ABSTRACT FILSON, NICOLETTE AMES. Exploring English Language Arts Pre-Service Teachers' Standard Language Ideologies

ABSTRACT

FILSON, NICOLETTE AMES. Exploring English Language Arts Pre-Service Teachers’ Standard Language Ideologies: A Mixed Methods Study. (Under the direction of Dr. Carl Young).

Within this study, I explored English language arts (ELA) pre-service teachers’ (PST) language beliefs, specifically the ways in which they align with and diverge from the standard language ideology (SLI) beliefs laid out in the language subordination model (LSM) (Lippi-

Green, 2012). The participants were ELA PSTs in both middle grades and high school teacher educations programs at a university in the Southeastern United States (N = 58). A sequential explanatory mixed methods design (Creswell & Clark, 2011) (QUAN  qual) was used to examine PSTs’ language beliefs regarding the ways in which language is mystified

(Mystification), language is claimed (Authority), language is misrepresented (Misinformation), vernacular dialects are trivialized (Trivialization), speakers are judged (Conformers/Non-

Conformers), and outcomes for language use are guaranteed (Promises/Threats). A survey was developed on these various SLI beliefs, called the Survey for the Standard Language Ideology

(SSLI), and was then employed to collect the quantitative data; subsequently interviews were conducted with six survey participants who, based on their composite survey scores, had varying degrees of alignment with the SLI. The mixed methods analysis revealed that participants exhibited the most alignment with the SLI on Mystification and the most divergence from the

SLI on Misinformation; additionally, there was evidence of cognitive dissonance for beliefs on

Mystification, Authority, and Trivialization as participants demonstrated inconsistences in their attitudes. Regression results indicated that participation in a linguistics course, political affiliation, and academic program were predictors for various SLI beliefs. Interview responses suggested that the combination of experiences in a linguistics course, meaningful interactions with diverse populations, and prior introduction to social justice issues had the potential to most positively impact participants’ language ideologies. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

© Copyright 2018 by Nicolette Ames Filson

All Rights Reserved Exploring English Language Arts Pre-Service Teachers’ Standard Language Ideologies: A Mixed Methods Study

by Nicolette Ames Filson

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Curriculum and Instruction

Raleigh, North Carolina

2018

APPROVED BY:

______Dr. Carl Young Dr. Jeffrey Reaser Committee Chair

______Dr. Teomara Rutherford Dr. Michelle Falter ii DEDICATION

To Della, in hope for a better world.

iii BIOGRAPHY

I was born in Winchester, Kentucky and moved to Hendersonville, North Carolina a year after where I was lucky enough to grow up in the mountains of Western North Carolina.

Throughout school, I always loved learning about language; I enjoyed analyzing an author’s word choice in the literature of my English classes and exploring the grammar and vocabulary of

Spanish in my foreign language classes. In turn, after graduating from high school, I moved to

Raleigh to attend N.C. State University where I earned a Bachelor’s degree in Secondary English

Education; during this time, I took a course titled Language and Writing with Dr. Jeffrey Reaser that introduced me to the field of linguistics, transformed my understanding of how language works, and reshaped my perception of how to effectively and equitably approach language in the classroom. Following graduation, I moved to La Serena, Chile where I lived for six months and continued to learn about the relationship between language, culture, and identity as a volunteer

English teacher at a local orphanage and school. Then, aiming to further my education in linguistics, I returned to N.C. State University and earned a Master’s degree in English with a concentration in linguistics; in this program, I not only developed a deeper understanding of linguistic concepts but participated in outreach initiatives with The Language and Life Project at

N.C. State that sought to document and share information about various dialects in the United

States. Furthermore, I strengthened my ability to incorporate linguistics into the classroom by developing a language awareness and exploration curriculum for high school students. After graduation, I moved abroad again to San José, Costa Rica where I lived for six months and applied my knowledge of linguistics to help the Costa Rican Lutheran Church develop English programs in impoverished communities. When I returned to North Carolina, I worked as a public high school English teacher in Apex and Asheville where I was able to implement linguistically-

iv informed pedagogy into my language arts instruction. After three years, I decided to return to

N.C. State University to pursue my doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction with a concentration in English Education and Literacy in hopes of learning more about and contributing to the body of research that advocates for a descriptive approach to language study and a development of critical language awareness within education.

v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Carl Young for his inexhaustible compassion, Dr. Jeffrey

Reaser for his unending support, Dr. Teomara Rutherford for her indispensable feedback, Dr.

Michelle Falter for her thoughtful guidance, Kindra Taylor for her unconditional love, Kevin

Filson for his constant encouragement, Sue Filson for her sweet comfort, Butler Taylor for his dear friendship, Dr. Christine Smith for her rejuvenating enthusiasm, Christopher Smith for his kind confidence, Rachael Debnam-O’Dea for her irreplaceable camaraderie, Dr. Casey Medlock

Paul for her unwavering counsel, Charlotte Roberts for her reassuring companionship, the crew for their motivating mockery, MoeJoe’s Burger Joint for their accommodating service, Sir

Walter Coffee for their patient attendance, and Noam Pikelny for his inspiring instrumentals.

Most importantly, I thank God for the peace and light of His love, which made possible the accomplishment of this formidable endeavor.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... xii LIST OF FIGURES ...... xv Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Statement of the Problem ...... 7 Purpose of the Study ...... 11 Research Questions ...... 13 Scope of the Study ...... 14 Population ...... 14 Context ...... 16 Content ...... 17 Definition of Terms ...... 18 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 20 Language Ideologies ...... 20 Conceptualizing Ideology ...... 20 Conceptualizing Language Ideologies ...... 22 Defining Language Ideologies ...... 22 Fundamental Elements ...... 24 Standard Language Ideology (SLI) ...... 26 Language Subordination ...... 26 The Language Subordination Model (LSM)...... 27 Language Ideologies and Language Subordination in Education ...... 28 Research Context ...... 29 Methods...... 30 Populations ...... 31 Content ...... 31 Correlations ...... 32 The Language Subordination Model (LSM) in Education ...... 33 Language Is Mystified ...... 33 Authority Is Claimed...... 36 Misinformation Is Generated ...... 37 Target Languages Are Trivialized ...... 39 Conformers and Non-Conformers ...... 41 Promises and Threats ...... 43 Critical Language Awareness (CLA)...... 46 History...... 46 Fundamental Elements ...... 49 Implications for Pre-Service Teachers and Teacher Education Programs ...... 51 Chapter 3: Methods ...... 53 Mixed Methods Definition, Design, and Rationale ...... 53 Theoretical Framework ...... 55 Inquiry Worldview ...... 55 Substantive Content Theories ...... 57

vii Subjectivity Statement ...... 59 Context ...... 60 Survey Development ...... 61 Item Development ...... 62 Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing ...... 65 Procedure ...... 65 Participants ...... 66 Results ...... 66 Expert Ratings Survey ...... 68 Procedure ...... 68 Participants ...... 70 Results ...... 70 Mystification ...... 72 Authority ...... 73 Misinformation ...... 74 Trivialization ...... 74 Conformers/Non-Conformers ...... 75 Promises/Threats ...... 76 Final Cognitive Interviewing ...... 77 Procedure ...... 78 Participants ...... 79 Results ...... 79 Mystification ...... 79 Authority ...... 80 Misinformation ...... 81 Trivialization ...... 81 Conformers/Non-Conformers ...... 82 Promises/Threats ...... 83 Instructions, Demographic Questionnaire, and Experiences Questionnaire ...... 85 Quantitative Phase ...... 85 Procedure ...... 85 Data Collection ...... 87 Survey for the Standard Language Ideology (SSLI)...... 87 Demographics Questionnaire ...... 89 Experiences Questionnaire...... 89 Sample...... 90 Attrition ...... 92 Demographics ...... 93 Experiences ...... 96 Analysis...... 99 Qualitative Phase ...... 102 Procedure ...... 102 Data Collection ...... 104 Semi-structured Interview Protocol ...... 104 Sample...... 105

viii Demographics ...... 105 Experiences ...... 106 Analysis...... 108 Phase One...... 109 Phase Two ...... 109 Phase Three ...... 110 Phase Four ...... 111 Phase Five ...... 112 Phase Six ...... 113 Data Integration ...... 114 Meta-Inferences ...... 114 Chapter 4: Results...... 116 Index Construction and Validation ...... 117 SSLI Indexes ...... 117 Normality of Distribution ...... 119 Correlation between Indexes ...... 120 Relationships between the SSLI, Demographics, Experiences, and Interview Responses ...... 120 Zero-Order Correlations for Indexes ...... 123 Mystification Index ...... 123 Authority Index ...... 123 Misinformation Index ...... 123 Trivialization Index ...... 124 Conformers/Non-Conformers Index ...... 124 Threats index ...... 124 Zero-Order Correlations for Items ...... 124 Mystification Items ...... 125 Authority Items ...... 125 Misinformation Items...... 125 Trivialization Items ...... 126 Conformers/Non-Conformers Items ...... 126 Promises/Threats Items ...... 126 Relationships between the SSLI, Program, Academic Standing, and Linguistics Courses ...... 127 Experiences ...... 131 Mystification ...... 132 Quantitative Findings ...... 132 Qualitative Findings ...... 136 Positive Experiences ...... 140 Negative Experiences...... 141 Integrated Findings ...... 141 Authority ...... 144 Quantitative Findings ...... 144 Qualitative Findings ...... 148 People ...... 149 Positive Experiences ...... 157

ix Negative Experiences ...... 159 Concepts ...... 160 Positive Experiences ...... 164 Negative Experiences ...... 166 Integrated Findings ...... 166 Misinformation ...... 170 Quantitative Findings ...... 171 Qualitative Findings ...... 174 Obvious ...... 174 Positive Experiences ...... 179 Negative Experiences...... 181 Obscure ...... 181 Positive Experiences ...... 186 Negative Experiences...... 188 Integrated Findings ...... 189 Trivialization ...... 191 Quantitative Findings ...... 191 Qualitative Findings ...... 194 Significant ...... 195 Positive Experiences ...... 201 Negative Experiences...... 203 Capable ...... 203 Positive Experiences ...... 207 Negative Experiences...... 208 Appropriate ...... 209 Positive Experiences ...... 214 Negative Experiences...... 214 Integrated Findings ...... 214 Conformers/Non-Conformers ...... 218 Quantitative Findings ...... 218 Qualitative Findings ...... 222 Positive Conformers...... 222 Positive Experiences ...... 227 Negative Experiences...... 228 Negative Non-Conformers ...... 229 Positive Experiences ...... 233 Negative Experiences...... 233 Integrated Findings ...... 234 Promises/Threats ...... 236 Quantitative Findings ...... 237 Qualitative Findings ...... 240 Profitable ...... 241 Positive Experiences ...... 244 Negative Experiences...... 244 Detrimental ...... 245 Positive Experiences ...... 249

x Negative Experiences...... 250 Integrated Findings ...... 251 Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 254 Experiences ...... 254 Reciprocal Relationship ...... 258 Participant Spotlight...... 260 Mystification ...... 261 Authority ...... 265 Misinformation ...... 268 Trivialization ...... 270 Conformers/Non-Conformers ...... 272 Promises/Threats ...... 275 Limitations ...... 277 Implications for Practice ...... 279 Implications for Future Research ...... 284 REFERENCES ...... 286 APPENDICES ...... 325 Appendix A: Research Design Diagram ...... 326 Appendix B: Survey Development Instruments ...... 327 Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing Protocol ...... 327 Expert Ratings Survey ...... 329 Final Cognitive Interviewing Protocol...... 336 Final Cognitive Interviewing Survey ...... 340 Appendix C: Survey Development Emails ...... 345 Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing Email ...... 345 Expert Ratings Emails...... 345 Cognitive Interviewing Emails ...... 346 Appendix D: Survey Development Consent Forms...... 347 Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing Consent Form ...... 347 Expert Ratings Survey Consent Form...... 348 Final Cognitive Interviewing Consent Form ...... 349 Appendix E: Survey Development Data ...... 352 Averages for Expert Ratings Survey Items ...... 352 Example of Experts’ Written Feedback on Expert Ratings Survey ...... 354 Examples of Final Cognitive Interviewing Notes ...... 355 Appendix F: Recruitment Emails...... 358 Online Survey Recruitment Emails ...... 358 Classroom Visit Recruitment Email ...... 359 Interview Recruitment Emails ...... 359 Appendix G: Consent Forms ...... 361 Online Survey Consent Form...... 361 Interview Consent Form ...... 362 Appendix H: Study Instruments...... 364 Survey for the Standard Language Ideology (SSLI)...... 364 Demographics Questionnaire ...... 366

xi Experiences Questionnaire...... 367 Semi-Structured Interview Protocol ...... 368 Appendix I: Recruitment Materials ...... 371 Classroom Visit Script ...... 371 Recruitment Flyer ...... 372 Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis ...... 373 SSLI Item Correlations ...... 373 Zero-Order Correlation Results for Independent Variables and Indexes ...... 374 Zero-Order Correlation Results for Independent Variables and Items ...... 375 Regression Results for SSLI Items ...... 379 Appendix K: Qualitative Data Analysis ...... 395 Excerpt from Interview Transcripts ...... 395 Excerpt from Notes on Initial Ideas ...... 397 Start List ...... 398 Samples from Codebook ...... 401

xii LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Items Categorized by SLI Belief ...... 88

Table 3.2 Demographic Information and Home Language of Participants ...... 95

Table 3.3 Age Information of Participants ...... 95

Table 3.4 Political Affiliation of Participants ...... 95

Table 3.5 Academic Standing of Participants ...... 96

Table 3.6 Education Abroad, Travel Abroad, and Linguistic Training of Participants ...... 98

Table 3.7 Foreign Language Proficiency Level of Participants ...... 98

Table 3.8 Experience Level with Diverse Populations of Participants ...... 98

Table 3.9 SSLI Scores and Demographics of Interview Participants ...... 106

Table 3.10 Experiences of Interview Participants ...... 108

Table 4.1 Items on Mystification Index ...... 118

Table 4.2 Items on Authority Index ...... 118

Table 4.3 Items on Misinformation Index ...... 119

Table 4.4 Items on Trivialization Index ...... 119

Table 4.5 Items on Conformers/Non-Conformers Index ...... 119

Table 4.6 Items on Threats Index ...... 119

Table 4.7 Correlations between SSLI Indexes ...... 120

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for and Ranking of SSLI Indexes ...... 121

Table 4.9 Regressions of SSLI on Program and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 130

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for Mystification Index ...... 132

Table 4.11 Response Percentages for Mystification Items ...... 133

Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics for Mystification Index ...... 134

xiii Table 4.13 Regressions of Mystification Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 135

Table 4.14 Contradicting Beliefs for Mystification ...... 137

Table 4.15 Descriptive Statistics for Authority Index ...... 144

Table 4.16 Descriptive Statistics for Authority Items ...... 146

Table 4.17 Response Percentages for Authority Items ...... 146

Table 4.18 Regressions of Authority Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 148

Table 4.19 Contradicting Beliefs for Authority of People ...... 151

Table 4.20 Descriptive Statistics for Misinformation Index ...... 171

Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics for Misinformation Items ...... 172

Table 4.22 Response Percentages for Misinformation Items ...... 172

Table 4.23 Regressions of Misinformation Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 173

Table 4.24 Descriptive Statistics for Trivialization Index ...... 191

Table 4.25 Descriptive Statistics for Trivialization Items ...... 192

Table 4.26 Response Percentages for Trivialization Items ...... 193

Table 4.27 Regressions of Trivialization Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 194

Table 4.28 Descriptive Statistics for Conformers/Non-Conformers Index ...... 219

Table 4.29 Descriptive Statistics for Conformers/Non-Conformers Items ...... 220

Table 4.30 Response Percentages for Conformers/Non-Conformers Items ...... 220

Table 4.31 Regressions of Conformers/Non-Conformers Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 221

Table 4.32 Descriptive Statistics for Threats Index ...... 237

Table 4.33 Descriptive Statistics for Promises/Threats Items ...... 238

xiv Table 4.34 Response Percentages for Promises/Threats Items ...... 239

Table 4.35 Regressions of Promises/Threats Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) ...... 240

xv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Historical influences on and outcomes of critical language awareness (CLA) ...... 49

Figure 3.1 Demographic information of overall population (N = 92) ...... 92

Figure 3.2 The six phases of thematic analysis as outlined by Braun & Clarke (2006) ...... 109

Figure 3.3 Initial thematic map, showing seven overall themes ...... 112

Figure 3.4 Developed thematic map, showing seven overall themes and thirteen sub-themes ...... 113

Figure 4.1 Average SSLI score for participants by academic standing within each program ...... 129

Figure 4.2 Average SSLI score for participants based on experiences with linguistics course(s) within each program ...... 131

Figure 4.3 Visual representation of inconsistent beliefs on Mystification between Items 5 and 11 and 17 and 11 ...... 143

Figure 4.4 Visual representation of inconsistent beliefs on Mystification between Items 5 and 23 and 17 and 23 ...... 143

Figure 4.5 Visual representation of inconsistent beliefs on authority of People between Items 10 and 16 and 22 and 16 ...... 167

Figure 4.6 Visual representation of beliefs on Authority between Items 4 and 16 ...... 169

Figure 4.7 Visual representation of endorsement for statements that both align with and diverge from various aspects of Trivialization ...... 216

Figure 4.8 Visual representation of both alignment with and divergence from two two aspects of Capable Trivialization ...... 216

Figure 5.1 Visual representation of all experiences participants cited as having a Positive or negative impact on SLI beliefs ...... 255

Figure 5.2 Visual representation of the reciprocal relationship between experiences with language and the SLI ...... 259

Figure 5.3 Visual representation of Authority findings ...... 267

Figure 5.4 Visual representation study findings in relation to CLA ...... 280

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Although language study is an academic discipline unto itself, discussions about language pervade public discourse; people have questioned the use of “Ebonics” in the classroom, promoted English-only legislation, and scoffed at the inclusion of new words in the Oxford

English Dictionary, such as OMG and frenemy (Llorente, 2011; Freeman, 2010; Wolfram, 1997).

Furthermore, often in defense of “Standard English,” some individuals take to policing language use by critiquing the speech of others, even self-identifying as “Grammar Nazis” (Carroll, 2016;

Webster, 2012), whereas those who use non-mainstream, or vernacular, language often view their own dialects as deficient, simplistic, and wrong (Lippi-Green, 2012). This response to language is not surprising as most people’s only exposure to formal language study is from the traditional grammar instruction that they receive in public schools (Mulroy, 2003; Schuster,

2003). Students are typically taught that the norms and rules of standardized English must be learned, practiced, and followed in order to use language “correctly,” speak aesthetically, and succeed in academic and professional endeavors (DeCapua, 2017; Rumberger & Scarcella, 2000;

Wilton, 2014). Therefore, the public’s knowledge of and attitudes towards language are largely informed and deeply influenced by the prescriptive way in which it is approached in schools, and other dominant institutions (Lippi-Green, 2012); however, this perspective of language is riddled with linguistic myths and misconceptions.

Because there is little to no education in K-12 schools or teacher education programs offered about how language works and why it changes (Kolln & Hancock, 2005), non-linguists’ beliefs about the way language should be used are invariably steeped in ideology, not linguistic facts. Some language myths contend that only certain people speak a dialect, that vernacular language varieties are failed attempts to speak standardized English, and that stigmatized dialects

2 are not rule-governed (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). Still others assert that the English language is in decline, that standardized English is more logical and aesthetic than non-mainstream dialects, and that mainstream English does not, and should not, vary or change (Bauer &

Trudgill, 1998). However, these common fallacies about linguistic diversity contradict the fundamental truths about language that have been substantiated through decades of empirical research, namely that all dialects are grammatically patterned (e.g., Reaser, Adger, Wolfram, &

Christian, 2017; Labov, 1972; Rickford, 1999; Wolfram, 2000) and that language change and variation are inevitable (Harris, 1981; Lippi-Green, 2012).

Background

To start, language varieties from coast to coast, such as African American English

(AAE), Latino English, and Appalachian English, have been researched and identified as rule- governed linguistic structures (Wolfram & Ward, 2006). For example, a stigmatized vernacular feature of AAE called habitual be (e.g., “He be playing basketball”) is specifically used to denote a recurring action; therefore, the sentence “He be playing basketball right now” violates the grammatical rule of the linguistic feature and is, consequently, not used by AAE speakers

(Rickford, 1999). Similarly, Appalachian English speakers can be heard saying phrases like “She was a-coming down the stairs,” which is a grammatical pattern called a-prefixing, and there are three linguistic constraints that govern its use (Wolfram, 1993b). The a- prefix can only occur 1) with verb complements, not –ing participles that act as nouns or adjectives (e.g., “They went a- hunting,” not “The man likes a-hunting” or “The film was a-captivating”); 2) when –ing is not followed by a preposition (e.g., “They were a-catching fish,” not “He earns money by a-catching fish”); and 3) with verbs that have a stressed initial syllable, not an unstressed first syllable (e.g.,

“The man was a-hóllering at the hunters,” not “The man was a-recálling what happened that

3 night”). Accordingly, a linguistic understanding of vernacular dialects reveals that their structure is patterned and complex, not arbitrary and elementary; furthermore, it demonstrates that they are not flawed approximations of standardized English—they are simply governed by a different set of rules.

