As we already acknowledge that no text is autonomous. Various textual elements are influenced by a multitude of social and personal factors. The exploration of any text, therefore, is an exposure to the social and personal canvas it sketches and critiques. A critical consideration of this aspect of text will obviously lead to the conclusion that reading embodies social activity. David Bloom in his essay Reading as a Social Activity has demonstrated how reading incorporates and cultivates social context, cultural activity, and socio-cognitive development. To back up the drift of his argument, Bloom has drawn upon both empirical evidences and anecdotal circumstances in such a way as to convince the audience that what he proposes is near-universal regarding reading. But the potential pitfall of his argument lies in the fact that reading is a literate activity. Globally, people having access to reading are fewer than the number who don’t. As such, if reading is considered as a means of social connectivity and cohesiveness, it does not include all the people that constitute a society. Reading is, then, an asocial activity! Alarming yet, generally people who read, don’t create their own texts. They are compelled to study texts which are often times at odds with their social context as well as ideological affiliation. Reading is an imposition on the people who participate in that activity. Essentially, reading advances and sustains hegemony both social and cultural. I presume that reading as means of social consolidation is qualified until reading becomes a right accessible to everyone than a privilege available to a chosen few.

Historically, the U.S. has been a safe haven for the immigrants. It is by no means a country of heterogenous culture. Ostensibly, the cultural diversity is touted as the defining component of the U.S. cultural tradition. When it comes to education however, this apparent cultural diversity is neither acknowledged nor utilized to cater to the academic needs of minority students who constitute 20 percent of the total student population in the U.S. school system ( Fu & Matush, 2006). For example, the dominant approach to composition pedagogy which characterizes the U.S. academic system is still expressivist or personal identity approach (Johns,1999), which focuses exclusively on developing individual voice and identity, personal interests, and personal meaning making. Emperical evidence abound to indicate that the personal identity approach to composition pedagogy has not critically considered so as to draw upon the culture -specific way of learning prevalent among the minority students. Consquently, as far as academic achievement is concerned, the minority students lag behind relative to their While counterparts. Against this background, Johns (1999), proposes socioliterate approach to composition pedagogy which contends that the production of texts is a social activity. In order to appreciate a text fully, the collective social components (i.g., religion, culture, socioeconomic condition, political events) should be analyzed, unlike the expressivist approach to composition which only emphasizes development of individual voice. It seems to me a promising pedagogical approach to maximize learning outcome for the minority students in the U.S. provided that the following question is addressed:
The number of minority students is on the rise in the U.S. Integration of home culture into a standard curriculum is critical for their academic growth as such. But the number of minority teachers is on the decline. Then, does a different pedagogical approach such as socioliterate approach which effect any substantial change in learning outcome among the minority students when the studnets

One of the dichotomies that puzzles me the most in the U.S. academic culture is its emphasis on students’ development as independent thinkers, while it obligates students to conform to academic culture which is fraught with rules and restrictions. If (m)any student dares to transgress the normative of academic culture for academic convenience or intellectual urge, he/she is subject to charge of dishonesty. And, punishment, including expulsion from school, follows. One of the charges which is considered as the ultimate violation of academic integrity is plagiarism. According to Bloch, “The integration of previously published written texts into a new text is governed by a set of rules, the violation of which is called plagiarism. I would contend that this definition of plagiarism is qualified in that it has not considered critically the varying perception of plagiarism in different cultures. Obviously, plagiarism is a construct coined in the Western academia which has not reflected the Oriental realities with regard to the production and promotion of knowledge.
Pennycook (1996) seems to have been addressing the cultural dimension imbricated in the concept of plagiarism. As such, he has declined to consider plagiarism “as a simple black-and-while issue” (p.201). Surprising even, he establishes the fact with empirical evidence that the textual borrowing or the reproduction of ideas without acknowledging the source is inseparable from the humans’ history of intellectual development. He mentions that a great deal of the flourishing of Roman arts was based on the free imitation of Greek works. He also presents a list of plagiarists which includes Samuel Coleridge, Edger Allen Poe, Martine Luther King, Norman Miller, Alex Hailey and so on. This phenomenon, of course, leads to the question if plagiarism is at all a crime when some of the most creative thinkers of human history have done so to prove their intellectual ingenuity. I would propose that before we consider plagiarism as a crime, we must acknowledge that the development of knowledge is a gradual and consensual phenomenon, which surpasses the special and temporal boundaries to maintain a linear connection between past and present, so the future is sustained. And, of course, students should be allowed to take part in this act of intellectual tradition without being punished at least until plagiarism is clearly defined. The following question merits critical consideration while plagiarism is defined:

· In some cultures, memorizing written discourses is considered critical to one’s intellectual development; therefore, regurgitating memorized discourses is not considered as a crime in academia at all. When a student of this background comes to an academic culture which considers memorization as plagiarism, who should be in position of compromise—the student or the academia—to ensure his/her academic development?

