{"id":272,"date":"2021-07-26T22:42:31","date_gmt":"2021-07-26T22:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/?post_type=chapter&p=272"},"modified":"2021-07-26T22:42:56","modified_gmt":"2021-07-26T22:42:56","slug":"7-2-1-english-is-king-synthesis","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/chapter\/7-2-1-english-is-king-synthesis\/","title":{"rendered":"7.2.2 English is king (synthesis)"},"content":{"raw":"

October 2020<\/h3>\r\nIn President Theodore Roosevelt\u2019s\u00a0address\u00a0to the American Defense Society (qtd.\u00a0in\u00a0Mikanowski\u00a0ph. 2)\u00a0he\u00a0said\u00a0\u201cwe have room but for one language here, and that is the English\u00a0language,\u00a0for we intend to see that the\u00a0crucible\u00a0turn our people into Americans, out of American nationality, and not just as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house\u201d.\u00a0But\u00a0in\u00a0the melting pot that is the United States,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0ridiculous to\u00a0allow only one language, English,\u00a0to reign supreme.\u00a0As an avid language learner, myself, I appreciate everything that different languages and culture can teach us, but unfortunately,\u00a0not everyone shares that view, and\u00a0bias\u00a0and marginalization\u00a0have\u00a0run unchecked\u00a0for too long,\u00a0proclaiming\u00a0everything\u00a0inferior to\u00a0English.\u00a0In this essay,\u00a0I analyze\u00a0three academic journals, all having to do with\u00a0this topic,\u00a0that\u00a0giving examples and evidence as to how bias towards the English language\u00a0has taken over.\r\n\r\nThe first academic journal I studied,\u00a0interestingly,\u00a0contained\u00a0the idea\u00a0is that non-natively accented speakers can\u00a0possess\u00a0fears of discrimination and bias even before they\u00a0converse with native speakers.\u00a0This\u00a0concept of \u201canticipated stigmatization\u201d (Gluszek,\u00a0Divido\u00a0p. 225), was the foundational research point in the two studies done and recounted\u00a0in\u00a0the academic journal \u201cSpeaking\u00a0with\u00a0and Accent: Perceptions of\u00a0Bias,\u00a0Communication\u00a0Difficulties,\u00a0and\u00a0belonging\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0United\u00a0States\u201d.\u00a0The authors, Agata Gluszek and John F. Dovidio,\u00a0speculated\u00a0that\u00a0nonnative speakers\u00a0already\u00a0held internal doubts about\u00a0being treated unequal,\u00a0even before they interacted with native speakers\u00a0(225).\u00a0Their first study focused on nonnative speaker\u2019s struggle with\u00a0communication\u00a0and their\u00a0perceptions\u00a0of stigmatization.\u00a0In this study, a questionnaire we sent out, titled \u201cEnglish with Accents\u201d,\u00a0and received 203 responses\u00a0in the U.S.\u00a0nationwide\u00a0(226).\u00a0Of the 203 individuals, 77 were nonnative\u00a0speakers of English.\u00a0They were asked a variety of questions\u00a0pertaining to\u00a0experiences with bias, stigmatization, etc. (226).\u00a0Conforming to Gluszek and\u00a0Divido\u2019s\u00a0hypothesis, the nonnative speakers recorded more events of stigmatization and communication\u00a0obstacles (227).\u00a0Their second study\u00a0attempted\u00a0more\u00a0in-depth\u00a0research on\u00a0whether\u00a0nonnative speakers of English struggled with\u00a0feelings of not belonging in the United States (228).\u00a0This study, done on 88\u00a0native and\u00a0nonnative English\u00a0speakers (37\u00a0being nonnative), involved answering questions\u00a0about\u00a0problems\u00a0on\u00a0accents,\u00a0communication, stigmatization, and a sense of\u00a0belonging\u00a0(229).\u00a0Also,\u00a0in accordance with\u00a0their hypothesis, Gluszek and Divio found that nonnative, accented English speakers reported more difficulty with communication and a lower sense of\u00a0belonging.\u00a0I thought that this was\u00a0a very interesting\u00a0study, but the one thing that I question is the\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0participants.\u00a0It seems to me like there should have been a large group of\u00a0individuals if the study was conducted nationwide\u00a0in order for\u00a0the result to be more\u00a0realistic.\u00a0In the first study, there were only 203 individuals throughout the whole United States that\u00a0participated\u00a0in the questionnaire.\u00a0\u00a0I worry that if there were too little participants, then\u00a0there would be insufficient evidence to back up their claims.\r\n\r\nThe second academic journal I\u00a0looked\u00a0at, \u201cLanguage Bias in Randomized controlled trials publish in English and German\u201d,\u00a0investigated academic journals themselves, and whether language\u00a0bias\u00a0had anything to do with their publication. This 1997 Lancet study\u00a0explored\u00a0whether medical researchers were more likely to publish\u00a0significantly\u00a0interesting findings\u00a0in English or their native language.\u00a0This is something that I had never thought about, but I was\u00a0immediately\u00a0intrigued when I saw the article title.\u00a0Because\u00a0English is the leading language in medical research, \u201cinvestigators outside of the English-speaking word who want their work to be\u00a0recognized\u00a0have little choice but to attempt to publish in English\u201d (1).\u00a0The authors, Matthias Eggar and Tanja\u00a0Zelllweger-ZAhner,\u00a0researched randomized control studies done\u00a0by\u00a0German\u00a0researchers\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0also published journals, perhaps the same publication, in English\u00a0and then turned both in to be peer-reviewed (meaning other researchers verified their credibility) by investigators who were not aware of the\u00a0journals title, dates, authors, or financial supporters (1).