Language Education ethics and politics

[Eileen]

This seemed the best place to put this, because it deals with ethics and even some philosophy. The spelling rant in Rants and Raves sparked this comment from me:



Teaching grammar can be a highly political act (people don't even realize this), so while I might slip and say "proper" or "correct" grammar, the word really should be "standard" grammar, because some people use dialects that use verbs differently, but they aren't incorrect; they're just different from the standard. The standard grammar is every bit as much of dialect as ebonics is.


This issue became my pet issue after taking my Linguistics for Teachers class my second year of college. That year, I wrote my position statement about how I would never tell a student that his or her dialect was wrong, but mostly ignored the realities of teaching grammar. The second semester of my junior year, I started dealing with the fact that I have to teach grammar and I have to teach STANDARD grammar, and not teaching standard grammar is a disservice to all students because of society's attitudes about it.

That semester, I was taking two classes: Teaching of Writing (an education class in the English department) and Myth and Theory (a Religious Studies class). I decided to deal with the issue of Language Education for my semester projects for both classes. The ToW paper was more practical and addressed the idea of code-switching, in addition to talking about real ways teachers can handle language diversity. The MT paper, the more interesting of the two (in my opinion), incorporates a lot of theory and deals with the political nature of language education. In one paper, I refer to EAE and in the other SEAE; these are the same thing (Standard Edited American English). If you read both papers, you'll note that I pretty much copy-pasted an entire section of the ToW paper into my MT paper. Hurrah for overlap. I'm so glad my MT teacher was supportive of using what I was already doing....

If you are going to just read one, read the Myth and Theory one.

It's something for the hardcore grammarians to think about, anyway.

[Biff_Loman]

It would be interesting to see how the British cope with this problem. I would expect it is more pronounced there.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that students should learn to write standard English properly - it is, after all, the lingua franca of our culture and much of the world (maybe they should learn Mandarin as well :)). Consistency, in this case, is key - especially considering how many people speak English as a second language; they don't need variation to muddy the waters.

That being said, how do we demonstrate to speakers of dialect that using standard English is a skill, much like using math, and that it should not denigrate their own dialect? Honestly, I never came to a satisfactory conclusion to this one on my own. I'm afraid I don't have too much to add.

Well, I do have one thing to say. In one paper I read on this subject, the author gave the illustration of a black girl in first grade who asked her (white) teacher: Why do you talk like momma does when she's on the phone? That is so cute.

[Shai Gar]

slap those morons around a bit, they need to learn the true way to spell

[Philo]

I haven't read the papers, yet, but I view the grammar problem as a more specific case of the general language problem: in order for two people to communicate, there must be common ground. Grammar is, in a sense, just the way a specific language organizes itself so that a group can communicate. Perhaps highlighting the difficulty one has with interpreting a dialect, in a constructive way, would be the way to demonstrate the importance of grammar?

[Geoff]

It would be interesting to see how the British cope with this problem. I would expect it is more pronounced there.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that students should learn to write standard English properly - it is, after all, the lingua franca of our culture and much of the world (maybe they should learn Mandarin as well :)). Consistency, in this case, is key - especially considering how many people speak English as a second language; they don't need variation to muddy the waters.

.

Which problem is more pronounced here in your expectation? I am interested in linguistics, and differential dialects etc. So I am happy to expand if you can just clarify what the question is!

Do you mean how do we cope with the large dialectal variation across, say, England?

-Geoff

[Eileen]

That being said, how do we demonstrate to speakers of dialect that using standard English is a skill, much like using math, and that it should not denigrate their own dialect? Honestly, I never came to a satisfactory conclusion to this one on my own. I'm afraid I don't have too much to add.


I think it has to start with a really radical and overarching attitude change about language and communication. Idealistic, but I think it's the only way to go. Like I said, it's time for English teachers to tell a different story about language. I think that language education should really be most often called communication skills (it's what it was called when I was in middle school, instead of Language arts) and the standard dialect should be taught as the common ground language through which people of diverse backgrounds can efficiently and effectively communicate. There are some problems with this, of course, but what has to start changing first is the attitudes of the educators.

