Although I enjoyed the nuance and detail of Achebe's novel, I have trouble agreeing with his statement as quoted in Jenkins that English served a better purpose by bringing together the many peoples and cultures of Africa. There is a faith in oneness as a positive force, instead of domineering, inherent in what he says. True there are always a a few good points that arise from any tragedy, but does that begin to justify the cruel and inhumane way the African peoples were treated by those countries seeking to colonize? Is it not true that to state that "those who have inhereted the English language may not be in a position to appreciate the value of the inheritance" (170) is the same as saying that if you don't see the bright side your opinion is uninformed?

It is obvious that a novel by an Ibo writer in English does Ibo culture a disservice by obbing it of its language's writers and therefore its own body of native literature, but does it not also do it a service by bringing Ibo culture into my living room today? If a writer chooses their native language over English out of a sense of nationalism, are they not shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their audience and hence the impact of their cultural ideas and respect for their culture outside their linguistic borders?

In Achebe's book, the native Ibos speak in an elevated English. How does this show the evolution into "African English?" How is it significant in adopting the language of

the colonizer?

First, Unoka dies of the "swelling." It states on p. 13 that "when a man was afflicted with swelling in the stomach and the limbs he was not allowed to die in the house...The ckness was an abomination to the earth, so the victim could not be buried in her bowels." Do we know what illness this is? Why was this sickness in particular looked upon with so much disgust that the poor victim was forced to rot away above ground in the Evil Forest? nother abomination is the osu. I read on p. 111 about these outcasts, but I still don't understand again exactly who these people were or why the village treated them so harshly. Finally, Achebe dedicates an entire chapter (chapter 11) to Chielo's temporary kidnaping in the name of Agbala of Ezinma and her tromp around the countryside with the child on her back. In the end, it never really does explain what that was all about. Any ideas?

I disagree with the opinion that it is virtually impossible for a writer to use an L2 reatively. Kachru (pg. 259) says that the (bilingual) “writer must create a suitable English language semiotic system in a non-English social reality”. Writers such as Achebe (and countless others) have successfully met these creative challenges, which monolingual writers have never had to face.

What is the significance of the Kola nut? 

did the Ibo oral traditions almost die due to this forced moved into the English language? Did the English treat these people the way American leaders treated the Native American peoples and force them to not speak the songs, the stories of their culture? If so, how did Achebe hold on to the stories that fill Things Fall Apart?

From Chapter Seven of _Things Fall Apart_, why do you suppose the villagers suddenly decide that they should kill Ikemefuna? And why do you think Achebe decides not to translate the song that Ikemefuna remembers as he walks along (thinking about his mother) on the trip back to his native village? Is he perhaps singing a nursery rhyme to ease his nervousness?

Could you spend some class time further elaborating and clarifying the following terms discussed by Thumboo (in Kachru):Semantic SystemIdeational Component of LanguageInterpersonal Component of LanguageSemiotic ConstructLanguage as Social Semiotic

The readings focused on L2 creative writers--authors who's native language is not nglish. What are the issues involved in translating literary works from another language into nglish and preserving subtle meanings in these translations? I have heard it said that there are masculine/feminine problems translating from Spanish to English and English to Spanish. I suspect there are similar

issues translating other languages.

On page 270 of Kachru, Thumboo mentions Markandaya's notion of the cortex as the some of the writer's creativity which "governs morality and the sensibility of creation....it helps the writer negotiate between the demands of two traditions."  Is Markandaya implying that bilingual or multilingual writers have a more developed cortex than monolingual writers and, therefore, are more creative writers? 

Kachru talks briefly about Kaplan and contrastive rhetoric in a mostly favorable manner in his article. Kachru is not an American and he is also from an Asian culture. In America there is an ongoing intense debate over the deeper connotations of CR in regards to racial matters. Is contrastive rhetoric less of an issue in cultures other than Western or is it just

Kachru's personal perceptions