A few thoughts on the Standard English and usage discussion ...
Rebecca, your student clearly has problems beyond the standard usage
'errors'. I read that paragraph as ungrammatical in any dialect I know of.
Maybe s/he needs to revise more carefully??? Is not used to using writing
as a means of expression?
As to the general issue -- this is, of course, a constant problem for
linguists. I, too, must seem to my students to be talking out of both
sides of my mouth, since I preach dialect and style equality in my
courses, while enforcing formal Standard English on student papers. I tell
them that that is exactly what I am doing: I am enforcing their adherence
to the form of language that is currently used in professional and
academic writing. I also inform them of changes that are underway, and
whether they are likely to get in trouble or not with various
teachers/readers. For example, I allow -- even encourage -- 'they' as a
gender-neutral singular pronoun. But I warn my students that some of
their teachers may find this unacceptable. We talk about these issues. It
leaves them a little confused, but that's reality: different readers have
different standards.
As to the 'quality' of languages / dialects / styles -- linguistics has,
I believe, now established beyond doubt that every language, dialect, and
style is equally systematic and equally capable of expressing the full
richness of human experience. That doesn't mean that this knowledge has
made it to the general public or even to many English teachers at all
levels of education. It also doesn't mean that every dialect/style is
appropriate to every occasion. 'Good' language is situation-dependent. It
would be as 'bad' to use formal English with intimates or friends on an
informal occasion as it would be to use informal English, slang, or
'curse words' in court or at a job interview.
I believe change in the current situation (that only one kind of English
is considered 'good', in spite of the fact that this statement is
incomplete at best and false at worst) can only happen slowly. I see it
coming about in stages. First, the message will get out to the general
public and teachers through linguistics courses (like the ones I teach).
_Some_ of those students will retain the message; many (I see this all
the time) will be 'recidivist' English purists. This will make some few
people more tolerant of, especially, variant dialects. The message will
spread, slowly, with them.
If our education system reforms its approach to language arts by teaching
the truth about language variation from early on, and having children
work with language in various styles, then the message of 'relative
goodness' will become part of our world view about language. If at the
same time society integrates, dialects will merge slightly in any case (I
already see examples of, e.g., 'Black' English in 'quality' media, as
inserts of expression in pieces by respected Afr. Amer. writers/speakers).
And last night on a stupid sitcom a white woman used a snippet of Afr.
Amer. dialect to make a point.
This will lead to changes in Standard English, and a general wearing down
of language and dialect-based prejudices. As Standard English becomes
more inclusive of 'minority' dialect patterns, perhaps the use of dialect
as a means of exclusion from society's goodies will decrease, as other
prejudices are slowly wearing down.
This is a very idealistic picture, I realize, but it is my dream. I plan
on doing what I can professionally to get it going. I hope other
linguists whose jobs bring them in touch with non-linguists will work
towards the same end. Most important first steps are: (a) working on
getting the message across VERY CLEARLY in teacher education, since
teachers are the main enforcers of 'good English' in children's lives;
(b) working with teachers and other experts on revising the teaching of
language arts (esp. 'grammar') so that it more accurately reflects the
truth about language. I will be undertaking this starting next year in a
new grammar course our dept. is creating. I think it would also be a good
idea for linguists to write editorial pieces which offer retorts for the
usual 'language maven' pieces that people like Wm. Safire write, or in
response to situations like the current Supreme Court case involving AZ's
English-only law.
Linguists and others who know the truth about language have to be
activists, in at least small ways. It does everyone a disservice to allow
myths to continue. Simply enforcing Standard English usage without
explaining all this perpetuates the myths.
Johanna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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] ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
