Johanna Rubba's last post reveals a fundamental difference of opinion
about the relationship of language to thought and culture.

After I asked the following questions,

> > If we take seriously the notion that language "profoundly reflects
> > thought and culture," then what is the implication for non-standard
> > dialects?  Do people who speak non-standard dialects think differently?
> > How are such people's cultures profoundly different? . . . .

Johanna wrote:

> Bob raises an important concern here. A good example of the notion
> 'language reflecting thought' that went seriously awry was the whole
> Basil Bernstein restricted/elaborated code . . . . .

> . . . . . 'The Culture Wars' is about accepting diverse cultures
> and recognizing that Western culture isn't inherently superior over
> other cultures; that 'folk cultures' aren't inherently inferior to
> 'technological cultures'. The advocacy of multicultural education
> indicates an intellectual readiness in our culture to recognize dialect
> prejudice as prejudice. . . . . .

These comments seem to me to accept the notion that language does
reflect thought and culture.  The implication is clear for the teaching
of grammar.  Students will be unable to think appropriately about their
content material if they are unable to express those ideas in Standard
English.

I unequivocally reject the notion that language reflects thought and
culture. I have no idea how my thoughts are different in English because
it is fundamentally a Subject Verb Object language and from the thoughts
of my wife whose language is German, a Subject Object Verb language.
More directly related to our concerns as teachers of English grammar,
what thoughts are influenced by a person who regularly mark verbs for
third person agreement and a person who don't regularly do that?

If Johanna is right, then Rei Noguchi and Robert DeBeaugrande are
wrong.  Both Noguchi and DeBeaugrande have argued that students possess
a lot of the grammatical knowledge to control standard English.
However, if "language profoundly reflects thought and culture" then it
follows that anyone who speaks another dialect of English thinks
differently from someone who speaks standard English.

Finally, if Johanna is right and we follow her teaching suggestions at
the lower grades of providing a lot opportunities to read and WRITE the
standard, we will be engaging in cultural genocide. That seem to follow
directly from the following claim.

> As to minority cultures being 'profoundly' different from the dominant
> culture, I believe that they may well be.

I don't think teaching the standard is cultural genocide because
language does not "profoundly reflect thought and culture."  Noguchi and
DeBeaugrande are right. Whether one asks

        Am I not a woman?
        Ain't I a woman?
        Bin ich denn nicht eine Frau?
        Est-ce que je ne suis pas une femme?

the cry to recognize one's humanity is exactly the same!  The linguistic
form of the question is irrelevant.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University