Edith,
  Thanks for the suggestions and the positive response.
  I think the last part of (a) is meant to distinguish between "standard"
and "correct". "Correct" has tended to mean something like "inherently
better", regardless of context. The point would carry over to your
objections in (b) as well; I like the idea that students would notice
the way community languages find their way into writing. I think it was
Paule Marshall who recounts ("Poets in the Kitchen") how finding work of
writers like Dunbar (in dialect) made her feel she, too, could be a
writer. To do so successfully, of course, means paying attention to the
structure (nature) of the dialect. It's like the "contrastive analysis"
that Johanna and Rebecca have been talking about. It actually deepens
our understanding of the standard if we can describe rule patterned
variation. Part of that, of course, means paying attention to the ways
(contexts) in which it can be used effectively.
  You can't write fiction or drama without an ear for speech. Paul has
reminded us from time to time how important that is to an actor.
   Of course, those reasons for the language could be made more explicit.
I don't mean to defend this particular wording.

Craig>


I have a couple of responses for consideration:
> In (a) I would prefer not using the term "nonstandard" at all. What
> about just ending the sentence after "important resources?"
>
> And in (b) the part about examining authors that the students admire
> might need a little re-thinking for phrasing. Students can certainly
> find fiction that would not conform to Standard English at all.
>
> Thanks for the good work on this. Can we get NCTE to endorse it?
>
> Edith Wollin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:56 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: position on Standard English
>
>    This is a draft position on Standard English as worked out through
> much discussion by the New Public Grammar group and presented to the
> ATEG conference this past July.
>    This fits in well with our recent discussion on "code-switching" as
> an approach to non-standard dialects. I think we are looking for a more
> comprehensive exploration of language for all students, but
> "code-switching" would fit as a step toward accomplishing the goals set
> out below for a particularly at-risk community. Rebecca's program both
> affirms the value (and rule-driven) nature of community languages and
> helps make Standard English more explicit.
>    Here's the draft position. Comments, of course, are welcome.
>
> ATEG Scope and Sequence Project     July, 2006
>
> Position on Standard English
>
> 1)  Each student has a right to the tools necessary to a confident and
> competent public voice, including an understanding of Standard English.
>    a)  We define Standard English as the language of mainstream American
> public life.  It is not inherently better or more "correct" than
> minority or regional dialects, but valuable in being the shared language
> of public life.  Community languages that differ from it should be
> thought of as valuable community languages and important resources, as
> nonstandard, but not incorrect or wrong.
>     b)  Standard English is better described by the corpus grammars than
> by the prescriptive handbooks, which are often at odds with current
> practice and generations behind.  It is a living, viable, changing
> language, not a rigid and set one, and it gets much of its vitality from
> the contributions of a diverse people. Students should have a deep
> enough understanding of language to weigh prescriptive advice.
> Students should be encouraged to look closely at the work of writers
> they admire. They should understand that Standard English includes many
> levels of formality and that language conventions differ widely in
> different public domains.
>     c)  Written languages require somewhat arbitrary conventions for the
> representation of language in a written form, and students should have
> the tools necessary for mastery of these.  This includes standardized
> spelling, including spelling that shades into syntax. It also includes a
> deep enough understanding of syntax to fully understand the syntax based
> conventions for punctuation.  We do not believe most people can master
> punctuation on the basis of intuition or "feel", especially if those are
> meant to lead toward conventional  choices defined in more analytic
> ways. This also includes attribution conventions, which are important
> tools in ensuring honesty and integrity in the language of academic and
> public life.
>
> Craig
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/