In grad school, I took a Sociolinguistics class and a Pedagogy of Spoken English course with a professor that lectured off slides that mentioned 'studies' that had no relevance to our future teaching, it was also unclear how we could use the text heavy slides for our teaching, nor was there any relevance or practical use to the 'theories' mentioned. Having received my BA in anthropology, and sociolinguistics being a sub-field of anthropology, and having navigated most of my life either translating English to Arabic or Arabic to English, I did not find focusing heavily on grammar forms, for instance, how to strictly use present progressive, a useful or practical life skill--because naturally as one learns a language and puts that language in to use by 'interacting' the rules of how to use 'language forms' are naturally picked up, and negotiated depending on the social context, and the interlocutor's feedback, too . To illustrate my point, when I lived in Yemen for 9 months my Arabic was broken--when I spoke I could put phrases together sometimes my tenses were off, and to improve my Arabic fluency speaking skills, I relied heavily on my interlocuters (like my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins) who I was speaking to in a safe and supportive environment, not high stakes testing social context)  to repair my 'grammar mistakes' this accelerated my speaking fluency, and I think this lived experience has implications for how we conduct our classrooms when teaching English, too. Which brings me back to my second point.

When we speak, we go back and forth between different tenses to narrate our daily habits, and if our instruction is to model real-life interactions, we need to create the scenario (social context) in which we strictly use that specified tense or tenses, right? When do we ever only rely on the present progressive to convey a message? In English, the most commonly used tense is present simple, followed by past simple, and present perfect--this reflects natural discourse; thus, we must be intentional and ask, in what social setting or necessary lived experience will I need to know how to use XYZ language forms that reflect an actual natural discourse pattern? This is the question ALL English instructors should be asking in order to make use of the language forms our students will need to grant them access --because lets be real--and I have witnessed this in action (English Language Learners are undermined for their incapacity to speak the elite English forms)--so it is my goal to not waste my students' time and actually provide them with the kind of English practice that will get them the access they need to navigate their social spaces--like how to use assertive language forms to advocate for yourself when navigating  spaces (like in academia, in the social county services office, the doctor's office, the teachers office, too) filled with power imbalances. 

Focusing only on grammar forms (linguistic structures) is not ENOUGH- I have observed through my own volunteer service, and discussions with both students in and out of the academic setting, they need to make-meaning and use of the language forms for real social situations, otherwise we are doing our ESL students a disservice because we are not providing opportunities that reflect what they need English for. Why are we not creating authentic meaning-focused situations for English Language Learners (where the use of English is used to advocate for themselves)- for example, like at the doctor's office or in court? (where English is not fully accessible because it is presented in one uniform dialect and translated in one Spanish dialect that is not mutually understood by all Spanish speakers) making it very hard for Spanish speakers of distinct dialects to understand the 'standard Spanish forms). Same goes for Arabic speakers, too. This is the dilemma that is absent from our conversations about language --language is complex and political, too! 

How you use language says something about you--your class, your gender, your social positioning, too.  Yet we only value and practice one kind of dialect and language form in our language courses--the elite English--which is not easily accessible like in the real world to ALL peoples--it is only accessible to the elite class. 

How is all your 'research' and 'jargon' being translated to the general public? Often times, 'researchers' cannot or do not successfully summarize the implications of their own 'study' in simple and clear terms to their academic audiences-how do you expect the general public (that is, if your granting them(the public) access to your study which lets be real--most of the 'knowledge' being produced in higher ed is gate kept)  to understand the significance of your 'study' if you, yourself cannot explain its significance--these are legit questions to ask--don't you think? 

A perfect illustration to my observation about not valuing different dialects, being bilingual or multilingual (speaking more than one language and understanding more than one dialect) other than the mainstream standard dialect or language forms (American): many of my ESL students served as translators for the US Government in exchange for US asylum or (SIV) Special Immigration Visa and when they were solicited for their services in their native countries by the US Army--they (the US Army) did not search for let's say, an Afghani who speaks a Standard Dialect --they employed speakers who spoke and understood more than one dialect, the dialect of the geographic region or distinctive regions, which is in U.S. equivalence to a form of American slang here with an accent (which lets be real here, Americans discriminate and have prejudice against anyone who does not speak the standard dialect with an American accent) that is unless the U.S. wants to use you for their own political agenda, than they value you for being multilingual and speaking more than one dialect so in the case of my ESL students, the translations would be more easier to explain from Afghani (non-standard dialect) to English--to serve the US Army Agenda. 

