by: Jacob Ardis
Introduction
Professor of African American Studies at University of Iowa Dr. Vershawn Ashanti Young, Professor of Literacy Studies at Ohio State University Dr. Elaine Richardson, and Professor of Linguistics at Emory University Dr. Susan Tamasi all discuss the concepts of a “standard English” in the United States of America, which is the idea that there is one proper way to communicate formally when using the English language, as well as the stigmatization and negative dialectical attitudes furthered by this ”standard English.” One of the many problems of stigmatization Dr. Tamasi points out is that there are some dialects that, “are so stigmatized that people don’t even consider them any form of real language”.(Tamasi) Young in his writing “Should Writers Use They Own English” raises the fundamental point, which both Tamasi and Richardson agree with, that one can’t dismiss race and culture when talking about language and dialects because they are so deeply intertwined. This is a very crucial point because it means that the important of accepting dialects is about more than just accepting the various ways in which people speak. It is also about racial and cultural acceptance. This is a point many people fail to realize, and as a result, dialectical intolerance is one of the most prevalent remaining forms of racism.
My project
The importance of working towards dialectical acceptance of some degree is clear. Young proposes doing away with “standard” English and teaching “code meshing” or the blending of dialects. He believes that “code meshing” should be accepted in all forms of communication. You claims this will result in more effective communication and help reduce prejudice towards dialects and the people that use them. However, Young does not address many potential problems widely used “code meshing” or offer plan for promoting his idea of creating dialectical acceptance. In my interview with linguistic professor Dr. Susan Tamasi, she talks about bringing linguistic information into a classroom at a young age as a means of promoting linguistic acceptance. In what follows, I draw upon my interview of Dr. Tamasi and extend the work of Elaine Richardson in “”English Only”, African American Contributions to Standardized Communication Structures and the Potential for Social Transformation” to counter Young’s proposal of entirely doing away with a “standard” English and of teaching “code meshing” by extrapolating from the texts a hypothetical case in which there is a linguistic standard that is race and culture neutral to make apparent the benefits of having a linguistic standard and show how linguistic standards solves many of the challenges of having wide spread “code meshing” would create. Additionally, I propose various courses to be incorporated in a middle school and high school curriculum for reducing prejudice and promoting dialectical acceptance by not only answering Richardson’s call to visibly include the contributions of the various American dialect into the nations consciousness(Richardson 100) but also by incorporating the various difference and rhetorical strengths of the dialects in ways that goes far beyond the basic inclusion of linguistic information in the classroom that Tamasi discusses.
Why the idea of a linguistic standard has value
The concept of a standardized way of speaking for the purposes of politics, business, and various other formal settings does not always inherently cause stigmatization and actually solves various problems that would exist if “code meshing” was as Young proposes the norm. To explain, imagine a hypothetical culture and race neutral standard of English that consist of system of grammar, vocabulary, and spelling that was somehow constructed without any connection to culture or races. The various effects of embracing this dialect as a standard, which will be discussed in more detail later, would impact speakers of all the various dialects relatively equally. What this dialect would actually look like is unimportant.
Introduction
Professor of African American Studies at University of Iowa Dr. Vershawn Ashanti Young, Professor of Literacy Studies at Ohio State University Dr. Elaine Richardson, and Professor of Linguistics at Emory University Dr. Susan Tamasi all discuss the concepts of a “standard English” in the United States of America, which is the idea that there is one proper way to communicate formally when using the English language, as well as the stigmatization and negative dialectical attitudes furthered by this ”standard English.” One of the many problems of stigmatization Dr. Tamasi points out is that there are some dialects that, “are so stigmatized that people don’t even consider them any form of real language”.(Tamasi) Young in his writing “Should Writers Use They Own English” raises the fundamental point, which both Tamasi and Richardson agree with, that one can’t dismiss race and culture when talking about language and dialects because they are so deeply intertwined. This is a very crucial point because it means that the important of accepting dialects is about more than just accepting the various ways in which people speak. It is also about racial and cultural acceptance. This is a point many people fail to realize, and as a result, dialectical intolerance is one of the most prevalent remaining forms of racism.
