Linguistics in Education
If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.
- Nelson Mandela
Language is one of the most essential shared experiences of humanity. Regardless of the way we use it, the way we share ideas, our cultural and self-identities, and our beliefs about learning and social power are all wrapped up in language. Yet, linguistic theory and practice are sadly missing from American schools. Grammar is no longer widely taught in American schools and when it is, it’s usually under prescriptive misconceptions that dominate our cultural beliefs about the English language (McClure 2007).
More over, linguistic discrimination, both against other language groups as well as against non-standard English dialect groups, is one of the most insidious forms of discrimination still largely accepted within our society. Beliefs that people who speak a Southern American-English dialect, or African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), or have a hispanic or other accent, are less intelligent are very pervasive in popular culture. It is important to note that dialects and languages which are stigmatized belong to specific regional and ethnic groups. The belief that these discriminations are somehow justified on the basis that these dialects do not adhere to standard English are not factually supportable. Many foreign English accents such as Scottish and Australian are viewed very favorably in North America, but are viewed more negatively in other English speaking cultures (Menzies 2004).
Students have been particular victims of this. A number of landmark legals cases such as Lau v. Nichols (1974), and Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), among others, had varying effects on the status and support of students for whom English was not their native language. Some acts, such as The Bilingual Education Act (1968) had very negative effects on English Language Learners.
More over, linguistic discrimination, both against other language groups as well as against non-standard English dialect groups, is one of the most insidious forms of discrimination still largely accepted within our society. Beliefs that people who speak a Southern American-English dialect, or African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), or have a hispanic or other accent, are less intelligent are very pervasive in popular culture. It is important to note that dialects and languages which are stigmatized belong to specific regional and ethnic groups. The belief that these discriminations are somehow justified on the basis that these dialects do not adhere to standard English are not factually supportable. Many foreign English accents such as Scottish and Australian are viewed very favorably in North America, but are viewed more negatively in other English speaking cultures (Menzies 2004).
Students have been particular victims of this. A number of landmark legals cases such as Lau v. Nichols (1974), and Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), among others, had varying effects on the status and support of students for whom English was not their native language. Some acts, such as The Bilingual Education Act (1968) had very negative effects on English Language Learners.
“Although educators and legislators have attempted to endorse and enforce policies that would advance English proficiency and literacy among all students, these policies have met with differential success and have often been highly politicized by efforts to admonish those who do not already possess English fluency, or to restrict and curtail the types of educational opportunities that are available to students for whom English is not native.”
– John Baugh
Integrating Linguistic theory into K-12 education is firstly a socio-political choice. Students have a right to be educated in a language that they understand. It is my personal belief that this law, enacted by Lau v. Nichols, should extend not only to students who speak different languages natively, but also students who speak socially marginalized dialects of English. To teach students in an ethnically, culturally, and intellectually equitable environment necessitates recognizing the linguistic diversity of all students, of all backgrounds.
“Few people who strive to solve the educational problems of linguistically diverse students do so by contemplating the linguistic consequences of colonization, but the origin of contemporary linguistic inequality owes its existence to the inherently unequal relationships that emerged from colonization, slavery, and the emergence of socially stratified linguistic patterns.”
– John Baugh
Non-native speakers of so-called Standard American English are at an extreme disadvantage in current education. Overcomming those disadvantages requires not only a conscientious teacher, but an informed one. The study of pragmatics offers an excellent example of the ways that teachers need to be educated to work well with students of diverse background. Pragmatics govern the formal and informal ways that we communicate and expect to be communicated with. It is common for people to assume that their pragmatic norms are universal when in reality they differ greatly between cultures. This is especially challenging for English Language Learners, particularly those who have immigrated to the United States. Lillian Faderman shares this story from her book I Begin my Life All Over (1998) about Loco Vang a young Hmong refugee in America:
When I go home, I know my mother cares about me a little. But I don't really talk to her. I just say, "Hi, hello." Everytime I used to help out my dad, he never showed respect to me for it. If he needed me to help him carry, I'd help him. But he never said "Thank You," or "You're welcome." So I got mad. Whenever he tells me what to do now, I don't even bother to do it" (p. 193).
The problem lies in different expectations for how to show respect and gratitude. The systems are different for the father, who grew up exclusively with Hmong values and expectations, and for the son, who grew up with many American values and expectations. The same conflicts can arrise in a classroom if a teacher expects eye contact from a student whose home culture expects children to avoid direct eye contact with an adult. Many students are often seen as uncooperative for not participating more in class, without considering that the educational experiences they had in their native country might have discouraged such activities. Conversely, students from a culture that teaches through collaboration and conversation are often seen as disruptive when they are unable to work silently and alone.
