Inquiry 3

In Chapter 5 of The Skin That We Speak, entitled "Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts," Michael Stubbs asks the question "Does a child's language affect his success or failure at school? And if so, how?" He also inquires into a teacher's language and how it affects a student's learning. He brings to light the varying dialects of England, and the class-laden ramifications that come with speaking them, in the eyes of the people.

Stubbs explains that there are many, many linguistic stereotypes that are ingrained in children regarding class and the way one speaks. Children regard those who do not speak "standard english" as inferior, a symptom that is precipitated by teachers admonishing children in the classroom. The problem is, there is no "Standard English" unless one is referring to the accent and manner of the people who claim to be speaking it. There is also no linguistic basis for the notion that those who are impoverished living in rural and urban areas alike speak a somehow more inferior dialect from the standard. In fact, English is an "International Language" with standardized rules for writing but at the same time is used for any number of different situations where modification in the way one speaks would be appropriate. Rather than having a hardline, rigid, "correct" way to speak, English has many, many dialects, all with their very own rules and functions. Teachers must learn how to address their students' language needs, and determine the best manner for teaching them the information necessary for the course, in the most optimal way for the student to learn. My inquiry is to the fact that a teacher probably cannot complete an entire lesson 30 different times if the situation called for the teacher to address each student's individual needs. There may be some situations where the information may not have been transmitted properly because of how the teacher spoke. But what if the teacher acknowledges it, and is unable to address each child's need? Do they fail? Do teacher's just have to accept that? Or can more be done to to eliminate sociolinguistic stereotyping and dissent towards those who speak differently from you?

Inquiry 3: Speech vs Writing

In Stubbs article, the definition of "inadequate language" is questioned as is the perceptions that go along with non-standard English. Stubbs writes that non-standard language is often associated with regions and local idioms, which are not inherently bad English, as well as accent and dialect.

One point that he made was that teachers often hear how a student speaks and does not consider that that is not how a student may write. I have discovered that myself I think that I've been lucky in that my English teachers have been aware of this fact. I myself have noticed it in the short time that I've already spent with some students in the class I am observing.

When I was in high school, I noticed this among my friends. Teachers never said it out loud, I think, but I was always aware that writing and speaking were two separate things. Friends who used certain phrases, much like the girl in the interview with "sort of," would refrain from trying to write things such as "ya know" or "like." (I actually had to stop myself from writing "like" instead of "such as" just now!) Since I've seen this before (I was the proofreader in my group of friends), I do know that speech does not relate to intelligence all of the time, but one would really have to get to know that before one hear's a student speak, which is a bit of an impossibility.

I feel that this is a simple way to teach students how to write. Just tell them not to write like they speak. The girl I told that in my class observations seemed to immediately understand what I meant. Writing should be formal, speech is much more commonly informal. I completely understood this chapter's point on appropriate times to use certain speech; we had talked about it in class, after all.

My only question that I could pose from this chapter, though, is: How might informal writing evolve? I believe that ti has greatly in the information age. Internet -- chat rooms, instant messaging, forums -- text messaging, emails -- all of these have developed much faster communication, and the more quickly we can communicate, the less time we will take to take care of how we write. Teachers already have to tell students not to write in text messaging speak -- with "lol" and "btw" and using numbers in place of words! How might we, as future teachers, have to deal with this? Will it only get worse? I am sure that it will.

I find it hard to pose a question about the actual reading. I understood it well and agreed completely, I think.

Inquiry #3

In his chapter in The Skin That We Speak, Michael Stubbs discusses how stereotypes are often associated with languages. He explores the reasonings behind many misconceptions people have concerning languages and users of particular forms of speech. Through experiments and interviews, Stubbs sheds a light into the world of sociolinguistics.

The concepts introduced in this selection were powerful. A concept that struck me as particularly interesting and worthy of attention was the concept of correctness versus appropriateness. Stubbs discussed how situational context plays a role in our speech. He went on to say that while a dialect may not be "appropriate" in a given environment, that does not mean it is incorrect. I feel this is a key concept that should be introduced in education. The question that arose in me was: Why don't teachers teach kids this?

It has become clear that no language is inherently superior or inferior to another and that the concept of a "better" language is a social construct. I believe that if this was taught in schools, both to teachers and students, it would help create a better learning environment. For the students, it would help them understand that they need to learn "standard" English ONLY because it would help them to adapt to more situations in life. It would also help ease the tension of feeling inferior that many students of differing dialects may feel. On the other hand, teachers would learn to think of the context in which students are speaking a different dialect in and base their decision to "correct" them or not based on the context of the situation and not just because they want the student to speak "right." This would create a safe space for different languages and dialects throughout the school. I feel this is the direction we as teachers should be headed toward. If we teach this method in the long run we may be able to change the attitudes of the world because it explores how society views and establishes rankings.

Inquiry 3

In chapter five of The Skin That We Speak the author Michael Stubbs discusses the stereotyped correctness of different dialects in England, their impact on education, and went through some of the myths behind the placement of one language over another. One of the main points of focus in this section was the idea that their is a language of power, and there is no way that it is deservedly better than the other languages. The language of power is simply a dialect belong to the people who have become most successful. I believe Stubbs said something along the lines of: It is correct English because the well educated use it and the well educated use it because it is correct English. The best lesson to take away from this chapter is what we learn from the girl who couldn't specify what she thought was incorrect. To me this a lesson to really look past my stereotypes and "common sense". I don't believe it is necessary for just those who don't speak the language of power to change their dialects, but we must all learn to overlook accents and differences in geography. 

ch 5 inquiry- The Burden of Stereotypes

Michael Stubbs’s essay “Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts” looks at the social stereotypes associated with dialects and usage of language. He studies the way people in general make assumptions about others based on the way they speak, and then examines more particularly the way this affects the classroom between the teacher and the student.