\u00a0They found that only 35% of the academic journals published in German, versus 62% of the\u00a0English language journals,\u00a0contain\u00a0significant differences between the controlled and experimental groups in the\u00a0study (1).\u00a0From this data, they drew the conclusion that\u00a0researchers\u00a0were\u00a0more likely to publish their \u201cbest findings\u201d\u00a0(what they wanted the broadest audience to see)\u00a0in English, even if they were not native English\u00a0speakers (1).\u00a0This academic journal was\u00a0probably the\u00a0most challenging to decode of the bunch, as it\u00a0contained\u00a0a lot of fancy terms and elaborate phrases that I had no idea what they meant. I found it extremely interesting and quite concerning that non-English speaking researchers are pressured to publish their findings in English if they want them to be read.\u00a0Who knows what kind of information we could be missing because it was written in a different\u00a0language\u00a0and nobody gave it the time of day because of\u00a0that?\r\n\r\nThis struggle that non-English speaking researchers have with getting their academic journals recognized is\u00a0reminiscent\u00a0of James Gee\u2019s\u00a0concept of\u00a0conflicting\u00a0\u2018discourses\u2019,\u00a0which he writes about in his own academic journal, \u201cWhat is Literacy?\u201d.\u00a0This\u00a0work, from the 1989 publication of the\u00a0Journal of Education<\/em>, describes a discourse as being a\u00a0way that languages is\u00a0used,\u00a0and it\u00a0identifies\u00a0you as part of a group (Gee p. 18).\u00a0The article also outlines the \u201crules\u201d that all discourses follow, the one\u00a0that most aligns with our purposes being that a person could belong to two opposing discourses (p. 19). Each discourse has its own set of values and\u00a0opinions and\u00a0is unwilling to accept the views of\u00a0another's\u00a0(p. 19).\u00a0These conflicting views are exactly what the non-English speaking researchers were dealing with.\u00a0In this case, the researchers were confronted with choosing\u00a0between\u00a0their\u00a0most familiar\u00a0(or primary)\u00a0discourse, the native language, and risk their findings\u00a0not being given a wide enough\u00a0audience\u00a0,\u00a0or their secondary discourse,\u00a0the field of English-language-dominated medical research.\u00a0The bias of the medical research discourse is also another fundamental\u00a0behavior of all discourses. Each discourse is biased towards its own views,\u00a0marginalizing any other viewpoints (p. 19). In this case, the medical research discourse is biased against any language that is not English, considering anything written in other languages as\u00a0credible enough.\r\n\r\nThe third and final academic journal I\u00a0decided to look a little more intimately into the bias in college admissions tests\u00a0against non-native English speakers.\u00a0In this academic journal,\u00a0\u201cLinguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests\u201d,\u00a0authors Zheng Chen and Grant Hemming\u00a0studied the\u00a0English as a Second Language Placement Examination (ESLPE) at the University of California, Los Angeles\u00a0(p.\u00a0155).\u00a0Of the\u00a0312 students taking the examination at the college, it was found that Chinese language speakers, 77, and Spanish language speakers, were the largest\u00a0in number, and thus chosen as the\u00a0groups to be\u00a0studied (p. 156).\u00a0After the examination, it was discovered that the Chinese speaking examinees scored above the Spanish speaking examinees in everything but vocabulary (p. 157).\u00a0Chen and Grant accounted this to the\u00a0structural\u00a0similarities between Spanish and English, noting that \u201csome bias favoring Spanish [in this aspect] might be expected\u201d\u00a0(Chen, Grant 157).\u00a0Because\u00a0Spanish and English stem from the same\u00a0languages, they have many cognates, or words that are\u00a0like\u00a0each other. Chinese, on the other hand, does not stem from the same origin as English does, and therefore\u00a0shares\u00a0no cognates. This\u00a0is\u00a0possibly the\u00a0reason that Spanish speaks had the upper hand in the vocabulary section of the examination.\u00a0Looking later into the journal, Zheng and Chen wrote that there were indeed four cognates found in the Spanish examination that biased that section in favor of them (p. 159).\u00a0However, admitted that further research would be needed to\u00a0determine\u00a0for sure the amount of bias against certain languages, to which I\u00a0have to\u00a0agree. I\u00a0thought\u00a0that it was a little unfair for the Spanish test to have cognates that could have made it easier for the examinees, but then\u00a0again,\u00a0the key word\u00a0their\u00a0it\u00a0could<\/em>.\u00a0The test takers still could have gotten the translations wrong regardless of whether they were\u00a0similar to\u00a0a Spanish word or not, it all depended on if they could figure out that the word\u00a0actually\u00a0was\u00a0a\u00a0cognate.\r\n\r\nWith\u00a0almost 400\u00a0million native speakers, and around one billion non-native speakers\u00a0around the world\u00a0(Mikanowski\u00a0ph. 2),\u00a0English has, in a sense, taken over the world.\u00a0And with it comes prejudice, marginalization, stigmatization,\u00a0and everything else that\u00a0label all other languages as second-class.\u00a0I never knew the extent to which language bias stretches, and after doing in depth research into this topic, I feel like I now have a better understanding. Will we ever get to a point where all languages are respected and treated equally? I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know, but I hope\u00a0more steps are taken to promote language equality and end discrimination against certain languages. With English rapidly becoming the\u00a0\u201cking\u201d amongst languages,\u00a0I wonder if we will lose the diversity of being able to communicate in so many different\u00a0tongues.\r\n

