Oh, boy. I guess listers who are familiar with my postings know where I'll go with this one. I realize that students need to learn formal standard English, because that is the currency of professional and academic discourse. At the beginning of each quarter, I hand out a copy of my grading standards to all my students (college students) that says that all work must conform to the conventions of formal, academic English. And I enforce that. When my students challenge me on that (because I teach dialect equality in my linguistics courses), it usually launches a discussion about the truth of the situation, which proves enlightening for them. I know that similar discussions might not be so easy for second graders, but there are ways to adjust for that. But do we really have to continue labeling the use of nonstandard English 'misuse'? A student who says 'had went' says that because she is following the rule for the construction of the past perfect that is characteristic of her dialect of English. Same with the student who says 'hisself'. Students like these are not 'misusing English'; they are correctly using a variety of English different from the one demanded of them in school. They are following a different rule, stepping to a different drummer. Treating a child's native usage as 'incorrect' or 'error' sends the child a false message: that she has failed to learn language properly. Only children with verifiable language acquisition deficiencies -- a tiny fraction of the population -- fail to learn language properly for reasons of cognitive dysfunction. It also denigrates the fabulous cognitive task the child _has_ mastered -- following the complex rules of whatever dialect he or she was raised with. Too many children and adults think they are stupid because others misunderstand that the language they use is different, not deficient. 'Basic writers' and children who have trouble with reading and writing are not helped by innaccurate reinforcement of the notion that there is something wrong with their English. Differences between their dialect and the standard dialect do cause problems for _some_ children (not all, as the many children and adults who are bidialectal show) in learning to read and write, but dialect differences are not the only source of difficulty for these children. Sending children positive messages about their language by showing that it is rule-governed and just as good for communication as standard English usually works _for_ them: they realize the true nature of the task before them (not to 'fix' their stupidly incorrect version of the language, but to learn a slightly different version of the language they have already mastered, and learn to do new things with it, like read and write). They often find exercises in comparison of their rules with 'school English' rules interesting and motivating. If they know they have already mastered one kind of English very well, it gives them confidence that they can learn another kind, if they just pay attention and work at it. The mess over Ebonics shows how widespread misunderstanding of variation within English is -- the fuss over teaching 'bad English'; the hysteria provoked by the idea of a child's reader in 'a dialect' (as if standard English weren't a dialect!); the constant challenging of the notion that the best way to bring a student to proficiency in school is to separate the tasks of literacy from any particular language system; bring them to literacy in their own language, then transition them to the standard dialect. Children are language learning machines, and if you provide them with two key elements: tons of exposure (lots of reading and writing) and motivation (interesting material and a reason to learn), they will learn whatever you put in front of them. Reinforcing the notion that using standard English makes a child more 'mature' and 'educated' just reinforces prejudice against people who can't or won't use standard English. Sure, the inability to use standard English is sometimes an indicator of poor success in school, but we all know that people fail in school for all kinds of reasons, not just lack of innate intelligence. And suppose they _do_ lack innate intelligence? Does that make them less valuable as human beings? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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] ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~