What struck me most about this essay was part 5 (78-79) when Stubbs discusses the effects that the teacher’s language has on a child, with or without the teacher’s knowledge or intention. He writes that “even if the teacher expresses no overt disapproval of the child’s language, the teacher’s own language…may be an implicit condemnation of the child’s language.” When I was a child, I had a really heavy country accent, as did my father. I never knew that it wasn’t “normal” until I went to school, and my teachers spoke in a less distinguishable accent. Nobody ever told me my dialect was wrong, but I grew to understand the social stigma associated with southern accents and I remember making a conscious effort to speak in a more “standard” accent when I got into middle school and especially into high school.

My question is where is the balance between what’s “socially acceptable” in language and what’s insignificant? It’s tough to be burdened by the stereotypes associated with your dialect, but if you’re being understood (and we see that dialect has no significant bearing on a child’s learning capability) then why should you be considered at a disadvantage? Especially with the ties between dialect and culture, should you almost sacrifice your culture for the sake of seeming better educated?

Bringing Sociolinguistic Concepts to the Classroom

Chapter 5, Michael Stubb's Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts is exactly that. Stubbs aims "to provide the reader with some basic sociolinguistic concepts necessary to understand the kinds of relationships which exist between language and educational processes." By educating future teachers, we can "try to change people's attitudes to language" and "make more people tolerant of linguistic diversity."

After reading the interview with Edinburgh schoolgirls on page 67, I found myself plagued by the very question Stubbs asks of the reader: "What are we to think, though, of an educational system which has tied this girl in knots over a small and superficial linguistic term?" What do I think of this education system and how can I change it to make it most beneficial to my students' learning?

The same question - How can I apply this to the classroom? Stubbs offered some insight - teaching the students about the intolerance of linguistic diversity and making them aware of where issues of using "nonstandard English" may arise.

But how am I to recognize such instances in the classroom where a student is merely using a different, whether it be appropriate or inappropriate, dialect without a vast knowledge of sociolinguistics? How am I to convince my fellow English teachers who may not share my way of thinking that this issue needs to be addressed to avoid creating educational problems for our students?

Inquiry 3: Quit All That Sass

Michael Stubbs sheds light on the possibility (and, let's face it, reality) that the negative impacts of language on education comes from attitudes towards language and not the language itself. It's easy to look at the achievement gap in US schools over the last... well... since schools were made public, and determine that alternative or nonstandard dialects are strongly deficient when it comes to educating students. After all, it may be one of the strongest correlative factors between low achievers in schools on a national scale. Nevertheless, as Stubbs indicates, the negative attitudes towards not only nonstandard dialects but towards the speakers themselves is a more likely cause.

Given the clear bias against nonstandard dialects of English, would it be more appropriate to simply change attitudes in schools or to change standards of appropriateness throughout the entire social structure of the nation? (In order to genuinely answer the question, pragmatic concerns should probably be discounted for the moment.) Is there any value to having different standards of speech in different social settings, i.e. a job interview and a break room at work? Or would it be more beneficial and equalizing to deconstruct them altogether? The answer is undoubtedly a difficult one, so you'd better get started.

Inquiry 3

Michael Stubbs’s chapter titled “Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts” studies the stereotypes that can be associated with someone’s language. Some assumptions that can be made through someone’s language include their social class, background, and education. Stubbs’s study examines the relationship between language and perception occurring in Great Britain. In this chapter, Stubbs makes clear the linguistic idea that no way of speaking is better than another, and that all speakers of a language style shift from formal to casual style.
Stubbs claims that “we ought to be aware of the power of such social stereotyping” (67). According to Stubbs, it very natural to immediately make assumptions about people based upon their language. As future teachers, we need to be aware of this danger because we would never want to alienate one student from another based upon such silly assumptions. Just because a student may not speak well, does not mean that the student is not intelligent. This goes the same for students who do speak well.
In this reading, Stubbs answered a question that I have tossed around previously. He says that it is important to warn our students about the “conventions of English usage” (75). Stubbs uses the example that when a student writes to a prospective employer, the student must adapt to the “social occasion” (75). Previously, I understood the idea that we don’t want to disrespect a student’s spoken language because there really is no way of speaking that is better than another. But, I knew that there are situations where a person is expected to act, speak, or write in a certain manner. Stubbs’s statements pertaining to my questions cleared a lot of things up for me. Now, I wonder how teachers can teach this idea of code switching without offending anyone’s language usage?

Ch. 5 Inquiry - Michael Stubbs

Michael Stubbs, in his chapter, “Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts”, makes some interesting and pithy arguments. I enjoyed how he was direct in what he wanted to say. From the way he writes, we can also tell that he has the children’s growth process in mind when discussing how they should be taught in schools. We learn in the introduction to the chapter that Stubbs does not want children to feel that whatever language they speak is “wrong”. However, he wants them to understand the principles of English and its dialects in their sociolinguistic aspects. He explains that they are all acceptable and “right,” but society has assigned our different ways of speaking to different settings and situations. I like his idea that the students should be able to “match their speech to the setting in which they find themselves.” This will make enable them to flourish in whatever setting they find themselves in and they will be more knowledgeable of the different cultural and social aspects of the language as well. Stubbs explains “It is important to appreciate that language differences can provoke strong feelings of language loyalty group conflict and are therefore often a critical factor in education“ (70).

