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.
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)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, now that the blog didn't save the post I just wrote, I will rewrite it again more succinctly:
ReplyDeleteLippi-Green's language in her post is extreme, but true. Even when utilizing resources like Delpit's "codes of power" when talking about SAE with students, we are still ultimately perpetuating the idea that children must accommodate and assimilate (even if they're knowingly, purposefully doing so via code switching accessing/using those codes of power, etc). And of course there is loss when this happens. But what is our alternative? Where does stereotype threat enter the situation?
In the past I've spent a good amount of time with students thinking about these ideas. We think about who has power, how that power is used and sustained via language, the "unfairness" of it all. Students think about their own language use and the code switching that they do without, sometimes, realizing it.
It would have been interesting, although I never did do this, to have kids read some Smitherman and think about how she's using language as a means of power. How did she acquire that sort of power that enabled her to be "able" to write that way? What is at stake?
I’m particularly interested in Lippi-Green’s assertion about the “underlying premise of linguistic superiority and the primacy of economic motivations.” I, like Lippi-Green, am particularly wary of the “primacy of economic motivations” shibboleth that underlies education at all levels, though I’ve been particularly wary of its effects in our assumptions about higher education. Basically, I don’t trust the “great equalizer” connotations associated with education. We assume that anyone from a different or lower social status than our own is and must be seeking upward mobility, and that assumption underlies much of the language instruction we develop in schools, including appropriacey arguments. The “primacy of economic motivations” assumption is also underlying the school to workplace connections that Lippi-Green criticizes in the statement “the teacher discriminates because the employer does; the child pays the price of that discrimination by accommodating and assimilating.” But, school is not the workplace and the teacher is not the employer. Those contexts are different from one another, and purposefully so.
ReplyDeleteRather than mimicking the workplace or the employer, the teacher in the classroom should be encouraging critical thinking and critical approaches to the problems of the classroom and problems outside the classroom, including the workplace. In the contexts of language instruction, this means offering students access to languages of power while also supporting students in being critical of the language of power and the broader social structures that have determined the language of power. It’s a complicated, complex balance to even attempt to strike. But in the college writing classroom I have found that students are willing and excited to have conversations about language, power, and access even as I am teaching them to write for academic discourse, a language of power to be sure. So, it’s complicated, but I’m in agreement with Lippi-Green that both goals can and should be pursued together.
I like Aubrey's point about her distrust "great equalizer" arguments about education -- the idea that the only goal of a student from a "lower" social status is to rise socially devalues the community in which that student was raised. Furthermore, the ability to code-switch doesn't equal "discarding language B in favor of language A." Children who find themselves put in the situation of speaking different languages and dialects at home and in school typically pick up the school language/dialect much faster than their parents, who have been in the country longer -- whether teachers correct their English or not, it seems to make little difference. With the incredible amount of media that kids take in daily, the use of language at school may not even be the determining factor in whether they learn the dominant language or dialect.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Lippi-Green' language is extreme, it is true that the school is seen as a prescriptive force that prepares you for the employer, and while this is not the way that most of us prefer to see education (if so, why would any of us be in grad school?) it certainly applies for students who struggle to obtain the basic language skills to work entry-level positions. This is seen as the minimum a school must do in order to be considered functional -- to prepare students to take part in elitist institutions in order to earn a living. With so many schools underfunded and lacking teachers with adequate training, it seems that many schools function at this minimum. Though the portrait of education Lippi-Green paints is bleak, it seems to reflect a not-insubstantial number of schools in the U.S. today. Ideally, we would teach students to question structures of power, both linguistic and otherwise, so they can understand and change the institutions that set the bar for their education so low in the first place -- but in order to do that, they first have to be able to enter those institutions, and for that they need SAE.
The thing with Lippi-Green’s argument is this (I’m trying to sound as demagogic as my object of critique here, by the way):
ReplyDeleteWhere is student agency?
I’ve taught some pretty young kids, and all of them came to me with a sense that language was used as a cudgel to disempower them. They knew that parents were often dependent upon translators, social workers of various kinds, and general faith in the intentions of whatever bureaucrats might come along. They knew what the code of power was, as well as when to speak a child-level approximation of it (or not). They knew that the white guy in the tie had the tools to spiff up their performance of those codes and they demanded – often in very non-standard terms – that he give up the goods.
Of course, kids are malleable and not always overly critical in their assessment of complex issues like language politics. They felt empowered by English class lessons that allowed them to articulate their views on code shifting, performance, and linguistic resistance. They thought it was cool that Fred Hampton could speak the terms of the dominant classes, while still sounding like a young black guy from the South Side of Chicago. When kids like that come into a classroom, it’s not exactly a teacher choosing for them, and Lippi-Green would do well to avoid making them seem so passive and naïve if those students happened to be in the room.
Which brings me to the final point I want to make, the one about replacement. It’s not really so simple. Of course, learning any discourse alters your ability to understand the world and thus alters your range of consciousness. That’s sort of the point of learning anything, not only the codes of power. But to say that one has to erase the other is an overstatement. To say that students can use their own languaging skills to critically learn about a language or register of power seems out of the question for Lippi-Green, at least in the readings we’ve done. But that is the most direct cheapening of students’ languages of all, because it assumes that speakers of languages other than SAE can’t come near it without being infected by a desire to be it, to transform into its immutable perfection.
Maybe I’m understating her point. The double consciousness developed by someone who has to learn to live in two worlds, denigrating their original self – that’s real and dangerous and has to be constantly on our radar as teachers and as human beings (hopefully those overlap). But to admit that is not to rule out the probability that people will not only avoid these colonizations, but will thrive because of their determination not to be pushed around. I saw enough of that to make me hopefull.
You guys, I wrote a really long post and then hit published, and it disappeared. I am so disheartened. Here is the summary:
ReplyDelete1. Is Lippi-Green too extreme here? Is teaching students SAE and discarding their vernacular two sides of the same coin?
2. We all code-switch. I don't write a graduate school paper in the same register that I talk with my sister on the phone.
3. While I understand that there is historical marginalization associated with SAE, standardization isn't inherently bad: it helps us communicate and provides a foundation for understanding.
4. I've had this conversation about SAE in many courses, and yet every one of those professors has held students to a certain standard regarding grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and paper structure.
5. Lisa Delpit says change should come from the top down, not the bottom up, when it comes to SAE.
6. I find it troubling that we might not train young students to have facility with SAE because of our enlightened ideals about this. We are comfortably fluent with SAE and in graduate school. We should teach students about language and about power, but we should equip them with tools they can choose to use if they want to.
Hm, after reading our responses and after our class on American dialects today, I’m noticing a glaring absence in all our responses (including my own): What about celebrating non-standard dialects? What about celebrating students’ language practices, be they standard or non-standard? Do those celebrations have a place in the classroom? Only focusing on what to do with the standard, with the language of power, seems to me a sure fire way to degrade and erase students' own language practices (especially if students speak a non-standard dialect). So, yes to all the above, +let’s celebrate non-standard varieties in the classroom :)
ReplyDelete