Linguistic scholarship also contradicts the fixed code fallacy (Andrews, 2006; Harris,

1981), which assumes that there is only one correct way to speak a language and that that form does not change, by citing revisions to what has been deemed “acceptable” in the English language over time. For example, a semantic shift by younger generations in the use of the word literally to denote emphasis when a statement is not factually true (e.g., “I literally froze to death”) has prompted some people, such as professors and journalists, to declare that the English language is “losing its meaning” and “broken” (Gill, 2013; Sutherland, 2013). Relying on her alleged linguistic expertise as a journalist, Gill (2013) concluded that the word is currently

“irredeemable” and that people should “avoid it completely” (para. 10). However, instead of dismissing the use of literally altogether, the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary explained that the word has been used to intensify figurative statements since the mid-1800s in classically- acclaimed texts, such as Little Women by Louisa May Alcott (e.g., “The land literally flowed with milk and honey”), The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain (e.g., He was “literally rolling in wealth”), and The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (e.g., Jay Gatsby “literally glowed”) (Scheidlower, 2005). Furthermore, although some claim that the figurative use of literally is wrong because of its apparent contradiction, Scheidlower (2005) pointed to many words that communicate opposing meanings successfully and without conflict, such as cleave

(“to stick to” and “to split apart”), dust (“to remove dust from” and “to sprinkle dust upon”), and peruse (“to read closely” and “to skim”), as well as the commonly accepted use of really to also

4 intensify untrue statements (e.g., “I’m really dying for some chocolate”); people who attempt to dictate language use thus have to depend on 18th century grammar books to justify which meaning is “correct,” as multiple, and even contradicting, meanings of a word do not appear to typically impact intelligibility. Likewise, the pronunciation of ask in AAE as aks is an often mocked feature of the dialect that has come to be associated with ignorance and poverty; however, historical linguists have observed the use of this pronunciation in eighth century Old

English by esteemed authors like Chaucer as well as in early translations of the Bible (e.g., “Axe and it shall be given”) (Meraji, 2013). Additionally, linguistic research has found that the only languages that do not change are those that are considered “dead,” a language no longer spoken or with no native speakers (e.g., Classical Latin), yet living languages, or those acquired as a first language, are always changing (Reaser et al., 2017). In turn, the assumption that language change or linguistic variation is indicative of brokenness, deterioration, or impairment is ironic in the fact that it is actually representative of a language that is alive and well. Therefore, linguistic scholarship makes it evident that what is considered “correct” English does indeed change over time and that often the language features associated with “good” and “bad” English have more to do with those who speak them, and those who try to regulate them, than the innate superiority or inferiority of the linguistic structure itself.

Finally, “Standard American English” is often promoted as inherently more logical than vernacular dialects. One example of this mindset is many people’s objection to multiple negation, or what is commonly known as “double negatives” (e.g., “I didn’t do nothing today”).

Most English speakers have been taught to apply the mathematical principle that “two negatives make a positive” to language; this logic argues that the two negatives in a sentence cancel each other out, resulting in a positive sentence (Cheshire, 1998). For example, the phrase “I didn’t do

5 nothing today” would be translated to “I did something today.” However, linguists have challenged this commonplace reasoning in a few ways. First, some have posited that, in abiding by this mathematical rule, a sentence with three negatives (e.g., “I didn’t do nothing to no one”) would leave one negative in the sentence after two have been cancelled out. Without knowing which negatives turn positive and by distorting the meaning of the utterance, language scholars conclude that it is inappropriate to apply rules of mathematics and logic to a system as complex as language (Cheshire, 1998). Second, linguists contend that certain grammatical constructs, such as multiple negation, are formed and preserved because they make meanings more transparent; therefore, claiming that “I ain’t never stolen nothing from no one” does not render the statement incomprehensible or illogical, it makes the negation of the declaration that much more obvious and emphatic, even more so than a construction in standardized English that only permits one negative element per utterance (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). Third, language scholars defend the natural occurrence and communicative effectiveness of multiple negation when citing its use by revered English authors, such as Shakespeare (e.g., “I have one heart, one bosom, and one truth / And that no woman has; nor never none / Shall mistress be of it, save I alone”), in the majority of the world’s languages (e.g., French, Spanish, Russian, Hungarian,

Arabic), and in most English dialects (e.g., rural, urban, Southern, Northern, AAE, creoles); once again, as with the contentiously revived usage of literally, it was only grammarians of the 1700s that decided multiple negation was illogical and “incorrect,” not the comprehensibility of the construct itself (Cheshire, 1998). Similarly, in an attempt to “restore” the English language by forcing Latin constructs onto its Germanic structure, grammarians from the 17th to 19th century established other standardized English grammar rules that are now promoted as “common sense,” even though they have no historical or linguistic foundation; examples of these arbitrary

6 decrees include the proscription of ending a sentence with a preposition (e.g., “Who are you going with?”) by Joshua Poole in 1646 and the forbiddance of splitting an infinitive (e.g., “I told him to quietly read to himself”) by John Comly in 1803 (Gartland & Smolkin, 2016; Reaser et al., 2017). Following these linguistic norms can even serve to be more confusing and less logical than breaking them; for example, “correcting” the sentence “The car had not been paid for” to

“Paid for the car had not been” obeys Poole’s grammar rule, but renders the phrase arguably more awkward and complicated (Oxford University Press, 2018). Considering that these two rules are rarely observed and boldly flouted in spoken language by those of all dialects, including standardized English (Turner, 2017), it is clear that some “Standard English” conventions were determined by a few men in power who exercised their authority over language instead of trusting the natural inclinations of language users and the inherent patterns and system of rules that they intuitively follow to produce comprehensible, meaningful communication (DeCapua,

2017; McWhorter, 1998; Williams, 2003). Therefore, despite the fact that some “standard” rules for language use are based on ill-suited principles of mathematics and logic and an unfit application of Latin grammar structure, standardized English is still promoted as more accurate, logical, aesthetic, and historical than vernacular dialects (Lippi-Green, 2012).

A dismissal of or unfamiliarity with these linguistic facts contributes to a set of beliefs, also known as the standard language ideology (SLI), which is a bias towards an idealized spoken language based predominantly on the speech of the upper middle class, or what many refer to as

“Standard English”; this ideology endorses a reliance on professed “language experts” and authoritative resources, such as teachers, journalists, and grammar books, to determine “correct” language use and promotes a conception of vernacular dialects as intrinsically more defective, irrational, simplistic, and volatile than standardized language varieties (Lippi-Green, 2012).

7 These negative attitudes towards non-mainstream dialects have been well-documented over the years and indicate that individuals not only convey disapproval of the stigmatized dialects themselves, but also judge speakers of those language varieties to be lazier, more unintelligent, more dishonest, and more unambitious than mainstream speakers (Baugh, 2003; Heath, 1983;

Lippi-Green, 2012; Norment, 2005; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Rampton, 2005; Reaser et al., 2017).

In turn, these beliefs facilitate and advance acts of linguistic prejudice and discrimination (Lippi-

Green, 2012). The perpetuation of the SLI and enactment of language subordination is realized in the advocacy for linguistic standardization by dominant institutions, such as the education system, through discriminatory policies against and attitudes towards vernacular dialects and their speakers.

Statement of the Problem

Given the lack of linguistically-informed language study in teacher education programs

(Kolln & Hancock, 2005) and the misinformation this generates, studies on teachers’ language beliefs have revealed similar results to those conducted with the general public. Research has demonstrated that educators expect greater academic achievement, reading success, and intelligence from students who speak standardized English over those who speak a vernacular dialect (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Cecil, 1988; Ferguson, 1998). In turn, teachers’ low expectations result in lower academic achievement for students who speak stigmatized dialects (McKown & Weinstein, 2008; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Rubie-Davis,

Hattie, & Hamilton, 2006). Teachers have also associated non-mainstream-speaking students with more negative characteristics, such as being uneducated, lazy, and poor (Cazden, 2001;

Cross, DeVaney, & Jones, 2001; Gupta, 2010; Scott & Smitherman, 1985). Finally, many educators have exhibited a lack of sociolinguistic knowledge by viewing stigmatized dialects as

8 inadequate language systems with faulty grammar (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Bowie & Bond, 1994;

Cross et al., 2001; Gupta, 2010; Taylor, 1973) and ignoring the linguistic assets and abilities of students who speak a vernacular language variety (Alim, 2004; Godley & Minnici, 2006;

Zentella, 1997). Consequently, these standard language ideologies (SLIs) have had a harmful impact on students’ literacy learning (Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007; Goodman & Buck,

1973) and academic achievement (Bowie & Bond, 1994; Ferguson, 1998). For example, Crowl and MacGinitie (1974) found that teachers were more likely to score African American students who spoke AAE lower on oral presentations than white students who spoke standardized

English, even when the quality of work was the same. It is this misinformation about linguistic diversity that has the potential to contribute to some students’ academic failure and thereby, on a larger scale, social inequality (Labov, 1972; Reaser, 2006).

Teachers’ negative attitudes towards students’ home dialects proved to also decrease students’ academic motivation (Dickar, 2004). Kohl (1991) and Fordham and Ogbu (1986) shared that many students were reluctant to relinquish their vernacular dialect as it required them to renounce a part of their identity and a connection to those closest to them; students grew resentful of formal education, and school in general, because it forced them to make a choice between “us” or “them.” This point is corroborated by Barker and Galasinski (2001), who explained that “language is the central means and medium by which we understand the world and culture” (p. 1); therefore, students’ language encompasses more than a set of words or linguistic structures—it is a reflection of the culture from which students come and integral to the social role and identity that they have developed within their community well before entering the classroom. Because language and culture are so intrinsically connected, a teacher’s rejection of students’ language can be interpreted as a rejection of the students themselves. As teacher

9 educators continually strive for educational practices that celebrate students’ identities (Ladson-

Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012), language needs to be accounted for in this consideration of identity, as it is impossible to enact these pedagogies without valuing students’ dialects.

Teachers’ bias towards standardized English has also contributed to a systematic misdiagnosis of vernacular speakers in education, labeling them as linguistically deficient, culturally deprived, and “at risk” (Delpit, 1995; Labov, 1972; Stockman, 2010; Stritikus &

Varghese, 2007; Wolfram, 2010). The confluence of teachers’ language ideologies and their resulting instructional practices in the classroom suggest that it is not a student’s vernacular dialect that directly causes an impediment to academic achievement; instead, it is teachers who mediate this relationship (Sweetland, 2006). Teachers take on a pivotal role in the socialization of students and their transition to life outside of their community; Fillmore and Snow (2002) emphasize that teachers are “the first contact with the culture of the social world outside of the home” (p. 17). Consequently, depending on the language ideologies of the teacher, this experience can be either constructive or detrimental to students’ socialization and continued education; more specifically, teachers’ negative attitudes towards the way vernacular-speaking students express themselves can serve to shun them from the world of learning instead of welcoming them into it (Fillmore & Snow, 2002).

Teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity remain important as all efforts to homogenize

American English into one standardized form have repeatedly failed and, in fact, dialects continue to diverge (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). Furthermore, student populations in public schools have continued to grow more diverse; in 2014, for the first time ever, the percentage of white students in public schools dropped below 50 percent, whereas percentage distributions for

Latino(a), Asian/Pacific Islander, and biracial students increased (National Center for Education

10 Statistics, 2017). An increase in ethnic diversity inevitably results in an increase in the cultural and linguistic diversity that students bring to the classroom; therefore, teachers’ deficit-based views of vernacular dialects and their detrimental impact on student learning have the potential to negatively affect even more students (Dickar, 2004; Godley et al., 2007; Kohl, 1991). As diversity continues to grow, teachers need to be prepared to respond to the needs of linguistically-diverse students so that students are not marginalized or subjected to linguistic prejudice through uninformed, or even discriminatory, language pedagogy.

Despite the gravity of this issue, language remains a largely overlooked aspect of teacher education. With regard to linguistic content knowledge, there is a scarcity of teacher education courses that expose pre-service teachers (PST) to material about the history of language change, linguistic principles, dialect diversity, or the relationship between language and power (Andrews,

2006; Derewianka, 2012; Fillmore & Snow, 2002; Jones & Chen, 2012). Smitherman and

Villanueva (2000) captured the severity of this shortfall when they surveyed members of prominent language arts professional organizations and found that one third of their members had never taken a course on linguistics or language diversity. Other studies indicated that teachers had a limited grasp of linguistic knowledge after already beginning their career (Bell,

2016; Cajkler & Hislam, 2010; Jeurrisen, 2012; Sangster et al., 2012). Additionally, teacher education on diversity often addresses the immorality of judging students based on various traits, such as their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion (Todor, 2015; Whiting & Cutri, 2015), yet neglects the importance of language to students’ identities and culture. This exclusion of language in conversations about diversity, and a lack of linguistic awareness to knowledgeably engage in those discussions should they occur, leave teachers vulnerable to the belief that evaluating the academic ability and personality of students by their dialect is acceptable and

11 appropriate, confirming its role as “the last back door to discrimination” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p.

74). In sum, it is unfair to expect teachers to meet the needs of linguistically diverse students, challenge their misconceptions about language, or positively shift their language ideologies when they are not being educated to do so; therefore, more research is needed to better understand the state of teachers’ SLIs before they enter the classroom.

Purpose of the Study

In this study, I aimed to add to the current knowledge base regarding PSTs’ language ideologies in several different ways. First, most studies found that teachers held negative attitudes towards vernacular dialects and their speakers; they also indicated that various characteristics correlated with those language beliefs, such as participation in linguistics course(s), geographic region, and ethnicity (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Cecil,

1988; Gupta, 2010; cf Godley, Reaser, & Moore, 2015). In turn, through this study, I intended to confirm and/or contradict prior findings and broaden the scope of teacher characteristics and experiences that were explored, such as including political affiliation, academic standing, foreign travel, and foreign language proficiency level.

Second, in most other related research, PSTs’ language ideologies were examined as individual attitudes about various aspects of a particular dialect, such as the structure, usefulness, or consequences of using AAE (e.g., Bowie & Bond, 1994); however, I investigated how participants’ language beliefs aligned with or diverged from the interconnected set of beliefs that constitute the SLI (Lippi-Green, 2012). Using a cohesive framework to explore language attitudes provided responses to a wider range of topics on the issue and could potentially move the field towards a more systematic approach to evaluating PSTs’ language ideologies, specifically regarding beliefs that serve to subordinate speakers of vernacular dialects.

12 Finally, I hoped to provide a more comprehensive look at PSTs’ language ideologies by capturing their beliefs both quantitatively and qualitatively (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2017).

This study, therefore, explored not only what teachers believed about language but why they believed it—a methodological approach that could lead to new ideas about how language ideologies emerge and what shapes them. Overall, through this study, I aimed to expand on the research of PSTs’ language ideologies by contradicting, confirming, and/or elaborating on previous findings; investigating more demographic and experience variables; employing a cohesive SLI framework; and contributing an in-depth examination of PSTs’ language beliefs through both quantitative and qualitative means.

By adding to the scholarship on teacher candidates’ language ideologies, I desired to inspire further conversation about what can be done in teacher education programs to disrupt

PSTs’ SLIs. Through my results, I aimed to help teacher educators see the importance of addressing language ideologies in their programs, be aware of various aspects of language ideologies, and recognize an organized model by which to methodically address language beliefs and identify specific attitudes that need attention in their programs. Furthermore, based on participants’ explanations of their responses, I also aimed to help teacher educators anticipate students’ potential thought processes when justifying their language attitudes and identify experiences that participants claimed to have had a positive and/or negative impact on their language ideologies; both of these insights could provide teacher educators with direction in setting priorities and designing language curricula for their teacher candidates. Overall, I hoped the results of this research would be used by others to cultivate more asset-based views of dialect diversity in teacher education programs and, thereby, make possible a more inclusive and meaningful educational experience for all PSTs’ future students.

13 Research Questions

Language ideologies are complex constructs to investigate because they interact with a wide range of intersecting social issues, such as ethnicity, gender, age, and class; therefore, they are “always multiple, fractured, contested, and changing” (Piller, 2015, p. 5). However, the significant role that they play in how teachers’ understand their subject matter (e.g., Godley et al., 2015), make instructional choices (e.g., Godley & Minnici, 2006), perceive their students

(e.g., Gupta, 2010), and form expectations for student performance (e.g., Blake & Cutler, 2003) make them a critical construct to examine. In turn, I researched English language arts (ELA)

PSTs’ SLIs by examining the SLI beliefs laid out in Lippi-Green’s (2012) language subordination model (LSM). The following research questions guided the way in which I explored ELA PSTs’ language ideologies and how they rationalized those beliefs:

1. How do undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA PSTs respond to language

belief statements based on the six SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM?

2. What demographic and experiential factors correlate with undergraduate middle

grades and high school ELA PSTs’ acceptance of the six SLI beliefs laid out in the

LSM?

a. Do the demographic factors of age, gender, ethnicity, academic standing,

academic program, political affiliation, first language, environmental

community, and regional area correlate with undergraduate middle grades and

high school ELA PSTs’ acceptance of the six SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM?

b. Do the experiential factors of traveling with the U.S. travel, foreign travel,

education abroad, foreign language(s), linguistics course(s), or interacting

with linguistically and/or ethnically diverse populations correlate with

14 undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA PSTs’ acceptance of the

six SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM?

3. How do undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA PSTs explain their

responses to language belief statements based on the six SLI beliefs laid out in the

LSM?

Scope of the Study

Below, I define and justify the scope of this research project, including the population, context, and content of the study. (See Chapter 3 for Mixed Methods Rationale.)

Population. This research focused on undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA

PSTs as the population of interest for several reasons. PSTs were chosen rather than in-service teachers because I specifically wanted to use the results of this study to develop recommendations for teacher education, as beliefs about teaching are still evolving for students in these programs (Ng, Nicholas, & Williams, 2010). Alternatively, research has indicated that active teachers, especially those with more experience, can be less willing to change their pedagogical beliefs and practices than those who are newer to the profession (Hargreaves, 2005;

McLaughlin & Marsh, 1990). Furthermore, as professional development for in-service teachers can often be delivered in isolated, singular sessions, studies have suggested that embedded, long- term support is needed to enact change (Doubet & Southall, 2018; Watson, 2006), such as the continuing support that can be provided by undergraduate teacher education programs (e.g.,

Aydin et al., 2013). Therefore, I hoped to use the results of this study to provide recommendations for ELA teacher education programs who could potentially take advantage of their extended time with teacher candidates to encourage more linguistically-informed beliefs

15 and instructional practices before PSTs begin their career and potentially settle into a fixed pedagogy.

Undergraduate students were also chosen for this study rather than graduate students because the graduate teacher education programs differ from the undergraduate teacher education programs in unique ways. For example, the graduate programs are often two years, offer online and face-to-face courses, and consist of part-time and full-time students who have already completed a bachelor’s degree; however, the undergraduate programs are typically four years, offer mostly face-to-face courses, and consist predominantly of full-time, traditional students who are working towards their first degree. In turn, the differences in experiences and student demographics of each degree program constitute two distinct populations of study, which would necessitate distinct analyses, discussions, and implications.

Additionally, middle grades and high school PSTs preparing to teach ELA were chosen as the focus of this study rather than teacher candidates of other content areas or elementary grade levels because these are individuals who have specifically chosen ELA as a subject to teach in their future classrooms; although some might envision ELA instruction to mean addressing mostly literature and writing (Applebee, 1989), state-adopted ELA standards require that teachers instruct students how to “apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,

Council of Chief State School Officers (NGACBP, CCSSO), 2010) and ELA professional organizations expect teachers to “develop an understanding of and respect for diversity in language use, patterns, and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic regions, and social roles” (National Council of the Teachers of English (NCTE), 1996). Furthermore, despite the fact that not all ELA PSTs are able or required to take a course that explicitly addresses language

16 study in their teacher education programs (Andrews, 2006; Derewianka, 2012; Jones & Chen,

2012; Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000), the participants within the context of this study have the opportunity to take a linguistics course that directly addresses the role of language in educational contexts; in addition, it is generally more likely and expected that ELA PSTs would be exposed to linguistic content than teachers of other subjects or elementary PSTs who must take courses in four different content areas throughout their undergraduate career. Therefore, the focus of this study was not to compare language ideologies between ELA teacher candidates and those of other subjects or elementary grade levels, but to provide an in-depth analysis of a PST population that has chosen ELA as their content area and is required by national standards to know about language; consequently, I hoped to be able to develop recommendations for teacher education programs that can more easily incorporate language awareness into their curriculum.

Context. This study took place at a large public university in the southeastern United

States. I decided to only collect data from one institution because focusing on a single university provided an opportunity to describe its undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA teacher education programs, and their potential impact on participants’ language attitudes, in much more detail. Furthermore, I avoided conflation of the results from this university with other institutions, which would sacrifice the depth with which I was able to analyze its programs and participants. Furthermore, this was an exploratory study into ELA PSTs’ language ideologies in relation to the SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012). To my knowledge, no other studies have employed this framework to investigate teachers’ language beliefs; therefore, depth in data analysis was more important than breadth in data collection, as I will be able to use the results of this research project to refine the instruments, procedures, and analyses before launching a multi-institution study.