This will hopefully lead to less judgmental and stereotypical thought. I also thought about Cajun French. Is it not ironic that it was once looked at as a lesser or “low” dialect, and now we are in fear of it completely dying out?

Oh, I also think it is awesome that there is no Standard English dialect or accent, and we can speak Standard English with any accent. Because of this, it ends up being molded to part of who we are.

inquiry #3

Chapter five of The Skin That We Speak focuses on the stereotypes we place on people who sound different than we do. Language is a funny thing because within each language there are several dialects and each person within each dialect thinks they speak the “right” way. This is in our human nature. We have this thing called power that takes over us and we feel as though we HAVE to be right, even if we are wrong. We make other dialects feel inferior to because we are right.

What makes this situation even funnier is that Standard American English had to come from a dialect right? Whose dialect, and why that one? Who decided their dialect of the language was correct and proper? Maybe this is why AAVE is not acceptable in the classroom and looked down upon in business standards. But, why? Why can’t we accept it just as we have Cajun French in the classrooms in Louisiana?

What if we peal back these stereotypes? Would we all speak all dialects? How would our society function? What would be our “proper” language/dialect? Would AAVE be the Standard English? Or better yet, would Standard English even exist? What would we strive to teach in the classroom?

Inquiry 3

In Michael Stubbs' chapter, he presents the reader with a text that is like most of the other chapters in this book except that it has a twist; this chapter is about the dialects of British English. He begins by asking the reader if a child’s language can affect his success at school. In some cases, the answer is yes. A speaker’s language largely influences how someone views his or her identity. For example, if someone uses the word ‘ain’t’ then one may assume that this person is lazy. This could be a huge problem if teachers pass judgments on students purely based on the way that a child speaks. This chapter tells the reader about an interview in which one-third of fifty teachers “thought that the school should try to change the way pupils speak.” This is outrageous that teachers do not accept children the way they are. As teachers, they should try to better that language or dialect that a child already speaks instead of changing language, which would in turn change their identity.
If a teacher feels that the way a student speaks is wrong, then they should think to themselves: is this student really speaking incorrectly, or are they speaking language that may not be appropriate at all times. A teacher should make it clear that it is perfectly fine to use whatever language a child prefers with their friends or at home, but their particular language may or may not be appropriate at a formal event or job interview. It is a teacher’s job to make the distinction clear. However, how does a teacher tell a student this without telling him that he is wrong? Is there a way teach the distinction at a young age to possibly avoid prejudices in language at an older age?

Inquiry # 3 The Hypocrisy of Sociolinguistic Stereotypes

Michael Stubbs’s “Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts” takes a look at stereotypical connotations associated with speech. Particularly, the author focuses on British speech patterns. Interestingly enough, Stubbs uses quotes that show interviewees are at conflicting odds with how they perceive the speech of others and their own speech. These interviewees say things that make no sense. For example, to demonstrate a “[typical] London accent,” a teacher uses the sentence “We ain’t go no money,” drawing particular attention to the “tendency to drop the aitch off…words” (66). The thing about this selection that makes no sense is that there are no aitches to drop in the sentence she read. What is more, she also refers to this tendency as a “lazy way of speaking” even though she uses the contraction “d’you” which could be considered a lazier way of speaking (silent aitches do occur in standard English and other languages, however, the contraction “d’you” is something that only appears in speech). I have to wonder if I am misreading what this teacher meant when she said lazy. That word seems to carry a bit of negative connotation with it; in that the people who are too lazy to pronounce a letter that may or may not be silent are probably lazy and ineffective at other things in life. Is this the sort of stereotype she places on all people from London or just people who speak this way?

Similarly, a student heard a recording and said that the speaker “sort of [sounded] as if they weren’t very well brought up theirselves” citing “pretty awful” grammar in the sentence “It only sort of went in a little bit.” (67-8) Of all the problems she may have found with the grammar or any other aspect of the recording, the thing she obsesses over is the phrase “sort of,” claiming “you’re not meant to say sort of,” and that it makes one sound almost primitive. However, she acknowledges that she says it. She also admits that she “associate[s] that sort of thing with people who haven’t really been taught to say it better.” So what does this say about the girl herself? She says that the phrase is primitive and transfers that idea onto the speaker. However, I do not get the feeling that she feels she acts primitively, and only as it is brought out in the interview does she seem to notice that she uses the phrase herself. And thus lays the hypocrisy of language related stereotypes. No one speaks perfect standard English, so how can anyone judge some else as having not been “well brought up” based on speech, when the same could probably be said for that judge?

Ch. 5 Inquiry

Michael Stubbs’ chapter entitled “Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts” mostly recapitulates what we have read in previous chapters, aside from the setting of his studies in Britain. He identifies that a teacher’s evaluative word for nonstandard English “lazy” points to the character judgments that are associated with language. He even suggests that a teacher would judge intellectual capacities “on totally irrelevant information” (67). He also asserts that “the social prestige of groups of speakers, as it were, rubs off on their language,” and I find this compelling because normally one would assume that the individual’s language strengthens or weakens one’s social status (71). But, here he suggests the opposite that the language of those in positions of power becomes the privileged language. It was also interesting that he points out that while no language is inherently superior or inferior, that “some languages are functionally more highly developed” meaning they have a writing system and are used in multiple contexts. Stubbs’ commentary on language varieties is important to note because he states that “everyone is multidialectal and multistylistic” and adapt their language to match the company, situation, and subject of whatever is being spoken about. He also makes a distinction between correctness and appropriateness in regards to speaking nonstandard English. This raises a pragmatic inquiry about how was a teacher can one make a child aware that their speech is not “wrong” but merely inappropriate. How can one teach a student to make linguistic distinctions that are not a part of their dialect, even if they can comprehend those distinctions? How can a teacher who speaks what is considered SE do so without inadvertently condemning the language of the student? How can teaching SE not interfere with children’s dialects? How can we change students’ attitudes towards language differences when we are aware that the prejudice will persist?

