Katherine Almeida
APLING 623
September 11, 2012
Text Critique
In her piece, “Teaching New Worlds/New Words,” bell hooks deconstructs the idea that
we need the oppressor’s language, Standard English, to communicate. Much of her discussion
revolves around African slaves brought to the U.S.; however, her discussion has critical
implications for educators and policy makers.
hooks says, “[Standard English] is the language of conquest and domination; in the
United States, it is the mask which hides the loss of so many tongues…” (168). Internationally,
English has also come to be the common language. In India, where there are over a hundred
languages, English is becoming a common ground where everyone can communicate, and this is
resulting in an “English-only” generation; children born to parents who speak different languages
grown up speaking English (Rai, 2012). It cannot go unmentioned that English was brought to
India by imperialism. Beyond the United States, English is used as a language of conquest,
domination, and oppression.
Yet, hooks also discusses the fact that Standard English “can be claimed as a space of
resistance,” (169) and that “possessing a shared language… [is] a way to make community, and a
means to create political solidarity necessary to resist,” (170). So while Standard English is a
language of oppression, bending it to one’s needs can be a powerful form of resistance and
personalization. When anyone personalizes a language, it is a small act of rebellion against
societal pressures. This small act is repeated over and over and becomes much more than a “slip
of the tongue.” These small acts of rebellion, conscious or not, crack the barriers of Standard
English and allow change. The change is reflected in the language and the larger culture in which
that language exists. hooks says,
Using English in a way that ruptured standard usage and meaning, so that white folks
could often not understand black speech, made English into more than the oppressor’s
language…The power of this speech is not simply that it enable resistance to white
supremacy, but that it also forges a space for alternative cultural production,” (170-171).
Language is the beginning of change. If we use more inclusive language, we can break
down the walls of oppression within our society and create pathways for more widespread
opportunity. When we accept more forms of language, we allow more students to be heard and
validated. This means that teachers must at least attempt to know, understand, and, when
appropriate, use the language of their students. Furthermore, academic language needs to bend in
order to accept and reflect the multiple vernaculars of our students. Until academic language
change is widespread, however, students need to be educated in the different forms and contexts
of English. They need to be able to manipulate the standard, and to do this they need to know
what it is and the weight it carries. In the meantime, by accepting multiple forms of English in
our classrooms “we may disrupt that cultural imperialism that suggests one is worthy of being
heard only if one speaks in standard English,” (174).
Implicitly, the article brings up the issue of terminology surrounding language. hooks
refers to Southern black vernacular as “the particular patois of my region.” Patois carries a
negative connotation, as does the word “broken” which hooks uses repeatedly throughout the
article. It seems unclear if this was a deliberate literary device, or if it is a reflection of the larger
societal ideas surrounding language. With regards to terminology, we have the words patois,
dialect, language, variety, pidgin, and creole, among many others, but each carries different
weight. Variety seems to be used to reduce the tension between language and dialect. Language
holds more power, while dialect is a “version” of a language. So, in relation to hooks, Standard
English would be the language, and African American vernacular is a dialect. Just the
terminology of what we call a particular collection of grammar and vocabulary can deny
prestige. So, calling African American vernacular a dialect reduces its importance and validity.
In the last paragraph, hooks says, “we create the ruptured, broken, unruly speech of the
vernacular.” Why is it ruptured, broken and unruly? Is she speaking through the eyes of the
oppressor, who most likely sees any sort of slang or deviation from the norm as negative? Or is
she speaking because she herself feels it is a broken version of the original? The vernacular is
only unruly because it has not been categorized and codified in the same way as the standard.
Any vernacular, pidgin, creole, language, dialect, or variety follows a particular set of rules,
regardless of whether they have been codified.
Because English is a language of domination and opportunity at the same time, teachers
need to be sensitive to how it and other languages are used and valued in and out of the
classroom. Because language is so closely connected to identity, valuing an individual’s
language, while providing instruction in how and when to use (and bend) standard English, is of
tantamount importance.
References:
hooks, b. (1994) “Teaching New Worlds/New Words.”
Rai, S. (2012, June 1) India’s New ‘English Only’ Generation. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/indias-new-english-only-generation/