Very practically, though, showing examples of people who can converse in multiple dialects (like Baldwin and Hurston and Hughes etc) and use them both in literature is one way to start celebrating this type of multilingualism. I think that it's possible to teach appreciation for language diversity, just like it's possible to teach appreciation for other diversities (not to say easy, however).

[Star]

I hope this doesn't sound too nitpicky, but would you mind if I posted the text of your papers into a reply here? Though I wanted to, I still haven't read them because I find the Word format distracting; when I click on your links my computer wants to open up a full-blown word processor in editing mode.

[Eileen]

I hope this doesn't sound too nitpicky, but would you mind if I posted the text of your papers into a reply here? Though I wanted to, I still haven't read them because I find the Word format distracting; when I click on your links my computer wants to open up a full-blown word processor in editing mode.

Doesn't bother me, though I'd prefer it if you got rid of my name.

[Star]

Embracing the obstacle:

Dealing with linguistic diversity by using it as a teaching tool

by Eileen the INFJ

As educators seek to embrace multiculturalism rather than globalism,
diversity rather than homogeny, one of the biggest obstacles we still
face is the subject of language education. Specifically, we deal with
the tension that arises when we teach that a particular dialect (Edited
American English) is "proper" and "correct" and treat other dialects
(such as the African American vernacular, for example) as "improper"
and, ultimately, inferior. Since language is tightly bound to culture,
the judgment of a dialect as somehow inferior may lead to cultural
identity problems in students. With this in mind, it is still undeniable
that a command of EAE is essential for students to succeed. In this
paper, I will explore how teachers may give students the tools they need
to communicate in our society (a solid command of the standard dialect),
while allowing them to express their cultural selves in their own
language.

A dialect, as defined by David Crystal's Encyclopedia of Language, is a
``language variety in which the use of grammar and vocabulary identifies
the regional or social background of the user'' (Crystal 24). A common
misconception among people is that ``dialect'' only refers to rural
speech patterns, but not to the conventions used by television news
anchors. This reductive view of language ignores two things: To begin,
all people speak in dialects and EAE is a dialect of prestige rather
than one that is actually superior to all other language variations.
Additionally, dialects are not simply regional. In fact, according to
CCCC's ``Students Rights to Their Own Language,'' distinct dialects may
appear in small social circles according to race, age, or socioeconomic
status. As a result, an individual may code-switch back and forth
between dialects (CCCC 3). This phenomena, though natural, becomes
gradually harder to achieve as a person gets older.

Along with the misconceptions about dialect comes a host of social
assumptions about speakers whose primary dialects are not the standard
Edited American English. These assumptions often prove to be obstacles
for diverse speakers. Students whose primary dialects are, for
instance, African American, Southeastern American, or Appalachian
vernaculars may be considered less intelligent or academically capable
than their EAE-speaking peers. Because standardized tests are written
with a bias towards EAE, linguistically diverse students may score
unfavorably on them, pushing the stereotype that much further.

Because language is so tightly bound to culture, the attempt to alter
the speech patterns of diverse speakers may have harmful affects on a
student's self-concept. The CCCC statement addresses the issue of
cultural dissonance that diverse speakers may encounter when in a
situation in which they must switch their speech patterns in order to
gain acceptance: ``Since dialect is not separate from culture, but an
intrinsic part of it, accepting a new dialect means accepting a new
culture; rejecting one's native dialect is to some extent a rejection of
one's culture'' (CCCC 6). Herein lies a main obstacle of diversity,
both for a student and a teacher. Dialect diversity does not guarantee
failure in reading and writing EAE, by any means, but students whose
primary dialects are non-standard are more likely to have a difficult
time with both. Because a command of EAE is indispensable in our
society, teachers must not neglect emphasizing it. At the same time, it
is an act of cultural violence to suggest to students that the language
in which they speak to their loved ones and peers is an inferior
vernacular.

The obstacle may be possibly overcome by embracing diversity. In an
English classroom, where students both read literature and write,
sources exist which allow a teacher to expose students to a diverse
array of examples of how people use language. In the case of a student
whose primary dialect is African American, authors such as Langston
Hughes, Zora Neal Hurston, Richard Wright, and Ernest Gaines exhibit
proficiency in both EAE and the dialects with which they were raised.
English teachers, who almost invariably teach both literature and
writing, should use the dialectically diverse works that are available
to both affirm diverse students' languages and expose students to
cultures other than their own. Teachers may encourage students to write
stories using both EAE and their own dialects in order to illustrate
competency in the standard dialect while still allowing them to embrace
their own cultures.

