducted in a scientifis manner. Foster's claim that composition departments are attempting to form an identity by borrowing ethos from other disciplines echoes a similar claim made by William Riley Parker in regard to English departments. Parker stats that English departments absorbed speech "in the hope of gaining academic respectability" (14). This borrowing of ethos was done by both English and Composition departments in order to increase respectiblity. In the same article, Parker states that "'English' has never really defined itself as a discipline" (13). This claim is echoed by Foster, who states that composition "cannot claim clear title for a recognized name" (451). Thus, there are multiple connections between the essays that we read. Granted, if we read enough there are bound to be connections, but, I like to think that as writer, teachers, and potential scholars we "don't find meanings, [we] create them" (Flowers 467).