Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur are arguing that the traditional approaches, used by U.S. teachers and scholars, of understanding (or lack of) and responding (or reducing) to language differences are inadequate. The traditional approach uses Standard English or Edited American English as the norm for writing and speaking. They acknowledge that most people speak more than one language or a variation of that language and that languages and variations spoken in the U.S. are a heterogeneous mixture with distinguishable parts. Furthermore the parts should be acknowledged and incorporated in a trans-lingual approach to writing. These distinguishable parts are variations of languages that intermingle and are constantly multiplying. To adhere to the traditional approach and filter out these “interference’s” s prolongs languages, that deviate from the norm, as a dividing barrier. These interference’s are stripped away by the traditional approach to convey a uniform and “clear” message. This filtered approach also strips away expressive, rhetorical, and communicative functions that the speaker or writer wished to convey.
The trans-lingual approach they are calling for requires teachers and scholars to create different methods to actually understand language differences and respond in ways that develop and utilize these differences.
This change will not happen over night and requires individuals who care and are willing to take the time and be patient and learn from students to cultivate differences and resist the easy , traditional, way out- implementing a standard for language.
I do not like the use of the word “treatment” . I understand that variations in language, are considered/ like a a type of social behavior, but using “treatment” implies there is a problem that needs to be managed or cured. There is a difference between variation and pathology when referring language. (They only used it once and referred to “conventional treatments” but still….)