“Critical Thoughts on Teaching Standard English”
Speicher and Bielanski. Curriculum Inquiry. 2000 (147-169)
Speicher and Bielansky argue against four assumptions that most people
have about Standard English (SE).
1.
Spoken English equates to written English
2.
Spoken and written English are equally amenable
to standardization.
3.
SE is the language of the workplace and
essential for social mobility.
4.
SE is the language of the classroom.
This is a pedagogy piece which deals with theory more than pedagogical
practice. The audience is teachers or
education professionals. The authors’
main point is that spoken English and Written English are very different,
despite the assumptions of many people, including teachers , education
professionals, and even some language professionals. The authors want to make
this point to raise awareness about this difference and to make some
suggestions for further study, specifically the use of prototype theory to help
define Standard English. Perhaps the most compelling idea presented in this
piece is Standard Ideology, which is described at a set of attitudes about
language that assumes that standard English is either better or more pragmatic
than non-standard varieties of English; it is so powerful that even
non-standard speakers believe in SI.
Below is my detailed outline of the article (more for my own use, but I
thought I would include it.
1.
Spoken English equates to written English
a.
Written English has become a prescriptive code
for spoken English.
b.
Much of the information passed in spoken English
does not appear in written English (tone, pitch, gestures, facial expressions, context,
etc)
c.
Are acquired differently
d.
Grammars are different
e.
SWE and SSE are different registers: Educators
do not speak SWE—no one does!
2.
Spoken and Written English are equally amenable
to standardization
a.
No one has (can?) define and specify the
lexical, phonological and grammatical features of SE (spoken or written).
b.
People erroneously believe that there is a SE
c.
Scholars prefer the term SI—standard ideology
d.
Hegemonic: assumptions about SE are widely accepted in
popular perceptions about language diversity
i.
Prescriptivists are very successful at promoting
SI—even those who speak stigmatized forms believe that others are better
e.
How do speakers recognize SE? Authors describe
prototype theory as one way
i.
Some features may be essential, while others may
be characteristic
ii.
Judgments may be based on combinations of
features
iii.
This is disappointing, I was hoping for an
analysis
3.
Standard English is the language of the
workplace and essential to social mobility
a.
Even when scholars accept the premise that all
dialects are equal, they pragmatically say that accepts the privileging of SSE
b.
Stigmatized form are associated with lower
socioeconomic class with least political power
c.
SI helps explain the privileging of SSE
i.
Si privileges certain users and stigmatizes
others
ii.
“large numbers of intelligent people condemn and
resent language change, regarding alterations as due to unnecessary sloppiness,
laziness and ignorance.” Aitchison 1991
iii.
Historical and unquestioned association between
good English and good character
iv.
“Language is pure; people who use language are
corrupt.”
1.
Thus it is the individual’s fault for failing to
learn SSE, not the school’s
2.
Justifies the use of language testing that
labels certain features as meriting remedition and tracks certain students into
particular curricula
v.
Some scholars believe linguistic bias is a cover
for racism
vi.
Linguistic and cultural gap between teachers and
students
1.
Teachers can punish students for perceived “deviant”
language
2.
Teachers can mistake a difference in dialect as
a learning disability or lack of intelligence
vii.
Racial or gender discrimination are illegal;
linguistic discrimination are a kind of institutionalized discrimination
viii.
Many people still believe that nonstandard
dialects indicate laziness or stupidity
4.
Standard English is the language of the
classroom
a.
This assumption has never been tested
b.
More common: debates on whether nonstandard
dialects should be allowed in the classroom (e.g., the ebonics controversy)
c.
Teachers think that imposition of the standard
might be demeaning to students
d.
Some scholars think that to deny a student their
way of speaking is to alienate them
e.
Most people (not necessarily teachers) think SSE
should be used in the classroom
f.
There is
no guarantee that teachers are using SSE
i.
No agreement on what SSE is
ii.
Authors again suggest prototype theory to help
define it
g.
Teachers are good at teaching SI, not so good at
teaching SSE
Dilemmas of Identity: Oral and Written
Literacies in the Making of a Basic Writing Student
Cook-Gumperz, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 1993
This is a case study of an
African American woman student returning to a basic skills program at a
community college, and her experience with a tutor. The author finds aspects of her experience
that “challenge accepted notions of schooled literacy.” (336) This is a case
study and pedagogical piece whose intended audience is teachers and education
professionals. The author’s main point is that learning standard English takes
more than just learning a new dialect.
It is a complicated process that include re-defining oneself and the way
one thinks about education. I may be reading into it too much, but by the
author’s tone it seemed that she was judging (negatively) the institution and
the tutor for oppressing Wanda (the name of the case study subject) by forming
her story (and so, her) into academic English.
