A Sociolinguistic Approach to English Instruction
Many schools take pride in their students' cultural diversity, often showcasing their
history, their cuisine, and their arts in various events. However, the linguistic diversity of
schools appears to be for mere statistical relevance. The lack of positive discourse regarding
various language varieties in schools reflects language policies and practices—whether
explicitly or implicitly stated—that disempower students within the education system.
Teachers who teach writing must acknowledge the multicultural challenges of teaching
literacy and composition, and engage themselves in adopting
Educators who have little background in sociolinguistics often echo the idea that the
language variety labelled as Standard English is also the “proper” or “correct” English while
all others are negatively perceived as “incorrect,” “broken,” or “bad” English. Teachers,
especially those at the elementary and secondary levels, perpetuate the notion that Standard
English is superior to other English varieties, which disempower students who primarily use a
different English language variety—with most of these students being minorities of lower
socioeconomic status.
Having grown up in a postcolonial country and having been taught Received
Pronunciation, I am particularly sensitive to the political and social power that languages
exert, being both victim and beneficiary of linguistic biases. Having 'learnt' the conventions
of British English during my early years, my writing is often 'coloured' with 'mistakes' that
my American teachers have been too eager to 'correct' whilst praising how 'proper' I sound in
conversation.
During my five years of teaching in public schools, I have observed colleagues tell
their students that their “street talk” should remain in the streets, or to simply speak and write
in “proper” English, as Standard English is the language variety that will ensure greater social
success. Such attitudes have prevailed in schools for many generations, as a study in 1976
found that “even African American teachers associate negative characteristics to students
who speak B.E. [Black English]” (Billings 68). A more recent study by scholars Wheeler and
Swords records conversations between teachers and students in which teachers “challenge
[the student’s expression], trying to get the child to rephrase from ‘improper’ to ‘proper’
English” (4). Thus, the negative attributes given to non-standard English varieties often
translate to negative perceptions of speakers not using the “prestige” form of the language.
This practice of attaching negative attitudes toward English variants is problematic in
practical applications of teaching, especially in composition. We celebrate the use of local
vernacular in the works of Twain’s ​Huckleberry Finn​ and Sapphire’s ​Push​, but we stifle the
creative ideas of our students by limiting their thoughts to a single English variant.
Another language practice that disempowers students is the use of Standard English in
standardised tests, as students who are English learners often perform poorly in such
assessments, although “whether LEP students’ poor performance on these tests was the result
of lack of academic preparation, lack of linguistic skills, or a combination of the two is open
to debate” (Callahan 306). However, while scholars can safely debate the issue without fear
of negative consequences, English Language Learner (ELL) students across the country are
suffering from the over-reliance on standardised tests. These tests inaccurately assess the
students’ content knowledge proficiency because they are given a “test in a language that the
student does not understand” (Abedi et al. 2). Language policy becomes a gatekeeper..
Students who are fluent in Standard English—such as many white students from higher social
classes—often do better on these assessments and have greater educational opportunities,
such as a wider selection of universities to apply to. ELL students in high school, however,
are less likely to achieve standardized test scores that will allow them admission into elite
schools. Through unfair language policies, the U.S.’s education system further stratifies racial
and class groups, favoring those who are fluent in the “prestige” variety of English.
Meanwhile, ELL and other non-standard speakers of English suffer even more from
current language policies when they are academically tracked. Because they are not fluent in
the rules of both spoken and written Standard English, ELL students are put into programs
that “place students in modified instruction, which translates to less linguistically and
academically rigorous instruction than mainstream instruction” (Callahan 306). Such policies
put these students at an even greater disadvantage, as they fall further behind and fail to
achieve both linguistic and academic competency needed to succeed in society. In New
Jersey City University, which serves many students who do not use Standard English as their
primary English variant, I have tutored several students who for years have been in
“remedial” or “foundation” courses in both English and other content areas, as their previous
education failed to provide them the necessary knowledge and skills to further their
education. The “lack of access to high-quality content-area instruction” has great “linguistic,
academic, and programmatic consequences” (Callahan 306-307). Some students I have
tutored gave up on their original major and chose “easier” subjects just so they can graduate,
and some have given up on a college education after repeating the foundation courses too
many times.
In Carteret, I have students who are mostly native English speakers, but not native in
Academic English. Unaware of the systemic grammatical differences, there is often resistance
to learning academic conventions, as most students have not been brought up to code-switch
between variants of the same language. However, my students are often engaged and quick to
pick up differences between my use of British English and General American that aren’t
found in merely adding ‘​o‘​ in words like ​colour,​ e.g, my use of ​have​ as a delexical verb;
various participles like ​learnt​ or ​smelt​; grammar of collective nouns, etc. When we discussed
the fact that there are actually many forms of English, and that they are–in a crude
sense–becoming ‘bilingual’ by becoming fluent in Academic English, they are empowered to
look at language and writing in a critical lens, informed by social and historic systems that
affect their education and future in subtle, but important, ways. Teaching composition
through a lens accepting linguistic diversity opens up students to explore and experiment with
language with nuanced complexity, and empowers them in navigating various social spheres
without diminishing their own.
Better educational policies need to be implemented, and a sociolinguistic
understanding can help bring positive, empowering reform. One simple approach is
acknowledging the value of other English language varieties. Those in academia, whether
they be scholars or teachers, should find ways to incorporate other varieties of English in
education. For example, enhancing lessons with relevant hip-hop songs can engage students
while valuing other varieties of English. In addition, educators can adopt a more descriptivist
approach to English instruction. Teachers can have students translate sentences from AAE to
Standard English and vice-versa (Wheeler and Swords 33). This can help students become
aware of the various forms of English, and by learning the linguistic features of Standard
English and their own language variety, can succeed in gaining Standard English fluency.
Lastly, schools should avoid using students’ language proficiency levels to bar them from
high-quality content-area instruction (Callahan 324). Schools should not assume that a
student’s language proficiency level is an indicator of his or her ability to grasp
content-knowledge. While it poses many challenges to teachers, a sociolinguistic mindset
may help them find effective approaches to create “content-based
English-language-acquisition curriculum” (Callahan 324), so that students have greater
educational opportunities while they navigate and gain mastery of Standard English.
A sociolinguistic approach to reforming education does not threaten any particular
group, but rather opens up doors that have long been shut to students who are not fluent in the
prestige language variety. To ensure the success of all students, schools should value and
celebrate diversity in all its forms, which includes language. Only with such changes can
students from all social, economic, and linguistic backgrounds find empowerment and
success in their education.
Abedi, Jamal, Carolyn H. Hofstette, and Carol Lord. ‘Assessment Accommodations for
English Language Learners: Implications for Policy-Based Empirical Research.’ ​Review
of Educational Research​ 74.1 (2004): 1-28. ​JSTOR.​ Web. 20 July 2014.
Billings, Andrew C. ‘Beyond the Ebonics Debate: Attitudes about Black and Standard
American English.’​Journal of Black Studies​ 36.1 (2005): 68-81. ​JSTOR.​ Web. 20 July
2014.
Callahan, Rebecca M. ‘Tracking and High School English Learners: Limiting Opportunity to
Learn.’ ​American Educational Research Journal​ 42.2 (2005): 305-28. ​JSTOR​. Web. 20
July 2014.
Smitherman, Geneva. ‘From Ghetto Lady to Critical Linguist.’ Introduction. ​Talkin That
Talk: Language, Culture, and Education in African America​. New York: Routledge,
2000. 1-9. Print.
Wheeler, Rebecca S., and Rachel Swords. ​Code-switching: Teaching Standard English in
Urban Classrooms.​ Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2006. Print.