In her article, ``Vernacular Dialects in U.S. Schools,'' Donna Christian
of the Center for Applied Linguistics suggests another way to treat
linguistic diversity as ``opportunity, not liability.'' She suggests
incorporating linguistic differences into a language arts unit in which
students may go out into their communities and observe linguistic
patterns, including their own. Listing the various advantages to such a
unit, she includes ``enhancing self awareness and the understanding of
cultural diversity [and] ...preserv[ing] the cultural and oral
traditions of the region'' (Christian). This exercise, like the study
of dialectically diverse literature, gives students a chance to see the
intricacies and vastness of the English language, but it is a more
hands-on approach.

English educators have a responsibility to help students become
proficient at speaking in Edited American English, because a standard
dialect may allow a common ground for communication between various
cultures, not because it is somehow a superior language in comparison to
other dialects. By offering opportunities for students to examine
examples of diverse language, possibilities for language education open
up that may not be present now due to current attitudes about teaching
English. If students are accustomed to appreciating and understanding
dialects as an aspect of culture, they may learn a measure of tolerance
for diversity, or alternately, be empowered to celebrate their own.
Teachers can validate proficiency in more than one dialect as a type of
multilingualism. If educators encourage students to consider their own
language as an asset, then students may be more motivated to succeed in
endeavors involving EAE.

[Star]

The Myths of the Standard Dialect:

Why we need revolutionary spirits for English teachers

by Eileen the INFJ

Americans believe that the institution of education works as a tool to
exult the ideals of equality, liberty, and justice.š However, a problem
presents itself in the hegemony of language education, where Standard
Edited American English (SEAE) is imposed as "proper" and "correct"šon
linguistically diverse students.š Favoring one class/racial group over
another maintains the socioeconomic status quo by way of the myth of a
"super-language" that is the standard dialect.š The institution of
education in America heralds contradictory myths.š The phenomenon
mentioned above is an example of how groups of people use myth to exert
power over others. There is hardly one myth that defines and drives
language, however, and I argue that educators can and should spin a new
myth which presents Standard Edited American English, not as the
``correct'' way of communicating, but as a ``common ground'' dialect on
which different cultures can meet and communicate. By doing so, we can
improve education, particularly for those students whose cultural
identities are at stake and who especially need the American education
system to be a facilitator of equality, liberty, and justice.

When considering the myths surrounding the standard dialect, Roland
Barthes's ``Myth Today'' provides some important insights that will
shape this paper. For Barthes (1957), myth is a kind of speech system
that has three levels: first, there is the thing, such as a tree or
language education. Second, there is the level at which one attaches
meaning to the thing - for the tree, there may be all of the concepts
surrounding Christmas trees; for the language education, there are the
ideas of ``proper'' and ``correct'' speech. The third level is that
where people recognize and talk about the myth as myth.

According to Barthes (1957), the curious and significant thing about
myth is that it does not erase history, but ``transforms [it] into
nature'' (Barthes, p. 129). This aspect of myth allows hegemonies to
easily form. In his book, Keywords, Raymond Williams (1976) discusses
the term ``hegemony,'' which came to be important through the work of
Antonio Gramsci. A hegemony is ``an integral form of class rule which
exists not only in political and economic institutions and relationships
but also in active forms of experience and consciousness'' and is
considered ``'normal reality' or `commonsense' by those subordinated to
it'' (Williams, p. 145). To turn over existing hegemonies, one must
``[create] an alternative hegemony - a new predominant practice and
consciousness'' (Williams, p. 145). According to Williams, the act that
overthrows such an institution or relationship is revolution. Barthes
claims that revolutions cannot be mythical because ``revolution
announces itself openly as revolution and thereby abolishes myth'' and
there is no option to ``demystify'' its speech. This idea seems, in
itself, laden with myths about revolution; while it may be true that
revolutionary speech is purely political and sans-myth, as soon as it
becomes the institution under which people live and interact, the speech
of the revolution will become mythic. When I discuss the ``spinning''
of new myths about the standard dialect, I am referring to a revolution
of creating the ``alternate hegemony'' of language education that treats
Standard Edited American English as ``common ground'' dialect in order
to replace (or balance) the institution that treats it as the
``super-language'' that defines ``correctness.''