17 This particular university was chosen for this research project because this institution is one of the largest in the state and, according to the school’s website, enrolls more than 34,000 students. These large enrollment numbers provided a larger pool from which to recruit participants than smaller universities. Additionally, this university provided me with easy and regular access to the participants of this study and their program directors; this allowed me to share my findings with individuals who are currently in charge of these programs and, thereby, increase the chances that the implications of this research will be used to enact change that positively impacts ELA PSTs’ language ideologies as well as those who are linguistically marginalized in educational settings—a charge put forth by socially conscience linguists, such as

William Labov (1982) and Walt Wolfram (1993a), who assert that linguistic research must be used to profit those who are often disenfranchised by the misconceptions that surround language.

Content. The primary focus of this study was to explore middle grades and high school

ELA PSTs’ beliefs about spoken language, not written language. There are three main reasons for this decision. First, I aimed to examine the ways in which ELA PSTs align with and diverge from the SLI, which is a bias towards an idealized spoken language based on the speech of the upper middle class (Lippi-Green, 2012); therefore, as spoken language serves as the theoretical basis for this concept, the instruments and methods of this project are designed to investigate participants’ attitudes about spoken language, not written language. Second, it was important to distinguish spoken language as the focus of this study given the stark contrasts between spoken and written language (Redeker, 1984). Lippi-Green (2012) delineated some of these differences when describing spoken language as innate, social, contextual, and temporary; in contrast, she described written language as learned, solitary, “contextless,” planned, and permanent (p. 19).

She also explained that spoken language is inherently variable, whereas written language

18 discourages variation. Consequently, spoken language and written language are representative of discrete constructs that deserve individual attention. Third, despite the distinct contrasts between these two forms of language, many people conflate them and conceptualize them as equal by imposing (occasionally arbitrary) norms developed for written language onto spoken language and using written language rules as the model for superior speech (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Accordingly, I also aimed to investigate language beliefs about spoken language because this is an often misunderstood, overlooked, and subordinated aspect of education (Milroy & Milroy,

1991).

Definition of Terms

In the list below, I have also defined several linguistic terms that are frequently used throughout the manuscript. As conversations about language are commonplace in public discourse, the technical use of some linguistic terms are replaced by popular definitions. For example, in linguistics, the term dialect is used to neutrally describe a variety of language, whereas some non-linguists use it to characterize what they perceive to be an inferior or substandard form of language. Furthermore, several terms might be unfamiliar to readers without any background in language study.

 Dialect: A variety of language, specific to a group of people, that differs from other

language varieties in its grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, semantics, and pragmatics

(Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). For this study, used interchangeably with the term

language variety (Godley et al., 2015).

 Vernacular Dialect: A dialect that carries social stigma and is not valued in school

contexts (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). For this study, used interchangeably with the

terms stigmatized dialect and non-mainstream dialect.

19

 Standardized English: The dialect most commonly privileged and valued in schools and

academia; standardized is employed rather than standard to indicate that what is

considered “correct,” or “standard,” is in a continuous state of evolution, and implies an

imposition of rules on this language variety that are not all inherent to the language

system (e.g., proscription of ending a sentence with a preposition) (Charity Hudley &

Mallinson, 2015; Godley et al., 2015; Milroy, 2001). For this study, used interchangeably

with the terms mainstream English and mainstream dialect.

 Language Ideologies: A set of seemingly commonsense, unquestioned assumptions and

values about the nature of language and the way it should be used (Chisholm & Godley,

2011; Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). For this study, used interchangeably with the terms

language beliefs and language attitudes, as language ideologies encompass both beliefs

and attitudes and, therefore, each can be used to refer to subjective perceptions of

language in society (Garrett, 2010; Woolard, 1998).

 Standard Language Ideology (SLI): A bias toward an idealized, homogenous spoken

language maintained by individuals and institutions in power modeled primarily after the

spoken language of the upper middle class (Lippi-Green, 2012).

 Language Subordination: The practice of presenting, propagandizing, and instilling SLI

beliefs within principal institutions and public conception (Lippi-Green, 2012).

20 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The following literature review first provides a context for investigation into language ideologies and language subordination by examining the history and major tenets of each concept. Next, the theories are examined in the context of education by employing Lippi-Green’s

(2012) LSM as a way to organize existing research on teachers’ language ideologies and acts of linguistic discrimination. Within this framework, Lippi-Green (2012) identifies eight acts of linguistic subordination and their corresponding SLI beliefs (i.e., Mystification, Authority,

Misinformation, Trivialization, Conformers, Non-Conformers, Promises, Threats); however, I combined Conformers/Non-Conformers and Promises/Threats, because the former addresses attributes that are assigned to speakers and the latter addresses consequences of speaking a particular dialect. Finally, the critical language awareness (CLA) framework (Clark & Ivanic,

1999) is explored as a means to conceptualize future directions for employing more asset-based approaches to language study in teacher education programs and K-12 education.

Language Ideologies

In order to fully conceptualize the theory of language ideologies, it is necessary to first contextualize it within the broader field of ideology.

Conceptualizing ideology. Originating first in the work of French philosopher Destutt de

Tracy in the late 1700s, the concept of ideology was initially designed to refer to “a science of ideas” aimed at better understanding human nature by investigating individuals’ rationalized, articulated thoughts about their social world (Silverstein, 1998, p. 123). Taking on a variety of meanings and characteristics over the centuries, ideology can be a complicated and ambiguous term to define; however, Woolard (1998) was able to identify four recurring elements present in contemporary uses of the term. First, ideology is conceptual in that it refers to the beliefs, ideas,

21 and notions that individuals hold about various issues and topics within their society (Friedrich,

1989). These mental representations illustrate a person’s perception of how he/she relates to the real world (Althusser, 1971). Scholars contend that ideology can function explicitly, through conscious discursive accounts of personal beliefs (Gouldner, 1976; Thompson, 1984), as well as implicitly, through pre-reflective behaviors and practices (Althusser, 1971; Eagleton, 1991).

Second, despite an individual’s common assumption that his/her ideological beliefs are universally true (Gouldner, 1976), ideology is actually derived from and representative of the distinct interests and experiences of a person from a specific social position (Woolard, 1998).

Ideology is, therefore, dependent upon individuals’ interactions with people and institutions from their society, rendering it situated within social environments and shared among particular communities (Mannheim, 1936/1985). Third, as ideologies are constructed through individuals’ experiences within society, they are inevitably linked to conditions of power instituted within political, moral, social, and economic domains; furthermore, the beliefs and practices that stem from ideology are viewed as ways to gain or maintain power (Woolard, 1998). Fourth, ideology can serve to rationalize or legitimize people’s perceptions of and beliefs about various societal issues as well as distort, mystify, or disguise the reality surrounding those matters; these

“distortions” can develop simply from the limitations of human cognition and understanding or be rooted in the protection of interest and power (Woolard, 1998). Engel describes the illusion produced by ideology as “false consciousness” which prevents individuals from recognizing the reality of their social or economic circumstances (Eagleton, 1991), whereas Freeden (2003) moderately asserts that although people cannot be entirely conscious of the effects ideology has on them, “if we are sufficiently astute, we can acknowledge that we identify each other through ideology, as individuals possessing certain features rather than others” (p. 30). Overall, ideology

22 provides a useful framework for conceptualizing how implicit and explicit beliefs about societal issues are formed through social interactions and experiences while also turning a critical eye to the role that power plays in the development and maintenance of those beliefs through justification and distortion.

Conceptualizing language ideologies. One societal issue about which individuals hold deep-seated beliefs is language, warranting language ideologies as a productive field of inquiry.

Defining language ideologies. Heath (1989) defined language ideology as “self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of the group” (p. 53). Forefronting the role of experiences in language ideology parallels the social element of ideology, asserting that beliefs are dependent on and representative of individuals’ social interactions within their distinct environments. Referring to language ideologies as “self-evident,” Heath’s (1989) definition also points to the ideological claim that beliefs are often assumed to be obvious and incontestable as society is deeply entrenched in the goals and interests of their own culture. Rumsey (1990) reinforced this assertion by labeling language ideologies as “shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world” (p. 346). In contrast, taking a more critical stance, the field of linguistics was beginning to form an approach to language study that would come to be known as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 1989, 1995).

Rooted in systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1978), which conceptualizes language as a semiotic system that both generates social context and is constructed by it, and critical theory (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; Bourdieu, 1991; Foucault, 1972; Habermas, 1979), which suggests that social structures reinforce inequalities like sexism and racism, CDA’s foundational principles assert that language is a social practice, structures of power and belief systems can

23 affect and are affected by language, and language use can facilitate changes in society and discourse (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1995). Employing these assumptions, CDA serves as a critical research approach that seeks to

systematically examine often opaque relationships of causality and determination

between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural

structures, relations and process; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise

out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power.

(Fairclough, 1995, p. 132)

Overall, CDA explores the connections between language use, ideology, and power in order to uncover beliefs that perpetuate inequality as well as propose oppositional or counter stances that challenge and resist them (Maftoon & Sabbaghan, 2010; van Dijk, 1995).

Additionally, linguistic anthropologists also addressed the critical components of ideology to language by exploring the relationship between language ideology and power, particularly within the domains of politics and economics (e.g., Friedrich, 1989; Gal, 1989; Hill,

1985). Irvine (1989) embodied both sociocultural and critical features when describing language ideology as “the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests” (p. 255). Researchers that give prominence to social issues in their studies have investigated language ideologies in connection with various topics, such as political economy (Gal, 1979; Hill & Hill, 1986), cultural hegemony (Woolard,

1985), education (Collins, 1991; Cook-Gumperz, 1986; Heath, 1983), identity (Sonntag & Pool,

1987), and vernacular dialects (Rickford, 1985; Smitherman-Donaldson, 1988).

To this day, scholars have continued to conceptualize language ideologies in much the same fashion. For instance, Wolfram and Schilling (2016) provided the following definition of

24 language ideologies: “ingrained, unquestioned beliefs about the way the world is, the way it should be, and the way it has to be with respect to language” (p. 9). However, scholarship in the field has begun to encompass additional research topics, including historical analyses of the development and shifts in language ideologies (Blommaert, 2004; Inoue, 2004; Morgan, 2009); investigations of the ways in which language ideologies produce social identities related to gender, ethnicity, and nationality (Bunte, 2009; Hoffman, 2008; Makihara, 2007); and explorations of language ideologies within specific professions, such as education, that serve to support and even construct their respective institutions (Kroskrity, 2009; Moore & Tlen, 2007;

Richland, 2008; Schieffelin, 2007).

Fundamental elements. The study of language ideologies has continued to thrive and has expanded into other disciplines, such as sociology (Lakoff, 2004) and political science (Ricento,

2000), as well as maintain a stable presence in its disciplines of origin, anthropology (Duranti,

2009) and linguistics (Christiansen, 2018). Despite its evolution, the concept of language ideologies has maintained several central principles, outlined by Kroskrity (2010). The first principle contends that language ideologies are constructed in the interest of a particular cultural or social group. Therefore, when individuals disparage others’ language or elevate their own, it is in the undeniable interest of their social group. In sum, the first assumption of language ideologies asserts that no one’s beliefs about language are disassociated from their social and political interests (Kroskrity, 2010).

The second tenet claims that language ideologies are invariably diverse within every cultural community. Because individuals index a variety of identities (e.g., gender, social class, age), even within the perceived homogeneity of their own social group, beliefs about various aspects of language are bound to diverge and convene as members take up the interests of their

25 diverse language communities. Kroskrity (2010) explains that a person’s language ideologies will always complement and deviate from those within their own community because social experiences are never uniform among all individuals. Research reflects this multiplicity in its exploration of varied conceptions of language within single communities, but also within individuals themselves (e.g., Briggs, 1996; Gal, 1993; Urciuoli, 1996).

The third premise of language ideologies is that community members may exhibit varying degrees of awareness regarding local language beliefs; this premise reflects ideological theorists’ assertion that beliefs can function on an explicit or implicit level (Althusser, 1971;

Eagleton, 1991; Gouldner, 1976; Thompson, 1984). Coupland and Jaworski (2004) optimistically note that “The concept of language ideology is the final rejection of an innocent, behavioural account of language” (p. 37). This dialogue points to the roots of pedagogical approaches, such as systemic functional linguistics and CLA, that encourage the teaching of metalinguistic awareness in educational settings to provide students with the ability to reject the inflexible, prescriptive account of language into which they have been indoctrinated.

The final position insists that language ideologies are the mediators between language use and sociocultural experiences. Woolard (1998) explains that “simply using language in particular ways is not what forms social groups, identities, or relations (nor does the group relation automatically give rise to linguistic distinction); rather, ideological interpretations of such uses of language always mediate these effects” (p. 18). Language ideologies serve to assign social meaning to linguistic forms so that it is impossible to consider language use without also indexing beliefs about society as well. Therefore, when individuals, consciously or subconsciously, make choices and form opinions with regard to language or society, they are inevitably exhibiting their language ideologies (Kroskrity, 2010; Wassink & Curzan, 2004).

26 Standard language ideology (SLI). One specific language ideology that warrants attention, due to its pervasiveness in influential institutions (e.g., schools, the government), is the

SLI. As previously discussed in the distinction made between neutral and critical ideologies, some ideologies are used as tools to maintain power by dominant groups, and the SLI does just that. First coined by Milroy and Milroy (1991) and largely popularized by Lippi-Green (2012), the SLI is defined as “a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class” (p. 67). Ignoring the fact that language is constantly changing, individuals who adhere to the SLI believe that standardized dialects are both superior and correct, whereas vernacular dialects are viewed as inadequate and illogical. To defend this idealized standard language, some have argued that it is better for mutual intelligibility within a society (Milroy, 1999), accessible to all people (Cameron, 1995), and easily attainable (Silverstein, 1996). These beliefs help to ratify a view of Standard English as “unaffiliated” with any particular group, which aids in hiding those in power who benefit from its perpetuation (Davila, 2016). Lippi-Green (2012) argues that these language ideologies are not innocent conceptualizations of linguistic use; instead, it is from these beliefs that hegemonic institutional practices, such as language discrimination and language subordination, are born.

Language Subordination

If the SLI is the belief that an idealized, uniform language should be privileged over all other forms of speech and language that deviates from that model of linguistic “perfection” should be suppressed (Lippi-Green, 1994), then language subordination is the active process of domination by which this objective is achieved. Although Lippi-Green (2012) was the first to

27 conceptualize “the language subordination process” as an analytical tool, it was scholars like

Bakhtin (1981), Bourdieu (1991), Foucault (1972), and Habermas (1979) who first drew an explicit connection between language and social power; subsequently, Fairclough (1989) employed these theoretical ideas to develop CDA. Moving from the belief systems of ideology to the active exercise of ideological power, language subordination denotes the practice of presenting, propagandizing, and instilling SLI beliefs within principal institutions and public conception. Fairclough (1989) explained that there are two ways that dominant institutions (e.g., education, entertainment, media, businesses) and groups enact power in order to maintain it:

“through coercing others to go along with them, with the ultimate sanctions of physical violence or death; or through winning others' consent to, or at least acquiescence in, their possession of exercise of power. In short, through coercion or consent” (p. 33, emphasis in original). Language subordination has manifested itself in the latter through the use of institutional practices and discourse that epitomize arguments for standardization, such as its association with prestige, its purported correctness, and its alleged common sense approach (Milroy, 2001).

The language subordination model (LSM). The elements of language subordination, built on the back of SLI beliefs, are laid out in Lippi-Green’s (2012) LSM:

1. Language is mystified. You can never hope to comprehend the difficulties and complexities of your mother tongue without expert guidance. 2. Authority is claimed. We are the experts. Talk like me/us. We know what we are doing because we have studied language, because we write well. 3. Misinformation is generated. That usage you are so attached to is inaccurate. The variant I prefer is superior on historical, aesthetic, or logical grounds. 4. Targeted languages are trivialized. Look how cute, how homey, how funny. 5. Conformers are held up as positive examples. See what you can accomplish if you only try, how far you can get if you see the light. 6. Non-conformers are vilified or marginalized. See how willfully stupid, arrogant, unknowing, uninformed and/or deviant these speakers are.

28 7. Explicit promises are made. Employers will take you seriously; doors will open. 8. Threats are made. No one important will take you seriously; doors will close. (Lippi- Green, 2012, p. 70) The model is broken down into actions and accompanying language beliefs that warrant and justify those actions. The beliefs presented within the model embody various aspects of the SLI as they represent a bias towards an idealized, homogenous dialect (Milroy, 2001). This model can be used as an analytical tool that outlines eight ways in which vernacular dialects are subordinated, or marginalized, and was compiled from an analysis of public commentary on and actions against language users who did not conform to the idealized “standard” of English

(Lippi-Green, 2012).

Language Ideologies and Language Subordination in Education

Although most schools strive to provide equitable opportunities and treatment for students in many ways, Foucault (1984) argues that any system of education is a political way of maintaining the SLI. Drawing a connection between the SLI and education, Lippi-Green (2012) boldly states that “The education system may not be the beginning, but is the heart of the standardization process. To suggest that children who do not speak *SAE [Standard American

English] will find acceptance and validation in the schools is, in a word, ludicrous” (p. 68). This standardization process in education is largely maintained by PSTs and in-service teachers who hold negative views towards vernacular dialects and students who speak those dialects (e.g.,

Blake & Cutler, 2003; Bowie & Bond, 1994) by perpetuating the myth that there is a “correct” way to speak English.

The relationship between language ideologies and language subordination is inextricably linked, as beliefs about language provide justification and provocation for the actions of linguistic discrimination. In turn, growing up in a society in which acts of language

29 subordination are upheld and reinforced by dominant institutions, such as the education system, individuals are indoctrinated in language beliefs that predominantly align with the SLI.

Therefore, to better conceptualize the role of language ideologies and acts of linguistic subordination within the context of education, the following review will employ Lippi-Green’s

(2012) LSM to break down the individual SLI beliefs that fortify the standardization process and organize existing research and literature on teachers’ language ideologies within the elements of the framework.

Research context. Before examining the different elements of teachers’ language ideologies and linguistic subordination through the LSM, it is important to provide some context for existing research with regard to the methods employed, the populations investigated, the content addressed, and the correlations identified. However, it should first be noted that the focus of this study is on teachers’ language ideologies, not the acts of language subordination, and, therefore, this research context will represent literature on that topic in particular. Second, language attitude research and language ideology research both investigate speakers’ beliefs about language use and structure; however, language attitude studies have traditionally employed quantitative survey methods and language ideology studies have traditionally employed qualitative interview methods (Kroskrity, 2016). Regardless, these differences have more to do with their respective fields of origin than the construct being researched (i.e., beliefs about language). In fact, Woolard (1998) argued that the field of language ideology could gain further insight into linguistic subjectivity through the inclusion of language attitude research in the literature; therefore, research labeled as language attitude research will be used to provide context for this study alongside that of research on language ideologies.

30 Methods. Researchers approaching teachers’ language ideologies can either employ a direct or indirect approach. A few studies have used an indirect technique labeled as speaker evaluation (e.g., Cecil, 1988; Cross et al., 2001). Within this technique, teachers are provided with audio clips of speakers of different dialects and are then asked to rank that speaker on a variety of characteristics. For example, Cross et al. (2001) had teachers rank speakers on various traits, such as friendliness, intelligence, trustworthiness, ambition, consideration, education, social status, and honesty. As teachers evaluate each speaker differently based on their language, researchers are able to measure the participants’ beliefs about differing dialects. A more direct approach is exemplified in the use of language attitude surveys (e.g., Blake & Cutler, 2003;

Bowie & Bond, 1994; Gupta, 2010; Taylor, 1973). Most of these surveys present teachers with a list of statements about a range of language topics: language use, language structure, characteristics of speakers, language in society, etc. For example, Taylor (1973) used statements like “African American English is broken English” and “Speaking African American English is an indicator for laziness.” After teachers read the statements, they then rank their acceptance of the belief on a Likert-scale which offers a range of responses, typically from “Strongly Agree” to

“Strongly Disagree.” Qualitative research can also be used to assess teachers’ language ideologies and language subordination. Data collection through teacher interviews and classroom observations (e.g., Brashears, 2014; Davila, 2016; Godley et al., 2007) is a useful way to move beyond quantitative self-report instruments, such as speaker evaluations and Likert-scale surveys, and provide researchers with opportunities to scratch beneath the surface. With the advent of technology, researchers can also use online discussion forums to collect and analyze teachers’ responses to language activities and questions, as well as interactions with each other

(e.g., Godley et al., 2015).

