In
their new book We Do Language: English
Language Variation in the Secondary English Classroom, Anne Harper Charity
Hudley and Christine Mallinson encourage educators to take a more critical
approach to understanding the ways that students employ non-standardized
English language varieties. Although the primary audience for the book is
secondary English teachers, anyone who teaches in today’s ever-changing linguistically
diverse classrooms will find it a beneficial resource.
Language
is as inextricably linked to our cultural experiences as the number of boxes
that we can check on a form. As people, cultures, technologies, and contexts
change, so does the language that we use to express ourselves. I don’t have to
look any farther than that last text that I sent or received to see how new
literacies have changed language. With that being said, as educators it is still
somewhat difficult to determine what is permissible in terms of
non-standardized use of English in the college classroom. Navigating the space between expectations for
standardized English proficiency and acceptance of non-standardized English
varieties can be second nature for some and completely perplexing for others. To
assist in navigating this terrain, Charity Hudley and Mallinson advocate for
what they call “linguistic awareness” in classrooms and beyond.
The
chapter that I found most intriguing in this regard was titled “Language
Varies.” In it the authors identify what they describe as three linguistic
truths and explain why it is important to possess more than a superficial
understanding of these seemingly obvious truths. The truths put forth are: “Communication
Occurs in Social Contexts,” “Language is Always Changing,” and “Language
Differences are not Language Deficits” (ch. 2).
Additionally, they include a set of “linguistic reflection” questions such as “Where
do you hear different types of language?” and “What type of language variation
do you find interesting?” (ch. 2).
These questions encourage readers to confront our own ideas about language
varieties. The chapter concludes with suggestions for “supporting
linguistically and culturally diverse students” (ch. 2). Although the
authors do not provide specific strategies for doing this, they argue that “to help all students . . . become
communicatively competent, it is important for educators to be able to identify
language differences in culturally responsive and sociolinguistically informed
ways” (ch.2).The authors believe that educators who have a firm grasp of the
linguistic truths “are able to build on their students’ home languages and
language varieties as they help [them] learn the norms and conventions of
standardized English” (ch. 2).
Charity
Hudley and Mallinson assert that, “language varieties are often stigmatized,” which
brings with it additional ills (ch. 2). To that
end they argue, “The tenets of multiculuralism challenge us to critically
examine these notions, however, and, to see [language] differences as part of
the natural spectrum of humanity” (ch. 2). This becomes of
increasing importance as the ever-expanding definition of multiculturalism presents
itself in college classrooms, particularly for adults students whose cultural and
linguistic voices may be more firmly cemented.
The authors argue, “Any language variety is just as logical
and internally consistent as another, and, just like standardized English,
non-standardized varities of English are rule-governed and predictable in their
linguistic structure” (ch. 2). Therein lies the
problem for many instructors; how does one become familiar with the rules of
the language variety that a student is using?
I have experienced situations where colleagues have wrongly equated a
student’s incorrect use of grammar with a dialect or vernacular. On the more disturbing
end of the spectrum, I vividly remember an experience where I witnessed a
colleague belittle a student by telling him that his use of an English language
variety showed his “inability to speak standard American English.” In that
case, I intervened to salvage what remained of the student’s visibily
diminished self-esteem. Because of my familiarity with the language variety he
used, I was able to offer suggestions that would help rather than hinder the
student’s academic progress.
In cases where I am unfamiliar with a language variety, I ask
the student to explain to me what he or she means. I find that this empowers
students because rather than feel that they are deficient, they see that they
are using a variation of the language and that they are fluent enough to
translate it into another variety. Depending on the assignment, we can determine
which variety of English is best suited for the audience. If students do not
learn the correct contexts for using standardized and non-standardized
varieties of English in the college classroom, where will they learn them?
Although some hardline sociolinguists and home language
advocates argue that one should be able to use any English language variety anywhere,
the reality is that we live in a world where context dictates which variety of
English we use as much as it dictates that I don’t wear my pajamas to a job
interview. As an educator, I would do my students a grave disservice to not
teach this. As educators we can find ways to empower students linguistically
and respect their cultural identities. To support this notion, the authors cite earlier work by
Smitherman and Villanueva who argue, “real-word educational and professional
situations bring together speakers of different languages and language
varieties. Students who are able to navigate this diversity are well positioned
to succeed in a multicultural society” (qtd in Charity Hudley and Mallinson,
ch. 2). I would argue that the same is true for faculty. I believe that the
more linguistically aware I am as a teacher, the better prepared I will be to
teach in our multicultural classrooms.
No comments:
Post a Comment