My project
The importance of working towards dialectical acceptance of some degree is clear. Young proposes doing away with “standard” English and teaching “code meshing” or the blending of dialects. He believes that “code meshing” should be accepted in all forms of communication. You claims this will result in more effective communication and help reduce prejudice towards dialects and the people that use them. However, Young does not address many potential problems widely used “code meshing” or offer plan for promoting his idea of creating dialectical acceptance. In my interview with linguistic professor Dr. Susan Tamasi, she talks about bringing linguistic information into a classroom at a young age as a means of promoting linguistic acceptance. In what follows, I draw upon my interview of Dr. Tamasi and extend the work of Elaine Richardson in “”English Only”, African American Contributions to Standardized Communication Structures and the Potential for Social Transformation” to counter Young’s proposal of entirely doing away with a “standard” English and of teaching “code meshing” by extrapolating from the texts a hypothetical case in which there is a linguistic standard that is race and culture neutral to make apparent the benefits of having a linguistic standard and show how linguistic standards solves many of the challenges of having wide spread “code meshing” would create. Additionally, I propose various courses to be incorporated in a middle school and high school curriculum for reducing prejudice and promoting dialectical acceptance by not only answering Richardson’s call to visibly include the contributions of the various American dialect into the nations consciousness(Richardson 100) but also by incorporating the various difference and rhetorical strengths of the dialects in ways that goes far beyond the basic inclusion of linguistic information in the classroom that Tamasi discusses.
Why the idea of a linguistic standard has value
The concept of a standardized way of speaking for the purposes of politics, business, and various other formal settings does not always inherently cause stigmatization and actually solves various problems that would exist if “code meshing” was as Young proposes the norm. To explain, imagine a hypothetical culture and race neutral standard of English that consist of system of grammar, vocabulary, and spelling that was somehow constructed without any connection to culture or races. The various effects of embracing this dialect as a standard, which will be discussed in more detail later, would impact speakers of all the various dialects relatively equally. What this dialect would actually look like is unimportant.
Now, let’s examine how this standard could solve problems that are inherent to the existence of multiple dialects. To start, think of how easily what people say can be misconstrued when they use a single slang word another person doesn't know. Imagine how much of a wide spread problem this would be if there were various dialects constantly being used and blended together. There are additional problems that can lead to miscommunication such as the use of double negatives in African American English as seen in “Should Writers Use They Own English” which confuses readers because what formal logic tells us or what it would means in another vernacular is sometimes different from what is meant. A standard dialect can offer constancy and clarity to communication. These benefits are particularly important within the context of a legal system where the life’s of hundreds millions of people can be affected by the interpretation of the wording of a law. Additionally, if a society “code meshed” the effort necessary to effectively communicate with people could be potentially overwhelming given the multitude of dialects. A standard allows people to only learn on additionally dialect that would be commonly spoken eliminating the need to constantly be learning new dialects.
Young proposes that a standard is not needed to communicate effectively in fact he cites Linguist William Labov who said, “in many ways [black] working-class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class [white] speakers, who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail.”(Young 71) to argue that dialects can prove an even more effective means of communication. Standards do not need to automatically deny the various meaning making rhetoric devices of other dialects. The idea of a standard separate from any culture and race shows the appealing benefits and added value of additional clarity and consistent in communication offered by language standards.
The problem with “standard” English in the United States of America
The outlined positive aspect offers compelling support of the use of language standards. There are, however, problems with the standard of “standard” English in the U.S. The biggest problem is namely that “standard” English is, not as in the case of the previously presented hypothetical standard, racial and cultural neutral. “Standard” English as it exist today is an Anglo-Saxon construct. When “standard” English is used as a linguistic standard, those propositioning it are essentially saying how we write and speak is how everyone should write and speak. As a result, other dialects and ways of communicated are labeled as wrong and stigmas are formed. This has very serious implications because as discussed earlier language is tied to race and culture. Additionally, Richardson says, “important to view people’s language use as an important part of identity and knowledge-making” (Richardson 100) In other words, the proposition of a language standard by a group of people is in essence that group of people saying how we think and our culture is preferred over both other ways of thinking and cultures.
Young proposes that a standard is not needed to communicate effectively in fact he cites Linguist William Labov who said, “in many ways [black] working-class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class [white] speakers, who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail.”(Young 71) to argue that dialects can prove an even more effective means of communication. Standards do not need to automatically deny the various meaning making rhetoric devices of other dialects. The idea of a standard separate from any culture and race shows the appealing benefits and added value of additional clarity and consistent in communication offered by language standards.
