Implications for TESOL Which Arise from Research Studies In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 024 036 AL 001 590 By- Troike, Rudolph C. Social Dialects and Language Learning: Implications for TESOL. Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages. Pub Date Sep 68 Note- 5p.; Raper presented at the TESOL Convention. March 1968. Available from- TESOL, Institute of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University. Washington.D.C. 20007 (1.50). Journal Cit- TESOL Quarterly; v2 n3 Sep 1968 EDRS Price MF-$0.25 HC-$0.35 Descriptors-Bilingualism, Child Language, *Dialect Studies, *English (Second Language). Nonstandard Dialects, Second Language Learning, *Social Dialects, Sociolinguistics, Standard Spoken Usage, *Tenl Identifiers- *Bidialectalism Discussed briefly by the author are some of the "most immediately relevant" implicationsfor TESOL which arise from research studiesindialectology. One phenomenon, which until recently has received little attention, is that of "receptive bi-dialectalism" or "bilingualism." One of the earliest observations of this phenomenon is a passage taken from the writing of Daniel Defoe in 1724. Anindividual, presented with a stimulus in one dialect and asked to repeat it,will respond by producing the form that is native to his own dialect rather than the form which he has heard(or read). The author feels that such evidence should give us pause in attempts toiudge a child's linguistic competence solely or evenlargely on the basis of his production; rather we should begin by attempting to assess the child's receptive competence as the basis from which to proceed in determining appropriate instructional procedures. If the child has an already well-developed receptive knowledge of a moreformal or "mainstream" dialect of the language, much of the instructional task can be seen as guiding him toward an automatic productive control of the "mainstream"dialect. Implicit in this approach is the idea that only positive stimuli and motivationswill be supplied to lead him to develop and practice this control, and that no negativevalues or stigmas will be applied to his useof his native linguistic forms. (AMM) S. - evT--(64-: Alf1-4 ***11011" v*****. *.*********v*** o 4 \ , Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Q ru A. R LY Volume 2 September, 1968 Number 3 A L0 015.8 5 W. -,... .111... AO 4* /on a** ...11** TESOL QUARTERLY A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages TESOL EDITOR OFFICERS 1968-69 President Betty Wallace Robinett Paul W. Bell University of Minnesota Dade County Schools Miami, Florida First Vice President David P. Harris Georgetown Uriiversity EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Second Vice President William Norris Virginia French Allen University of Pittsburgh Temple University EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Marie Esman Barker The officers and University of Texas Edward M. Anthony El Paso, Texas University of Pittsburgh Virginia French Allen Eugene J. Briere Temple University University of Southern California Julia M. Burks U.S. Information Agency J. C. Catford Kenneth Croft University of Michigan San Francisco State College Mary Finocchiaro Mary Finocchiaro Hunter College Hunter College New York, New York New York, New York Harry Freeman San Francisco State College Maurice Imhoof Ball State University Tom R. Hopkins Muncie, Indiana U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Betty W. Robinett A. Iris Mulvaney University of Minnesota Tucson Public Schools Pauline Rojas Tucson, Arizona Miami, Florida Rudolph C. Troike Bernard Spolsky University of Texas University of New Mexico EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Hadley Thomas James E. Alatis Tuba City Public Schools Georgetown University Tuba City, Arizona Membership in TESOL ($6.00) includes a subscription to the journal. TESOL QUARTERLY is published in March, June, September, and December. Business correspondence should be addressed to James E. Alatis, Institute of Languagesand Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Copyright (1) 1968 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION &WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION Ewe...we 11. "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCETHIS EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED COPYRIGHTED MATERIALHAS BEEN GRANTED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTOFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION TO ERIC AND POSITION OR POLICY. ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OffICE Of, EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REOUIRES PERMISSION OF Social Dialectsand Language THE COPYRIGHTOWNER." Learning: phenomen Implications for TESOL* The Dere vidual, wh Rudolph C. Trolke it, will re rather th In thispaper I shall discuss some of the implicationsfor TESOL which native fo). arise from researchstudies in dialectology fully to the that can be relatedmeaning- but extend development of actionprograms in the schools, and eral understanding from a gen- example. of the natureof language, language Such r guage variation. Although learning, and lan- it would be possibleto expatiateon this subject an adequa at great length, Ishall focusmy remarks on those major most immediately points whichseem formsan relevant. dialect int As a point ofdeparture, I beginwith a quotation at attempt (best known today from Daniel Defoe as the author of RobinsonCrusoe), takeji fromthe on the basi chapter "A TourThro' Somerset"in his book A Tour Island of Great Through the Whole now largel Britain, publishedin 1724: Instead, competence It cannotpass my Observation here,that, when London, the Dialectof the English we are come this Lengthfrom instruction Tongue, or theCountry-way of expressing themselves, is noteasily understood.. ..It is not possible receptive by Writing,because the Difference to explain this fully is not so much inthe Orthography, guage, muc Tone and Accent;their abridging the as in the an automa Don, for do Speech, Cham, for Iam; Chil, for I will; on, or put on; and Doff,for do off,or put off; and the like. of having t I cannot omita short Story hereon this Subject: Coming House, whowas a Schoolmaster at to a Relation's idea that o Martock in Somersetshire,I went into his School to beg theBoys, or rather theMaster, a Play-day, to develop Cases. I observedone of the lowest Scholars as is usual in such will beapp Usher in a Chapterin the Bible. I was reading his Lessonto the clear to th read it out, and sat down by theMaster, till the Boyhad observed the Boy reada little oddly in the Tone priateness which mademe the more attentive; because, of the Country, were the same, and the on Inquiry, I found thatthe Words versus bad. Orthography thesame, as in all our Bibles.I obseved also the Boy readit out with his Eyesstill on the Book, To the mere Boy, moving from Side and his Head, likea of the sod of to Side, is the Linesreached cross theColumns the Book: HisLesson was in theCanticles of Solomon; ferences, I 'I have put offmy Coat; how shall I put the Woras these; shall I defile them?' it on? I have washedmy Feet; how perceptive t The Boy read thus,with his Eyes,as I say, full on the myth which Text: Thal"a doffed my Coot; how shallI don't? Chav how shall I moil'em?' a washed my Feet; like to illus How the dexterousDunce could form his me by a c Words (which stood Mouth toexpress so readily the right printed in theBook) in his CountryJargon, I could American not but admire. North, even This isone of the earliest observationsI have been able while elsewl cerning a phenomenon to discovercon- speaker, wh which is of thegreatest importanceto teachers of language, but whichuntil recently hasreceived only five, said so scant attention.The was promp * This paper standing ne was presented at the TESOLConvention, March Mr. Troike, Associate 1969. to Daddy a Professor of English atthe University ofTexas in Austin, is the Supervisorof English forForeign Students and,directs show that Texas. He is theauthor of a forthcoming the Dialect Surveyof English Linguisticsfor the Teacher of McGraw-Hill text, AnIntroduction to already lea English. behavior wi 176 Aar,. 444.4 ea. 4414444. 4.4 ' ..i......4 .0." SOCIAL DIALECTS ANDLANGUAGE LEARNING 177 phenomenon I referto is that of receptivebi-dialectalism or bilingualism. have observed in which anindi- The Defoeexample is typical of many we vidual, who is presentedwith a stimulus in one dialectand asked to repeat dialect it, willrespond by producing theform that is native to his own rather than theform which he bas heard or seen.This substitution of native forms forstimulus forms includes not onlyfeatures of phonology, but extends tovocabulary and syntax as well, as maybe seen in Defoe's example. Such responses seem togive unequivocal evidencethat the person has and that he per- anadequate receptive knowledgeof the stimulus dialect, formsand has learned toperforminstantaneous translationfrom that dialect into his nativedialect. Such evidence shouldfurther give us pause judge a child's linguistic competencesolely or even largely at attempts to tests are on thebasis of his production, as we are proneto do, and as our now largelydesigned to do. Instead, we should beginby attempting to assessthe child's receptive competence, as the basisfrom which to proceed indetermining appropriate instructional procedures.Thus, if the child has analready well-developed receptive knowledge of a moreformal or "mainstream"dialect of the lan- of the instructional task canbe seen as guidinghim toward guage, much than an automaticproductive control of the"mainstream" dialect, rther of having to teach it tohim from scratch. Implicitin this approachis the idea that only positivestimuli and motivations willbe supplied to lead him to develop and practicethis control, and that nonegative values or stigmas will be applied to his useof his native linguistic forms.The goal is to make clear to the child that thechoice of dialect is a matterof social appro- priateness and expediencyrather than one of right versus wrong,or good versus bad. To the oft-repeatedobjection that the first-gradechild is too innocent of the social world aroundhim to appreciate thesignificance of dialect dif- far more ferences, I can only reply,"Nonsense!" Five- and six-year-olds are perceptive than adults usuallygive them credit for, and itis only a cultural myth which prevents us fromseeing this fact.