Like Jan Blommaert (2012) bravely asserts "What sociolinguistics has to offer to English Language Studies will be defined by new developments, not by older ones (focusing on linguistic structures alone like grammar). The new ones challenge the study of language at a fundamental level; the questions they raise cannot be avoided"(p.2). I want to focus on Jan's second question or concern he proposes in a paper he wrote back in 2012 (paper 85) that speaks to my own critical questions, curiosities, and lived experiences as a grad student, and Arabic translator for some Yemeni, Syrian and Iraqi immigrants and refugee speakers (which mind you was very hard for me to translate sometimes, given the dialect I speak is not common it is a blending form of Yemeni Taiz (city Arabic talk)  and Yemeni-Bahdani (village, country) Arabic talk, which solidifies that language is not fixed it evolves--trans-mutates to make meaning, and so is not limited to the 'structures of grammar" but the multitude of resources one uses to convey a message (like images, body language, and the blending of more than one language to convey a message) to counter the  myth about English that there is one kind of English use--the English used by superior elites-- the privileged ( and what this means for educators who 'teach' English). 

Jan writes: "There is an older tradition in sociolinguistics – the ethnographic tradition – in which "language" itself is not the focal object, but the actual specific resources that people use in communication. The work of Hymes (e.g. 1996) and Gumperz (e.g. 1982) is exemplary for the older tradition. Neo-Hymesian approaches have lately taken this "resources" perspective further (e.g. Rampton 2006 Agha 2007, Blommaert 2010). Language, as we have seen, is no longer a fixed thing; it is also no longer a unified thing, and globalization processes again prompt us to take this seriously. Standard English is distributed in the world in fundamentally different ways than, say, HipHop English. Standard English orthography is also distributed in fundamentally different ways that the rapidly globalizing hetero graphic codes of mobile texting and chatting (of the type “CU@4”). So, statements about the spread of "English" to place X or Y instantly beg the question: 

• which English? Which specific resources we associate with English are effectively being spread to X and Y? 

• And what do people in X or Y effectively do with these resources? 

• What are their precise functions in the multilingual contexts in which they enter, and in the multilingual repertoires of users? 

• Me asking now adding to these legit questions: Why are we (the world of academia) not open to using more than one mode of communication when 'languaging' communicating in academia? Keeping in mind our students who are struggling with neurodivergent challenges, dyslexia, autism? How can we see their creative abilities through their own repertoires? In a way that translates to us rather than for us.  

Back to when I was in grad school, the class I took did not translate to me as sociolinguistics is all I have to bluntly share, and God forbid you disagreed with the professor of this class--like after the age of 12 (theory) one cannot learn or acquire a second language--maybe I asked too many legitimate questions. I paid for it later. I had to re-take the seminar on the pedagogy of spoken English--because I did not repeat (parrot) back in writing or in 'practice' their style of 'doing'-- regurgitate lectures in a standardized multiple choice- short essay form. Remember, never question the experts or experts who think their experts on their subject matter in higher ed classes. Looking back at my graduate education, I thrived in internship courses because it was hands-on experience, like my first time teaching English Composition to novice low learners of English, while I struggled in the English Grammar for ESL Teaching class, because my professor used standardized testing methods to measure my competence in a subject, and the way the class was taught did not suit my learning preferences (deeper learning and frequent opportunities for practice and revision). The teaching style was deductive, lots of reading of rules of grammar, not enough practice or negotiation of the rules and how to apply them to actual teaching scenarios. Both of these failure experiences as a learner fueled my passion for quality curriculum design and assessment. I try to improve my assignment design every semester, and I do this by soliciting students' feedback about my instruction, and by participating in professional development programs. 

If you really want to learn from a provocative and daring critical thinker, who believed "the role of the professional intellectual or the expert in society" is not to speak to power, but to speak in relation to power using one's integrity --listen to Jan Blommaert. "A masterclass about language and inequality seen through the lens of the life and work of Jan Blommaert."--As cited from docwerkers.

• And consider engaging with a paper written by Jan Blommaert below that discusses critical issues and topics as it pertains to sociolinguistics and English Language Studies. The implications of the discussion as cited by Jan in the article below are calling on 'academics' to address the following:  

• (a) "English" will become an increasingly complex term begging for more nuanced descriptors, both as sociolinguistic-descriptive tools and as tools for analyzing identity processes; 

• (b) in which both spoken, and literacy performances need to be considered in conjunction with one another, given the increasing prominence of interactive literacy media (blogs, chat, Twitter etc), and

•  (c) in which we address "English" from within the wider perspective of multilingual and multiliteracy repertoires, which compels us to adopt a dynamic and contextualized perspective on language and language usage."

In this short talk from Jan, he discusses how deep reflecting in prison allowed Antonio Gramsci to manifest in writing how Mussolini took control of Italy. Gramsci's in-depth analysis of Mussolini's regime, contributed heavily to Social Theory, Political Theory (theory of ideology) --illustrating how yes, physical violence (military presence is a must) but too, he described what hegemony is and how hegemony sustains its power not only by military force, but too, by more covert hegemonic forces like 'education' and rhetoric (discourse). This is why we see so many trolls online and the battle of truth taking place online. 

