Blog #1: 
Summary: Students Rights to Their Own Language

Timeline:

1972: 4Cs affirms a student's right to their own dialect (patterns and varieties in speaking English).

1973: Committee researches the issue to provide background and explanation for the affirmation; presents to NCTE meeting in Philadelphia.

1974: Affirmation published in College Composition and Communication.

Issues Addressed:

At the time the statement was proposed, there was little research on how people acquire language and not enough training or background for English instructors. At that time English instructors concentrated on literature more than on understanding the nature of language. There was not enough general information for the public about language acquisition. The public wanted English to be taught in a formal) way with no dialects, rather the “official standard” whatever that was, since there was no guidance on how to teach it. There was also little recognition of the differences between written standard english and spoken standard English. There was a perception of “educated” English as having more clout, more cache, more acceptance in society.

The affirmation challenged The Academy to accept diversity in spoken and written English in the same way that they accepted diversity in artistic expression or in society.

The affirmation states that dialects come from historical changes to communities — it has nothing to do with intelligence or physiology. Variances show up in phonology, vocabulary and surface grammatical patterns. Dialects are close enough to standard English that people who use different dialects can and should understand each other. If they don’t, it is a case of attitude and racism, rather than true misunderstanding.

At the time of writing, nobody understood how children acquire language or dialect. All that was known was that very young children acquired performance skills in dialects used in their environment faster than other types of learning. By age six, children understand plurality in their home dialect.

Another historical factor in the research pointed out that the dialect of London became the standard since it was used for the first printed documents. As settlers came to America, dialects shifted and altered, there was influence from Native Americans, etc. Social and political attitudes about language and dialect formed in the Old World came to the New World, so Americans wanted to emulate the “cultivated usage” of English. Early New England speakers of English promoted a standard that schools aspired to teach, even today — although there is no single “homogenous” American standard. While some dialects still have a cache of prestige, no single dialect is good or bad.

Today there is a written dialect of English called “Edited American English”. It is found in prose for public information and interest, it is used in government texts and also “broadcast English” or “Network Standard”. The language is still adapting and changing and other dialects may change the standard, due to the nature of our pluralistic society.

Dialect, IQ and age are not really linked. IQ has nothing to do with language acquisition, except for those with an IQ of 50 or below. Dialect switching is far more difficult to switch as a person ages, however. Of particular note, there are always subtle changes and adaptations in a person’s idiolect: they are pervasive, yet unnoticed.

Accepting a new dialect can be tantamount to accepting a new culture, possibly rejecting one’s own dialect and culture. Whether a student switches or not, is not up to the school to decide and we should not interfere.

Minor surface features (“he’s going” vs. “he going”, for example) do not necessarily detract from meaning. When reading, the gist of the material is acquired and the dialect generally does not interfere with gaining meaning and understanding from reading. The paper calls for a improvement of reading material and reading instruction, rather than changing a student’s dialect.

Some students may be masters of a dialect without ever having written a single word in the dialect -- the dialect is mainly a spoken one, such as AAVE. Dialect plays little if any part in determining whether a child can acquire written standard English and does not determine one’s intellectual capacity.

The socio-economic mobility of people leaving the lower class for the newly developing middle class demanded rules and codes to assist in adjusting to the dialect of the upper class. Dialect sorted one into a specific class and denied basic human rights to those of the lower class.

Handbooks on grammar and usage restrict grammar. Writing style vs. spoken style are all lumped together under the umbrella of "correctness". Handbooks encourage imitation, rather than originality. Calling a handbook contents "proper" encourages snobbery and elitism, stasis, restriction and lack of status. Handbooks should be treated as just one resource of many, rather than the be-all and end-all. Language should be situational and used in context.

Assignments must be designed to help students make shifts in tone, style and sentence structure, vocabulary, diction and order — in other words, practice writing for different contexts. We should introduce students to various types of spoken and written texts that mix dialects and contexts. We should demonstrate that surface errors are trivial compared to meaning and emphasize totality of language rather than “polite usage”.

Standardized tests written in EAE and may disadvantage students not fluent in it. Passing standardized tests re-inforces “polite usage” and further restricts modes of expression, making users less tolerant of other modes. “Tests tend to be self-validating”.

English teachers should be promoting understanding of the language and ability for expression, rather than using a specific dialect, although encouraging students to understand EAE without losing touch with their own dialect would help them get better jobs because EAE is still required in formal situations.

What do teachers need in order to teach?

Understanding of language as oral/symbolic system of communication — spoken language is always primary; written language secondary/derived system — oral and written forms are arbitrary.

Understanding of the history of English — constantly in flux due to vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation; English has borrowed terms from many Indo-European and Native American languages, for example.

Understanding of the nature of dialects: geographical issues, socio-economic issues; issues of usage and context; understanding of how we acquire language.

Understanding of phonology — sound system of a language— do not impose sound systems on students — rely on context for clarification of meaning when words sound similar (homophones).

Understanding of morphology — tense, aspect, person, number— morphological forms vary from dialect to dialect but within each dialect morphology follows a system.

Understanding of syntax — syntactic patterns can be different and follow different systems depending on dialect, but should not interfere with communication or meaning.

Understanding of grammar and usage — analysis of different forms, rather than a list of dos and dont’s.

Understanding of semantics — understanding of how people give meaning to words and the way meanings affect us emotionally rather than rationally — turns of phrase can either soften or intensify meaning.

Understanding of lexicography — dictionaries should only be used as guides rather than authorities: words can be arbitrary in meaning — again it comes back to context. Dictionary terms used to describe words as colloquial or non-standard are a bit pejorative. Pronunciations vary and all pronunciations found in various dialects are acceptable. Dictionaries cannot give rules for using the words of a language, they can only give information about how words have been used.

Understanding of another dialect by living in it or at least listening to tapes or interviewing speakers of alternate dialects to develop empathy.

Understand the role of change — the language is in flux and always changing and adapting to the needs of the people.