Chapter 5 Inquiry

In chapter 5, Michael Stubbs explains the basic sociolinguistic concepts that impact the relationship between language and the classroom. He talks about the tendency for teachers to view a child’s language in a stereotypical perspective. A teacher may think the way a child speaks in class is the way he or she would in any other situation. According to Stubbs, “many teachers maintain the fiction that there is only one ‘best’ English for all purposes, and that this is the only English proper to the classroom. Yet a moment’s thought or observation will convince any teachers that they themselves use many varieties of language throughout the day, depending on the purpose or context of the communication.” This quote points out the main issue we have with language: judgment. Even the bible talks about not trying to remove the speck from another’s eye before you have removed the log from your own. The story of the teacher who told her students dropping the “aitch” from the beginning of words was a “lazy way of speaking,” is the perfect example of this.

The definition of Standard English is very broad and subjective, which makes it very difficult to define what is correct and incorrect. Reading about so many problems and controversies surrounding the English language has made me wonder what I will do to improve these issues when I become a teacher. Until now, many of the solutions to so many problems, seemed to be either too narrow or too broad. One of the concepts Stubbs addresses in this chapter is the concept of correctness and appropriateness. Hypothetically, if a student is writing a letter to a prospective employer, he will need to know the standard forms and conventions of English to be used in this type of writing. “It is not that such forms are wrong in any absolute sense, but that they are considered inappropriate to this social occasion.”

I like the concept of appropriateness in speaking and writing. We all code switch depending on the situation we are in. Even the most intelligent person will have his own variation of language in formal and informal situations. Teachers should tell their students that there is no superior language or one correct way to speak and write. It’s important to address beliefs and stereotypes and explain why they are wrong. We should acknowledge there is a difference between formal and informal language. But we should also let students know that in order to be successful in many formal situations, they need to speak and write in a particular way. In my opinion, this would be a good method to apply in our classroom. Do you agree or disagree? If you do not believe this would be beneficial and help close the achievement gap, what do you think would? What method or way of teaching do think will be most effective in your classroom for the small amount of time you have with students? Do you think the main focus for teachers should be changing people’s attitudes towards language?

Chapter 5 inquiry

Michael Stubbs chapter about Sociolinguistic Concepts teaches us that people draw conclusions about people’s lives from the way that they speak. He touches on the fact that some teachers wrongfully have negative attitudes about the way their students speak. But overall, as a linguist he believes that all languages serve a purpose where they are used and for the reason they are used. He also believes that no language dialect is inferior to another.
Have you ever noticed how people talk differently when they are talking on the phone? My friends always make fun of me when I answer the phone when I don’t know who I’m talking to, or if it is someone important, they say I’m using my ‘grownup’ voice. If we were in an interview with our best friend sitting next to us, would that affect the way that we spoke to the interviewer? Why does a social occasion, as in talking on the phone or applying for a job, have to affect the way that we speak? Have you ever noticed that when people bring up the issue of differences in skin color, etc. that people seem to speed over the issue? Like when speakers or teachers mention skin color they speed up when they say that people are black/white/purple/yellow/etc. Michael Stubbs brings up the issue that we should teach our students, even though it is a touchy subject, that they will have to change the way they speak in order to not be looked down upon. We, as teachers, have to drop all social prejudices. It should not be hard to talk about the fact that people are different, but it is.

Inquiry 3

Chapter five of Lisa Delpit’s, The Skin That We Speak focuses on the stereotypes that we often place on people who speak a different dialect than our own. If we speak the same language, and we think our dialect is the “correct” way, then we often feel that the other speaker is inferior. When we say that the other speaker is inferior, we are saying that their dialect is inferior; however, according to the novel, no language or dialect is inferior.

If no language or dialect is inferior and each is complex in its own way, who decided how to distinguish between what’s right and what’s wrong? The features of AAVE described in the article, “Phonological and Grammatical Features of African American Vernacular English,” seem as complex as the features of Standard English; however, AAVE is not accepted in the classroom because someone decided it was “wrong.” Why was this decided if, again, no dialect is inferior?

If these stereotypes didn’t exist, would SE exist? That is, if we weren’t taught a “correct” way to speak, would Nonstandard English be the accepted SE? On the other hand, could both AAVE and SE be spoken in the same classroom? And if the two were spoken, would the lessons still be as effective? If students understand the grammatical rules of SE, should they be required to speak and write SE in the classroom or only write it?

Inquiry 2: Devil's Advocate?

Most of American society views those who speak AAVE as lower-class and at a disadvantage to succeed in life, regardless of age or race of either the speaker or those judging the speaker.