Works Cited<\/p>\r\n

Gluszek, Agata, and John F. Dovidio. \u201cSpeaking\u00a0With\u00a0a Nonnative Accent: Perceptions of Bias, Communication Difficulties, and Belonging in the United States.\u201d\u00a0Journal of Language and Social Psychology<\/em>, vol. 29, no. 2, 2010, pp. 224\u2013234., doi:10.1177\/0261927x09359590.<\/p>\r\n

Egger, Matthias, et al. \u201cLanguage Bias in\u00a0Randomized\u00a0Controlled Trials Published in English and German.\u201d\u00a0The Lancet<\/em>, vol. 350, no. 9074, 1997, pp. 326\u2013329., doi:10.1016\/s0140-6736(97)02419-7.<\/p>\r\n

Chen, Zheng, and Grant Henning. \u201cLinguistic and Cultural Bias in Language Proficiency Tests.\u201d\u00a0Language Testing<\/em>, vol. 2, no. 2, 1985, pp. 155\u2013163., doi:10.1177\/026553228500200204.<\/p>\r\n

Mikanowski, Jacob. \u201cBehemoth, Bully, Thief: How the English Language Is Taking over the Planet.\u201d\u00a0The Guardian<\/em>, Guardian News and Media, 27 July 2018,\u00a0www.theguardian.com\/news\/2018\/jul\/27\/english-language-global-dominance.<\/p>\r\n ","rendered":"