The problem with “standard” English in the United States of America
The outlined positive aspect offers compelling support of the use of language standards. There are, however, problems with the standard of “standard” English in the U.S. The biggest problem is namely that “standard” English is, not as in the case of the previously presented hypothetical standard, racial and cultural neutral. “Standard” English as it exist today is an Anglo-Saxon construct. When “standard” English is used as a linguistic standard, those propositioning it are essentially saying how we write and speak is how everyone should write and speak. As a result, other dialects and ways of communicated are labeled as wrong and stigmas are formed. This has very serious implications because as discussed earlier language is tied to race and culture. Additionally, Richardson says, “important to view people’s language use as an important part of identity and knowledge-making” (Richardson 100) In other words, the proposition of a language standard by a group of people is in essence that group of people saying how we think and our culture is preferred over both other ways of thinking and cultures.
My Proposal for reducing prejudice and promoting dialectical acceptance
To reduce prejudice and promote acceptance while still maintaining the benefits of having a linguistic standard the elements to be implemented into middle school and high school curriculum should focus on raising awareness of dialects, their corresponding cultures, and how the two are intertwined in order to raise them out of their positions of subordinate. My interview with Dr. Susan Tamasi offers the foundation for this which I extend upon. Tamasi discusses Linguistic Professor at North Carolina State Jeffrey Reaser’s strategies for promoting linguistic acceptance. Reaser has a curriculum for middle school and high school students that examine dialects and languages in the context of a social study class. In these class, students examine the history and immigration patterns in North Carolina and relate that to why people speak different dialects and languages. After establishing the cultural background, students then examine the language variation. By establishing that different dialects and languages aren't just modes of speaking and writing but that they are cultural topics as well, there is a respect established for these vernaculars.
Another awareness about nonstandard dialects that is very important to focus on and would once again be done so in the context of a social studies class is the significant contributions they have made to the development of the United States of America and the marginalizing relegations that have been potentially made to the dialects. This is something that Richardson focus on strongly in “”English Only”, African American Contributions to Standardized Communication Structures and the Potential for Social Transformation”. She does this because knowing how and to what extent nonstandard dialects have contributed to society reinforces the validity of and generates respect toward these dialects.
Building respect for dialects is essential starting point. However, a curriculum needs to go further into rhetoric than do these type of social study courses in order to establish the strengths of different dialects. I propose English classes that compare various dialects to the standards being taught. The comparison would be done in the same way that Richardson proposes teaching linguistic history that is, “not at the expense of “standard” English but as a way of positioning oneself and understanding oneself in relation to it” (Richardson 103) This would allow students not only to formally learn about dialects, but to get a better understanding of the “standard” English and why things are done a certain way. By teaching about “standard” English in relations to student’s dialects what is happening is what Richardson addresses as, “to teach the unfamiliar through the familiar.”(Richardson 102) This concept is key when teaching any literacy educations and should be always be applied in order to help even the playing field. The educations system is based around “standard” English which is privileges the students who grew up speaking “standard” English opposed to a nonstandard.(Richardson 108) Additionally, it is important that the discussion of the strengths of different dialectic rhetoric is within the context of an English. Because by formally discussing and learning about dialects in an English class, a certain amount of credibility in regards to the validity of dialects as methods of linguistic communication is established.
Conclusion
While linguistic standards will always privilege one way vernacular over the rest, progress can still be made in achieving linguistic acceptance and reducing racial prejudice. Providing a multitude of different linguistic information in more than one context to students at a young age is key in combating the perpetuation of stigmas. Additionally, ensuring that students who speak nonstandard dialects have the same opportunity of those who speak “standard” English to succeed in literacy education by adapting teaching methods that understand the vernacular strategies that students bring to the class room and using those vernaculars to help teach is very important. The result is like those of the privileged linguistic standard, nonstandard speakers too can learn though the familiar. These strategies will help combat the negative attitudes inherent to any actual linguistic standard like that of “standard” English here in the United States and reduce racial prejudice while still allowing the societal benefits of having one core dialect that everyone can clearly and consistently communicate though. Further research could be done into making “standard” English less of a Anglo-Saxon construct.
Works Cited
Young, Vershawn Ashanti . "Should Writers Use They Own English." Writing Centers and the New Racism: A Call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2011. 61-71. Print.
Horner, Bruce. and Lu, Min-Zhan. and Matsuda, Paul Kei. Cross-Language Relations in Composition.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2010. Project MUSE. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Dr. Susan Tamasi. personal interview. 28 Feb 2015.