Despite discrediting by contemporary composition theorists, English
classes (and all classes with a focus on writing) still operate on the
story that intelligent, elegant people write and speak ``properly'' and
follow all of the ``rules'' of the writing handbooks. Though never
mentioned, the ``correct'' and ``proper'' grammar belongs historically
to the dialect of upper-middle class whites from New England. A
dialect, as defined by David Crystal's Encyclopedia of Language, is a
``language variety in which the use of grammar and vocabulary identifies
the regional or social background of the user'' (Crystal, 1997, p. 24).

The history of the standard dialect in America is itself interesting,
especially when compared to today's linguistic issues in education.
After the American Revolution, Noah Webster (father of Webster's
dictionary, et al) began to standardize American English, in part to
foster ``a reasonable degree of uniformity'' (Alegeo, 1991, par 5). In
a culture where the printed word holds a great deal of weight, a
``reasonable degree of uniformity'' is fairly important, and America
inherited the British tendency to be dogmatic about language, largely
because both cultures were print-based. In addition, he hoped ``to
help Americans realize they should no longer look to England for a
standard of usage'' (Algeo, 1991, par 5). Most fascinating is the
political nature of Webster's standardization; it was an expression of
independence from Britain - a revolutionary act to create an alternate
hegemony, which later became the hegemony that exists today in the
American institution of education. Two of Roland Barthes's second-level
meanings are at work in Webster's motion towards a standard American
dialect: First, Webster's act indicates a culture's desire for homogeny
(perhaps equality), but secondly (and maybe somewhat conflictingly), it
celebrates the free and unique identity of America (Barthes, 1957).

A common misconception is that Standard Edited American English is not,
in fact, a dialect, and that ``dialect'' only refers to rural speech
patterns, but not to the conventions used by inflexible English teachers
and television news anchors. This reductive view of language ignores
two things: To begin, all people speak in dialects and SEAE is a
dialect of prestige rather than one that is actually superior to all
other language variations. Additionally, dialects are not simply
regional. In fact, according to the Conference of College Composition
and Communication's (CCCC) ``Students' Right to Their Own Language,''
distinct dialects may appear in small social circles according to race,
age, or socioeconomic status. As a result, an individual may
code-switch back and forth between dialects (CCCC, 1974, p. 3). This
phenomenon, though natural, becomes gradually harder to achieve, as a
person gets older.

Along with the misconceptions about dialect comes a host of social
assumptions about speakers whose primary dialects are not the Standard
Edited American English. These assumptions often prove to be obstacles
for diverse speakers. Students whose primary dialects are, for
instance, African American, Southeastern American, or Appalachian
vernaculars may be considered less intelligent or academically capable
than their SEAE-speaking peers. Because standardized tests are written
with a bias towards SEAE, linguistically diverse students may score
unfavorably on them, pushing the stereotype that much further.

Because language is so intertwined with culture, the attempt to alter
the speech patterns of diverse communicators may have harmful effects on
a student's self-concept. The CCCC statement addresses the issue of
cultural dissonance that diverse speakers may encounter when in a
situation in which they must switch their speech patterns in order to
gain acceptance: ``Since dialect is not separate from culture, but an
intrinsic part of it, accepting a new dialect means accepting a new
culture; rejecting one's native dialect is to some extent a rejection of
one's culture'' (CCCC, 1974, p. 6). Herein lies a main obstacle of
diversity, both for a student and a teacher. Dialect diversity does not
guarantee failure in reading and writing Standard Edited American
English, by any means, but students whose primary dialects are
non-standard are more likely to have a difficult time with both.
Because a command of the standard dialect is indispensable in our
society, teachers must not neglect emphasizing it. At the same time, it
is an act of cultural violence to suggest to students that the language
in which they speak to their loved ones and peers is an inferior
vernacular.

