In English with an
Accent (2nd ed.), Rosina Lippi-Green puts forward strong
critiques of appropriacy arguments, asking readers to think through what
it
means for speakers to judge nonstandard dialects as inappropriate in
particular
contexts. I would love to continue our conversation from Wednesday's
class about two of the arguments she makes in the chapter about language
and education. I've put one in each post so that we can keep the
strings of comments separate.
Excerpt 2:
Those who argue that it is right and
good to help those children [who speak nonstandard varieties of English]
substitute *SAE for their home languages never seem to carry the argument to
its ultimate conclusion. First, it has been established that teachers
discriminate against speakers of stigmatized varieties of English; second, it
is agreed that in such an atmosphere of rejection, no child can thrive. From
these two facts come the conclusion that *SAE must be acquired and the vernacular
put aside. This may seem to be common sense and logical, but it is in fact
logical only in so far as one accepts the underlying premise of linguistic
superiority and the primacy of economic motivations.
fact:
Language A and Language B are equal in linguistic
and cultural terms.
-->
fact:
Language B is rejected by teachers and
employers.
-->
fact:
Rejection has a negative effect on the
speakers of Language B.
↓
*conclusion: Language B must be discarded in favor of
Language A.
…
The teacher discriminates because the employer does; the child pays the price
of that discrimination by accommodating and assimilating. The only way to
achieve pluralistic goals, we are told, is
to make everyone alike. (84-85)