Something to add to the 'correcting grammar' discussion.
Please note that Sandra is _not_ a subscriber to this list, so if you
want to respond to her message, write to her own address.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:36:57 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
To: Multiple recipients of list LINGUIST <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: 8.54, Disc: Ebonics
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-54. Sun Jan 19 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.
-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:17:43 PDT
From: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Ebonics and teachers
I teach reading and writing methods courses to prospective and
practicing teachers and usually spend a class session on language
variation, including AAVE. I try to get across the following ideas:
1. English is a collection of dialects, none of which is more
"correct" than the others. English belongs to all its speakers, not
just a few subsets. AAVE, like other versions of English, is rule-
governed and expresses thoughts equally well (e.g., double negatives
aren't "illogical"). The students often accept these points at least
somewhat, but immediately respond, "Don't we have a responsibility to
teach "standard English" to students so they can get jobs?" etc.
2. The reason that some dialects have lower status is not because
they're linguistically inferior but because of who speaks them, e.g.,
because of prejudice. I try to soften this a little by saying that
it's normal to be ethnocentric about language and think that the way
we speak sounds right while the way other people speak sounds funny,
but that as educators we have a responsibility to have a more
informed view.
3. Given these linguistic and social facts, the educator has a
dilemma. "Correcting" students' language is unlikely to work and
sends a message that their language and that of their communities is
inferior. Yet shouldn't we give them the tools to live in a
prejudiced world?
4. I suggest the following:
For younger children, focus on self-expression, lots of reading and
writing, exposure to written language register through wide reading
of literature (including that written in AAVE - there are many good
children's books).
For older students (middle school and up) - study language variation
as part of the English language arts curriculum, including a clear
discussion of how AAVE is stigmatized for social rather than
linguistic reasons. (I think that this should be explored with all
students, not just those with stigmatized dialects.) At that point,
help students with stigmatized dialects explore the
possibility of bi-dialectism as a tool for survival in a prejudiced
world, but with the choice being theirs: any individual may prefer
instead to avoid employers who don't accept his or her speech. (An
analogy I sometimes use is a Southerner who goes north and is turned
down for jobs by employers who are prejudiced against her dialect.
She might choose to change her speech, or choose instead to find an
employer who will value her as she is.) I believe that we don't have
the right to make this choice for students, and that a solid
foundation in reading, writing, and oral self-expression is the best
preparation for acquiring the new dialect.
Personally, I think that far too much of the Ebonics debate has taken
for granted that language prejudice is just fine and that
the onus should be on speakers of AAVE to change.
Comments?
Sandra Wilde
Portland State University (Oregon)
[log in to unmask]
|