31 Populations. Focusing solely on educators, the populations for research on language ideologies can be broken down most basically into PSTs (e.g., Bowie & Bond, 1994; Cross et al.,

2001; Godley et al., 2015) and in-service teachers (e.g., Blake & Cutler, 2003; Brashears, 2014;

Cecil, 1988; Godley et al., 2007; Gupta, 2010; Taylor, 1973); however, in-service teacher populations constitute the majority of studies. Surprisingly, many studies do not target pre- service or in-service teachers of specific content areas, and instead survey teachers of entire schools (e.g., Blake & Cutler, 2003; Taylor, 1973). As an exception, one study investigated the language ideologies of pre-service English teachers only (Godley et al., 2015). Finally, there is a fair amount of geographic diversity within the research representing both rural (Brashears, 2014;

Cecil, 1988; Cross et al., 2001) and urban (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Godley et al., 2007) areas, as well as various regions like the North (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Godley et al.,

2007; Taylor, 1973), the South (Bissonnette, Reaser, Hatcher, & Godley, 2016; Brashears, 2014;

Cross et al., 2001), the Midwest (Bissonnette et al., 2016; Cecil, 1988), and the Southwest

(Taylor, 1973).

Content. Empirical research on teachers’ language ideologies overwhelmingly revolves around AAE (although see Hudgens Henderson, 2016), one of the most controversial nonstandard varieties, as evidenced in the very public debates of the Ann Arbor case and the

Oakland Ebonics controversy regarding the place of AAE in education (Wolfram, 1997). Topics within this research include teachers’ beliefs about the educational needs of students who speak

AAE (Blake & Cutler, 2003), the structure of AAE (Bowie & Bond, 1997), academic expectations of students who speak AAE (Cecil, 1988), and philosophies concerning the use and acceptance of AAE (Taylor, 1973). A significantly under-researched language variety is

Appalachian English; however, Brashears (2014) examined teachers’ perceptions of this dialect

32 with regard to its place in larger society, how it compares to standardized English, and its connection to teachers’ identity. Fewer studies broaden the scope of their research to include all vernacular dialects; however, Cross et al. (2001) used a speech evaluation method and included speakers that represented “High ‘educated’ White Southern,” “Low ‘uneducated’ White

Southern,” “High ‘educated’ Black,” “Low ‘uneducated’ Black,” and “Northeast.” Likewise,

Godley et al. (2015) engaged PSTs in activities and discussions regarding many sociolinguistic principles and several language varieties as opposed to just one.

Correlations. Research into teachers’ language ideologies also revealed correlations between those beliefs and other factors. Teachers’ geographic region was significantly correlated with their language ideologies (Byrnes, Kiger, & Manning, 1997; Taylor, 1973). Taylor (1973) reported that teachers in the south Atlantic region had more negative attitudes towards AAE and that those from the Pacific Northwest had more positive attitudes. The education level of a teacher was associated with his/her language ideologies such that those with a higher academic status, such as completing a graduate degree, had more positive views of nonstandard varieties

(Byrnes et al., 1997; Cross et al., 2001). A teacher’s ethnicity correlated with their language ideologies as well. Taylor (1973) found that African American teachers had significantly more positive attitudes towards AAE and Cross et al. (2001) reported that African American teachers favored African American speakers most and white speakers least, whereas white teachers favored white speakers most and African American speakers least. Several studies reported the correlation between having taken a linguistics course and more progressive language ideologies

(Bowie & Bond, 1994; Pietras & Lamb, 1978; Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000); however, Blake and Cutler (2003) found in similar survey research that exposure to basic linguistics courses was not correlated to teachers’ attitudes toward AAE. Regarding experiences with ethnically and

33 linguistically diverse populations, Taylor’s (1973) survey revealed that in-service teachers working in schools with a majority African American population conveyed more positive than negative attitudes towards the structure of vernacular dialects and AAE; however, once again,

Blake & Cutler (2003) identified a contradictory trend in their survey as teachers who reported working with fewer African American students held more positive attitudes toward AAE than those who worked with more diverse populations. Other factors, such as a teacher’s gender

(Cross et al., 2001), a school’s philosophy about language diversity and experience with linguistics course(s) (Blake & Cutler, 2003), and a teacher’s age and years teaching (Taylor,

1973) were also correlated with language ideologies. It is within this context that we now turn to the findings of the research, organized within the framework of the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012), to better understand how teachers’ language beliefs are enacted in the classroom and in the education system as a whole.

The language subordination model (LSM) in education. Lippi-Green (2012) listed eight acts of language subordination in the LSM with accompanying beliefs that served to justify and/or rationalize those actions. Each will be discussed within the context of education below.

Language is mystified. The first act of language subordination is “Language is mystified” which is defended by the belief that “You can never hope to comprehend the difficulties and complexities of your mother tongue without expert guidance” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 70). This element exemplifies the ideological concept of distortion (Woolard, 1998). In order to disguise the reality of vernacular language use, which is that many people effectively communicate in a non-standardized dialect every day, language is mystified in a way that both victimizes the vernacular speaker and empowers the standardized English speaker by making the former dependent on the latter for comprehension and “success” in their own language. Mystifying

34 language has a long history in the United States. In the late 18th century, with the introduction of

English grammar and the dismissal of Latin, schools began teaching standards for the English language using isolated, decontextualized methods, which only served to mystify students’ own native tongue, despite the fact that they previously had no trouble communicating with those around them (Applebee, 1974; Lyman, 1921).

Treating students that speak a vernacular dialect as linguistically-deprived continued into the 20th century as researchers reported that students of a low socioeconomic status lacked adequate language skills and exhibited a deficient linguistic structure and lexicon; they argued that, unlike middle class students, these pupils were not raised in linguistically-rich environments and were, therefore, incapable of effective communication (Bernstein, 1960). Within the same timeframe, Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) perpetuated language mystification by claiming that low-income students who spoke AAE could not engage in productive conversation at even the most elementary level; they based this assertion, in part, on vernacular pronunciation, claiming that these children suffered from what they called “giant-word syndrome,” with no awareness that individual words make up a sentence (p. 34-35). To exemplify just how little Bereiter and

Engelmann (1966) valued the linguistic skills that these underprivileged students acquired outside of formal education, they consistently compared these students’ speech to the writing of deaf children—a misguided and incongruous comparison that served only to disparage AAE. In turn, researchers promoted direct linguistic instruction and basic language training as the only chance these students had to successfully express themselves (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966).

Deceiving students into believing that they are incapable of effectively using language without expert guidance continues today through activities like daily editing exercises. These lessons require students to “correct” decontextualized, isolated sentences into “Standard English”

35 and do not build on the linguistic skills that students bring into the classroom, such as their ability to recognize how audience and context can shape the purpose of a sentence or voice alternative perspectives of the meaning of a sentence (Godley et al., 2007). Similarly, the

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for ELA portray language use as a skill students do not already possess upon entering the classroom (NGACBP, CCSSO, 2010). For example, one ELA

CCSS for third grade states that, when speaking, students should be able to “form and use the simple (e.g., I walked; I walk; I will walk) verb tenses,” as if eight-year old students have not been forming and using simple sentences since around the age of two or three (NGACBP,

CCSSO, 2010). Even standards constructed for ninth and tenth grade set objectives for students to “use various types of phrases (noun, verb, adjectival, adverbial, participial, prepositional, absolute) and clauses (independent, dependent; noun, relative, adverbial) to convey specific meanings” when speaking (NGACBP, CCSSO, 2010). These standards are composed in a way that infer that students are not already employing simple and complex language structures in their speech, and the underlying language ideology alleges that the only way students will be able to master the art of communicating meaningfully is from teachers’ expert guidance.

Teachers exhibited this language belief in Taylor’s (1973) study when 52% of teacher participants agreed that students who spoke vernacular dialects lacked basic language concepts.

Because students did not speak standardized English, teachers assumed that students could not communicate skillfully or understand the intricacies of language. Similarly, almost 80% of

English educators, who were members of professional ELA teacher organizations, believed that

“Students should learn grammar rules to improve their ability to understand and communicate concepts and information” (Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000, p. 12). Overall, these actions, and the beliefs about language that accompany them, implicitly devalued the linguistic knowledge

36 and abilities of students and mystified language in a way that incited dependence on those in power, namely teachers, to be able to use language effectively. However, despite the importance of identifying teachers’ beliefs about language mystification, this aspect of the SLI appeared to be the most under-researched.

Authority is claimed. The second act of language subordination is “Authority is claimed” which is endorsed by the belief that “We are the experts. Talk like me/us. We know what we are doing because we have studied language, because we write well” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 70).

This element draws on the idea that ideologies are inherently linked to power (Thompson, 1984).

Standardized English speakers have claimed authority on language and subsequently set expectations for minority speakers based on their own image; sub-groups are tasked with imitating dominant groups, generating feelings of inadequacy and rejection. Tchudi and Mitchell

(1989) illustrated how language instruction has been perpetually linked to morality in a way that provokes English teachers to proclaim themselves “as defenders of the language against the onslaught of ‘barbarians,’ including their students” (p. 8). In this example, teachers have declared jurisdiction over language use and segregated the good guys from the bad.

One very public debate that took place was the Oakland Ebonics controversy in the mid-

1990’s in which the Oakland school board legitimized AAE as a language to be used in school instruction in an effort to encourage both mastery of standardized English and respect for dialect itself (Wolfram, 1997). During the Senate subcommittee hearings for the case, testimonies from prominent sociolinguists, like William Labov, supported the school board’s decision, whereas testimonies that countered the decision were delivered by individuals with no formal training in linguistics, such as a columnist and a preacher (Wolfram, 1997). Allowing a journalist and a preacher to testify against experienced linguists about linguistic issues shows the ownership and

37 self-proclaimed expertise that those in power feel towards language. The public implicitly consents to this monopoly on language as Burling (1973) claims that “Even those Americans who are uncertain about precisely which forms are correct are usually confident that to find the answer they need only look the matter up in the right book or consult the proper authority” (p.

130). Here Burling (1973) emphasizes the absurdity of outsourcing assistance on the way language should work to authority figures, or objects, when all individuals spend their lives effectively communicating with those around them; however, this has become a conditioned reaction to language discussions, disputes, and questions.

Research into teachers’ language ideologies similarly found that 60% of teachers supported the belief that schools had a responsibility to standardize the English language (Bowie

& Bond, 1994) and 45% of teachers agreed that it was their duty to restrict and discourage vernacular speech in their classrooms (Taylor, 1973). Furthermore, almost half of the teachers

(48%) felt emboldened enough in their authority on language to claim that AAE should not even be accepted socially (Bowie & Bond, 1994). The fact that teachers believe that they have a right to tell their students how to speak and a responsibility to eliminate dialects that do not conform to the language variety that they prefer exemplify the ways in which authority is claimed over language within schools and larger society, and how beliefs about language underlie such actions.

Misinformation is generated. The third act of language subordination is “Misinformation is generated” which is justified by the belief that “That usage you are so attached to is inaccurate.

The variant I prefer is superior on historical, aesthetic, or logical grounds” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p.

70). This element serves as another tool employed to mask the reality of language use. If individuals continue to believe that language proficiency is a set of arbitrary rules (e.g., do not

38 end a sentence with a preposition) that they have yet to master, their perception of their language ability will continue to be distorted. Ignorance to the fact that all dialects are rule-governed and logically patterned creates a “false consciousness” that prevents speakers from recognizing debilitating circumstances that have been set up for them (Eagleton, 1991). This belief actively rejects what Lippi-Green (2012) named the “linguistic facts of life”: 1) language change is inevitable; 2) language variation is universal; and 3) language adapts to the needs of its speakers.

Instead, individuals assign the ideas of change and variation to language varieties of an inferior status, idealizing standardized English as a form of English unaffected by such processes and, therefore, superior (Harris, 1981).

One aspect of the SLI evident in this element of language subordination is that vernacular dialects are inaccurate or illogical. Research into teachers’ language beliefs exhibits that over half of surveyed teachers reported believing that AAE operates under a faulty grammar system

(Bowie & Bond, 1994) and is not an adequate language system (Gupta, 2010). Other studies found a general lack of sociolinguistic knowledge among teachers with regard to the linguistic principles of vernacular dialects (e.g., Blake & Cutler, 2003; Cross et al., 2001). Taylor (1973) observed that the most negative language attitudes that teachers demonstrated were in regard to the structure of vernacular dialects which is, ironically, the most objective aspect of language study. However, positive trends in this area have begun to surface as Blake and Cutler (2003) reported that only 28% of teachers agreed that standardized English was the best form of

English. Furthermore, Godley et al. (2015) found that less than 5% of PSTs communicated inaccurate sociolinguistic information in open-ended responses, yet participants were less apt to apply these linguistic facts regarding dialect diversity to deeper issues, such as white privilege and inequitable power structures. Another aspect of the SLI is that standardized English is more

39 aesthetic than vernacular dialects. For example, Bowie and Bond (1994) reported that 76% of teachers did not believe that AAE sounded as good as standardized English. Lippi-Green (1994) contends that “Much of what the American education system teaches children about language is factually incorrect; in this it is thorough, consistent, and successful across social and economic boundaries” (p. 167). However, this scathing review from over two decades ago has not shaken the commitment to standardized English to which many teachers have ideologically consented.

Target languages are trivialized. The fourth act of language subordination is “Target languages are trivialized” which is rationalized by the belief that vernacular dialects are simply

“cute,” “homey,” and “funny” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 70). This element attempts to minimize the importance, complexity, and significance of vernacular dialects. Disguised in humor and idiomatic condescension, attacks on nonstandard language varieties can take on various forms.

By selling them as jokes or light-hearted jabs, individuals perpetuate the subordination of minority languages through comments that dismiss them as nothing more than something to laugh about. For example, in the 1990s, African American students from a middle school in Ann

Arbor complained to the school board that a teacher had been mocking their speech by continually saying “ax” instead of “ask” (Windsor, 1993). The fact that the teacher felt comfortable co-opting a feature of a dialect that was not his own exemplifies the dismissal of vernacular dialects as a serious, legitimate linguistic practice. Similarly, the idea of code- switching, a policy in which students speak standardized English at school and their home dialect outside of school, has been portrayed as a fair solution to controversies regarding vernacular dialects in education; however, this practice still serves to subordinate vernacular dialects by implying that they are not appropriate for learning, capable of communicating complex concepts, or important to a student’s identity (Young, Barrett, Young-Rivera, & Lovejoy, 2013).

40 One of the most compelling findings in research on teachers’ language ideologies regarding language trivialization deals with beliefs about bilingual versus bidialectal education.

Blake and Cutler (2003) found that over half of teachers felt that bilingual education was the right of every student who did not speak English and that federal funds should be devoted to support bilingual education; however, less than 24% of teachers agreed that bidialectal education was the right of every student who did not speak standardized English and that federal funds should be devoted to support bidialectal education. It is striking how teachers seem to see the inherent value of including limited English proficient (LEP) students’ home language in classroom instruction and view bilingualism as an asset yet reject the use of grammatically- patterned nonstandard dialects as if they do not offer students the same linguistic dexterity as having command over another language. Aligning with this belief of deficiency and trivialization, 40% of reported believing that AAE was not able to express complex concepts

(Taylor, 1973) and 53% agreed with the idea that AAE was inadequate for teaching subjects like social studies and math (Blake & Cutler, 2003). Finally, teachers seemed to convey an understanding of the importance of home dialects to students’ identity yet appeared unwilling to employ classroom strategies that utilized and valued the vernacular dialects that they identified as being so important to their students’ cultural identity (Bowie & Bond, 1994; Taylor, 1973).

For example, Bowie and Bond (1994) found that 63% of teachers agreed that rejecting a student’s native language could be harmful; however, only 39% of teachers reported that AAE should be allowed to be spoken in the classroom. Similarly, Taylor (1973) noted that teachers were more likely to agree with statements like “When teachers reject the native language of a student, they do him great harm” over statements such as “Teachers should allow black students to use Black English in the classroom.” The contradiction and inconsistency exhibited in

41 teachers’ language ideologies regarding bilingual versus bidialectal education and linguistic identity versus instructional practices potentially demonstrates a surface-level recognition of multicultural education yet a more implicit bias towards standardized English in teachers’ unwillingness to welcome or employ vernacular dialects in the classroom.

Conformers and non-conformers. The fifth act of language subordination is “Conformers are held up as positive examples” which asserts, “See what you can accomplish if you only try, how far you can get if you see the light”; similarly, the sixth act of language subordination is

“Non-conformers are vilified or marginalized” which claims, “See how willfully stupid, arrogant, unknowing, uninformed and/or deviant these speakers are” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 70).

These elements exhibit the position of language ideology theory that asserts that ideology mediates between language and sociocultural experiences (Kroskrity, 2010). Language ideologies assign social meaning to different ways of speaking which causes individuals to assign characteristics to members of various language communities (Irvine & Gal, 2000).

Therefore, when speakers conform to the expectation of standardized English, they can be perceived as hard-working or good-natured, as the perception of them is filtered through the SLI.

Alim (2010) offers an example of a reporter’s fixation on describing President Barack Obama as both “good” and “articulate,” consistently equating his morality with his use of standardized

English. In contrast, there have been reports of British politicians, such as Norman Tebbit, who have connected street crime to grammar (Cameron, 1995) and a London news anchor who theorized that the London riots in 2011 were likely caused by the fact that youth did not know how to speak properly (Johns, 1992). Regardless of the assessment, it becomes clear that when individuals judge someone’s speech, they are actually judging the speaker.

42 In research on teachers’ language ideologies, standardized English speakers are consistently identified more positively than vernacular speakers (Cecil, 1988; Cross et al., 2001).

With regard to teachers’ expectations, Cecil (1988) used speaker evaluations to elicit teachers’ responses to AAE and found that teachers expected significantly more intelligence, greater academic achievement, and higher reading performance from children who spoke standardized

English than those who spoke variations of AAE. Employing speaker evaluations as well, Cross et al. (2001) had PSTs rate both white and African American speakers who aligned with and diverged from standardized English on various characteristics. They reported that white speakers of standardized English were rated statistically significantly higher in intelligence and education than African American speakers of both standardized English and AAE; white speakers of standardized English were also rated statistically significantly higher in consideration, friendliness, and trustworthiness than African American speakers of both standardized English and AAE, as well as white speakers who did not conform to standardized English. Finally, white speakers of standardized English received statistically significant higher ratings in honesty and trustworthiness from white participants. These studies expose teachers’ SLIs as they consistently assign more positive attributes and higher expectations for speakers of standardized English over other dialects; additionally, Cross et al.’s (2001) study suggested that beliefs about language have less to do with language itself and more to do with the speaker of that language, as African

Americans who spoke standardized English were never rated as high as white speakers of standardized English.

In comparison, students who do not conform to standardized English are subjected to lower expectations and associated with more negative characteristics (Blake & Cutler, 2003;

Bowie & Bond, 1994; Cross et al., 2001; Gupta, 2010). In terms of teachers’ expectations for

43 students who speak vernacular dialects, Gupta (2010) reported that well over half of teacher participants expected those students to have communication, reading, and writing problems in the classroom; similarly, Blake and Cutler (2003) found that 39% of teachers believed that students who spoke AAE had language problems similar to students learning English as a second language. When rating speakers on various characteristics, white speakers who spoke vernacular dialects were rated lower in ambition, intelligence, social status, and education than other speakers (Cross et al., 2001). Language ideologies about vernacular speakers were also captured in open-ended responses by Bowie and Bond (1994) and they shared extreme comments describing speakers of AAE as “lazy” people who “just don’t care to open their mouth and pronounce words correctly” (p. 114). It is clear that teachers readily assign various attributes and make assumptions about what students are capable of depending on the way that they speak, actions and beliefs that are largely informed by their language ideologies.

Promises and threats. The seventh act of language subordination is “Explicit promises are made” which is backed by the belief that speaking standardized English guarantees that

“Employers will take you seriously; doors will open”; the eighth act of language subordination is

“Threats are made” which is supported by the belief that speaking a vernacular dialect ensures that “No one important will take you seriously; doors will close” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 70). The last elements use rationalization and “irrefutable” arguments to conceal the fact that these promises and threats are not guaranteed, nor are they applicable to everyone. Davila (2016) highlights an important feature of these ideological beliefs: “Indeed, standard language varieties must be perceived as unaffiliated: All groups stand to benefit from using the standard language variety, and no group has more access than any other to the standard language” (p. 129). A manipulative function of these two beliefs statements is that they position the vernacular

44 speakers as the ones with all the power and agency. If they are not taking advantage of the benefits that standardized English affords, then that is their choice. It dismisses those who benefit from language subordination from all responsibility.

Research into teachers’ language ideologies reveals that many teachers subscribe to the belief that speaking standardized English automatically affords students certain benefits in school and society (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Gupta, 2010). Over 70% of teacher participants reported believing that speaking standardized English would improve students’ academic achievement and result in better job opportunities (Gupta, 2010). Blake and Cutler (2003) correspondingly found that teachers agreed that eliminating the use of AAE completely from students’ speech would advance them further in school. Ranking highest, 96% of English educators, who were members of professional language arts teacher associations, believed that mastering standardized English would lead to upward mobility (Smitherman & Villanueva,

2000). Although it is very possible that learning standardized English can aid students academically and professionally, the deceitful issue raised in this SLI belief is that these ideas are presented as promises. Students are assured by teachers that if they speak standardized English, then they will get a job or be respected by others in society; however, research indicates that speaking standardized English does not even ensure that students’ teachers will see them differently, much less those outside of education (Cross et al., 2001). For example, Cross et al.