Educators carry out language instruction that is informed by this
overriding myth of the ``correctness'' of Standard Edited American
English. Rene Girard (of the psychoanalytic school) articulates a theory
of primal violence that interestingly illuminates the linguistic
conflict between harbingers of the standard dialect and linguistically
diverse people. The institution of education that insists on SEAE as a
superior ``super language'' names an ``inferior other'' in attempt to
self-identify. In a ritual of categorically denying sub-cultures the
right to language (and thus, arguably, repressing a unique way of
being), the first group sacrifices its scapegoat and validates its place
in the world (Bell 1997, p. 16). Considering the history of the
standard dialect, this sacrifice of linguistic minorities does not pass
without significant irony. When at first, claiming an ``American
English'' was an expression of defiance, independence, and new power,
the standard dialect has become the thing that oppresses, rather than
empowers. In the face of dialects representative of historically
oppressed cultures in America, the standard dialect models ``proper''
usage, similarly to the British language doctrines that Webster rejected
when he began standardizing a distinctively American way of
communicating.

The obstacle that contradictory myths present can be overcome by
spinning the myth differently, by building an ``alternate hegemony.''
Instead of the established myths of Standard Edited American English, a
new myth might be weaved: SEAE, rather than being the ``proper''
language that historically implies a sense of American independence and
a need for homogeny, can be seen as a common ground for English speakers
of all variants. This is, in and of itself, an idealistic and mythical
way of looking at language, but it softens the edges of an overt power
relation by allowing the opportunity for other ``correct'' ways of using
the English language. Language educators have a responsibility to help
students become proficient at speaking and writing in SEAE, because a
standard dialect may allow a common ground for communication between
various cultures, not because it is somehow a superior language in
comparison to other dialects. If students are accustomed to appreciating
and understanding dialects as an aspect of culture, they may learn a
measure of tolerance for diversity, or alternately, be empowered to
celebrate their own. Teachers can validate proficiency in more than one
dialect as a type of multilingualism. If educators encourage students
to consider their own language as an asset, then students may be more
motivated to succeed in endeavors involving the SEAE dialect.

Language education needs revolutionaries who are willing to start
embracing and fostering respect for diversity, while still offering
students the skills they need (including a solid command of the standard
dialect), and that is to shift the myth of the standard dialect from the
``correct'' language to the ``common ground'' language. This can
improve education, particularly for those who suffer because of the
existing hegemony that is today's education system, where most teachers
still consider it a matter-of-fact that Standard Edited American English
is the ``correct'' way to use language. While there is no denying that
a command of the standard dialect is necessary in our print-based
culture, this unconscious, sweeping movement in language education to
devalue (and ultimately eradicate) diverse dialects is deeply
problematic when one also believes that American education purports the
values of equality, liberty, and justice. Spinning a new myth of the
standard dialect can not only improve the lives and educational
experiences of linguistically diverse students, but also offer a richer
perspective of language to students whose primary dialect is the
standard one. Only when teachers begin to use diversity as a tool for
teaching can students acquire both the practical tools that they need
and a sense of the values that education is thought to support.

Works Cited

Algeo, John. (1991). Language. Retrieved April 29 from
http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=35330

Barthes, Roland. (1972). Mythologies. (A. Lavers, Trans.) New York:
Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957).

Bell, Catherine. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Crystal, David. (1997). The Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

[Star]

Doesn't bother me, though I'd prefer it if you got rid of my name.

Done. You might want to remove them when the thread dies. I don't think you want one of your own students turning in one of these papers as an assignment, do you? ;P

[Boneca]

This was a very interesting read! I don't know if I can add much as I know next to nothing about English dialects, but I'm too interested in the subject to stay out of this topic.

Eileen, from your papers I get the idea that American students today are discouraged from using their own dialects in school, even in speech. Is that correct?
If that is the case, I agree whole-heartedly with you that a reform is needed.
As a comparison, I can tell you that a similar thing has happened in Sweden. We do have relatively diverse dialects even though we are a comparatively small country (due to some regions having been isolated for centuries), but up until a few decades ago students were encouraged to get rid of their dialects. In order to get onto radio, televison etc. you had to learn a standard Swedish that in fact wasn't spoken by anybody at all in "real life" (though naturally, the Stockholm dialect was the closest to it). Nowadays, however, the trend is towards variety. We are even encouraged to speak our regional dialect in official situations, as long as it is reasonably understandable.

