Grappling with the Glossary: Inspiring Historical Inquiry through Vocabulary Definitions

• In Event: World Building as a Balm for Civic Education: Graduate Student Research Perspectives

Abstract

As we look forward to the future of civic literacies, we cannot craft a remedy with faulty components. In research, the words we use can “inadvertently or intentionally” cause damage or neglect the knowledge and wisdom of marginalized groups (AERA, 2024). When elementary instructors teach history and civics through informational texts for children, it is already a challenge to help them navigate the complexities of text structure (Kuhn et al., 2017; Brugar & Roberts, 2018). Given all the multimodal features to juggle, it is unsurprising that the glossary is often overlooked. Yet, the words we use are infused with definitions decided by the cultural context in which we learned them. We say much about the world we are attempting to construct for our youngest readers through the glossaries in their informational texts.

This paper uses the glossary as a basis for civic and social justice inquiry to frame the ramifications of the definitions (or lack thereof) of the terms “plantation” and “enslave(d)” in 16 children’s (ages 4 to 12) informational text biographies on George Washington. Given Washington's prevalence, these texts generate critical examples of the power of glossary. Biographies of Washington often serve more than one purpose: they discuss his life while framing him as a symbol “incarnating national values and character” (Hutchins, 2011, p. 649). Washington’s status as the ‘Father of Our Nation’ means that these books sometimes focus so much on creating a specific image of the United States that they forgo accurate details of Washington’s life (Hohmeyer, 2024).

Findings include how most books define “plantation” as a “large farm” and ignore any reliance on enslaved labor, which is typically considered its defining feature (Tomich, 2011). Contextualizing information is often left out of the main text and placed into sidebars or the back of the book. These texts engage in specific authorial strategies about who enslavement is allowed to be attached to and where it is allowed to be mentioned. On the other hand, using “enslavement” rather than “slave” has the express purpose of using active language and respecting the personhood of individuals to whom great harm was done. It is a marker of a specific sociocultural rhetorical turn. However, these books undercut the inclusion by having almost no African Americans shown in images and a strong reliance on passive voice to abdicate Washington of any responsibility as an owner of people.
The words we use have the power to shape our world (Janks, 2013). We cannot assume that children learning the word “plantation” will understand the true implication if the book they read sanitizes its definition. While the use of “enslaved” seems like a rhetorical remedy, it alone cannot combat the other instances of multimodal racecraft (Fields & Fields, 2022). If civic literacies are to be used to help remedy and repair, we must pay attention to the words we use and how we use them. How we define these terms today may determine how young children define the culture of America in the future.

Author

• Gretchen Hohmeyer, University of Massachusetts - Amherst