October 2020<\/h3>\n

In President Theodore Roosevelt\u2019s\u00a0address\u00a0to the American Defense Society (qtd.\u00a0in\u00a0Mikanowski\u00a0ph. 2)\u00a0he\u00a0said\u00a0\u201cwe have room but for one language here, and that is the English\u00a0language,\u00a0for we intend to see that the\u00a0crucible\u00a0turn our people into Americans, out of American nationality, and not just as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house\u201d.\u00a0But\u00a0in\u00a0the melting pot that is the United States,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0ridiculous to\u00a0allow only one language, English,\u00a0to reign supreme.\u00a0As an avid language learner, myself, I appreciate everything that different languages and culture can teach us, but unfortunately,\u00a0not everyone shares that view, and\u00a0bias\u00a0and marginalization\u00a0have\u00a0run unchecked\u00a0for too long,\u00a0proclaiming\u00a0everything\u00a0inferior to\u00a0English.\u00a0In this essay,\u00a0I analyze\u00a0three academic journals, all having to do with\u00a0this topic,\u00a0that\u00a0giving examples and evidence as to how bias towards the English language\u00a0has taken over.<\/p>\n

The first academic journal I studied,\u00a0interestingly,\u00a0contained\u00a0the idea\u00a0is that non-natively accented speakers can\u00a0possess\u00a0fears of discrimination and bias even before they\u00a0converse with native speakers.\u00a0This\u00a0concept of \u201canticipated stigmatization\u201d (Gluszek,\u00a0Divido\u00a0p. 225), was the foundational research point in the two studies done and recounted\u00a0in\u00a0the academic journal \u201cSpeaking\u00a0with\u00a0and Accent: Perceptions of\u00a0Bias,\u00a0Communication\u00a0Difficulties,\u00a0and\u00a0belonging\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0United\u00a0States\u201d.\u00a0The authors, Agata Gluszek and John F. Dovidio,\u00a0speculated\u00a0that\u00a0nonnative speakers\u00a0already\u00a0held internal doubts about\u00a0being treated unequal,\u00a0even before they interacted with native speakers\u00a0(225).\u00a0Their first study focused on nonnative speaker\u2019s struggle with\u00a0communication\u00a0and their\u00a0perceptions\u00a0of stigmatization.\u00a0In this study, a questionnaire we sent out, titled \u201cEnglish with Accents\u201d,\u00a0and received 203 responses\u00a0in the U.S.\u00a0nationwide\u00a0(226).\u00a0Of the 203 individuals, 77 were nonnative\u00a0speakers of English.\u00a0They were asked a variety of questions\u00a0pertaining to\u00a0experiences with bias, stigmatization, etc. (226).\u00a0Conforming to Gluszek and\u00a0Divido\u2019s\u00a0hypothesis, the nonnative speakers recorded more events of stigmatization and communication\u00a0obstacles (227).\u00a0Their second study\u00a0attempted\u00a0more\u00a0in-depth\u00a0research on\u00a0whether\u00a0nonnative speakers of English struggled with\u00a0feelings of not belonging in the United States (228).\u00a0This study, done on 88\u00a0native and\u00a0nonnative English\u00a0speakers (37\u00a0being nonnative), involved answering questions\u00a0about\u00a0problems\u00a0on\u00a0accents,\u00a0communication, stigmatization, and a sense of\u00a0belonging\u00a0(229).\u00a0Also,\u00a0in accordance with\u00a0their hypothesis, Gluszek and Divio found that nonnative, accented English speakers reported more difficulty with communication and a lower sense of\u00a0belonging.\u00a0I thought that this was\u00a0a very interesting\u00a0study, but the one thing that I question is the\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0participants.\u00a0It seems to me like there should have been a large group of\u00a0individuals if the study was conducted nationwide\u00a0in order for\u00a0the result to be more\u00a0realistic.\u00a0In the first study, there were only 203 individuals throughout the whole United States that\u00a0participated\u00a0in the questionnaire.\u00a0\u00a0I worry that if there were too little participants, then\u00a0there would be insufficient evidence to back up their claims.<\/p>\n