(2001) reported that PSTs rated white speakers of standardized English statistically significantly higher in ambition and social status than African American speakers of standardized English; this finding was also true for other characteristics, including consideration, friendliness, trustworthiness, intelligence, and education. Clearly, although teachers perpetually promise students that learning standardized English will provide them with opportunities and status, this

45 is not always guaranteed and is, therefore, a misrepresentation of what language can provide for its speaker.

Alternatively, threats are often issued to students if they refuse to conform to standardized English. Within this element, scholars who have investigated teachers’ language ideologies predominantly illustrate the belief that speaking a vernacular dialect will impede students’ ability to learn standard English (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Brashears, 2014; Gupta, 2010;

Taylor, 1973). Blake and Cutler (2003) found that 72% of teachers agreed that using AAE in the classroom to teach various subjects would hinder students’ chances to learn standardized English and that over half of teachers felt that AAE was not profitable for students. Likewise, Brashears

(2014) interviewed teachers about the use of Appalachian English in the classroom and reported that teachers believed the dialect impeded the teaching of standardized English and was mostly an obstacle that served to perpetuate stereotypes against and generate misunderstandings with students. Gupta (2010) analyzed two aspects of threats against vernacular dialects and revealed that 49% of teachers found AAE to be incompatible with school and an interference to learning and 56% believed AAE contributed to the achievement gap between African American and white students. Finally, Taylor (1973) reported that 52% of teachers agreed that speaking a vernacular dialect thwarts the ability for a student to learn. These threats serve to minimize the linguistic skills that bidialectal students possess (Alim, 2004; Godley & Minnici, 2006; Zentella,

1997), overlook the advantages of speaking a vernacular dialect in various contexts (Heath,

1983; Milroy, 2001; Rampton, 2005; Reaser et al., 2017), and dismiss the unique features that vernacular dialects can offer its speakers that do not exist in standardized English (Smitherman,

1994).

46 In sum, existing literature indicates that many pre-service and in-service teachers have language beliefs that often align with the SLI. Those beliefs, in turn, foster enactment of discriminatory practices and endorsement of deficit-based language policies that serve to subordinate vernacular dialects and idealize standardized English (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Moreover, these types of linguistic prejudice have been shown to negatively impact students’ academic motivation (Dickar, 2004), perpetuate the achievement gap (Adger, Christian, &

Taylor, 1999), contribute to students’ resistance to formal education (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986;

Kohl, 1991), deter literacy learning (Godley et al., 2007; Goodman & Buck, 1973), and result in lower grades (Crowl & MacGintie, 1974; Taylor, 1973). Based on this reality, scholars have called for research, curricula, educational policies, and instructional practices that honor dialect diversity and address the relationships between language and power in K-12 schools, teacher education programs, and society as a whole (e.g., Alim, 2005; Baugh, 2007; Dyson &

Smitherman, 2009; Godley & Escher, 2012).

Critical Language Awareness (CLA)

It is this appeal for a more linguistically-informed, culturally relevant, and socially just educational experience that the framework of CLA seeks to address (Clark, Fairclough, Ivanic, &

Martin-Jones, 1990).

History. Within the field of education, in response to the prescriptive, decontextualized approaches to teaching grammar and language that had traditionally governed literacy instruction in K-12 schools, the Language Awareness (LA) movement developed out of Britain in the 1980s

(Clark & Ivanic, 1999). LA advocates asserted that by explicitly addressing different aspects of language, such as its history, form, structure, function, and variation, teachers could raise students’ conscious awareness of the structural and social nature of language and, thereby,

47 increase their confidence and mastery of literacy skills in both English and foreign languages

(Alpin, 1981; Andrews, 2006; Donmall, 1985; Hawkins, 1984; James & Garrett, 1991). This curricular objective aimed to develop students’ ability to perceptively examine the many facets of language and clearly articulate those observations (Ellis, 2012).

Concurrently, the field of linguistics was laying the groundwork for CDA (Fairclough,

1989, 1995), which was discussed previously, and it is the major tenets of CDA that a small group of linguists (Norman Fairclough, Marilyn Martin-Jones, Romy Clark, and Roz Ivanic) came to see as essential to school curriculum; for although the LA movement had progressed education towards a more holistic and exploratory approach to language, these linguists contended that a framework that “ignores issues of ideology, subject-positioning and power is in danger of complicity with social inequities maintained by language” (Clark & Ivanic, 1999, p.

63). Proponents of LA strongly encouraged curricula to deepen students’ understanding of language in order to combat ethnocentrism and prejudice (Ellis, 2012); however, more critical scholars insisted that these endeavors only described differing language varieties as equal yet ignored issues of power regarding why some dialects were considered more appropriate than others, subtly validating SLIs and masking inequality by portraying it as diversity (Alim, 2010;

Fairclough, 2014; Leets & Giles, 1993). Therefore, building upon the foundation of the LA movement, yet also introducing to it the critical principles of CDA, CLA was introduced as a distinct concept, framework, and curricular objective (Clark et al., 1990, 1991; Clark & Ivanic,

1999). Ali (2011) explains that CLA, within a teaching context, illustrates the CDA view that language is shaped by relationships of power while also maintaining the importance of language exploration across diverse dialects and social contexts proposed by LA curricula.

48 Although the term CLA was first coined by and devised within the field of linguistics, the sociological assumptions of critical theory had already influenced scholarship in education as well. Stemming from Freire’s (1972) critique of education’s “banking” model in its perpetuation of unequal power dynamics and proposition for liberation through dialogue and critical consciousness, critical pedagogical theory asserts that education reproduces the status quo through its tendency to privilege middle class culture while assuming that all children have equal access to it (Apple, 1990). Furthermore, this theory contends that schools engage in “culture wars” that attempt to eliminate multiculturalism and promote a homogenous “core knowledge” steeped in Eurocentric perspectives and values (Apple, 1990; Giroux, 2004). Critical pedagogy aims to resist these educational inequities by designing curricula that relates to all students’ lives through the use of counterstories, the sharing of “new history,” and the development of critical citizens (Apple & Buras, 2006; McLaren, 2009). Wallace (1997) argued that critical pedagogy also demands a critical awareness of language. Therefore, several instructional approaches situated within the framework of CLA and critical pedagogy have formed over the last few decades, such as critical language pedagogy (Janks, 1999; Chisholm & Godley, 2011; Godley &

Minnici, 2008; Kirkland & Jackson, 2008), critical literacy (Comber, 1993; Freebody & Luke,

1990; Janks, 2000, 2002; Luke, 2012; Rogers & Mosley, 2013), and critical media literacy

(Alvermann & Hagood, 2000). The historical influences on and outcomes of CLA are displayed in Figure 2.1 below.

49

Figure 2.1. Historical influences on and outcomes of critical language awareness (CLA).

Fundamental Elements. Based on the influences of social, educational, and linguistic theory, CLA is often described as a branch of educational linguistics that serves as the pedagogical application of CDA (Godley & Minnici, 2008; Svalberg, 2000; Wallace, 1997;

Wetzel & Rogers, 2015) and promoted as a necessary component of any education curriculum attempting to develop informed citizenship and challenge the SLI perpetuated by current school systems (Achugar, 2015; Alim, 2005; Fairclough, 2014; Janks 1999). When conceptualizing the critical understanding of language promoted by CLA, Wallace (1997) presents two levels at which this can be achieved: 1) conscious awareness and 2) the ability to critically analyze.

As CLA is rooted in LA, the educational approach advocates an “operational and descriptive knowledge of the linguistic practices of [the] world” (Clark et al., 1990, p. 249); however, its critical component furthers this objective by also aiming to raise awareness about the ways in which language use reproduces and is influenced by the often implicit and inequitable power relations that exist in society (Clark et al., 1990; Fairclough, 2014). Within this framework, language is not presented as neutral or objective; instead, it resists the sanitation of linguistic practice and calls individuals to recognize how discourse is informed by ideological

50 assumptions and can both mask and exhibit these belief systems (Carter, 2003; Reagan, 2002). It is, in part, through linguistic processes that commonsense notions and “truths” about the world are formed, highlighting the role of language use in the struggle for power (Fairclough, 2014). In sum, one goal of CLA is to develop metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness of discourse practices within economic, ideological, historical, political, and social contexts (Reagan, 2002).

A critical understanding of language also requires the ability to actively critique ideologically-invested discourse. Scholars argue that CLA provides the linguistic tools that individuals need in order to expose both the purposeful and unintentional ways that language marginalizes certain speakers as well as critically examine how language constructs and reflects power relations (Sanchez & Paulson, 2008; Wetzel & Rogers, 2015). For example, O’Hallaron,

Palincsar, and Schleppegrell (2015) exercise the tenets of CLA by not only raising participants’ awareness about language and power but also requiring them to participate in knowledge production by analytically “talking back” to authors and their texts. By encouraging individuals to contribute their own critical interpretations and understandings of linguistic practices, CLA can then serve as “an avenue to effect transformation and personal empowerment” (Alim, 2005;

Janks, 1999; Janks & Ivanic, 1992; Regan, 2006)” (Weninger & Hoi-Yi Kan, 2012). The original architects of CLA explained that they

saw the objectives of bringing CLA into the curriculum as helping learners to develop

more consciousness and control over the way they use language and over the way they

are positioned by other people’s use of language. A corollary of awareness is action: the

understandings gained by CLA should equip learners to recognise, challenge and

ultimately contribute to changing social inequities inscribed in discourse practices, and

thus to be more responsible citizens. (Clark & Ivanic, 1999, p. 64)

51 Similar to critical pedagogy as a whole, CLA, therefore, aims to equip learners with the ability to interpret and critique language use not only for their own personal empowerment, but also in the hopes that these individual transformations will effect change in the existing asymmetric social structures (Achugar, 2015; Fairclough, 1989; Gutierrez, 2008; Moje, 2007; Reagan, 2002;

Rogers, 2004). If educators seek to provide dialectally diverse students with an inclusive learning environment and cultivate students’ ability to critically analyze the way language shapes and is shaped by the world around them, then PSTs must first be taught to develop their own CLA.

Implications for Pre-Service Teachers and Teacher Education Programs

Scholars and teacher educators continually emphasize the need for educational curricula and practices that celebrate and defend equality and social justice (McLaren, 2011; North, 2006;

Sleeter, 2011). Furthermore, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) drafted a resolution affirming “students’ right to their own language—to the dialect that expresses their family and community identity, the idiolect that expresses their unique personal identify” (1974, para. 1). However, language remains a largely overlooked aspect of these approaches, as evidenced by the paucity of both critical language study curricula (Reaser, 2006) and the limited number of teacher education courses that meaningfully expose PSTs to sociolinguistic information and the issues of language and power (Adger, Snow, & Christian, 2003; Godley et al., 2006; Kolln & Hancock, 2005). Teacher educators have long revered Ladson-Billings’

(1995) theoretical model culturally relevant pedagogy that aims to “[help] students accept and affirm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives that challenge inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate” (p. 469). Yet, without an understanding of teachers’ language ideologies, it is impossible to assess if a teacher is capable of enacting such a pedagogy. Language is inextricably linked to identity and relations of power; therefore, cultural

52 affirmation cannot be achieved without an understanding of and respect for the grammatical principles that govern all dialects and a critical understanding of the way linguistic practices can both marginalize and privilege various social groups. Similarly, a newer theoretical stance entitled culturally sustaining pedagogy aims to “perpetuate and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling” (Paris, 2012, p.

93). With an explicit nod to language, it is clear that future research and teacher education must concern itself with educators’ language ideologies and the ways in which those beliefs can subordinate students who speak vernacular dialects. Additionally, PSTs must be taught pedagogical practices, such as code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2011; Young et al., 2013), that help learners to understand and critique the inequalities advanced through language use, and they must also be well-versed in methods that promote and welcome the many linguistic forms that constitute the ever-changing state of cultural identity. These institutional changes can be implemented most effectively by first understanding the specific language beliefs to which PSTs subscribe and by tracing how those beliefs are imbued with deficit perspectives, such as those found in the SLI. Only then can teacher education programs begin to systematically attack language ideologies that marginalize vernacular speakers and craft programs that prepare future teachers to meet the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students.

53 CHAPTER 3: METHODS

This chapter serves to provide a detailed account of the methodology employed in this study. First, I define mixed methods research, identify the specific mixed methods research design used in this study, and justify the employment of a mixed methods approach for this particular research focus. Second, I describe the theoretical framework that guided this study, including my own inquiry worldview, relevant substantive content theories, and a subjectivity statement. Third, I detail the context in which this research project took place. Fourth, I describe the development of study instruments through various methods, such as cognitive interviewing and an expert ratings survey. Fifth, I discuss the procedures, sample, data collection, and data analysis techniques of both the quantitative and qualitative phases. Finally, I explain how I went about integrating the data from each source and decoding the meta-inferences that came from the assimilation of the quantitative and qualitative data.

Mixed Methods Definition, Design, and Rationale

This research study employed a mixed methods approach. Although there are varying interpretations of the specific characteristics that constitute mixed methods research, Johnson et al. (2007) developed an instructive and practical definition of the research paradigm based on descriptions provided by 21 well-established mixed methods scholars. This explication provides an operational definition of mixed methods research that encompasses the methods, methodology, and philosophy of the approach that were used to guide this inquiry:

Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of

researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g.,

use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference

54 techniques) for the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.

(Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123)

The research design utilized in this study was an explanatory sequential mixed methods design

(QUAN → qual) in which the quantitative aspect was more central to the research design. The explanatory mixed methods design is a two-phase design in which the quantitative data are collected initially and are used to identify the qualitative data to be collected; the quantitative data are also used to develop the criteria that help to determine if participants are qualified to participate in the qualitative phase (Morse, 2003). (See Appendix A for a diagram of the research design for this study.)

A mixed methods approach was necessary for this study because one data source was not capable of addressing the research problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Examining PSTs’ language ideologies from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective provided a comprehensive view of the issue that could not be provided by one approach alone. The use of quantitative methods, through a survey, enriched the sample with a wide range of participants

(Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2006) and afforded a general understanding of PSTs’ language ideologies and their relationship with other variables. Qualitative methods produced detailed reflections and elaboration upon those language beliefs that provided further insight into the phenomenon. Furthermore, mixed methods enabled me to use quantitative evidence to inform and strengthen participant selection for the qualitative phase (Greene et al., 1989), assess the fidelity of the survey instrument (Collins et al., 2006), corroborate findings or detect contradiction between the data sources through triangulation (Greene et al., 1989), and expand the investigation of teachers’ language ideologies to participants’ rationalizations and explanations of those beliefs (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Greene et al., 1989). In sum, a

55 mixed methods design served this research project in that it was able to offset the limitations of each single method by utilizing the strengths of each approach collectively (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011; DeCuir-Gunby, 2008).

Theoretical Framework

Philosophical assumptions, relevant theories, and personal experiences have informed my understanding and approach to this research study. The following description of my inquiry worldview entails my philosophical assumptions and the theoretical lens that provided a framework for the type of questions that were examined and answered within this study (Agger,

1991; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Crotty, 1998). In addition, I summarize the multiple substantive content theories from relevant disciplines that were used to direct and interpret this inquiry (Maxwell, 1996; Punch, 2006). Finally, I present a subjectivity statement that explains my relationship to the topic of the research project and the participants (DeCuir-Gunby &

Schutz, 2017; Preissle, 2008). It is through these experiences, theories, and assumptions that I attempted to better conceptualize PSTs’ language ideologies and understand the ways in which I made sense of them.

Inquiry worldview. Traditionally, quantitative research has been associated with postpositivism (Crotty, 1998; DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2017; Johnson & Gray, 2010), a worldview in which researchers attempt to determine the relationship between specific variables and approximate the objective truth regarding a phenomenon through empirical observation and measurement in order to generalize its findings to the overall population (Feyerabend, 1993;

Kuhn, 1977; Phillips, 1990; Popper, 1972; Slife & Williams, 1995). In contrast, qualitative research has been connected to constructivism (Crotty, 1998; DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2017;

Johnson & Gray, 2010), a worldview in which researchers aim to understand the multiple truths

56 regarding a phenomenon through participants’ interpretations of their own personal experiences and the historical, social, and cultural environments that have shaped those subjective realities in order to generate theories and/or identify patterns of meaning within localized contexts (Angen,

2000; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Glasersfeld, 1995; Sale & Brazil, 2004;

Schwandt, 1994; Zusho & Clayton, 2011). However, over time, mixed methods researchers, and even those from other methodological orientations, have argued that methods can be appropriately used within any research paradigm and aligned with different philosophies and worldviews (Crotty, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Greene et al., 1989; Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

The epistemological stance I took in this study most closely aligned with postpositivism as survey measurements were used to empirically observe and measure the phenomenon of PSTs’ language ideologies, and interviews were employed to corroborate, contradict, and further investigate those results. Within this epistemological stance, I recognized that although we will never be able to achieve objective truth, we can attempt to approximate it through various methods.

I used critical theory as the theoretical lens for this study because I believe that it constitutes a productive stance for mixed methods research, best fulfills the needs of this specific research project, and most accurately represents my philosophical assumptions. This tradition takes on a universalist perspective by accepting that there are basic “truths,” yet maintaining that those truths and the human processes associated with them are unquestionably impacted by their social context (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Zusho & Clayton, 2011). On a more localized level, this lens attempts to critique, and potentially transform, present-day power structures, including those related to language (Giroux, 1988; Habermas, 1971). Rooted in the

Marxist tradition (Marx, 1906), social theorists such as Max Horkheimer (1937/1976), T.W.

57 Adorno (1966/1973), and Herbert Marcuse (1960/1993) formed a school of thought called the

Frankfurt School, which strived, above all, for human emancipation. It is an approach directed at critiquing different aspects of society and advocating for change that serves to liberate all people

(Horkheimer, 1976). Critical theorists aim to distinguish themselves from traditional theories that seek only to observe or understand the world by investigating issues of power, drawing attention to social iniquities, and employing data and findings to critique these disparities (DeCuir-Gunby

& Schutz, 2017). This perspective seeks to not only critique existing social structures but to also advocate for new possibilities that would enrich the lives of those who have been disenfranchised

(Fay, 1987; Morrow & Brown, 1994).

Most research conducted on teachers’ language ideologies is grounded in critical theory as it has developed in the relevant disciplines of linguistics and education. Within the field of education, Freire’s (1970) philosophy of critical pedagogy applies the objective of social justice to all acts of learning and teaching. Stemming from this pedagogy is a linguistic approach to language education called CLA, which refers to a critical examination of the ideological, social, and political aspects of language and language variation (Alim, 2010; Fairclough, 2014).

Combining the application of critical theory to linguistics and education, with my research into

PSTs’ language ideologies, I attempted to call attention to language beliefs that perpetuate the marginalization of vernacular dialects in schools and explore the experiences that positively impacted those beliefs in the hopes of transforming language instruction in teacher education programs.

Substantive content theories. One guiding content theory for this study was the concept of language ideologies. It assumes that every individual has beliefs about language and that typically those ideas are believed to be commonsense and self-evident (Rumsey, 1990; Wolfram

58 & Schilling, 2016). Another principle of language ideologies is that these beliefs are derived from the interactions people have with members of their social groups and the institutions within their community, such as schools and the government (Heath, 1989). With that said, language ideology theorists believe that attitudes and beliefs towards language are inherent and often left unexamined. Several researchers have attempted to capture language ideologies through surveys

(e.g., Byrnes et al., 1997; Fitzsimmons-Doolan, Palmer, & Henderson, 2015; Taylor, 1973), matched-guised tests (e.g., Lambert et al., 1960), and speaker ratings tasks (e.g., Cross et al.,

2001). The theory of language ideology guided data collection and data analysis throughout this research study by providing a foundation and justification for the inquiry as well as an approach to interpreting its findings.

Another content theory that informed this research inquiry was Lippi-Green’s (2012)

LSM. This model is an analytical tool that outlines eight ways in which vernacular languages and dialects are subordinated, or marginalized; these elements were compiled from an analysis of public commentary on and actions against language users who do not conform to the idealized

“standard” of English (Lippi-Green, 2012). The model is broken down into actions and accompanying language beliefs that warrant and/or provoke those actions. The beliefs presented within the model embody various aspects of the SLI, a bias towards an idealized, uniform spoken language predominantly based on the speech of the upper middle class (Lippi-Green, 2012;

Milroy, 2001). Each step of the language subordination process identified in the LSM is explicated in detail in the literature review (see pp. 34-46). The LSM guided this research project throughout instrument development, data collection, and data analysis. The language beliefs within the model were used to develop survey items, construct interview protocols, and make sense of the data by providing a framework for understanding and discussing how PSTs’ beliefs

59 aligned with or contradicted the different aspects of the SLI. Furthermore, this model was used to identify specific language beliefs that required attention from teacher education programs in an effort to improve teacher preparation in higher institutions.