Voice: Who is talking to and through you?

What are we talking about when we are talking about voice? Perhaps, we are talking about written discourses which demonstrate the views, values, and beliefs of a person so overly and assertively as to individuate him from others. Explicitly, this definition necessitates that the person separates, if not segregates, him from others to situate himself in a unique position of identity. I argue that is definition of voice is qualified as Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999) contends that writing is in some sense displaced and deficient speech. An extension to this argument presupposes that the projection of a personal voice through writing is partial, and, as such, writing both hides and obfuscates the person who is producing those written artifacts. This is, of course, not to mean that written discourses are characterized by their inability to represent voice. Voice is, in fact, what most people have in their speech, not in their writing (Ivanic and Camps, 2000).
And the reasons are obvious. Unlike speech, writing lacks both the phonetic and prosodic qualities of a language. Besides, some other components of language like gesture, posture, body movement, proximity, distance, and, above all, semiotics cannot be drawn upon as people write. As a result, writing essentially does not allow as much freedom of expression as does speech. It comes as no surprise, then, national, geographic, and social identity is often erased when people write (Ivanic and Camps, 2000). Then, I submit what is the rationale of academic endeavor to discover students’ voice from their written artifacts. As well as, voice is a cultural constructs which means different things to different cultures. Some oriental cultures believe that the suppression of individual voice and the endorsement of collective wisdom is written discourses is the normative imperative of academic endeavor, while the West emphasizes the strong expression of individual voice in written discourses. Given this varying concept of voice across cultures, the following question is of crucial importance:

· In a multilingual and multiethnic country like the U.S. what is the appropriate pedagogical approach to teach and study writing which will ensure the intellectual growth of students alike while embracing and incorporating the cultural notion of voice?

As Ulla Connor mentioned in her essay Changing Currents in Constractive Rhetoric: Implications Teaching and Research that the phrase was first coined by Robert Kaplan in 1966, we can assume that the term has some pedagogical import in that Kaplan was an applied linguist. Along with defining the term, Ulla has provided a background history as to how the term has evolved in the U.S over the last 30 year as well as how the term is applied in EFL context. What drew my attention was the comment that “Oriental languages prefer an indirect approach and come the point at the end” (P.223). I am persuaded to think that it is broad-brush generalization, for the Orient does not mean an individual country with homogeneous culture. Instead it’s a group of countries and each individual country has its own cultural conventions which are reflected in their oral and written discourses. This assumption sounds antithetical to her previous assertion in the same essay that different cultures have different rhetorical tendencies (p. 219). Then how could she lump all the oriental together to make such a broad base generalization?
Perhaps, it is against this background both Atkinson and Matsuda have proposed in their essay, A Conversation on Contrastive Rhetoric, that since the term ‘culture is so complex and fuzzy, it should be dropped out from this traditional phrase. They proposed the term ‘inter-rhetoric’ since they claim the intercultural rhetoric only focus on the texts for teaching and learning English. But texts are, as they claim, one of the social activities, it does not captures the whole scope of social activities. In each and every culture there are non-rhetorical activities which inform how people perceive and produce their discourses. If one attempts to come up with a pedagogical approach just by analyzing written discourses which show similarities and differences among different cultures, one will definitely by pass some of the most significant characteristics of individual cultures which shape the way how people define education and get educated. I would fairly disagree to consider Intercultural Rhetoric as a potent pedagogical approach to enhance ESL or EFL learning unless the following questions are addressed:
1. Does not a pedagogical approach premised on intercultural rhetoric presuppose the fact that we know about other cultures as much as our own culture? How valid is this assumption since culture is not a static phenomenon; instead , it is dynamic and evolves with the passage of time? Then what are the modalities we can apply to know other cultures so that everyone’s cultures is equally recognized and valued to inform a standard pedagogical approach for ESL or EFL context?