I was first introduced to Jan Blommaert as an anthropology student, a friend of mine shared one of his texts, "The Sociolinguistics of Globalization" while I was a volunteer docent for our departments' museum exhibit showcase on Ancient Bahrain 'Death to Life'. 

When I read Jan's writing his voice is crisp and clear, not muddy or lost in regurgitating theories like many academic writings are, and the tone is urgent- that is how he drew me in- with his clear, purpose driven and supported explanations of his observations of how language is and has been changing--and how inequality and discrimination starts with language and signs--literally signs and language will tell you who is dominating the current space, and not inhabiting the occupied space. And when 'others' are not welcome, those 'others' create another world- examples: the multimodal world, art, poetry, and music.  If others are outcasted, one can construct their self -like I have constructed myself here to demonstrate my competence in my academic field, but also to perform and question my pedagogical practices.  Like Jan reminds us, its okay, to keep reinventing ourselves, and keep re-searching the research. Jan ethnographically kept track of multiple spaces, where people interject themselves into society and made their selves visible by creating their own repertoires and meaning making. These places both on ground villages, and in the online sphere, too. 

To learn more about Blommaert click here: Jan Blommaert and the use of sociolinguistics: Critical, political, personal | Language in Society | Cambridge Core 

As for Norman Fairclough, he made clearer to me why we should analyze and critique discourse exchanges, to unpack and reveal how language is powerfully exercised to dominate and reinforce our being and different ways of knowing--to unpack why some ways of knowing are more valued than other ways of doing and knowing.  Fairclough's one clear example in his text is the communication exchange between a doctor and patient in the exam room, it's assumed the doctor (who has status and power and knowledge of how to practice western medicine) knows what is best for their patient without really listening to what the patient thinks their health care needs are. When I read this chapter in Fairclough's online pdf text, I was reminded of a text I read when taking a cultural anthropology course while I was an undergrad, and it serves as a perfect example of how power (knowledge) is exercised to re-enforce a way of knowing and doing, in this case, western medicine; but, I see now too, that this text is a prime example of how to do critical discourse analysis, and cultural anthropology--the name of the text is, The Spirt Catches You and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child, Her American Doctors, and the Collision of Two Cultures by Anne Fadiman. 

Fadiman (1997) took the blind fold off for me, as a North Central California Native, I grew up with the Hmong Community- had Hmong friends in grade school, but never learned about their history or migration stories to the US. However, after reading Fadiman (1997), I learned how the U.S. contributed to the Hmong Diaspora, and about the false promises that were made to the Hmong if they chose to fight on the Americans' side during the Vietnam War. In a nutshell, Fadiman (1997) centers the voices and story of one Hmong family and tells a story of the doctors who 'cared' for the Hmong family's ill daughter. Fadiman (1997) urges her readers to re-consider different beliefs and practices of 'healthcare'--exposing the negligence and imposition of doctors' care in Merced, Ca, who caused suffering for one Hmong girl, and her family--again, in the name of maintaining the doctors' beliefs of 'western medicine practice.' 

Another example of how language exchange can dominate spaces, and re-enforce ideologies, ways of doing, and 'being', is by assessing signs. Tuen Van Dijk's accessible (invaluable) lectures and concrete examples made more clearer to me how the local (sociocultural contexts) influences our cognitive processing of texts-thus constructing our ideologies. One prime example of this can be how one's family 'talks' about politics and which news they favor to watch thus influencing their beliefs about abortion--just a minute example. These scholars helped me make sense of the world I live in-without muddy abstract theoretical language; their explanations were all applied and concrete --not philosophical ideas --all truths of how language is used to exercise power and control over bodies -more importantly over minds. 

Off all three, I have to say, I favor Jan's writings because he illustrates clearly the different ways, we communicate in our everchanging world, and that we should not favor one way over the other, each should be examined closely within its particular context and purpose.  

Edward Hahn (2014) writes in Composition Forum 30:

"Compositionists who swim in Michel Foucault's wake might have a difficult time taking Bourdieu on his own terms. Indeed, one popular Foucauldian maxim is that it is impossible to take a text on its own terms, because, despite your best intentions, you cannot not take the text on your own terms. There is no “primary” text to be had. Since knowledge is an expression of power, your knowledge of the text has more to do with your relation to power, your “subject position” and your cultural-political interests, than with the text itself. Your attempt to read the text on its own terms, like your attempt to know the truth of anything, is governed by current formations of power-knowledge and their discourses or “regimes” of truth, none of which are truer than the others. The one exception to the rule of power-knowledge is what Foucault calls “subjugated knowledges,” those insurrectionary knowledges that have been elided or fragmented by normative epistemologies and the domination of power-knowledge." 

