Yesenia Garnica

Michael Lasley
English 1A
12th September 2016
CRL1
In The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition, Paul Kei
Matsuda summarizes the various attempts at addressing the linguistic differences among U.S.
college students as the number of international students and non native English speakers
attending college increase. Matsuda aims to emphasize the persisting myth of linguistic
homogeneity(Matsuda 638) and the assumption colleges have that all students are native
English speakers, thus causing second language students to be ignored and marked down.
However, he recognizes that not all linguistic containment is negative and that the practices
institutions have developed should not necessarily be removed since they create a support system
for these students.
In his essay, Matsuda initially emphasizes and explains the term unidirectional English
monolingualism(637) in order to direct the reader as he further explains the relation of this
concept to his overall claim. Unidirectional English monolingualism is defined as English
being used as the dominant language for all students to use as the linguistic differences increase
in the overall composition of U.S. students. The term is used to reinforce and introduce
Matsudas claim that though English is recognized as the dominant language, not all teachers
have adapted or been trained to teach non native English speakers which creates a barrier
between languages and expectations and perpetuates the myth.
Linguistic containment(641) is the term used to explain the myth of linguistic
homogeneity, since it perpetuates it by dismissing other languages and enforcing that dominant
English. Colleges have done this through placement tests and courses that have excluded these
students from the rest in an attempt to help them with English before sending them to the normal
English class. This containment has not been completely successful and as such, has been
reformed continuously by different colleges. The courses do not serve their purpose well since
the length of the class is too short for students to fully grasp the depth of a new language. Also,
the myth is further perpetuated by the linguistic containment since the students are being
excluded so the dominant English remains as the image of the composition of college students.
While U.S. Composition has maintained its ambivalent relationship with those weak
forms of language differences, it has been responding to the presence of stronger forms of
language differences-differences that affect students who did not grow up speaking privileged
varieties of English- not by adjusting its pedagogical practices systematically at the level of the
entire field but by regulating the responsibility of working with those differences to second
language specialists ( Matsuda 638, Composition;Shuck). I chose this quote because it does a
good job of making Matsudas point clear to me in this section. The contrast in how institutions
are dealing with the growing language differences is made clear here, in the sense that
systematically, schools are not attempting to reform their teaching methods but are rather
choosing to exclude students and leaving it to the specialists to teach the students English. The

contrast makes it seem as though the institutions should attempt to adjust their system as a whole
instead of just a small section.
One of the persisting elements of the dominant image of students in English studies is
the assumption that students are by default native speakers of privileged varieties of English
from the United States. Although the image of students as native speakers of privileged varieties
of English is seldom articulated or defended-an indication English-only is already taken for
granted-it does surface from time to time in the work of those who are otherwise knowledgeable
about issues of language and difference (Matsuda 639).This quote stood out to me because
Matsuda emphasizes the image of students in the United States, which seems to be an unspoken
of assumption. The fact that this image isnt recognized all too much is interesting to me since it
seems like the audience of the classes and institutions should be regularly discussed in order to
accommodate and find the best solution for increasingly diverse composition.
For a number of reasons, none of these reasons was able to contain language differences
completely: because language learning is a time consuming process; because students often come
with a wide range of English-language proficiency levels; and because developing placement
procedures that can account for language differences is not an easy task (Matsuda 648). I chose
this quote because Matsuda clearly points out the flaws in linguistic containment. I found his
reasons to be interesting, considering that though these flaws clearly exist, not a lot has been
done to fix it. For example, the fact that there are so many English language proficiency tests and
levels makes it difficult for schools to accurately teach students English, so it would make sense
to reform that method.