I think I had a large problem with a specific point in the introduction. It is stated that the book’s purpose is in part “to provide teachers insight into the educational dispositions necessary to expand the language repertoires of children , while at the same maintaining their connection to their mother tongue.” I understand learning a language in order to teach another language; I feel that that is important in understanding the students, not only for communication, but in learning a language, one often learns part of a culture. Why, though, do students need to hold onto the mother tongue so much? As Dowdy had mentioned, it creates a feeling of home. But are the languages in questions so different that this feeling of home is ripped away? Do the idioms of Standard English come haltingly to those who speak AAVE? My stepfather was forbidden to learn French in high school because his mother was punished cruelly for speaking the only language she knew when she started school, Cajun French. Although I feel a little sad for my stepfather’s mother, and even my stepfather, because he still wants to learn, I really don’t feel that it has caused that much lingering pain for either party. Mrs. Valia, my stepdad’s mother, may certainly have some bad memories and of course she doesn’t have positive feelings towards those teachers, or maybe even the fact that it was allowed to happen, but again, I think she feels that it was in the past and she got over it.

Would it be so hard for those who speak AAVE to teach their children Standard English? If a parent has learned Standard English well, there’s no reason in my mind to not teach their children Standard English considering the years of the belief that AAVE is an obstacle to learning, or at least being perceived as an intelligent person. Maybe that’s harsh, but isn’t the education (or at least the positive responses from those in authority) of the child more important?

Inquiry 2: School Life Should Not Be Surrounded by a Moat.

Our brilliant instructor's paper highlights a lot of interesting and significant issues when dealing with AAL and LWC. Obviously, the focus rests on the attitudes of teachers towards the two languages/dialects considered in opposition to one another, but another, more general question was brought to light. How does the segregation between home life and school life impact students' performance in the classroom?

This dichotomy was mentioned in the paper in a number of places; however, as it was not the focus of the paper, and it is indeed a broad issue, no clear conclusion has been thus far presented. It was clear from the studies that were mentioned that there is a distinct divide in the minds of teachers (and probably in the minds of students as well) between life inside and outside the classroom. Is this positing of a dichotomy really genuine, though? How much of a difference is there between the two aspects of a student's life? After all, most of a student's waking hours will be spent in a school setting, and even outside of the school many of the same processes take place. Learning, colloquial interaction, problem solving, and interpersonal communication (both verbal and non-verbal) are key components to both in-school and out-of-school existence for a student. If school and home life were to be treated in much the same manner, what kind of impact would it have on learning? This would indeed be an interesting study to conduct, and one that could dramatically alter the paradigmatic classroom.

Inquiry 2 Cyclical Motion

Being that a penny saved is a penny earned, how is it described when a penny is inherited? The most frequent way a person acquires GREAT wealth is by inheritance. Before slavery ended approximately eleven percent of African Americans were free and could own property. Of course that leaves eighty-nine percent of African Americans owning nothing in terms of property the day they gained their independence, or nothing inherited and literally having to work for every penny they get. Even though slavery ended around 140 years ago African Americans today on average make about seventeen cents for every dollar White Americans make. This being said doesn't it seem to make sense that the students described in the first part of the introduction by Lisa Delpit would rather receive a present from a person who is wealthier than poorer? The scary thing about the study isn't the perception of the children but the truth that even at such a young age children could see the actual inequalities in our system. There is a certain cyclical motion in everything. Those that start with nothing will more often than not end with nothing while those in power and wealth will probably stay there with no regard to what anyone actually "earns". Looking at everything in a culture, especially language, we must keep it in mind that over time most wealth or power just stays where it is and the language of power will be with who has the power. So, if you seem shocked by the racist ideas in these children just remember that there is truth in what they see. Of course a big part of growing up is breaking through false generalizations we create as children, which is what we need to strive for until we die.

                                          P.S. Rest In Peace Patrick Swayze. Now you're the top bouncer at the                                                       big  roadhouse.

Inquiry 2: "Teachers Attitudes Toward AAL"

In Jones’ paper on the attitude teacher’s have about African-American language she uses various studies to examine the beliefs many teachers carry into the classroom concerning AAL. One thing that stuck out to me during my reading of the text was the fact that, “very few teachers held the belief that AAL is simply a lazy form of English…but they seem to feel it is not productive in school.” After reading that, I had to ask myself why this was so. If AAL is a completely legitimate language I feel it should be respected in a classroom setting. I would also have to ask how they know AAL would not be productive in school if they never institute it. I feel teachers should try everything in their power to close the achievement gap and I believe the acceptance of AAL is a legitimate attempt. To say that AAL is a valid language while saying that it doesn’t belong in the classroom is blatant discrimination. Another question that arises is: Why do the teachers feel LWC is the language students should learn? If teachers can accept that there are many different languages why is it so hard to allow a variety of languages in their class? Obviously, LWC being the most common language of American business and politics can better suit students in the future. Is this what school is designed for; to make students better able to fit in the status quo? Sadly, I feel this is the current state of education and until we make education a means for becoming independent thinkers capable of changing the norm we will continue to have this problem. Although I think AAL should be incorporated, I can understand (but not agree with) their decision to acknowledge AAL but keep it out of the classroom. Teachers are trying to prepare the students for the “world” and unfortunately AAL is not included in most aspects of American life. It seems like the problem of AAL is a necessary evil until we are able to change the structure of daily life. I see this happening with Spanish. As it is becoming used more in business and politics, schools are allowing Spanish to be incorporated in their classrooms.

Inquiry #2: Teachers with Attitude

Jones paper “Teachers’ Attitudes toward African American Language” takes a look at the attitudes shown by educators towards African American English. This paper is a reflective overview of information drawn from various studies. Educators were surveyed and the results are shown in graphs. The majority of answers from most of the studies show that while many teachers agree that African American Language is not necessarily wrong, many also agree that it should be pushed out of the classroom as much as possible. In her paper, Jones acknowledges that many educators have negative views on African American Language because despite taking classes instituted to diversify, many of them have been subjected to media that has reinforced the idea of non-standard English dialects as bad English.