The second academic journal I\u00a0looked\u00a0at, \u201cLanguage Bias in Randomized controlled trials publish in English and German\u201d,\u00a0investigated academic journals themselves, and whether language\u00a0bias\u00a0had anything to do with their publication. This 1997 Lancet study\u00a0explored\u00a0whether medical researchers were more likely to publish\u00a0significantly\u00a0interesting findings\u00a0in English or their native language.\u00a0This is something that I had never thought about, but I was\u00a0immediately\u00a0intrigued when I saw the article title.\u00a0Because\u00a0English is the leading language in medical research, \u201cinvestigators outside of the English-speaking word who want their work to be\u00a0recognized\u00a0have little choice but to attempt to publish in English\u201d (1).\u00a0The authors, Matthias Eggar and Tanja\u00a0Zelllweger-ZAhner,\u00a0researched randomized control studies done\u00a0by\u00a0German\u00a0researchers\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0also published journals, perhaps the same publication, in English\u00a0and then turned both in to be peer-reviewed (meaning other researchers verified their credibility) by investigators who were not aware of the\u00a0journals title, dates, authors, or financial supporters (1).\u00a0They found that only 35% of the academic journals published in German, versus 62% of the\u00a0English language journals,\u00a0contain\u00a0significant differences between the controlled and experimental groups in the\u00a0study (1).\u00a0From this data, they drew the conclusion that\u00a0researchers\u00a0were\u00a0more likely to publish their \u201cbest findings\u201d\u00a0(what they wanted the broadest audience to see)\u00a0in English, even if they were not native English\u00a0speakers (1).\u00a0This academic journal was\u00a0probably the\u00a0most challenging to decode of the bunch, as it\u00a0contained\u00a0a lot of fancy terms and elaborate phrases that I had no idea what they meant. I found it extremely interesting and quite concerning that non-English speaking researchers are pressured to publish their findings in English if they want them to be read.\u00a0Who knows what kind of information we could be missing because it was written in a different\u00a0language\u00a0and nobody gave it the time of day because of\u00a0that?<\/p>\n

This struggle that non-English speaking researchers have with getting their academic journals recognized is\u00a0reminiscent\u00a0of James Gee\u2019s\u00a0concept of\u00a0conflicting\u00a0\u2018discourses\u2019,\u00a0which he writes about in his own academic journal, \u201cWhat is Literacy?\u201d.\u00a0This\u00a0work, from the 1989 publication of the\u00a0Journal of Education<\/em>, describes a discourse as being a\u00a0way that languages is\u00a0used,\u00a0and it\u00a0identifies\u00a0you as part of a group (Gee p. 18).\u00a0The article also outlines the \u201crules\u201d that all discourses follow, the one\u00a0that most aligns with our purposes being that a person could belong to two opposing discourses (p. 19). Each discourse has its own set of values and\u00a0opinions and\u00a0is unwilling to accept the views of\u00a0another’s\u00a0(p. 19).\u00a0These conflicting views are exactly what the non-English speaking researchers were dealing with.\u00a0In this case, the researchers were confronted with choosing\u00a0between\u00a0their\u00a0most familiar\u00a0(or primary)\u00a0discourse, the native language, and risk their findings\u00a0not being given a wide enough\u00a0audience\u00a0,\u00a0or their secondary discourse,\u00a0the field of English-language-dominated medical research.\u00a0The bias of the medical research discourse is also another fundamental\u00a0behavior of all discourses. Each discourse is biased towards its own views,\u00a0marginalizing any other viewpoints (p. 19). In this case, the medical research discourse is biased against any language that is not English, considering anything written in other languages as\u00a0credible enough.<\/p>\n