My detailed outline follows.
1.
“The institutional motivation for school
practice remains the promotion and selection of a specific kind of literate
talent.” 336
2.
Students have to learn how to write and also how
to rethink their relationship to the process of schooling.
3.
Minority students become viewed “re-entering”
and underprepared
4.
Author argues that the cognitive processes
necessary for a minority student to prepare an academic text are more complex
than previously thought
a.
This complexity can be one of the reasons adult
students “fail to learn”
b.
Demands a deep emotional commitment and involvement
on the part of the language user
c.
Students achieve technical competence and the
construction of a social self that is linked to one’s language
5.
Case Study: Wanda
a.
30 year old re-entry student who sees herself as
someone who has been admitted to a
college class, and so has overcome an earlier history of school failure
b.
Has two issues
i.
Provide a coherent sequesnce of events that can
be understood by a stranger
ii.
Do so with clear grammar and mechanics that can
be written down
c.
Tells a story about her first job
i.
When telling the story verbally, she focuses on
(a) how she got the job and (b) how her attitude changed when she got the job
ii.
Written product only quickly mentions the
attitude change
iii.
Moves between “unmarked” style and an AAVE style
iv.
This creates a difficulty that most people don’t
realize: many aspects of her verbal style have no counterparts in written
English
v.
This is difficult to manage for even
experienced, talented writers
vi.
Further complicated as a minority woman, as her
audience will not necessarily empathize with her (Minh-ha 1989)
vii.
Through the writing and dealing with the tutor, her personal voice is transformed
into a public voice. The author seems to
think this is a bad thing.
1.
Order is strictly temporal (unlike when spoken)
2.
More nominalizations and more complex sentence
variety
viii.
Author seems to think that Wanda was oppressed
by the institution (and the tutor) since the text she produced had more
features of academic writing, though it seemed to me that Wanda had no problem
with it. She was an enthusiastic student who wanted to learn.
“But I hope this
analysis,
by going beyond the
surface of what she has written to look at what she
really intended to
communicate, can begin to show how any description
of literacy, as it
applies to the real literacy products of real adults, needs
to be expanded
beyond what is traditionally seen as schooled literacy.” 353
Dissin’ the Standard: Ebonics as Guerilla Warfare at Capital High
Fordham, Anthropology and
Education Quarterly 1999
This is a beautifully written paper that explores the reasons AAVE
speaking high school kids do not to speak “Standard” English. This is a study that has teachers and
education professionals as its audience. The author’s main point is to explain
why speakers of AAVE (specifically, at a high school in Washington D.C.) will
refuse to speak “Standard English.” There are several reasons: The students do
not want to buy into the perceived power structure that Standard English is a
part of; they do not want to be seen as acting “too White,” which might
indicate they are siding with oppressors.
“Standard” English is a stigmatized dialect in this community, to be
used only in school, and even then, only in specific circumstances. One way students resist oppression is to
refuse to participate in certain aspects of their education (Kory: “I don’t do
book reports.”) even though this will affect their educational opportunities.
Below is my detailed outline. I
wrote it for myself, but thought I would include it here.
1.
Ebonics as rhetorical resistance; crucial in the
subversive war of Black identity maintenance
2.
SE helps define caste system
3.
SE viewed as an inappropriate speech form:
socially stigmatized
4.
What is considered “standard” is a “contested
site for self-definition, reistance, and accomodation.
5.
Students realize that speaking SE is crucial to
their success
a.
So some “lease the standard, ” speaking it from
9 to 3
b.
Others resist completely
6.
Black students who speak SE might be seen as trying
to be White, and may use that power to exploit
a.
Acting white is a metaphor for power
relationships that address the historic exclusion of Black Americans
b.
Suggests identity deflection or impersonation
c.
Getting good grades can be “acting White;” this
causes students a lot of conflict
7.
After slavery, “Language ..replaced slavery as
the social mechanism that would ensure the continued exploitation of Black
people.) (5)
8.
“Appearing but not to be” allows students to use
SE in certain situations, but not give up their power or place in the community
a.
The worst is when a Capital student uses SE
uncritically
9.
Students sometimes use avoidance to maintain
Black intellectual integrity
a.
E.G., Korey: “I don’t do book reports” is a way
of rebelling and showing loyalty
b.
Sadly, this affects their educational
opportunities: “marks them for academic and social failure.”
“Resistance—as conformity—is the academically successful student’s
weapon of choice in their efforts to maintain a Black identity and in fighting
the ongoing linguistic war.” (10)