However, these viewpoints raise questions; in particular, if African American Language has no place in the classroom and yet still it takes years to grind it out of students (and does not always succeed) what could be the reason? Is it possible that maybe part of the reason is that African American Language is the language used by the children in every other aspect of their lives other than school? In which sense, it may not be as pressing a matter to learn to something that only counts in school. Perhaps, if at a younger age, students understood the value, they would try harder at a younger age to incorporate standardized English into their speech. However, it seems that in order for that to happen, teachers need to recognize that the language these students speak is not bad English, because as studies have shown, it has rules of grammar that govern it as well as the rules that govern standardized English. If students are to accept that standardized English, a dialect that has little connection with their current world, is relevant, teachers have to acknowledge that the non-standard English dialect of their students has a strong relevance to the students’ lives and that it cannot be stamped out or treated as a vice.

Inquiry 2

Lisa Delpit’s introduction to The Skin That We Speak compares our language to our “skin”. It is something that can be used to determine our “status” among peers, superiors, future employers, etc. More particularly, Lisa Delpit focuses her attention upon the African American Language, and its place in the education system. She points out that the educational setting is one of the first experiences where a student’s language will be judged as “right” or “wrong” (xviii). The school is seen by society as the holder of things that are considered “proper, correct, and decent”. Delpit recognizes that the African American Language is considered none of those things (xviii). She also discusses the achievement gap by saying “that it may not be the children’s language that causes educational problems, but the educational bureaucracy’s response to the language” (xxi). Delpit believes that teachers do not know how to respond to the language diversity in the classrooms (xxii), which I do not believe is entirely far from the truth.
As a future educator, I do not know how to respond, at this point in time, to the language diversity that I will face. Hopefully, by the time I graduate I will have an idea of how to respond. But, for now, how do we (as educators) respond to the diversities of language? Obviously, we would never want to make a student feel inferior for the way that they speak because there really is no “inferior” way of speaking. However, we do live in a world where there are those who believe there is a “superior” way of speaking in situations like the workplace and academia. How do we teach students Standard American English, without causing destruction to their own language?

AAL vs. LWC

Laura Jones's Teachers' Attitudes toward African American Lanaguage is exactly that. Through studies and surveys, she observes and draws connections concerning the current attitudes of teachers and students regarding African American Language.

Because the studies used are current, I am curious to see the information gathered from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Have the number of teachers who considered AAL increased or decreased? And the students? Could growing acceptance be a result of growing awareness?

Of greatest concern to me was the following: "While a majority of teachers recognized that teacher's rejection of students' language can harm the student, over 20% fewer teachers agreed that eliminating AAL might harm students who speak it." Is this not blatant ignorance? The irony in this statement is almost too much.

Are countries facing a similar problem? If so, how do they handle it? Additionally, our focus has been on high school, but is this a problem that is also prominent in elementary ed.?

Ultimately, my frustration was with the lack of research. If the achievement gap is our biggest dilemma, how are we not doing, trying, testing, everything to try and diminish it? How can we know if there is a correlation between using AAL in the classroom versus using LWC if this hypothesis is not tested? If tested and proven sound, would it be an effective class to require of all aspiring teachers? And as aspiring teachers ourselves, how can we call attention to the subject, or even bring it into our classrooms?

Inquiry 2

The main issue of the essay "Teachers' Attitudes toward African American Language" is the way we are analyzing the correct way to teach Standard English is not working. Students who speak African American English are discouraged, because of their discouraged attitudes they are not achieving as well as other students. The opinion of teachers, preservice teachers, and fellow students was two-sided and conflicted. But, are the opinions of teachers and fellow students really discouraging African American students and widening the achievement gap, or are there greater problems?
I understand that AAE should be recognized and not shunned or looked down upon in the classroom, but what other role does the language play? Should students who speak mostly SE learn the rules of AAE?
What are the rules and correct ways to speak it? I have never heard anyone get corrected for using it incorrectly. If there are rules for AAE, I would assume that many of them relate very closely to the rules of SE. The languages in America are slowly starting to conform to one another. I think it would be very helpful for education students to observe and learn from an African American English teacher and how she manages to teach SE to students of both races. It undoubtedly reassures African American students and helps them understand why they should learn SE.
“Teachers seem to feel that they must choose between respecting their students’ culture and preparing those students to succeed in a culture that does not always respect their culture” (Jones). Where does the necessary respect need to begin? Apparently, teachers are not the ones who need to focus on this language barrier. Where does the problem really come into play? Do students respect other students who speak differently than them? Should we start with them? Do teachers and other colleagues respect other teachers or co-workers who speak AAE? Do interviewers really deny a qualified person a job because they don’t speak SE? Does an interviewer higher someone who has an incomprehensive Spanish accent over someone who speaks AAE that is understandable?
Maybe the real problem isn’t the way the students are being taught. Maybe they are looking at the way they are treated after their educational careers even if they know the correct way to speak. They might feel that they shouldn’t have to change who they are to find a job and to be respected in the real world. This could be where their dilemma begins.

Inquiry 2: Teachers' Atttitudes

After reading Laura Jones' essay concerning teachers’ attitudes toward African American Language, I found myself asking, "What exactly is AAL?" I have the general idea, but now that I have learned that it entails rules and certain grammatical attributes, I am less educated in the subject than what I previously thought.