The final theory that informed this project was CLA, which assumes that language and literacy education require a critical investigation of power as it is created by and reflected through language (Janks, 1999). Fairclough (2014) outlines five theoretical propositions central to this framework:

1. Language use—‘discourse’—shapes and is shaped by society 2. Discourse helps to constitute (and change) knowledge and its objects, social relations, and social identity 3. Discourse is shaped by relations of power, and invested with ideologies 4. The shaping of discourse is a stake in power struggles 5. CLA sets out to show how society and discourse shape each other (p. 8-9) These tenets provide a way to explore the connections between language use, ideology, and power by recognizing that language is not neutral or objective (Maftoon & Sabbaghan, 2010; van

Dijk, 1995) and serve to develop students’ ability to recognize and challenge the social inequities that exist and are perpetuated by linguistic practices (Clark & Ivanic, 1999). In this research study, CLA provided a way of conceptualizing objectives for PST education with regard to language instruction and aided in identifying participants who have developed a grasp of these tenets.

Subjectivity statement. My interest in dialect diversity began when I was introduced to the idea of language awareness instruction in a linguistics course that I took during my undergraduate teacher education program. I became fascinated by the subject and subsequently earned a Master’s in English with a concentration in linguistics to continue learning about language variation. The field altered my perception of the vernacular speakers that I encountered

60 in my daily life as well as the way in which I instructed my students during the three years that I was a public high school English teacher. I felt it critical to acknowledge the value of all dialects in my classroom and teach lessons that encouraged my students to critically analyze the way in which they communicated, the rule-governed principles that all dialects follow, and the connection language has to identity and power. I returned to pursue my doctoral degree with the purpose of researching the relationship between language variation and education and the continual linguistic prejudice to which vernacular language varieties are subjected within that context as, during teaching, I was able to witness linguistic subordination firsthand and understand it in a way that I did not as a K-12 student. Consequently, I clearly exhibit a bias towards pedagogy that values all language varieties and advocates for CLA. Furthermore, I am a middle class White female who was raised to speak standardized English in the majority of my interactions. The use of this dialect has afforded me privileges that speakers of vernacular dialects do not experience. These personal characteristics are very similar to most of my participants and could have obscured aspects of participants’ language ideologies for me that might have been more noticeable to researchers who have experienced marginalization generated by the SLI. Explicitly stating and understanding my biases in relation to the topic of this research project increases the trustworthiness of the study by making transparent the partiality of the researcher (Merriam, 1988).

Context

This study took place at a large public university in the southeastern United States, which has been given the pseudonym Southern University. According to Southern University’s official history website, it was founded in the late 1800s, is a public research institute, is one of the

61 state’s largest universities, enrolls more than 34,000 students, and is a predominantly White institution (PWI) with only an 18.9% minority population as of Fall 2015.

The participants in this study were composed of undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA PSTs at Southern University. At this university, undergraduate middle school education majors are enrolled in a dual-certification program that works towards licensure in both ELA and social studies, whereas students in the high school English education program are licensed only in ELA. Some important differences to note between the programs are that the high school program requires students to take a linguistics course focused on the study of language structure, regional dialects, differences between spoken and written language, and applications of linguistic knowledge in the classroom. Students in the middle grades program have the option of taking this course; however, it is not a program requirement and can instead be replaced with courses such as Introduction to Editing or Writing Theory and the Writing Process. Additionally, the high school program requires students to achieve an intermediate foreign language proficiency level through course completion or proficiency testing, whereas the middle grades program requires an elementary proficiency level. In contrast, the middle grades program requires its students to take over 20 more credit hours in education methodology courses. It is within this context that each of the following stages of the research process took place: survey development, the quantitative phase, the qualitative phase, and data integration.

Survey Development

I designed and developed the Survey for the Standard Language Ideology (SSLI) in order to examine PSTs’ language ideologies, specifically how they align with or diverge from the SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012). Ignoring the fact that language is constantly changing, individuals who adhere to the SLI believe that standardized dialects are both superior

62 and singularly correct, whereas vernacular dialects are viewed as inadequate and illogical. Based on this theoretical foundation, the SSLI was developed in four main phases: item development, preliminary cognitive interviewing, expert ratings survey, and final cognitive interviewing.

Item development. Several steps were taken to develop the survey items. First, the survey items were informed by the literature on language ideologies, language attitudes, and the

SLI. Thoroughly researching and crafting a detailed explication of these constructs, as outlined in the literature review, increases the content validity of the survey, an aspect of construct validity, as it serves to deter incorrect inferences about the relationship between the SLI and the survey (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Within this body of research, there were several empirical articles that included their own instruments that attempted to measure language beliefs, many for pre-service or in-service teachers (Carter, 2015; Byrnes et al., 1997; Fitzsimmons-

Doolan, 2011; Hudgens Henderson, 2016; Hoover et al., 1996; Murphy, 2012; Reaser, 2006;

Sweetland, 2006; Taylor, 1973). The items from these surveys were collected and assembled into one document.

Furthermore, using the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012) as a guide, statements from the aforementioned surveys that matched with one of the eight overarching SLI beliefs in the model were categorized accordingly. For example, the second belief in the model is about claiming authority on language and states that “We are the experts. Talk like me/us. We know what we are doing because we have studied language, because we write well” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 70). The following item was matched with this belief: “The language we learn in school is the correct kind of language” (Hudgens Henderson, 2016, p. 50). Similar to the belief in the model, the statement positions those in authority (i.e., teachers) as the individuals who claim ownership and power over how language should be used and what is deemed “correct.” Items that did not bear

63 relevance to the beliefs within the model or this study’s focus on spoken dialects were discarded, such as those that dealt with bilingual education or educational policies about written assessments. Out of the 227 total statements from the nine reviewed surveys, 101 items (44%) were collected and aligned with one of the beliefs in the LSM; statements were selected from all surveys yet more items were selected from some (e.g., Taylor, 1973) than others (e.g.,

Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2011).

I then designed new statements for the survey by basing them on both items that were gathered from the existing surveys and descriptions of the SLI beliefs in the LSM (Lippi-Green,

2012). For example, based on the second belief about authority mentioned above, I created the following statement: “Students should strive to talk like their teachers.” The newly-developed statement is adjusted to the context of this particular study, as this survey is designed for PSTs, and it represents the conveyed belief that individuals should aspire to speak like those who society deems “experts” on language. All potential items were designed and then reviewed using the following guidelines outlined by Brown (2001): 1) statements were kept as short as possible;

2) statements were assessed for clarity; 3) statements were created using predominantly positive language (e.g., “Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules”) as opposed to negative language

(e.g., “Vernacular dialects do not follow grammar rules”) to enhance readability; 4) statements addressed only a singular belief (e.g., “Language is always changing”) in order to avoid confounding the measurement of two or more claims at the same time (e.g., “Language is always changing and should be respected in all its forms”); 5) statements did not include loaded words

(e.g., obviously) that could sway participants in a certain direction; 6) statements avoided jargon that is not commonly familiar to non-linguists (e.g., diphthong); and 7) statements were all relevant to the topic at hand—the SLI. Finally, for SLI belief of the LSM, I addressed polarity by

64 designing one-half of the items for which “strongly agree” would be the desired response and the other items for which “strongly disagree” would be desired. This technique enhances the construct validity of the instrument by reducing the researcher’s influence on participants’ desire to respond favorably; participants cannot identify a pattern for what they perceive to be the

“correct” response and are compelled to read each item carefully, thus eliciting more honest responses (Shadish et al., 2002).

Statements were developed within the framework of the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012). Out of the eight original categories for SLI beliefs on the LSM, I identified six categories by which to design and categorize the potential items for this survey. I combined beliefs #5 and #6

(Conformers/Non-Conformers) and beliefs #7 and #8 (Promises/Threats) because designing reverse-coded items for each set of categories was redundant as they represented inverse ways of communicating the same belief. For example, designing a statement for the Conformers/Non-

Conformers category, such as “Speaking standardized English shows that a student is respectful of school” functions as a statement that aligns with element #5 (“Conformers are held up as positive examples”) and inversely represents the same belief in element #6 (“Non-conformers are vilified or marginalized”) by implying that those who do not speak standardized English are not respectful of school. Similarly, designing a reverse-coded statement for this category, such as “It is impossible to tell how smart a student is based on the dialect they speak” contradicts both belief #5 and belief #6; therefore, statements that align with and contradict these elements served to communicate the same overall belief regarding teachers’ beliefs about speakers of vernacular dialects. For each of the six categories on the LSM (Mystification, Authority, Misinformation,

Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers, and Promises/Threats), I created eight potential survey statements resulting in 48 total items. These potential statements then underwent a

65 preliminary round of cognitive interviewing. (See Appendix B: Survey Development Instruments for original statements on preliminary cognitive interviewing protocol.)

Preliminary cognitive interviewing. As most experts would be relatively familiar with the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012), or at least the language beliefs that underlie it, the concepts and language of the statements had the potential to seem straightforward and easily interpretable to them. Therefore, it was necessary to first engage in a preliminary round of cognitive interviewing, before soliciting expert ratings, to make sure that the statements were understandable and unambiguous to individuals comparable to future participants. The process of cognitive interviewing helps to establish face validity, a form of construct validity, as it aids in identifying errors or potential areas of confusion as well as determines if the instrument is perceived as valid and effective by those comparable to future participants (Beatty & Willis,

2007; Brown, 2001). Cognitive interviews also deepen understanding of the theoretical concepts being explored (Karabenick et al., 2007). Self-report surveys on abstract constructs, such as language ideologies, especially benefit from a rigorous investigation of the cognitive processes that take place when participants respond to survey items as it provides an effective way to assess if the instrument is measuring what was intended (Collins, 2003; Tourangeau, Rips, &

Rasinski, 2000; Willis, 2005).

Procedure. In the preliminary round of cognitive interviewing, two participants were recruited to give verbal feedback on items to achieve an initial impression of the comprehensibility of the survey statements. Participants were individuals who graduated from the undergraduate middle grades ELA education program at Southern University in the spring of the previous academic year (2016-2017). In order to recruit these individuals, I used professional connections to acquire their email addresses and then contacted them accordingly. The email

66 contained information regarding the research project and asked if they would be willing to participate. (See Appendix C: Survey Development Recruitment Emails for preliminary cognitive interviewing recruitment email) If the individual indicated that she was interested in participating, we decided on a neutral, mutually agreed upon location to meet. Before the interview began, the participant was asked to sign a printed copy of the consent form. (See

Appendix D: Survey Development Consent Forms for preliminary cognitive interviewing consent form) Then, using the 48 items on the interview protocol, participants were instructed to think aloud through the statements by reflecting on their interpretation of the item as well as identifying items that confused them, if any (Daugherty, Harris-Kojetin, Squire, & Jael, 2001).

When participants did not offer sufficient verbal feedback, I probed them further by asking questions about their thought processes while reflecting on the statements and clarifying comments that they made (Willis, 1999); I also recorded notes of the participants’ responses on my own copy of the items as the interview progressed to use for later revisions.

Participants. Two graduates of the middle grades ELA program at Southern University participated in the preliminary round of cognitive interviewing. Both participants had graduated within the last school year (2016-2017), were white, were female, and were currently teaching in a public middle school. Both individuals completed the interview from start to finish.

Results. Based on the information gathered, the survey statements were revised to improve clarity and intelligibility for future participants as well as ensure that there was no linguistic jargon that would only be understood by experts. There were four main aspects of the items that were amended following the preliminary cognitive interviews. First, the participants often questioned the context of the speech acts within the statements; in turn, I rewrote several items to more specifically address the circumstances of the statement. For example, one item

67 read, “Students need their teacher’s guidance to speak skillfully.” Participants struggled to understand if this statement was referring to more academic or casual contexts; therefore, the item was changed to “Students need their teacher’s guidance to speak skillfully in their daily lives.” This provided a better indication that the statement was referring to speech in an everyday context as opposed to strictly in an academic setting. Similarly, several items were altered to more specifically represent an educational context as this research project targets PSTs. For instance, several statements used pronouns such as “those” and “everyone,” which were then changed to specific populations like “teachers” and “students” in order to clearly present an academic setting that PSTs will likely encounter in their future careers.

Second, there were a few items that contained ambiguous phrasing that confused participants and needed to be communicated more effectively. For example, one statement read,

“Those who have studied language do not have authority over how to speak it”; however, the meaning of “authority over language” was questioned by both participants, revealing that it was too opaque to be easily interpreted. Accordingly, I rewrote the statement as “Teachers who have studied language do not have the right to tell others how to speak.” The new statement removed the ambiguous phrasing yet illustrated the concept of linguistic authority by stating who does or does not have the right to determine how others speak.

Third, a couple statements were replaced by new statements as the original item evoked responses from participants that were more relevant to another category. For instance, the item

“Everyone speaks his/her language correctly” was originally written for the Misinformation category; however, participants spoke more of students’ abilities with language, as is relevant to the Mystification category, instead of the “correctness” of language itself, as is relevant to the

Misinformation category. In turn, because I already had another item addressing the

68 “correctness” of standardized English, I created a statement that attempted to measure misconceptions regarding the universality of dialect use: “Everyone speaks a dialect.”

Finally, after reviewing the items more closely, I altered several statements so that they more explicitly juxtaposed standardized English and vernacular dialects. For example, one item stated that “Vernacular dialects sound beautiful when they are spoken.” However, I wanted to make clear that the perception of these vernacular dialects should be viewed in light of participants’ perception of standardized English, seeing as I designed the survey to measure students’ bias toward standardized English, or their SLI. Therefore, I amended this statement as follows: “Vernacular dialects sound as good as standardized English when they are spoken.”

After the problematic items were revised, they were included in the expert ratings survey. (See

Appendix B: Survey Development Instruments for revised statements on expert ratings survey.)

Expert ratings survey. In order to establish content validity, which makes certain that the items match the theoretical content of the SLI beliefs and the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012), the statements were reviewed by experts (Brown, 2001). Experts can provide invaluable feedback on which item are accurately representing the construct of the SLI (Gobo & Mauceri, 2014; Olson,

2010).

Procedure. Experts were defined as faculty and graduate students within linguistics programs across the country as their position demonstrated mastery in linguistics, the field which underpins the LSM framework that was explored within this study. The pool of experts was a convenience sample in which participants were recruited through professional contacts from around the country by email. The email contained information about the survey and provided a direct hyperlink to the online instrument. (See Appendix C: Survey Development Recruitment

Emails for expert ratings survey recruitment emails.) Once clicking on the link, participants were

69 directed to a consent form containing information about the purpose, risks, benefits, confidentiality, and contact information regarding the survey. If participants decided to participate, they clicked “agree” and were directed to the survey questions. (See Appendix D:

Survey Development Consent Forms for expert ratings survey consent form.) Experts evaluated the items through an online survey developed using Qualtrics; this instrument provided an explanation of the background and purpose of the SSLI, presented a brief description of each SLI belief, and contained the item that corresponded to that belief. Participants were asked to score each statement based on how well they believed it would be able to measure PSTs’ language attitudes regarding its respective SLI belief. The scale for each item ranged from 1 to 5 with a

“1” denoting a statement that was “not effective” and a “5” denoting a statement that was “very effective” with no descriptive labels for the numbers in between. Participants were also given the option to explain their scoring or provide suggestions for items in each category. At the end of the survey, experts were asked how familiar they were with the LSM prior to the survey, if they identified as faculty or as a graduate student, and with which program they were affiliated (e.g.,

English, education, linguistics, literacy). They then exited the survey with no further obligation.

(See Appendix B: Survey Development Instruments for the expert ratings survey.) The expert rating survey was available to participants for two weeks. After data collection, the average score for each item was calculated and the written feedback for each item was organized and combined. The original intention of the expert ratings survey was to identify the four highest ranking items for each category, indicating that an item was ranked most “effective” at capturing its respective belief, in order to reduce the SSLI to a 24-item instrument; additionally, I revised the selected statements based on the written feedback.

70 Participants. 52 individuals started the expert ratings survey; 8 participants only completed the consent form (15%) and 6 participants (11%) began but did not finish scoring the

SSLI statements, completing an average of 22 of the 48 SSLI ratings questions. Participants who did not complete the entire survey, including the SSLI ratings questions and the demographics questions, were not included in the final analysis sample as the former did not provide any information on the SSLI items and the latter did not identify themselves as “experts” (i.e., graduate students or faculty in linguistics programs). Two participants identified themselves as undergraduate students and two graduate student participants did not indicate that they were affiliated with a linguistics program; these four participants were not included in the final sample analysis as they did not qualify as “experts” (i.e., graduate students or faculty in linguistics programs). The final sample analysis, including those who completed the entire survey and self- identified as “experts,” was 34, which is 65% of the original sample. 74% (N = 25) of the final sample identified as graduate students and 26% identified as faculty. Additionally, 79% (N = 27) of the final sample indicated that they were familiar with the LSM before beginning the survey.

Results. Using the numeric responses from the expert ratings survey, I calculated the mean score of effectiveness for each item (See Appendix E: Survey Development Data for averages for expert ratings survey items). Next, I identified the four highest scoring items for each category. I originally intended to use these selected statements for the SSLI based solely on their score from the expert ratings survey. However, after further analyzing the collected data, I decided to instead use the written feedback to select and revise the 24 items for the SSLI; I made this change for several reasons. First, significantly more participants provided written feedback than I had anticipated. A total of 112 comments were made on the six categories of SLI beliefs,

71 ranging from 15 to 22 comments for each set of statements, which averages out to 18.67 comments for each category.

Second, with such an extensive amount of written feedback on the sets of items for each

SLI belief, I was able to clearly identify the reasons that certain statements were scored lower than others; furthermore, many participants provided suggestions for specific ways in which to improve the items that they had scored lower than others. These detailed comments allowed me to directly implement experts’ feedback when revising the items in a way that more accurately represented the SLI belief as well as effectively communicated that idea to future participants.

For example, one of the lowest scoring items in the Authority category was the statement

“People who speak well, like news anchors, are experts on language.” Experts noted that the item was a double-barreled statement as it implied that news anchors both spoke well and were experts on language. Additionally, they commented that using news anchors as bastions of standardized English was problematic because there are many local news anchors who talk informally. Therefore, I revised this statement to read, “Students should strive to speak in the same way as government officials.” In this way, I ensured that the statement was addressing a single concept and used a group of people who more consistently use standardized English publicly.

Finally, relying solely on the items’ averages to select which statements were to be used on the SSLI limited my ability to choose items based on their content and the issues they were able to explore about their respective belief. As is detailed in the literature review, there are many facets present in each SLI belief and the intention of the SSLI, as well as the research project as a whole, is to explore as many aspects of each belief as possible. However, using the items’ averages did not account for this objective, resulting in the selection of items in various

72 categories that addressed the same concept. For example, in the category “Conformers/Non-

Conformers,” two items with the highest averages were “Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent” and “It is impossible to tell how smart a student is based on the dialect he/she speaks.” These statements redundantly investigate participants’ associations between an individual’s dialect and his/her level of intelligence. By choosing the four items for this category based on content as opposed to their average, and improving them using the experts’ written feedback, I was able to instead explore participants’ associations between an individual’s dialect and his/her level of intelligence, work ethic, attitude, and behavior.

Therefore, guided by experts’ written feedback, I selected and revised 24 items from the original 48 items on the expert ratings survey to include in the SSLI (See Appendix E: Survey

Development Data for an example of experts’ feedback on the original statements). One overall change that I applied to the items based on participant feedback was to strictly employ positive language as the negative constructions served to confuse several individuals. In addition to other minor revisions, I used the experts’ suggestions and advice to implement conceptual changes to the statements in each category and intentionally chose and designed items that explored as many aspects of each SLI belief as possible.

Mystification. Many comments on the expert ratings survey regarding the Mystification category noted a distinct difference between an individual’s language ability and his/her understanding of the science of language itself, citing that the former indicates a tacit knowledge and the latter indicates an explicit knowledge. They argued that a speaker’s linguistic skills are not necessarily representative of his/her cognizant comprehension of linguistic concepts, such as syntax or phonetics. In turn, the statements were revised to emphasize only students’ language abilities as opposed to their understanding of language structures. For example, one statement

73 originally read, “Formal education is necessary for students to understand the complexities of oral language,” but it was rewritten as “It is difficult for students to effectively express their ideas to others without formal education.” Although Lippi-Green (2012) uses the term

“comprehend” in her explanation of language mystification in the LSM, I feel that this conceptual change to these statements more accurately captures the way in which individuals are adept at using their native language to communicate with others, yet institutions of power, such as schools, are consistently treating people as if the only way they can effectively communicate is by being taught how to do so by an “expert.” Teachers, formal education, grammar rules, and

ELA instruction were the agents of language mystification that were explored within this category.