Prior to learning of Edward Hahn's writings and brave pedagogical translations in the Summer of 2023, I had already been introduced to some my favorite culture text critics, Foucault and Bourdieu, as an undergrad; but I struggled to articulate clearly their ideas of how knowledge is an expression of power - fuse Foucault and Bourdieu's intellectual understandings of how knowledge is socially, and politically constructed for consumption; however, Hahn does not. In fact, he makes it very clear, as you will see below if you choose to engage with his works and teaching practices. 

One thing I forgot to add about Hahn, is he also utters the name of De Bouis (below in one of his presentations) which was impressive because De Bouis' works as a whole, has not been appreciated enough in the social sciences and literature, in general. In my personal blog which I have not publicly shared yet, I write about De Bouis to illuminate and bridge James Baldwin's voice and his calling to 'excavate the people that produced you'. For faculty already entrenched in their ways of doing, and knowing, they may not understand the underlying message here--honestly, I do not expect them too because in their minds, they are the experts--do not ever question the experts. 

Here is short excerpt from my personal blog about Du Bois in case readers here do not know who De Bouis is: 

"Although Du Bois had originally believed that social science could provide the knowledge to solve the race problem, he gradually came to the conclusion that in a climate of virulent racism, expressed in such evils as lynching, peonage, disfranchisement, Jim Crow segregation laws, and race riots, social change could be accomplished only through agitation and protest. In this view, he clashed with the most influential Black leader of the period, Booker T. Washington, who, preaching a philosophy of accommodation (and assimilation I might add), urged Blacks to accept discrimination for the time being and elevate themselves through hard work and economic gain, thus winning the respect of whites. In 1903, Du Bois' famous book The Souls of Black Folk, charged that Washington’s strategy, rather than freeing the Black man from oppression, would serve only to perpetuate it. This attack crystallized the opposition to Booker T. Washington among many Black intellectuals, polarizing the leaders of the Black community into two wings—the “conservative” supporters of Washington and his “radical” critics."--W.E.B. Du Bois | Biography, Education, Books, & Facts | Britannica 

Let me synthesize--break it down for you and make new meanings with these authors' works.

I think Hahn uses Du Bois's intellectual works to advocate for students to create more personal writing because personal voice and lived experiences juxtapositioned against the main stream constructions of reality illuminates real-life while people who have power and control over what gets produced, work so hard to cover up the truth; thus, I believe Hahn puts into concrete practice what Antiracist writing instruction can look like, and I think he does this by demonstrating that our instruction does not have to be an either-or split way decision when it comes to designing assignments--our assignment choices can be done with purpose and fluidity--but each assignment needs to be framed, named, and modeled. I think too, that students need to be invited to ask questions like: "What kind of assignment can I create in this world that will allow me to synthesize or reject the ideas of authors, scholars whom sole purpose is/was/were to show-off that they are part of that status quo model of knowledge production-Instead-Invite students to ask: how can I (the student intellectual) insert my voice and lived experiences to make meaning, to contest, to transgress against what has been shoved down my throat since my k-12 education--(wait till you get to college dear student) or perhaps invite students to consider what is the best mode of communication to use, to make my mark in this world, a world that I (Fairuze) observe to be filled with master pretenders whose primary purpose is to benefit from the system of production- without Changing It.

Since I refuse to write in and for academic scholarly journals (right now this is the attitude I have towards academic journals, might change later, will see) because they too dictate how knowledge(s) gets produced, and cherry pick whose voices are more worthy of being circulated in the online sphere-I choose to embody my academic and anti-racist pedagogical practices here, and share scholarship that I think is provocative, radical, and brave--that reveal the complexities and gray contradictions of human knowledge making. The following critical thinkers and their teachings of how power is exercised through language have implications for how we engage students in critical reading and writing in the 21st century and beyond because these teachings expose how knowledge is consumed and produced, and they provide students with opportunities to become agents of social change by engaging in reading and writing that is meaningful and personal to them. 

Let us not be knowledge-power hoarders--there is enough bread to share. 

Please consider engaging with these acute and inspiring works to challenge your thinking and pedagogical practices.  Like Jan Blommaert, I believe all educators should have open and free access to scholarly works-that scholarship (funds of knowledge), and the producers of funds of knowledge should not gatekeep knowledge making, and that human knowledge making should be valued for the different ways they take shape and form. 

With Edward Hahn's permission, you can interact and explore more of his writings, presentations, and scholarship below: 

• Composing Culture 

• CF 30: Embodied Censorship by Edward Hahn (compositionforum.com)