Jones' point that it might be worthwhile to "improve teacher education around language diversity" is a great one, and my main reaction was concern for the already large amount of untrained and uncertified teachers. If teachers are trained to value language diversity in attempt to being able to better the education process, what about those that are not even trained in the profession that they teach? I understand that the language diversity in the classroom is the root of some major challenges. If teachers are to teach American Standard English and the students do not speak or use it, it would indeed cause frustrations for the teacher. I do see the importance of having this knowledge, but the simple fact as we can see from the studies is that a good percentage of teachers do not possess it.

I had no previous knowledge that AAL was considered an actual dialect of English. I think that if this issue were to be more broadcast and widespread, the efforts in ridding the negative attitudes would be more affective.

Inquiry 2

In Lisa Delpit’s introduction of The Skin That We Speak, I was astonished by how the preschool children had already formed prejudices in their early age. The children viewed the Kenneth as the Black English box and Steve as the Standard English box; they also viewed the boxes as black and white respectively. This just shows that even when one does not think children notices the world around them, they do as seen by their judgments. It was interesting to read that even as a fetus in the womb, a child learns their “mother’s tongue”. The language that a parent speaks is the first language that a child identifies thus mimics. If a child grows up learning Black English, who am I to say that this is wrong? As a teacher, it is my job to teach; thus, no matter what language a child speaks I want to be able to teach him to better his language. Is there a way to combine BE and SE so that they do not conflict with students? Is there a chance that more and more teachers will begin to notice that this language barrier is a problem that is not simply fixed by failing a student because he speaks BE?

Inquiry 2

I had a surprisingly emotional response to the introduction to “The Skin That We Speak,” because it is disheartening to find that negative stereotypes associated with language can be instilled into individuals at such a young age. It seems by the time students are receiving their secondary education that the misinformation and misconception of other languages will have cemented itself into an irreversible bias. I feel discontented that we aren’t made aware of the highly complex and systematic nature of AAL until reaching college. I feel that if it was required that students were made aware of the legitimacy of AAL that it would eliminate some of the discrimination AAL speakers experience. This introduction compelled me to imagine if the language I was first immersed in and that I identified myself with was not the “language of wider communication.” It is discouraging to know that speakers of AAL are subject to such harsh judgment regarding “their intelligence, family life, future potential, or moral fiber every time a sentenced is uttered.” Even more revealing is that even the knowledge that AAL is not inferior to LWC has not caused a shift in attitude or helped to narrow the achievement gap. While Jones suggests that teachers’ attitudes towards AAL affects student learning, she also notes that this is not the only factor at play. I would like to know what else can be done to increase our awareness and deepen our understanding. What is expected of me as a future English teacher in addressing this issue? How will I acquire the necessary skill to teach LWC by using AAL as a springboard? How will I tell students that they cannot express themselves in the language that is most comfortable for them? How can I justify to them that LWC must be substituted for the language they know otherwise they will not be given the same opportunities? Unfortunately, there seems to be a moral issue bound up in language diversity and I wonder if I will have to compromise any values to be an effective teacher.

inquiry #2

In the Intro to The Skin That We Speak by Lisa Delpit focuses on the problem of language diversity within the classroom.  She points out that Teachers don’t know how to respond to “Black English” (BE), but rather become judgmental.  There have been many studies done to try to pinpoint what is the main reason behind students’ scores between BE and Standard English (SE) speakers, but nothing directs their scores to their language.  Delpit ensures the reader that in the chapters to come there will be many strategies on how to approach BE speakers.  One reason there is a stereotype with BE is because teachers are taught to teach Standard English and if a student does not excel then he/she is inadequate.  But is that really the case?

 As we have already explored, different dialects do not predetermine a students’ score, but Delpit brings up a good point: Teachers do not know how to respond to different dialects.  Why can’t they?  The reason is simple.  Delpit explains that, “our language embraces us long before we are defined by any other medium of identity.”  Therefore teachers who do not understand the different dialects cannot connect with their students.   This is a huge problem. 

Since we are all striving to be teachers, how can we avoid making the same mistake in our classrooms as teachers before us have?  Should there be a classroom language (i.e. Standard English) and a recess language (i.e. personal dialect)?  How should we approach a student if he/she is failing to grasp SE?  Should we try to learn his/her dialect to relate or should we be creative and find a balance between the two to satisfy?  

Inquiry 2: AAL, LWC and understanding.

In "Teacher's Attitudes toward African American Language" by Laura Jones, multiple studies among teachers regarding African American Language (AAL) and its use, place and practice in American schools were studied in conjunction with one another in order to find common themes and gain a better understanding of AAL's place in our society's educational system. While no definitive outcome was found, Jones hypothesized that it would while it is important and even necessary to have a positive outlook on AAL, it is not enough and that there are other facets, mainly student achievement, which guage improvement in the classroom.
This paper researched many studies on the subject and was presented to a Linguistics professor, therefore it is understandable to not to have examples of AAL and LWC (the Language of Wider Communication) in discussing the two. However I personally have never differentiated the two, and thus I suppose have a hindered understanding of the subject. I had never imagined there to be a grammatical rulebook for AAL, I suppose because I have never been presented with that idea. Walking into a classroom, I would feel much more confident that my job was being done successfully and correctly with more knowledge and understanding of not only AAL but any other language or dialect outside of LWC. Why isn't there more exposure in both the media and educational system of actual differences in language? Why does one have to get to an English or Linguistics course to realize the factual differences of the two. Misinterpreting communication has lead to many, many problems in humanity's history; understanding the other side will always be beneficial to communication.