To reduce prejudice and promote acceptance while still maintaining the benefits of having a linguistic standard the elements to be implemented into middle school and high school curriculum should focus on raising awareness of dialects, their corresponding cultures, and how the two are intertwined in order to raise them out of their positions of subordinate. My interview with Dr. Susan Tamasi offers the foundation for this which I extend upon. Tamasi discusses Linguistic Professor at North Carolina State Jeffrey Reaser’s strategies for promoting linguistic acceptance. Reaser has a curriculum for middle school and high school students that examine dialects and languages in the context of a social study class. In these class, students examine the history and immigration patterns in North Carolina and relate that to why people speak different dialects and languages. After establishing the cultural background, students then examine the language variation. By establishing that different dialects and languages aren't just modes of speaking and writing but that they are cultural topics as well, there is a respect established for these vernaculars.
Another awareness about nonstandard dialects that is very important to focus on and would once again be done so in the context of a social studies class is the significant contributions they have made to the development of the United States of America and the marginalizing relegations that have been potentially made to the dialects. This is something that Richardson focus on strongly in “”English Only”, African American Contributions to Standardized Communication Structures and the Potential for Social Transformation”. She does this because knowing how and to what extent nonstandard dialects have contributed to society reinforces the validity of and generates respect toward these dialects.
Building respect for dialects is essential starting point. However, a curriculum needs to go further into rhetoric than do these type of social study courses in order to establish the strengths of different dialects. I propose English classes that compare various dialects to the standards being taught. The comparison would be done in the same way that Richardson proposes teaching linguistic history that is, “not at the expense of “standard” English but as a way of positioning oneself and understanding oneself in relation to it” (Richardson 103) This would allow students not only to formally learn about dialects, but to get a better understanding of the “standard” English and why things are done a certain way. By teaching about “standard” English in relations to student’s dialects what is happening is what Richardson addresses as, “to teach the unfamiliar through the familiar.”(Richardson 102) This concept is key when teaching any literacy educations and should be always be applied in order to help even the playing field. The educations system is based around “standard” English which is privileges the students who grew up speaking “standard” English opposed to a nonstandard.(Richardson 108) Additionally, it is important that the discussion of the strengths of different dialectic rhetoric is within the context of an English. Because by formally discussing and learning about dialects in an English class, a certain amount of credibility in regards to the validity of dialects as methods of linguistic communication is established.
Conclusion
While linguistic standards will always privilege one way vernacular over the rest, progress can still be made in achieving linguistic acceptance and reducing racial prejudice. Providing a multitude of different linguistic information in more than one context to students at a young age is key in combating the perpetuation of stigmas. Additionally, ensuring that students who speak nonstandard dialects have the same opportunity of those who speak “standard” English to succeed in literacy education by adapting teaching methods that understand the vernacular strategies that students bring to the class room and using those vernaculars to help teach is very important. The result is like those of the privileged linguistic standard, nonstandard speakers too can learn though the familiar. These strategies will help combat the negative attitudes inherent to any actual linguistic standard like that of “standard” English here in the United States and reduce racial prejudice while still allowing the societal benefits of having one core dialect that everyone can clearly and consistently communicate though. Further research could be done into making “standard” English less of a Anglo-Saxon construct.
Works Cited
Young, Vershawn Ashanti . "Should Writers Use They Own English." Writing Centers and the New Racism: A Call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2011. 61-71. Print.
Horner, Bruce. and Lu, Min-Zhan. and Matsuda, Paul Kei. Cross-Language Relations in Composition.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2010. Project MUSE. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Dr. Susan Tamasi. personal interview. 28 Feb 2015.
Page Banner Retrieved from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mychatham/2247900790/in/photolist-cBEW6h-azVk6i-87VWn4-H2xNV-4qD5Ab-572ofJ-he1H7i-672TFm-cAAaeu-djx7sr-a2MxK3-AdLsj-bpKHta-4SXgV3-eaCgrM-4D3Tvf-4s6TVz-oTZP3L-fECH44-4d6Qbj-EbdTY-4Ed7NC-4Fqs91-6dqfXw-e22Gaa-fC1Fpe-brZdQY-fHGJ4t-dYFem4-fEUbGt-2ewTE-nMuNUq-6VaKKe-zJvV5-q8Bfux-pDHRKK-8Cd71F-G3jUW-5XKZ4Y-5k9LHd-4dnkqB-6E8ar3-dwdF1m-9iScNi-bMiYag-4Edj55-pSUyve-amEd82-4mudg7-dXTnuL