Authority. The overarching feedback provided by experts on the set of statements in the

Authority category focused on the need to directly address the power dynamics between teachers and students with regard to language as opposed to measuring participants’ attitudes toward school or classroom policies that only approximated that relationship. For example, one statement originally claimed that “Teachers have a responsibility to teach their students how to speak correctly.” However, agreeing with this statement would not necessarily indicate that a teacher feels he/she has authority over the ways students speak, but would instead be more reflective of a curricular decision which only tangentially relates to the issue at hand. In turn, this statement was rewritten as “Students should speak in the way that their teachers instruct them to.” The revised item directly places teachers in a position of power in which they are exercising that authority in order to control the way that students use language, thereby more effectively assessing whether the participant believes that a teacher’s role is to assimilate students into a standardized, idealized way of speaking. Language authority was explored by measuring who

74 participants believed to be language experts, what rights “experts” have over others’ language use, and whether students should aspire to speak like those “experts.”

Misinformation. One aspect of the Misinformation category is that standardized English is viewed as aesthetically superior to vernacular dialects; however, experts warned against statements that were based on value judgements of vernacular dialects as they were often ambiguous to capture without an audio recording and could not be disputed through linguistic fact. For example, one potential item stated that “Vernacular dialects sound as good as standardized English when they are spoken.” The term “good” in this statement is ambiguous as it could be referring to “correct” or “pleasing/fun to hear.” It is additionally ambiguous to compare all vernacular dialects to standardized English considering participants could have various dialects in mind when responding to the prompt. Furthermore, even individuals with an informed understanding of linguistic diversity have the right to prefer the style of one dialect over another, regardless of whether it is a standardized or vernacular dialect. Therefore, their preference for one dialect over another is not necessarily indicative of a subscription to the misconceptions that often surround language diversity. With this in mind, the items within this category strictly focused on measuring participants’ understanding of objective sociolinguistic facts by addressing fallacies surrounding the history, logic, accuracy, and universality of linguistic diversity, such as “Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules.”

Trivialization. The main critique that experts voiced regarding items in the Trivialization category was to focus attention on stating and describing the validity and equality of vernacular dialects as opposed to romanticizing or privileging them over standardized English.

Implementing this advice, I rewrote all statements to describe vernacular dialects and standardized English on their own instead of in comparison to each other. For example, one

75 statement originally read, “Speaking a vernacular dialect is more appropriate than speaking standardized English in many contexts”; this item was revised as “When having conversations about serious topics, it is best to use standardized English.” Although it is not stated explicitly, the first draft of the item implies that vernacular dialects enrich one’s linguistic abilities more than standardized English instead of assessing whether participants view vernacular dialects and standardized English as equal forms of communication, as the revised statement does. Language trivialization was explored by assessing how participants assessed vernacular dialects’ ability to be precise, complex, and serious.

Conformers/non-conformers. Experts’ written feedback for the Conformers/Non-

Conformers category mostly provided suggestions for ways in which to express the different characteristics that participants could associate with a speaker’s dialect. For example, one item was originally written as “Student who speak a vernacular dialect were raised without principles”; however, experts argued that the phrase “without principles” was too ambiguous and could be representative of many meanings. In turn, I revised the statement to read, “Students who speak a vernacular dialect often have behavior issues as well.” The new item more explicitly describes the deviant behavior often associated with speakers of vernacular dialects.

Additionally, reverse-coded items, such as “It is impossible to tell how smart a student is based on the dialect he/she speakers,” were noted as “too obvious”; they were identified as too easy to agree with so as not to effectively discern participants’ SLI beliefs. Therefore, all

“Conformer/Non-Conformer” items were designed to align with the SLI belief and, upon further reflection, this insight was confirmed when reviewing the results from preliminary cognitive interviewing. Intellect, behavior, respectfulness, and work ethic were all speaker attributes that were investigated within this category.

76 Promises/threats. The comments that experts submitted for the Promises/Threats category predominantly communicated that they struggled with the effectiveness of the statements as they felt that many items were true due to the nature of society, not the innate value of a dialect. Given this feedback, I felt that I needed to use more explicit language to express the definitive nature of the promises and threats that are propagated by dominant institutions. For instance, learning to speak standardized English has the potential to increase an individual’s chances of securing a job due to the linguistic prejudice that exists in society, yet it does not guarantee these opportunities to speakers as discrimination extends beyond one’s ability to accommodate linguistically. In turn, statements that used noncommittal language, such as “More doors will open for students who speak standardized English instead of a vernacular dialect,” were rewritten as “Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students.” Removing the qualifier “more” expresses an absolute position that speaking standardized English will unequivocally result in opportunities for speakers of standardized

English, regardless of any other attributes they embody. Other definitive language that was employed included if/then statements and the use of “will” as a declarative future construct.

Additionally, reverse-coded items, such as “Speaking a vernacular dialect can be useful in getting a job,” were identified as unrealistic; experts argued that not even the most enlightened teacher would believe that vernacular dialects would help with employment, thereby limiting its ability to capture participants’ SLI beliefs. Upon further reflection, I also noticed a stark contrast between the definitive language that was used in the literature when describing promises and threats regarding language use versus the use of auxiliary verbs, like “can,” in the reverse-coded items; I felt that the reverse-coded items would not effectively measure how comfortable participants felt agreeing or disagreeing with the absolute language of a promise or a threat and

77 would instead measure the degree to which participants felt that an alternative could exist.

Therefore, all Promises/Threats items were designed to align with the SLI belief; this assumption was further corroborated with the data collected during preliminary cognitive interviewing. This category explored promises and threats in relation to employment, social gains, academic achievement, and general opportunities.

Although feedback indicated that Conformers/Non-Conformers and Promises/Threats elicited more authentic responses when constructed to align with their respective SLI belief, I continued to address polarity by ensuring that at least one third of the items were reverse-coded, contradicting the SLI belief. As the items were randomized on the final instrument, I was able to design the survey so that participants were faced with reverse-coded items at regular intervals throughout the process in order to discourage them from identifying a pattern of desired responses and compel them to read each item carefully.

Following the revisions that I implemented based on the written feedback from the expert ratings survey, the newly assembled 24-item SSLI, the demographics questionnaire, and the experiences questionnaire underwent a final round of more extensive and thorough cognitive interviewing (See Appendix B: Survey Development Items for revised statements and questionnaires on the final cognitive interviewing survey.)

Final cognitive interviewing. The final round of cognitive interviewing employed the online version of the instrument that was used in the study which helped to increase external validity by reducing non-response bias; it ensured that the survey functioned properly and would help deter future participants from abandoning the process due to difficulty with usability

(Shadish et al., 2002).

78 Procedure. Participants for the final round of cognitive interviewing were composed of individuals who graduated from the undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA education programs at Southern University in spring of the two previous academic years (2015-

2016 and 2016-2017). Participants were recruited in the same way as participants for the preliminary cognitive interviews, through a recruitment email. (See Appendix C: Survey

Development Recruitment Emails for final cognitive interviewing recruitment email.) If the individuals agreed to participate in the interview, they were provided a link to an online version of the revised SSLI created through Qualtrics, which also contained a consent form to be completed before the interview began (See Appendix D: Survey Development Consent Forms for final cognitive interviewing consent form.) Interviews were conducted in person as well as through Google Hangouts, a video conferencing tool. Using the cognitive interviewing protocol designed by Karabenick et al. (2007), participants were instructed to read the statement or question out aloud, articulate their interpretation of the item, respond to the statement ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree,” and then elaborate on why they responded as they did. I probed these explanations by asking about experiences and interactions that informed their responses (Willis, 1999). (See Appendix B: Survey Development Instruments for the final cognitive interviewing protocol). These prompts helped me to establish if the participants understood the questions in the way that I intended and if their explanations aligned with the answer they chose. Participants were also asked to reflect on aspects of the survey questions that were confusing, if any, to improve clarity for future participants (Daugherty et al., 2001).

Throughout the cognitive interviews, I took notes on participants’ responses to each prompt. (See

Appendix E: Survey Development Data for an example of notes taken during a final cognitive interview.) Based on the information gathered, questions in the demographics and experiences

79 sections as well as statements on the SSLI were revised to improve precision and clarity when attempting to measure PSTs’ language ideologies. The updated instrument served as the final version of the survey to be implemented in the study (See Appendix H: Study Instruments for the final version of the SSLI).

Participants. Eight graduates of the middle grades and high school ELA programs at

Southern University participated in the final round of cognitive interviewing, four from each program. All participants had graduated within the last two school years (2015-2016 and 2016-

2017). Although individuals who identified as male or as a minority ethnicity were recruited to participate in the cognitive interviews, those who were contacted either declined to participate or did not respond to the request. Therefore, as both programs are predominantly composed of white females and opportunities to recruit diverse individuals were limited, all participants for the final round of cognitive interviewing were correspondingly white females. Six of the participants were currently teaching in a public middle school or high school, one participant was serving as the principal of a small private school, and one participant was enrolled in a master’s program. All individuals who agreed to participate completed the interview from start to finish.

Results. Using the cognitive interviewing procedure outlined above (Karabenick et al.,

2007), specific changes were made to the survey statements as well as the demographic and experiences questions to improve intelligibility and validity. Many minor revisions were applied to the survey based on participants’ feedback; however, below I highlight specific examples for each set of SLI belief items to illustrate the ways in which the final round of cognitive interviewing enhanced the clarity and effectiveness of the SSLI.

Mystification. Within the Mystification category, throughout the interviews, “grammar rules” were consistently associated with written language, leading many participants to argue

80 that they did not believe students needed to learn grammar rules in order to verbally express themselves. However, in their explanations, participants often discussed a need to learn how to

“structure” speech to communicate effectively. Therefore, to best measure whether participants believed that formal education was necessary for students to be able to use oral language proficiently, “grammar rules” was replaced with “grammar structure” and a reference to the structuring of speech. Additionally, statements were modified to more explicitly refer to verbal forms of communication as opposed to written forms through indicator phrases such as “speech,”

“verbally express,” and “oral language.”

Authority. One main revision that was implemented within the Authority category was a change in the group of individuals who portrayed language experts or the construct that was representative of holding power over language. Originally, one statement used “government officials” as the individuals who students should strive to emulate in their speech; however, this group elicited caustic reactions from participants as they associated government officials with dishonesty and detested the idea of students attempting to imitate any aspect of their character.

This reaction clearly distracted participants from assessing language expertise through the use of standardized English from a position of power. Instead, when this group of individuals was changed to “teachers,” participants more naturally responded to the idea of whether a teacher’s speech, often standardized English, was to be emulated due to his/her position of authority over students. Similarly, the use of “grammarians” in another statement often confused participants as they were unsure of its definition. Therefore, “grammarians” was changed to “grammar rules” in order to effectively represent the SLI belief that the linguistic standards established by one group of people should determine the “best” way to speak English. This revision also served to analyze

81 participants’ removal of human participation in language standardization through human- constructed resources, such as grammar books.

Misinformation. The statements in the Misinformation category were amended to more effectively discern participants’ commitment to linguistic truths. For example, one statement originally read “Everyone speaks a dialect.” Most participants strongly agreed with this statement, yet when they were asked to elaborate on their response, several individuals expressed moderate uncertainty with the absoluteness of “everyone.” In turn, I rewrote this item to say

“Every single person speaks a dialect” with the intention of eliminating participants who only responded positively to the original statement due to its generality as opposed to an indubitable conviction in the universality of dialects. Conversely, another statement originally read “There is a correct way to speak English.” There were several participants who agreed with this item as they understood it to mean that there is correct way to speak standardized English, thereby confounding participants who believed that there is a single way to speak a language correctly with participants who believed that there are rules that need to be followed to speak standardized

English correctly. Therefore, this item was rewritten as “Using standardized English is the correct way to speak in English.” This revision draws an explicit connection between abiding by the rules of standardized English and speaking English “correctly,” a common linguistic misconception, in order to better identify participants who believe in the logical superiority of standardized English.

Trivialization. After reflecting on participants’ responses to items in the Trivialization category, it became clear that two statements were being used to measure if individuals believed that vernacular dialects were serious forms of communication. The statement “Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful when trying to be funny” was extremely ineffective at

82 capturing this belief as most participants associated the word “funny” with making fun of an individual who speaks a vernacular dialect as opposed to dialects only being appropriate in humorous situations. As this statement redundantly measured the seriousness of vernacular dialects and was ineffective at doing so, it was replaced with a statement that assessed participants’ beliefs about the significance of vernacular dialects: “Vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American culture.”

Another change made to this set of items focused on measuring attitudes towards the dialect itself instead of the speakers of the dialect. For example, an original statement read

“Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to discuss the complex concepts of school.” Throughout the interviews, it became clear that participants focused more on students and their linguistic ability as opposed to the caliber of the dialect itself. In turn, I revised the statement as “Speaking in a vernacular dialect is a simpler form of communication,” which elicited more direct responses about the quality and validity of vernacular dialect, not their speakers.

Conformers/non-conformers. All the statements in the Conformers/Non-Conformers category were rewritten so that the items began with “Students who speak standardized English” or “Students who speak a vernacular dialect” This change was made for two reasons. First, putting “students” at the forefront of the item emphasizes that these statements are about measuring participants’ associations between an individual’s characteristics and the way that he/she speaks. Second, some of the statements were originally written as “Speaking standardized

English often indicates that” or “Speaking standardized English usually shows that” For a couple of participants, these constructions made it unclear whether the adverbs “often” or “usually” were modifying the frequency in which an individual spoke in standardized English or the

83 frequency in which individuals who spoke in standardized English were “intelligent” or

“hardworking.” The final change that was made ensured that two items represented students who speak standardized English and two items represented students who speak vernacular dialects to illustrate both aspects of the SLI belief, conformers and non-conformers.

Promises/threats. There were two main changes that were applied to the items in the

Promises/Threats category. The first issue was that two statements were eliciting responses about employment as opposed to employment and social gains, as was originally intended. The item “If students learn to speak standardized English, then employers will take them seriously” was originally created to focus on whether a student would be taken seriously and be able to form a respectable relationship with those around him/her. Instead, the use of “employers” in the statement generated discussion regarding the ability to secure employment as opposed to being accepted and respected by others. Therefore, this statement was rewritten as “Learning to speak standardized English means that students will be accepted by those outside of their own community” to better measure participants’ beliefs about the social gains that are promised to students by dominant institutions should they adopt standardized English.

The second revision that was applied to the items in this category was applying the phrase “means that” to all statements, such as “Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students.” Originally, promises and threats about using standardized

English or vernacular dialects were communicated by employing if/then statements, future declarative sentences using “will,” and the phrase “means that”; however, participants were responding differently to each construct based on its phrasing, not necessarily the content of the statement. Specifically, if/then statements and future declarative sentences using “will” were understood as less definitive and absolute than the phrase “means that.” In addition, the if/then

84 construct was problematic as disagreeing with the statement would imply its opposite, not contention with the promises and threats that are often assigned to standardized or vernacular speech. For example, disagreeing with the statement “If students learn to speak standardized

English, then doors will open for them” implied the following: “If students learn to speak standardized English, then doors will not open for them.” In contrast, disagreeing with the statement “Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for them” implies that “Learning to speak standardized English does not mean that doors will open for them.” In turn, all items were rewritten to employ the phrase “means that” so that participants’ beliefs about the specific benefits or consequences of speaking with a certain language variety were being consistently measured instead of participants’ reactions to the phrasing of the promise or threat.

Instructions, demographics questionnaire, and experiences questionnaire. Several changes were made to other aspects of the SSLI based on participants’ responses. First, even though the statements explicitly reference spoken language, some participants suggested stating that the survey was about oral language in the instructions would help to focus future participants on this issue at the start. Some of the demographics questions were also revised, such as the question regarding the region(s) in which participants grew up. A few participants asked in which region a certain state would be categorized; therefore, to avoid errors with regard to this question, I asked that participants instead list the state(s) in which they grew up so that I could later code them based on their respective region. Finally, the experiences questionnaire changed significantly as it was originally crafted as one question in which participants identified experiences in which they had participated by using a multiple-choice question. In order to elicit more detailed responses, the experiences were separated into individual questions and certain

85 questions allowed participants to identify the intensity of those experiences. For example, one question asked, “Have you had any experience with ethnically and/or linguistically diverse populations?” Response options ranged from 1=“Yes, a great deal of experience” to 4=“No, no experience,” providing more information on the experience at hand. Additionally, the original experiences question investigated if participants had had any experiences with foreign language classes. As foreign language is a high school graduation requirement, all participants responded positively to the question. Therefore, this question was altered so that participants were asked to report their perceived level of foreign language proficiency in order to gauge their level of experience with foreign language(s).

After the preliminary round of cognitive interviewing, the expert ratings survey, and the final round of cognitive interviewing, the SSLI was ready to be employed in the quantitative phase of the study in order to approximate participants’ alignment with or diversion from the SLI beliefs explicated in the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Quantitative Phase

Procedure. The first step of the quantitative phase was to recruit potential participants.

Participants were composed of individuals who were currently enrolled in the undergraduate middle grades and high school ELA education programs at Southern University in the Fall of

2017. Email addresses for all potential participants (N = 92) were provided by program directors; participants were subsequently recruited to participate in the online survey through a recruitment email. (See Appendix F: Recruitment Emails for the online survey recruitment emails.)

The recruitment email introduced the research project and provided a link to a Qualtrics- administered survey that contained a consent form. (See Appendix G: Consent Forms for the online survey consent form.) If participants marked “Agree” on the consent form, they could

86 proceed with the survey, which contained the final version of the SSLI, including the demographics and experiences questionnaires. (See Appendix H: Study Instruments for the

SSLI, demographics questionnaire, and experiences questionnaire.) If participants marked

“Disagree” on the consent from, they were not allowed to continue. To improve construct validity, participants were informed that all data collected would remain confidential in order to solicit authentic responses; to improve internal validity, the same instrument was used throughout the study over a relatively short period of time to limit the natural changes that participants might experience over the course of a study (Shadish et al., 2002).

After the initial email, three weeks were allotted to complete the survey and reminder emails were sent once a week. Within the first week of survey distribution, I identified seven instructors at Southern University who taught classes composed predominantly of students enrolled in the middle grades and high school ELA education programs. I contacted these instructors by email to request a talk with each of their classes in order to explain the research project and bring awareness to the email I had sent potential participants. (See Appendix F:

Recruitment Emails for the classroom visit recruitment email.) I also provided students with a flyer containing the information about the study that I had reviewed as well as my contact information (See Appendix I: Recruitment Materials for the classroom visit script and the recruitment flyer.) As an incentive, participants were also made aware in the email and the classroom visit that if they completed the survey, they could enter themselves into a drawing for a $25 Amazon.com gift card by providing their email address; participants were told that eight individuals who entered the drawing would be chosen as winners. The use of classroom visits, recruitment flyers, monetary incentives, and reminder emails served to reduce non-response bias and increase external validity (Shadish et al., 2002).

87 Finally, at the end of the survey, participants were asked if they would be willing to participate in an interview regarding their responses to item statements following survey data collection. If so, they were asked to provide their email address, and if not, they were asked to leave the field blank with no obligation to participate. After three weeks, the survey was closed and the data was cleaned in order to begin analysis.

Data collection. Three instruments were used to collect data in the quantitative portion of the study: the SSLI, the demographics questionnaire, and the experiences questionnaire.

Survey for the Standard Language Ideology (SSLI). As explicated in detail under

“Survey Development,” I designed this measurement to assess six different dimensions of the

SLI. This is the first study in which this instrument has been used. The 24-item survey featured six SLI belief categories that included four statements regarding Mystification, four statements regarding Authority, four statements regarding Misinformation, four statements regarding

Trivialization, four statements regarding Conformers/Non-Conformers, and four statements regarding Promises/Threats (Table 3.1). Additionally, this survey employed a 7-point Likert scale in which participants were asked to rank the degree to which they agree or disagree with a statement (1=“Strongly Disagree,” 2=“Disagree,” 3=“Somewhat Disagree,” 4=“Neither Agree

Nor Disagree,” 5=“Somewhat Agree,” 6=“Agree,” 7=“Strongly Agree”). Although the use of a midpoint on Likert scales has been contested based on its ambiguity and risk of satisficing

(Krosnick, Narayan, & Smith, 1996), a midpoint was chosen for this study as it has been proven to increase the reliability and statistical power of ratings (Courtenay & Weidemann, 1985;

Madden & Klopfer, 1978; O’Muircheartaigh, Krosnick, & Helic, 1999). Furthermore, I employed several techniques to decrease the arbitrary selection of midpoints: 1) the use of a clear label (e.g., Neither Agree Nor Disagree) instead of a number (Cummins & Gullone, 2000; Kulas

88 & Stachowski, 2009); 2) the increase of scale sensitivity from a 5-point scale to a 7-point scale

(Matell & Jacoby, 1972); and 3) the use of adverbial labels (e.g., “Somewhat Disagree”) on points adjacent to the midpoint (Burns, 1975). Items 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 20, and 23 (Table 8) are reverse scored. On these items, higher scores are meant to represent less alignment with the SLI belief and lower scores are meant to represent more alignment with the SLI belief—on all others, it is the reverse. (See Appendix H: Study Instruments for SSLI.)

