As I learn about the inner workings of our speech and
sounds, I realize the immense structure and intention behind each sound, word,
and sentence. Rather than looking at the differences amongst languages, I wanted
to focus on the differences within one language, such as English. Not only am I
fascinated by the structure behind each subset of a language, but I am also
intrigued by the societal implications it can create.
African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is a language found
in predominantly African American communities. At my high school, I was exposed
to many students of different races that spoke AAVE, but never delved into the
language any deeper. There are many phonological and syntactic differences
between AAVE and what most people regard to as standard English. I am going two
highlight two phonetic differences:
- The first rule includes consonants being dropped at the end of words if another consonant of the same voicing precedes them. Here are two examples of dropped consonants: “test” -> “tes” AND “left” -> “lef.” Many times, society will not recognize this as a consistent rule, but rather, as a grammatical mistake or laziness.
- The second rule has to do with nasals. The velar nasal sound found at the end of the word sing, symbolized by the –ng ending is replaced by –in. This is seen in words like nothin’, somethin’, and singin’.
Now, if you are at all familiar with AAVE, there are
situations in which that language is welcomed and other contexts in which it is
banned. For that reason, many adults who speak AAVE learn to code switch
between their own language and standard English. Although code switching is an
interesting topic, the focus of this blog post is on the educational
implications these linguistic differences can have on younger students.
In 1990, Professor John Rickford, a Stanford linguist,
reported the following information from a California study:
- Palo Alto students scored in the 94th percentile in writing in third grade, and then scored in the 99th percentile in sixth grade.
- East Palo Alto students scored in the 21st percentile in writing in third grade and then scored in the 3rd percentile in sixth grade.
The difference in these scores is heavily correlated with
the linguistic diversity of each classroom and how the class is taught. In
1995, an experiment introduced Bridge
dialect readers, recordings and readings in traditional folklore of
African-American culture and language, into the classroom. The experiment
brought to light the effectiveness of using linguistics as a means to help
students excel in the classroom. In 5 areas of the US, 21 classes used the Bridge dialect readers while 6 classes
did not. The results were astonishing. Over 4 months, students using the
dialect readers reaped 6.2 months of progress in comparison to their
counterparts who only reaped 1.6 months of progress.
The next logical question is why as a society we do not
integrate these different dialects of English into education. When Oakland
tried a few years ago, they received backlash about how they were using
“broken” English in the classroom. Vernaculars
such as AAVE are not “broken” or “lazy” versions of another language. They have
phonetic and syntactical rules that they follow, many of which individuals are
unaware of. Linguistics is a fascinating field and it can have powerful
implications on society – how do you believe linguistics plays a role in
societal issues? What is your opinion on integrating AAVE in the classroom?
These were two of the readings I found most helpful:
I think integrating AAVE into classrooms is an interesting topic. On one hand, AAVE is a language that people speak. It is a valid language. It is correct. And it is not the product of laziness. However, it is often perceived by the outside world as "non-standard" or incorrect. Because this is often the perception of AAVE it makes sense to equip students with the ability to code switch between standard language and AAVE. Though on the other hand, maybe AAVE would be more societally acceptable if it were taught in schools and promoted as a legitimate dialect of English. I think the heart of this conflict is whether you have to teach kids to exist in a flawed society or use schools and the educational system as a tool to change a flawed society. In conclusion, I think that even if schools do not teach AAVE they should a least not discourage students from speaking it in their personal lives or send the message that it is flawed and non-standard.
ReplyDeleteI agree that AAVE is a valid dialect of English. However, although incorporating AAVE into classrooms is an interesting idea, I don’t think it’s necessary or plausible.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is a mode of communication. Everyone knows Standard English, but not everyone knows AAVE. Therefore, learning AAVE in a classroom might seem appealing. But why is it necessary, when we already have Standard English everyone is accustomed to? Even those who speak AAVE know how to understand, read, and write in Standard English. At the very least, everyone is taught Standard English in school. I’m not saying Standard English is better than AAVE, I’m saying that it’s much more practical to teach everyone Standard English. All standardized exams are in Standard English and foreign countries learn Standard English. It’s simply not necessary for us to be learn AAVE in school.
Of course, if someone has an interest in AAVE, they should not be prevented from learning AAVE. I personally think AAVE is stylistically pretty, and I would like to learn it if given the opportunity. However, I think I would be prevented from speaking it in public because I know Standard English, I’m Asian American, and I grew up in a neighborhood where AAVE is almost nonexistent. I’m pretty sure I’d be considered weird (and dare I say it, racist) if I suddenly started speaking AAVE! Now that I think about it, there may be a social difficulty rooted in this AAVE/Standard English problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt that the difference between performance in schools in Palo Alto and East Palo Alto is to do with AAVE primarily; socioeconomic factors such as the quality of instruction at the schools, education level of the students' parents and so on play a much more defining role. With that said, I think that AAVE would have to become a national paradigm for it to be a useful addition to the classroom. If AAVE was only taught in predominately black schools it may further ostracize those who go on to work in places where AAVE is not spoken. AAVE is a legitimate language, but so is the current vernacular, and the replacement of one with the other would be fraught with difficulties.
ReplyDeleteI work with kids from EPA who go to schools in PA, and I can tell you that AAVE is probably not the issue. A lot of the 1st and 2nd graders I work with speak fairly standard English and they understand when I speak standard English - the real trouble is that they're starting out behind their peers in PA when they begin school.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if we decide that we should teach in AAVE, then that, for me, forces us to look at other questions: should we teach classes in Spanish and Tongan as well? What about Hawaiian Pidgin? Or should we separate students into classes based on dialect so we can teach them? As you can see, things start to get a little iffy at that point.
That's when we have to start thinking about things from the teacher's perspective - is it plausible? It may be beneficial for some students, but how can we make a system that will work best for the most students at the same time?