Personally, I think this is a good development, because it leads to a sense of identity for the speaker, but also because it lessens the socio-economic divide. If everybody who gets a higher education train away their dialect in favour of a standardised language, dialect becomes a stigma in itself.
So while previously dialect was something negative, the mark of an uneducated person, it is today something positive, giving a sort of cultural depth to people. I like that.

But, I have to add, we do have standardised spelling and grammar. We do not write our dialects (unless you count Norwegian and Swedish to be two different dialects, in which case we do - but that's more of an independence issue, just like the development of the American English).

I'm curious about the Afro-American authors you mentioned. Do they actually write with a different spelling/grammar system? And in that case, is that an accepted norm for that dialect, or is it more "writing the way you speak"? I must say I see problems with both systems (the definition of what is an accepted dialect in the first, and understandability in the second), but I'd like to hear how it works in reality before I pass a judgement.

Sorry for the long post. I hope you haven't fallen asleep during my ramblings. :blush:

[Eileen]

Eileen, from your papers I get the idea that American students today are discouraged from using their own dialects in school, even in speech. Is that correct?


Yes, despite discrediting by composition theorists and linguists, this still occurs all the time.

If everybody who gets a higher education train away their dialect in favour of a standardised language, dialect becomes a stigma in itself.
So while previously dialect was something negative, the mark of an uneducated person, it is today something positive, giving a sort of cultural depth to people. I like that.


Wow! Thank you for this perspective. This is what I'd like to see happen here, but I don't think we'll ever get away from a standard dialect and since we're such a huge country, maybe we shouldn't. But I'd like to see people view regional/ethnic dialects as cultural depth rather than a symptom of being uneducated and/or somehow inferior.



I'm curious about the Afro-American authors you mentioned. Do they actually write with a different spelling/grammar system? And in that case, is that an accepted norm for that dialect, or is it more "writing the way you speak"? I must say I see problems with both systems (the definition of what is an accepted dialect in the first, and understandability in the second), but I'd like to hear how it works in reality before I pass a judgement.


Well, it's "writing the way you speak." Spelling stays pretty standardized unless there's a really characteristic pronunciation for that dialect. I emphasize dialect as speech pattern; speaking and writing are two rather different thought processes (writing is really sort of unnatural, if you think about it). And the reason I think that it's necessary to have a common dialect is because we live in a print based culture and thus need standardization for some things.

The good writers who use multiple dialects obviously know the conventions for both dialects (which is another misconception about dialects--that they don't have conventions, which upon standardization become rules). I think that shows an impressive command of language. :) When diverse dialects are used in literature, for the most part, it's for the sake of developing a voice or creating authentic-sounding dialogue. It's used tactically when it's used well.



Sorry for the long post. I hope you haven't fallen asleep during my ramblings. :blush:


No, no! Thank you for your post! It gave me some things to think about; I didn't know about Sweden's dialect situation.

[Philo]

Well, it's "writing the way you speak." Spelling stays pretty standardized unless there's a really characteristic pronunciation for that dialect. I emphasize dialect as speech pattern; speaking and writing are two rather different thought processes (writing is really sort of unnatural, if you think about it). And the reason I think that it's necessary to have a common dialect is because we live in a print based culture and thus need standardization for some things.

I would argue that it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your intent is to produce a literary work, then "writing the way you speak" is reasonable, and a number of authors that were famous because of this (Mark Twain comes to mind first, but there are others). If your goal is to present an argument, then standardization of structure is a must, otherwise no one is really going to understand what it is you're trying to say.



(which is another misconception about dialects--that they don't have conventions, which upon standardization become rules).

:blink: Umm, if a dialect has no conventions, how can two people within a given dialect communicate? I would think that "dialect" infers convention.

[Eileen]

I would argue that it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your intent is to produce a literary work, then "writing the way you speak" is reasonable, and a number of authors that were famous because of this (Mark Twain comes to mind first, but there are others). If your goal is to present an argument, then standardization of structure is a must, otherwise no one is really going to understand what it is you're trying to say.


I agree.



:blink: Umm, if a dialect has no conventions, how can two people within a given dialect communicate? I would think that "dialect" infers convention.


Yeah, well, some people are ig'nant.