College Composition & Communication - Volume 57, Issue 4, 2006

Contesting the monolingualist assumptions in composition, this article identifies textual and pedagogical spaces for World Englishes in academic writing. It presents code meshing as a strategy for merging local varieties with Standard Written English in a move toward gradually pluralizing academic writing and developing multilingual competence for transnational relationships.

Written words are laid out in space and exist on the page all at once, but a reader can only read a few words at a time. For readers, written words are trapped in the medium of time. So how can we best organize writing for readers? Traditional techniques of organization tend to stress the arrangement of parts in space and certain metadiscoursal techniques that compensate for the problem of time. In contrast, I’ll describe five ways to organize written language that harness or bind time. In effect, I’m exploring form as a source of energy. More broadly, I’m implying that our concept itself of “organization” is biased toward a picture of how objects are organized in space and neglects the story of how events are organized in time.

A materialist rhetoric in service learning is needed to teach students how to discover the arguments that already exist in the communities they wish to serve; analyze the effectiveness of those arguments; collaboratively produce viable alternatives with community partners; and assess the impact of their interventions. Through a discussion of a project that attempted but failed to increase parent involvement in Chicago’s public schools, this article shows why rhetorical production needs to be supported by the kind of rhetorical analysis that reveals how institutions exercise power. Materialist rhetoric challenges students, teachers, and community partners to write for social change and define change concretely, in terms of institutional practices or policies that they wish to influence.

Personal narrative embeds the expertise of subordinated groups in stories that seldom translate into public debate. The authors describe a community writing project in which welfare recipients used personal narratives to enter into the public record their tacit and frequently discounted knowledge. The research illustrates the difficulties and possibilities “rhetorical, emotional, and material” of constructing narratives that “cross publics.”

Published in the June 2005 issue, Richard Fulkerson’s “Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century” brought comments from several readers. In the spirit of this free-wheeling discussion reminiscent of rather lengthy letters to the Editor, these appear as submitted, virtually all of their rambunctiousness intact (with the exception of customary yet spare copyediting). Following these is a response by Professor Fulkerson. If your own copy of the June 2005 issue isn’t handy, Fulkerson’s article can also be found on CCC Online (www.inventio.us/ccc).

In preparing Suzanne Bordelon’s article for the February issue of CCC, the editorially unthinkable happened: An earlier version of her fine article replaced the final, wellrevised version as it went to the printer. In addition to my profuse apologies to Professor Bordelon, I have decided to publish the correct version of the article, delaying until September my publication of Janet Eldred’s review essay of several books on technology. The silver lining, in this instance, is a teachable moment, a rare glimpse for readers of CCC into an accountable but ultimately human (and I hope humane) editorial process: Bordelon’s article, quite good to begin with, was judged an “accept with revisions,” and she revised the article extensively and well, passing muster with a final read by one of the first reviewers and me.