Hello Daphne:

This comes up in my classes frequently--where my teachers are "caught" 
between correcting someone's treasured tradition (in how they express 
themselves, their dialect, etc.) and what we mean by "Standard English."

The task is to maintain a high regard for their tradition, while introducing 
them into what Jesse Jackson refers to as the "cash language" of our time so 
that they can operate well in it.  It's not a matter of "either or," but 
rather of knowing both, as if there were actually two different languages to 
learn, and being able to "walk around" (discourse) in either/both at the 
**appropriate** times.  Their other task is to know which is which.

As a teacher we just let them know that this is the general outline of their 
task, and they will then be able to choose to do it--or not.  As teachers, 
we need not make what amounts to moral or qualitative judgments about 
someone's treasured dialect (or suggest that they must make such judgments 
about themselves)--the language that most in their home environment still 
speak, and will continue to speak.

It's sort of like learning how to discourse in technical language (in any 
theoretical or professional field) after having learned "common" language 
and the meaning of its terms.   That is, using common meaning and its terms 
is one thing, and is appropriate when spoken at home or at the grocery 
store, etc.; however, using technical meaning is quite another; and when we 
discourse in our field, or in a specific technical-theoretical field, we are 
very specific and defined about what we mean; and we use completely 
different meanings for sometimes-similar terms that, to the grocery clerk, 
would come off as sounding completely "weird and foggy."

Like we would not want to replace common with theoretical discourse in the 
grocery store (how awful would THAT be), we often do not want to suggest 
replacing a learner's dialect with what we mean by "Standard English." 
Trying to do so puts the learner in the position of having to choose between 
what is "better" (presumably Standard English) all of the time, and what is 
"worse" (presumably, their own dialect and "home language) all of the time. 
And there is often some shame involved--which has been a topic here on this 
forum recently.   This situation is entirely UNnecessary.

On the other hand, there is a great and necessary value to standards, and of 
course to Standard English or any other written language--it's becoming a 
worldwide language.

This is not all there is to it; however, if a learner is going to operate in 
the "cash language," i.e., work in an office, etc., they need to **also** 
know how to speak "Roman as the Roman's do."   <--we must make it what it 
is--to THEIR advantage to do so.  We add a differentiation, and not an 
either/or choice tinged with some sort of arrogance associated with "white" 
standard English.

In brief, one way is to treat Standard English as if it were another 
language altogether, which in some cases and sense, it is.

I hope this helps,

Catherine B. King
Adjunct Instructor
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, CA



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daphne Greenberg" <alcdgg at langate.gsu.edu>
To: <povertyracewomen at nifl.gov>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 136] dialect



>I was recently asked a question from an adult literacy teacher and I

> wondered what folks on this listserv think. She teaches basic decoding

> skills to adults who read at about the 3rd grade level. In addition to a

> language experience approach, she also spends quite a bit of time

> systematically teaching them how to sound out words. Many of her African

> American students, when reading and sounding out words, read certain

> words, the way they speak them. So for example, they read "ask" as "aks"

> and "strawberry" as "skrawberry". Since a portion of her class is

> focused on teaching letter-sound correspondences and applying it to

> decoding new and unknown words should she be concerned about the way

> they read those words? She says that during nondecoding time, she is not

> concerned, because their dialect is their dialect and is just as

> acceptable as standard english. However, she wondered if she is teaching

> decoding from a standard english point of view, should she be correcting

> the way they read those words?

> What do people think?

> Daphne

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list

> PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen

>