Inquiry 2: Why English?

In Jones “Teachers’ Attitudes toward African American Language,” she examines the attitude and beliefs that teachers have towards AAL. Even though countless studies have been done to determine the causes for such behavior, researchers have never been able to pinpoint one particular reason why evidence is skewed or unclear. According to Jones, the main reason for the negativity towards AAL is “Teachers’ lack of awareness of what are commonly referred to as ‘nonstandard dialects’.” This is a problem that has greatly impacted students who do speak other dialects ability and desire to learn what we consider Standard English.

This trend in education can be seen even from those outside the classroom, simply because this posture has been reinforced in every outlet of media. The average person does not have a defined understanding of other dialects and even worse those in education are uniformed. In college you may be exposed to one or two linguistics classes, but the depth and training are grossly overlooked. My own knowledge and competency of AAL is far below what it should be. To be honest, I don’t think I would want to participate in a survey, simply because I know very little about it.

The view many people have is that African Americans are Americans, so the language that they speak must be English. This viewpoint can be applied to any race living in the United States, which points out a common misconception and belief. When you think about it, we are all immigrants. Everyone in this country at one point migrated here. So technically the only people who should be able to claim a particular language as the official “American Language” would be the Native Indians. This may be straying off the topic, but as you examine language, you realize more and more how much it as affected by power. Especially when you start asking the question, why we do speak English?

I find it really hard to make a distinction between AAL and what some term as “thug language”. What are the differences and how are the grammar and usage rules different from LWC? I don’t think I can make an informed opinion or hold a certain attitude towards something until I completely understand it. This may be a reason for so many neutral responses in the studies done to evaluate teachers’ standpoint on AAL.

Inquiry 2: The Skin that we Speak

In the intro to The Skin That We Speak, Lisa Delpit acknowledges that language diversity is a problem that teachers face in the classroom. “Many teachers don’t know how to approach language diversity,” Delpit said. The author notes that she will introduce new ways for teachers to explore language diversity. I am interested to finish the novel in order to discover how teachers can include both Standard and African American English in their classrooms. My biggest question now is – How can this be done? How can teachers teach what’s grammatically correct in Standard English while at the same time including aspects of African American English? I want to learn ways to include both SE and AAL in the classroom, or in other words, combine the language of home and school into one that’s effective for the students. I aspire to be that teacher.

In order to become that teacher, I have to know and understand the underlying reasons or concerns of the issue. I found the box with the tape recorders project to be extremely interesting. I think answering the following questions would be a great start for me to understand a little more. Why did these students associate a white person with the box playing SE and vice versa? In other words, why did these students even distinguish a concrete difference between the two? Where did the stereotype that the SE box was nicer and gave better presents and the AAL box needed their crayons more, generate? Did someone lead these students to believe that these boxes were different? And if so, who? Can we change the way these students stereotype, and if so, how? Finally, can the teachers that hold negative views toward including AAL in the classroom be compared to the students in this study?

Inquiry 1: Awakenings

"Ovuh Dyuh", the first chapter in The Skin That We Speak, is Joanne Kilgour Dowdy's tale of a (seemingly) minor anecdote that in fact transformed how she thought about and perceived not only the differences between schoolmates that her use of Trinidadian brought forward, but also the systematic control and even possibly tyrannical rule that the users of "the Master Discourse", the British who colonized her native country, used via language to enact upon her people. Stemming from interaction amidst her peers, Ms. Dowdy mastered use of both her native language and "the King's English." By doing so, Dowdy gained a definitive edge and insight into her society as a whole. She even references the methodology used to put down Trinidadian as a "war" on her people. She also includes her stipulations for the war being won. In my reading, it was clear that Dowdy was cognizant of this war on her and her people. The problems with subtle social control such as this is that typically the people as a whole who do not ever register that it is even occurring. My inquiry is in question to what else can be done to awaken groups of people worldwide who themselves are in the same situation: i.e. the many secular caste systems throughout the world. Ms. Dowdy's method of rising up is to gather and utilize all of the intricacies of the language exerted on her. But is this the only method to create dialogue between the oppressor and oppressed?

“Ovuh Dyuh” Inquiry: Beitzel

This opening chapter essentially serves as an introduction to the issue of linguistic insecurity and the muddled sense of identity one experiences as a result of the loss of one’s native language. The narrator feels conflicted by her mother’s desire to raise a daughter who is capable of becoming a prominent figure in society by learning the British English of the imperialistic regime and her own desire to feel comfortable communicating with her peers. It is not until the narrator has graduated from secondary school that she is able to balance her Trinidadian language and the formal English that has pervaded all public forums. It took a great sense of will upon the part of the narrator to embrace the British English language that had previously ostracized her from her people and left her feeling that she had betrayed her culture only to be plagued by feelings of insecurity. This passage has caused me to speculate why colonists are motivated to strip the subjugated people of their native language. Perhaps, they feel it would cause separation among those being oppressed or that it would expedite the process of proselytization. I also find it intriguing that even after Trinidad had gained its independence that it retained the language of those who had previously stifled Trinidad and its culture. I am also compelled by the idea that translation is debilitating for the speaker “the act of translation cooling the passion of the thought” (12).It is unfortunate that the narrator and those individuals like her were unable to express themselves as freely and concretely as they desired. I am left with the sobering reality that every individual uses language as a means to be understood, but in the case of the narrator when the pressure to conform to a “master discourse” impresses itself upon her she is left voiceless (12).