Goinging beyond the first step of merely educating educators means explicitly teaching linguistic theory. Integrating Linguistic theory into K-12 education has been shown to be sound teaching practice: Studying vernacular dialects of English is an effective means of teaching students how to use Standard American English (Wheeler 2005). Analyzing the structures of rantings about bad grammar has been used to teach students how to be stronger writers (Dunn & Lindblom 2005). Students of all backgrounds face substantial prejudice about their writing. The belief that people, and especially youth, cannot write, speak, spell, or use grammar "properly" dates back to ancient Greece. "Writers reveal the political, social, and economic assumptions that underpin their views" (Dunn & Lindblom p. 195). Other research has shown that our perceptions about the quality of an individual's writing is directly related to the social power of the individual (Schneider 2002 & Mann 2003). In short, someone who has social prestige is given the benefit of the doubt when making writing "errors", and someone who doesn't, isn't given the same benefit, ie. a student.
This is an excellent illustration of the many important threads of education which linguistics can weave together: First, linguistic teaching is more culturally sensitive and inclusive; second, linguistic teaching can better educate students; and third, by combing the first two points, linguistic teaching can overturn traditional, oppressive systems and beliefs. As a central, shared human experience, linguistics deserves to be at the center of study in education.
When I go home, I know my mother cares about me a little. But I don't really talk to her. I just say, "Hi, hello." Everytime I used to help out my dad, he never showed respect to me for it. If he needed me to help him carry, I'd help him. But he never said "Thank You," or "You're welcome." So I got mad. Whenever he tells me what to do now, I don't even bother to do it" (p. 193).
The problem lies in different expectations for how to show respect and gratitude. The systems are different for the father, who grew up exclusively with Hmong values and expectations, and for the son, who grew up with many American values and expectations. The same conflicts can arrise in a classroom if a teacher expects eye contact from a student whose home culture expects children to avoid direct eye contact with an adult. Many students are often seen as uncooperative for not participating more in class, without considering that the educational experiences they had in their native country might have discouraged such activities. Conversely, students from a culture that teaches through collaboration and conversation are often seen as disruptive when they are unable to work silently and alone.
Goinging beyond the first step of merely educating educators means explicitly teaching linguistic theory. Integrating Linguistic theory into K-12 education has been shown to be sound teaching practice: Studying vernacular dialects of English is an effective means of teaching students how to use Standard American English (Wheeler 2005). Analyzing the structures of rantings about bad grammar has been used to teach students how to be stronger writers (Dunn & Lindblom 2005). Students of all backgrounds face substantial prejudice about their writing. The belief that people, and especially youth, cannot write, speak, spell, or use grammar "properly" dates back to ancient Greece. "Writers reveal the political, social, and economic assumptions that underpin their views" (Dunn & Lindblom p. 195). Other research has shown that our perceptions about the quality of an individual's writing is directly related to the social power of the individual (Schneider 2002 & Mann 2003). In short, someone who has social prestige is given the benefit of the doubt when making writing "errors", and someone who doesn't, isn't given the same benefit, ie. a student.
This is an excellent illustration of the many important threads of education which linguistics can weave together: First, linguistic teaching is more culturally sensitive and inclusive; second, linguistic teaching can better educate students; and third, by combing the first two points, linguistic teaching can overturn traditional, oppressive systems and beliefs. As a central, shared human experience, linguistics deserves to be at the center of study in education.
References:
McClure, E. S., (2007). Six middle school language arts teachers' beliefs about grammar and their teaching of grammar while participating in a professional learning community. Dissertation, Georgia State University.
Menzies, J., (2004). An investigation of attitudes to scots and Glasgow dialect among secondary school pupils. http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/STELLA/STARN/lang/MENZIES/menzie1.htm
Baugh, J., (2005). Linguistics and education in multilingual America. Language in the schools: Integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. 5-16.
Wheeler, R. S., (2005) Contrastive analysis and codeswitching: How and why to use the vernacular to teach standard English. Language in the schools: Integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. 171-180.
Dunn, P. A., & K. Lindblom (2005). Developing savvy writers by analyzing grammar rants. Language in the schools: Integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. 191-207.
Mann, N. (2003) Point counterpoint: Teaching punctuation as information management. The Journal of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 54, 359-393.
Schneider, B. (2002). Nonstandard quotes: Superimpositions and cultural maps. The Journal of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 54, 188-207.
McClure, E. S., (2007). Six middle school language arts teachers' beliefs about grammar and their teaching of grammar while participating in a professional learning community. Dissertation, Georgia State University.
Menzies, J., (2004). An investigation of attitudes to scots and Glasgow dialect among secondary school pupils. http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/STELLA/STARN/lang/MENZIES/menzie1.htm
Baugh, J., (2005). Linguistics and education in multilingual America. Language in the schools: Integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. 5-16.
Wheeler, R. S., (2005) Contrastive analysis and codeswitching: How and why to use the vernacular to teach standard English. Language in the schools: Integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. 171-180.
Dunn, P. A., & K. Lindblom (2005). Developing savvy writers by analyzing grammar rants. Language in the schools: Integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. 191-207.
Mann, N. (2003) Point counterpoint: Teaching punctuation as information management. The Journal of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 54, 359-393.
Schneider, B. (2002). Nonstandard quotes: Superimpositions and cultural maps. The Journal of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 54, 188-207.