MY ESL AUTOBIOGRAPHY

MY ESL AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I often wonder when I began to learn English as a second language, and what or who triggered my interest in the language. I can’t remember the exact timeline when I was introduced to the language; I, however, do remember that my father, an English teacher, piqued my interest in the language. I would, therefore, safely deduce that I have a kind of congenial attachment to language which set me apart from majority of the English learners in my native country, Bangladesh. I did not have to resort to the grammar-translation method to learn English which is the most powerful paradigm to teach English in Bangladesh; instead, I picked up the language from the language which was available in our family thanks to my father. As I was growing up when my proficiency in English was being monitored and mentored by my father, I gradually became conscious of the importance of English to attain both academic enrichment and social status.
Being a third world country, Bangladesh considers education as a panacea to overcome its various social, economic and cultural vulnerabilities. And the concept of education revolves around English studies. Because I was familiar with English since my childhood, I had had uncommon advantages and privileges compared to my fellow colleagues to gain higher education as well as to get good job. So, for me the biggest reward for learning English is to have a privileged life in terms of honor, money and wisdom. I cannot remember if I ever received my punishment as far as my English education is concerned since my teacher was my father. He always encouraged me to learn English when he introduced English in a real life situation which is opposite to grammar-translation method. I strongly maintain that grammar-translation method is not the right way to teach English. Instead, communicative method which involves the speakers in real life situation to produce and comprehend language is the right way to teach English. As I envision myself a prospective teacher of English, I would follow communicative method of teaching English.
I often wonder when I began to learn English as a second language, and what or who triggered my interest in the language. I can’t remember the exact timeline when I was introduced to the language; I, however, do remember that my father, an English teacher, piqued my interest in the language. I would, therefore, safely deduce that I have a kind of congenial attachment to language which set me apart from majority of the English learners in my native country, Bangladesh. I did not have to resort to the grammar-translation method to learn English which is the most powerful paradigm to teach English in Bangladesh; instead, I picked up the language from the language which was available in our family thanks to my father. As I was growing up when my proficiency in English was being monitored and mentored by my father, I gradually became conscious of the importance of English to attain both academic enrichment and social status.
Being a third world country, Bangladesh considers education as a panacea to overcome its various social, economic and cultural vulnerabilities. And the concept of education revolves around English studies. Because I was familiar with English since my childhood, I had had uncommon advantages and privileges compared to my fellow colleagues to gain higher education as well as to get good job. So, for me the biggest reward for learning English is to have a privileged life in terms of honor, money and wisdom. I cannot remember if I ever received my punishment as far as my English education is concerned since my teacher was my father. He always encouraged me to learn English when he introduced English in a real life situation which is opposite to grammar-translation method. I strongly maintain that grammar-translation method is not the right way to teach English. Instead, communicative method which involves the speakers in real life situation to produce and comprehend language is the right way to teach English. As I envision myself a prospective teacher of English, I would follow communicative method of teaching English.

POSt -PROCESS POSTING


Are we really at a transition to proclaim that we are in post-process era in composition pedagogy? Paul K. Matsuda (2003) in his essay Process and post-process: A discursive history has categorically stated that the phrase post-process “is a misnomer, for it presupposes a certain conception of process and proclaims its end-after all, it literally means ‘after process’ (p.78). Having said that, Matsuda has cautioned not to ban the term either despite the fact that post- process movement is inadequate to capture the complexities of composition studies. It’s not, as he would claim, a complete pedagogical approach in and by itself to composition studies in that it is an extension on and dependent upon process movement to stimulate new ideas and approaches to composition studies. Mastuda has been able to present the history of the post-process movement in composition studies along with defining the term, mentioning some of the proponents of this movement. Throughout the essay, Matsuda has been also consistent in mentioning the impacts and implications of the post-process movement both in L1 and L2 settings. However, Massuda has not mentioned any empirical studies to point out that post-process movement in L2 settings is responsible for reduced learning outcome.
On the other hand, Dwight Atkinson (2003) in his essay L2 writing in post-process era: Introduction has defined the term rigorously along with bringing to the fore some of the shortcomings of process so as to validate the emergence and the incorporation of the post-process movement in composition studies. Atkinson claims that the term post-process first appears in John Trimber’s (1994) review essay Taking the Social Turn: Teaching Writing Post-process. Atkinson has explained the four fundamental tenets of post-process as they were originally mentioned by Trimber. One of the tenets of post-process pedagogy which I would think is a leap in composition studies is to consider composition as cultural activity. This tenet singularly explains and distinguishes the post-process movement from process movement. Process movement in composition studies emphasizes the production and the enhancement knowledge constructed by the learners where teachers work as collaborators or facilitators. It’s a very indirect and inductive process of knowledge construction which ultimately aims at self discovery. Drawing on Trimber, Atkinson has claimed that there’s a social turn to composition studies which factors the production of written artifacts by the students. As such, it is of utmost importance that composition pedagogy also considers seriously the social settings, cultural orientation, political affiliation, religious beliefs of students as they produce written artifacts. This is how writing becomes a social cognitive approach which is in fact post-process in composition studies. I would wonder how rational it is to validate post-process as reliable pedagogical approach to teach composition when social realities learners are to required reflect in their writings is often shaped and endorsed by corporate, sinister politicians, and fake ideologues.