ABSTRACT
While translingual practices in conversation are increasingly being studied, written English communication is treated as normative. Even those who accept localization and voice in conversations argue against such practices in writing. Many assume that there is a universal norm for written language that is widely shared—one that American composition scholars call standard written English (SWE) for English literacy, which they treat as standing beyond local language differences (Elbow, 2002). The assumption is that SWE doesn’t belong to any one community. This orientation to the neutrality of writing is bolstered by the notion that written language is not native to anybody. All writers, including native speakers, have to learn writing in formal educational contexts. Furthermore, the need for a universal norm for writing is supported by the widespread understanding of literacy as constituting self-standing texts. According to the model of autonomous literacy (Street, 1984), texts should contain meanings that can be extricated conveniently by detached readers, especially as literacy doesn’t permit the types of face-to-face negotiations of conversations. The assumptions relating to the stability of written language and detached/unnegotiated texts have also kept ELF scholars from studying or pluralizing international written discourse in English (see Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 215). In a recent state-of-the-art essay on ELF, Jenkins and her co-authors observe, “There are still some major gaps, particularly relating to the written language” (Jenkins, et al., 2011, p. 281).