The third and final academic journal I\u00a0decided to look a little more intimately into the bias in college admissions tests\u00a0against non-native English speakers.\u00a0In this academic journal,\u00a0\u201cLinguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests\u201d,\u00a0authors Zheng Chen and Grant Hemming\u00a0studied the\u00a0English as a Second Language Placement Examination (ESLPE) at the University of California, Los Angeles\u00a0(p.\u00a0155).\u00a0Of the\u00a0312 students taking the examination at the college, it was found that Chinese language speakers, 77, and Spanish language speakers, were the largest\u00a0in number, and thus chosen as the\u00a0groups to be\u00a0studied (p. 156).\u00a0After the examination, it was discovered that the Chinese speaking examinees scored above the Spanish speaking examinees in everything but vocabulary (p. 157).\u00a0Chen and Grant accounted this to the\u00a0structural\u00a0similarities between Spanish and English, noting that \u201csome bias favoring Spanish [in this aspect] might be expected\u201d\u00a0(Chen, Grant 157).\u00a0Because\u00a0Spanish and English stem from the same\u00a0languages, they have many cognates, or words that are\u00a0like\u00a0each other. Chinese, on the other hand, does not stem from the same origin as English does, and therefore\u00a0shares\u00a0no cognates. This\u00a0is\u00a0possibly the\u00a0reason that Spanish speaks had the upper hand in the vocabulary section of the examination.\u00a0Looking later into the journal, Zheng and Chen wrote that there were indeed four cognates found in the Spanish examination that biased that section in favor of them (p. 159).\u00a0However, admitted that further research would be needed to\u00a0determine\u00a0for sure the amount of bias against certain languages, to which I\u00a0have to\u00a0agree. I\u00a0thought\u00a0that it was a little unfair for the Spanish test to have cognates that could have made it easier for the examinees, but then\u00a0again,\u00a0the key word\u00a0their\u00a0it\u00a0could<\/em>.\u00a0The test takers still could have gotten the translations wrong regardless of whether they were\u00a0similar to\u00a0a Spanish word or not, it all depended on if they could figure out that the word\u00a0actually\u00a0was\u00a0a\u00a0cognate.<\/p>\n

With\u00a0almost 400\u00a0million native speakers, and around one billion non-native speakers\u00a0around the world\u00a0(Mikanowski\u00a0ph. 2),\u00a0English has, in a sense, taken over the world.\u00a0And with it comes prejudice, marginalization, stigmatization,\u00a0and everything else that\u00a0label all other languages as second-class.\u00a0I never knew the extent to which language bias stretches, and after doing in depth research into this topic, I feel like I now have a better understanding. Will we ever get to a point where all languages are respected and treated equally? I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know, but I hope\u00a0more steps are taken to promote language equality and end discrimination against certain languages. With English rapidly becoming the\u00a0\u201cking\u201d amongst languages,\u00a0I wonder if we will lose the diversity of being able to communicate in so many different\u00a0tongues.<\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n

Gluszek, Agata, and John F. Dovidio. \u201cSpeaking\u00a0With\u00a0a Nonnative Accent: Perceptions of Bias, Communication Difficulties, and Belonging in the United States.\u201d\u00a0Journal of Language and Social Psychology<\/em>, vol. 29, no. 2, 2010, pp. 224\u2013234., doi:10.1177\/0261927×09359590.<\/p>\n

Egger, Matthias, et al. \u201cLanguage Bias in\u00a0Randomized\u00a0Controlled Trials Published in English and German.\u201d\u00a0The Lancet<\/em>, vol. 350, no. 9074, 1997, pp. 326\u2013329., doi:10.1016\/s0140-6736(97)02419-7.<\/p>\n

Chen, Zheng, and Grant Henning. \u201cLinguistic and Cultural Bias in Language Proficiency Tests.\u201d\u00a0Language Testing<\/em>, vol. 2, no. 2, 1985, pp. 155\u2013163., doi:10.1177\/026553228500200204.<\/p>\n

Mikanowski, Jacob. \u201cBehemoth, Bully, Thief: How the English Language Is Taking over the Planet.\u201d\u00a0The Guardian<\/em>, Guardian News and Media, 27 July 2018,\u00a0www.theguardian.com\/news\/2018\/jul\/27\/english-language-global-dominance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["anonenglish102"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[68],"license":[],"class_list":["post-272","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-anonenglish102"],"part":260,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/272\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":275,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/272\/revisions\/275"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/260"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/272\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=272"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=272"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/understanding-literacy-in-our-lives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}