Table 3.1 Items Categorized by SLI Belief Item Number Item SLI Belief 5 Students need to be taught about grammar structure in Mystification order to use oral language proficiently in their day-to-day lives. 11 Most students are capable of effectively structuring their Mystification speech before learning about grammar in school. 17 It is difficult for students to verbally express their ideas Mystification without being taught how to do so. 23 Students can communicate effectively in their everyday Mystification lives without their teacher’s guidance. 4 Grammar rules help us to determine the best way to speak Authority English. 10 Students should strive to speak like their teachers. Authority 16 Students should be able to speak their own dialect in any Authority given situation. 22 Teachers should decide how students speak in the Authority classroom. 3 Every single person speaks a dialect. Misinformation 9 Spoken standardized English has changed a lot over the Misinformation last few decades. 15 Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules. Misinformation 21 Using standardized English is the correct way to speak in Misinformation English. 2 When having serious conversations, it is best to use Trivialization standardized English. 8 Vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American Trivialization culture. 14 Speaking in a vernacular dialect is a simpler form of Trivialization communication.

89 Table 3.1 (continued) 20 Students can precisely articulate their thoughts when Trivialization speaking a vernacular dialect. 6 Students who speak standardized English are usually Conformers/Non- intelligent. Conformers 12 Students who speak a vernacular dialect are often cocky. Conformers/Non- Conformers 18 Students who speak standardized English are typically Conformers/Non- hardworking. Conformers 24 Students who speak a vernacular dialect tend to have Conformers/Non- behavior issues. Conformers 1 Learning to speak standardized English means that doors Promises/Threats will open for students. 7 Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will Promises/Threats have trouble on the job market. 13 Learning to speak standardized English means that Promises/Threats students will be accepted by those outside of their own community. 19 Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will Promises/Threats have difficulties succeeding in school. Note. Item number, item statement, and categorization of items by SLI belief are listed above.

Demographics questionnaire. The second part of the survey was composed of a demographics questionnaire that collected information on age, gender, ethnicity, academic standing, academic program, home language, regional background, environmental community, and political affiliation. (See Appendix H: Study Instruments for demographics questionnaire.)

Regional background and environmental community included many options, some specified qualitatively, and neither a quantitative coding scheme nor meaningful variables were easily discerned; therefore, only age, gender, ethnicity, academic standing, academic program, political affiliation, and home language were used in the current analyses.

Experiences questionnaire. Participants ended the survey with the experiences questionnaire that inquired about experiences relevant to language and dialects. Questions included topics such as foreign and domestic travel, education abroad, foreign language

90 proficiency, experience with linguistics course(s), and interactions with diverse populations. (See

Appendix H: Study Instruments for experiences questionnaire.) Determining which topics to include in the experiences questionnaire was based predominantly on prior research that indicated that these experiences had the potential to positively impact teachers’ language ideologies or presented contradictory findings with regard to the experience’s impact on language beliefs that needed to be explored further. Additionally, foreign language proficiency, education abroad, and foreign travel were included as they were found to positively impact

PSTs’ metalinguistic awareness (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder et al., 1999; Elder & Manwaring,

2004), intercultural sensitivity (Cushner & Mahon, 2002; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004), and dialect awareness (Eisenstein, 1982; Shiri, 2013).

Foreign language proficiency, although an ordinal variable, was treated as a continuous variable as its numeric breakdown was relatively evenly spaced (1=“No proficiency,”

2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and

5=“Fluent) and it was more parsimonious in this form; furthermore, this is a common practice

(Long & Freese, 2006; Pasta, 2009; Williams, 2017). Likelihood-ratio tests revealed that nothing was lost in treating the variable as continuous. Domestic travel was excluded, as all participants indicated that they had taken part in travel within the U.S. Therefore, only foreign travel, education abroad, foreign language proficiency, experience with linguistics course(s), and experience with diverse populations were used in the current analyses.

Sample. A total population of 92 ELA PSTs enrolled in the middle grades and high school teacher education programs at Southern University were identified and contacted to complete the online survey; of the 92 potential participants, 69 began the survey and 58

91 completed the entire survey and were included in the final analysis sample—a 63% response rate.

Program directors were contacted to provide demographic information for the total population. Within the population, 34% of students were enrolled in the high school program, whereas 66% of students were enrolled in the middle grades program. Well over half of the population was white (70%), with 69% and 70% of students identifying as white in the middle grades and high school programs respectively (see Figure 3.1 for all population demographic differences). Data for the average age of the population was not readily available; however, the program directors from both the middle grades and high school programs estimated that only

10% of their students would be classified as non-traditional students, aged 25 to 50, whereas the rest of the students ranged from age 18 to 24. Only 5% of the population were freshmen, 30% were sophomores, 29% were juniors, and 35% were seniors. Within the overall high school program, there were no freshmen, 16% were sophomores, 29% were juniors, and 45% were seniors. The overall middle grades program was composed of 8% freshmen, 38% sophomores,

25% juniors, and 30% seniors. Finally, 83% of the total population were female, with 77% and

94% of students identifying as female in the middle grades and high school programs respectively. This demographic composition was broadly reflected in the makeup of the sample as illustrated in the sample demographics below.

92

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Female White Non-Traditional Seniors Juniors Sophomores Freshmen

Overall Middle Grades High School

Figure 3.1. Demographic information of overall population (N = 92). 70% of the population identified as white (n=64), 69% of the middle grades program identified as white (n=42), and 70% of the high school program identified as white (n=22). 83% of the population identified as female (n=76), 77% of the middle grades program identified as female (n=47), and 94% of the high school program identified as female (n=29). An estimated 10% of the overall population, middle grades program, and high school program were composed of non-traditional students, ranging in age from 25 to 50. 35% of the overall population were seniors (n=32), 30% of the middle grades program were seniors (n=18), and 45% of the high school program were seniors (n=14). 29% of the overall population were juniors (n=27), 25% of the middle grades program were juniors (n=15), and 29% of the high school program were juniors (n=9). 30% of the overall population were sophomores (n=28), 38% of the middle grades program were sophomores (n=23), and 16% of the high school program were sophomores (n=5). 5% of the overall population were freshmen (n=5), 8% of the middle grades program were freshmen (n=5), and none of the high school program were freshmen (n=0).

Attrition. 70 participants started the survey; 4 participants (6%) dropped out before completing any questions, 6 participants (9%) dropped out during the SSLI, completing an average of 15 of the 24 SSLI questions, one participant (1%) dropped out after completing the

SSLI and the demographics questionnaire, and one participant (1%) was removed from the sample due to response bias in which the participant chose “Strongly Agree” for all SSLI questions, including those that theoretically contradicted each other. The final analysis sample,

93 including those who completed the SSLI, demographics questionnaire, and experiences questionnaire, was 58, which is 83% of the starting sample. T-tests were conducted to compare the overall SSLI mean between the final analysis sample and the seven participants who did not complete the entire survey. The differences between the two samples were not statistically significant, indicating that the minimal attrition did not affect the results of the SSLI; therefore, their responses were included in the data analysis. These procedures increase internal validity so that a loss of respondents did not create artificial effects in the analysis (Shadish et al., 2002).

Demographics. Participants from the high school program made up 36% of the sample, whereas participants from the middle grades program made up 64% of the sample. Over half of the participants were white (71%), with 67% and 73% of participants identifying as white in the high school and middle grades programs respectively (Tables 3.2-3.5 for all sample demographic differences). The majority of participants’ first language was English only (88%), with 86% and

89% of participants identifying English as their first language in the high school and middle grades programs respectively. Almost half of the participants identified as liberal (45%), almost half identified as conservative (41%), and a small minority identified as moderate (10%). Chi- square tests revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between programs for ethnicity, χ2(1, N = 58) = 0.26, p = .61, first language, χ2(1, N = 58) = 0.15, p = .70, or political affiliation, χ2(2, N = 56) = 2.12, p = .35. The average age of the sample as a whole was 21.74 years, with an average age of 21.38 and 22.38 in the middle grades and high school programs respectively. A one-way ANOVA conducted to determine if age differed by program found no statistically significant difference between programs for age, F(1, 57) = .41, p = .53.

Most of the participants were female (88%), with 81% and 100% identifying as female in the middle grades and high school programs respectively. In order to determine if gender

94 differed across programs, a chi-square test was conducted and indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between programs for gender, χ2(1, N = 58) = 4.52, p = .03.

The percentage of males within the middle grades program was higher than the percentage of males within the high school program. The academic standing of participants was organized into three categories: seniors (42%), juniors (35%), and sophomores (23%). Within the high school program, seniors made up over half of the participants (52%), juniors composed just under half of the participants (43%), and sophomores constituted the smallest group (5%). Academic standing within the middle grades program was relatively evenly distributed among seniors

(36%), juniors (31%), and sophomores (33%). In order to determine if academic standing differed across programs, a chi-square test was conducted and revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between programs for academic standing, χ2(1, N = 57) = 6.15, p = .04; however, given that three pairwise comparisons were made, I employed the Bonferroni- adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .017) which indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference between programs for seniors and juniors, χ2(2, N = 57) = 0.04, p = .84, seniors and sophomores, χ2(2, N = 57) = 5.60, p = .02, or juniors and sophomores, χ2(2, N = 57) = 4.78, p =

.03. The Bonferroni correction is employed when performing multiple statistical tests on a dataset to ensure that the error rate over the tests will not exceed the nominal α < .05, which enhances statistical validity (Shadish et al., 2002).

95 Table 3.2 Demographic Information and Home Language of Participants ALL HIGH SCHOOL MIDDLE GRADES (N = 58) (N = 21) (N = 37) Female 88% 100%a 81%a (N = 58) White Only 71% 67% 73% (N = 58) English Only 88% 86% 89% (N = 58) Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a). Seven participants identified as multiracial: three marked Latino(a) and white; one marked African American, Latino(a), and white; one marked Latino(a), Native American, and white; one marked African American and white; and one chose “other” and identified as multiracial. All were included in the non-white group. The non-English only group included those who identified another language as their first language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. One participant listed German and another participant listed Spanish as his/her first language. Six participants identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home: two listed Spanish and English; two listed Cantonese, Mandarin, and English; one listed Korean and English; and one listed Portuguese and English. All were included in the non-English only group. aThese groups differ on this variable at the p < .05 level.

Table 3.3 Age Information of Participants Group Mean SD Min Max Count ALL 21.74 5.71 18 51 58 HIGH SCHOOL 22.38 6.70 19 51 21 MIDDLE GRADES 21.38 5.14 18 50 37 Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). None of these groups significantly differed on age.

Table 3.4 Political Affiliation of Participants ALL HIGH SCHOOL MIDDLE GRADES (N = 58) (N = 21) (N = 37) Conservative 41% 38% 43% (N = 58) Liberal 45% 57% 38% (N = 58) Moderate 10% 5% 14% (N = 58) Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58), excluding two participants who identified as “other” and listed libertarian and libertarian/anarchist as their political affiliations. It was not possible to determine their position on the political spectrum; therefore, they were excluded from the variable. Participants in the conservative group identified as moderately to very conservative. Participants in the liberal group identified as moderately to very liberal. Participants in the moderate group identified as strictly moderate. None of these groups significantly differed on political affiliation.

96 Table 3.5 Academic Standing of Participants ALL HIGH SCHOOL MIDDLE GRADES (N = 58) (N = 21) (N = 37) Seniors 42% 52% 36% (N = 58) Juniors 35% 43% 31% (N = 58) Sophomores 23% 5% 33% (N = 58) Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58), excluding one participant who identified as a freshman. As one participant could not successfully capture the freshman experience, the individual was excluded from the variable. None of these groups differed on this variable at the p < .017 level, which is the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off given that three pairwise comparisons were made.

Experiences. Very few participants had educational experience abroad (16%), with 14% and 19% reporting education abroad in the middle grades and high school programs respectively

(Tables 3.6-3.8 for all experiences differences). Over half of the participants had traveled abroad

(64%), with 62% and 65% reporting foreign travel in the high school and middle grades programs respectively. Although experiences with diverse populations was originally four levels

(high, average, low, and none), there was only one participant who reported having no experience with diverse populations; this participant was moved to the “low” level category.

Therefore, experience level with diverse populations was organized into three main categories: high (36%), average (45%), and low (19%). Within the high school program, less than half of participants had a high level of experience with diverse populations (38%), over half of participants had an average level of experience (57%), and a small minority had a low level of experience (5%). Experience level with diverse populations within the middle grades program was relatively evenly distributed between a high level (35%), average level (38%), and low level

(27%). In order to determine if experiences with education abroad, foreign travel, or diverse populations differed across programs, chi-square tests were conducted and indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between programs for experiences with education

97 abroad, χ2(1, N = 58) = 0.31, p = .58, foreign travel, χ2(1, N = 58) = .05, p = .82, or diverse populations, χ2(1, N = 58) = 4.65, p = .10. Foreign language proficiency level was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency,

4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” The average foreign language proficiency level of the sample was 2.36, with an average of 2.30 and 2.48 in the middle grades and high school programs respectively. A one-way ANOVA conducted to determine if foreign language proficiency level differed by program revealed no statistically significant difference between programs, F(1, 58) = 2.80, p = .09.

Alternatively, a little over half of the participants had taken at least one linguistics course

(52%), with 32% and 86% reporting participation in a linguistics course in the middle grades and high school programs respectively. Chi-square tests revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between programs for experiences with linguistics course(s), χ2(1, N = 58)

= 15.23, p < .001. The percentage of participants who had taken at least one linguistics course within the high school program was higher than the percentage of participants who had taken at least one linguistics course within the middle grades program.

98 Table 3.6 Education Abroad, Travel Abroad, and Linguistic Training of Participants ALL High School Middle Grades (N = 58) (N = 21) (N = 37) Educated Abroad 16% 19% 14% (N = 58) Traveled Abroad 64% 62% 65% (N = 58) Taken Linguistics Course(s) 52% 86%a 32%a (N = 58) Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). The educated abroad group included those who indicated that they had participated in educational opportunities abroad (study abroad, international schools, etc.). The traveled abroad group included those who indicated that they had traveled to countries outside of the U.S. The taken linguistics course(s) group included those who indicated that they had taken at least one linguistics course. aThese groups differ on this variable at the p < .001 level.

Table 3. 7 Foreign Language Proficiency Level of Participants Group Mean SD Min Max Count ALL 2.36 1.04 1 5 58 HIGH SCHOOL 2.48 0.81 1 5 21 MIDDLE GRADES 2.30 1.15 1 5 37 Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Foreign language proficiency level was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” None of these groups significantly differed on foreign language proficiency level.

Table 3.8 Experience Level with Diverse Populations of Participants ALL HIGH SCHOOL MIDDLE GRADES (N = 58) (N = 21) (N = 37) High 36% 38% 35% (N = 58) Average 45% 57% 38% (N = 58) Low 19% 5% 27% (N = 58) Note. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Diverse populations include both linguistic and ethnic diversity. Participants in the high group indicated a great deal of experience with diverse populations. Participants in the average group indicated an average amount of experience with diverse populations. Participants in the low group indicated little to no experience with diverse populations. None of these groups significantly differed on experience level with diverse populations.

99 Analysis. Although the statements within the SSLI were developed to explore the widest variety of linguistic issues addressed in each SLI belief of the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012), I conducted both a confirmatory factor analysis and an exploratory factor analysis in order to empirically assess whether the distinct items within the SSLI constituted an overall measurement model. As expected, after running many variations of the model and correlating error terms of items that were similar in construct, I found that the fit indexes of the confirmatory factor analysis never revealed a strong enough overall model fit; for example, the Confirmatory Fit

Index (CFI) results for the multiple variations of each model ranged from 0.66 to 0.86, yet never reached 0.90, which is considered a strong model fit (Forza & Filippini, 1998). However, almost all of the variables loaded onto their respective factors with statistically significant p-values at the p < .05 level. This suggested that although the SSLI did not constitute an overall measurement model, each factor had the potential to constitute its own index.

Likewise, after many rotations, the exploratory factor analysis also did not reveal a coherent model based on the theoretical framework of the LSM. Various rotations revealed models that ranged from four to seven factors with eigenvalues at or above 1.0 (Kaiser, 1960), and frequently the items loaded onto their respective factors with factor loadings at or above 0.5

(Ledesma & Valero-Mora, 2007); however, oftentimes only two of the items loaded onto the factor or items from two or more SLI beliefs loaded onto the same factor. These results suggested that there were underlying relationships between the items in each factor, yet they were not strong enough to constitute an overall measurement model that aligned with the LSM without losing valuable data by disregarding various items, creating weak scales of only two items, or combining theoretically-distinct factors.

100 Accordingly, I initiated index construction and validation procedures to analyze the functionality of each SLI belief as an independent index; the results are discussed below. To determine which items should be included in each index, I first examined the empirical relationship between the items within each category by calculating the correlation coefficients between pairs of items. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for all SSLI item correlation tables.) All items that were retained in each index had a moderate to strong correlation with the other items that were retained. As this study attempted to investigate constructs that were difficult to measure and not easily quantifiable, such as beliefs and ideologies, correlation coefficients were expected to be lower; therefore, I considered correlations below 0.2 as weak, at or between 0.2 and 0.4 as moderate, and above 0.4 as strong

(Shortell, 2001). To establish internal reliability, I then identified Cronbach’s alphas for each index; this measures whether the items in each index produced similar scores as they are intended to measure the same general construct. As this is a newly developed instrument, an alpha value of 0.60 was considered an acceptable measure of reliability (Churchill & Peter, 1984;

Nunnally, 1978). A correlational analysis was conducted with the new indexes to identify potential relationships between them.

Next, I examined zero-order correlations between all independent variables and each index in order to determine which variables to include and exclude in the multiple regressions, thereby increasing the parsimony of the regression models. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data

Analysis for zero-order correlations between all independent variables and SSLI indexes.) The results are discussed below. These variables were then used in hierarchical multiple regression analyses for each index in which the first block included only the program, the second block added the rest of the variables to the regression model, and the third block added the interaction

101 term between program and linguistics course(s). Using these regressions, I was able to observe the change in R2, a measure that explains how much variability of a factor can be explained by its relationship to another factor, and the change in correlation coefficients to tease apart associations between the index and independent variables, determine which variables added more explained variance over program, if any, and identify important variables that statistically significantly predicted index scores for each SLI belief. In these regressions, program, academic standing, linguistics course(s), and political affiliation were coded as dummy variables, which are a binomial variables that are used to indicate the absence or presence of a categorical variable

(e.g., “1” indicates having taken a linguistics course and “0” indicates not having taken a linguistics course). Academic standing was broken up into three dummy-coded variables

(sophomore, junior, and senior) and senior was used as the reference group in all regressions.

Political affiliation was broken up into three dummy-coded variables (conservative, moderate, and liberal) and liberal was used as the reference group in all regressions. Conducting the hierarchical multiple regressions with all correlating demographics and experiences variables served to control for the linguistics course(s) variable, which statistically significantly differed by program, and take into account the covariance of the demographic and experience variables.

Finally, as I designed the items on the SSLI to explore the widest range of topics within each SLI belief, I conducted regression analyses for all SSLI items as well. When conducting these item regressions, I followed the same protocol for the item regressions as I did for the index regressions outlined above; this included identifying significant variables for each item through zero-order correlations (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for zero-order correlations between all independent variables and SSLI items) and employing hierarchical multiple regressions with program in the first block and other variables in the second block in

102 order to tease apart associations between the item and potential predictors (See Appendix J:

Quantitative Data Analysis for regression results for all SSLI items). However, adding 24 item regressions to the six index regressions I had already conducted increased my error rate and necessitated the application of a Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002). Therefore, for the item regressions, only predictors that were significant at the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut- off were reported.

Qualitative Phase

Following quantitative data collection and analysis, I began the qualitative portion of the research project. The qualitative data allowed for further exploration of the underlying factors that influenced the quantitative findings (Sayer, 2004) and helped to assess the fidelity of the survey instrument, specifically its ability to effectively measure teachers’ language ideologies

(Collins et al., 2006). Finally, the results from the quantitative analysis were used to determine which participants were eligible for the interview component of the study (Sieber, 1973).

Procedure. After analyzing the quantitative data, using nested sampling in which a subset of participants in the quantitative section are selected to participate in the qualitative portion (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2007), a group of participants (n = 6) were recruited to take part in the interviews. These participants were stratified by program as I selected three participants from the middle grades ELA education program and three participants from the high school ELA education program. Using six participants for the qualitative portion provided ample data to identify and analyze across cases as well as in-depth data within individual cases (Miles

& Huberman, 1994). Participants in this phase were recruited based on their SSLI scores in order to target individuals with varying language ideologies and explore those beliefs in more depth.

Using the mean score of the SSLI, three participants from each program were recruited who were

103 least aligned with the SLI (low composite score), moderately aligned with the SLI (mid-point composite score), and most aligned with the SLI (high composite score). These three positions represent various language ideologies ranging from asset-based beliefs (low composite score) to deficit-based beliefs (high composite score). Additionally, within these parameters, participants who shared similar demographics and experiences were selected in an attempt to more easily discern the source of differences in their language ideologies. For example, only upperclassmen were recruited to participate based on their extended experience in their respective programs.

This type of purposeful sampling allowed for intentional selection of participants based on their ability to illuminate the issue under question (Patton, 1990), specifically by better understanding how they make sense of their various language beliefs.

To recruit these participants, I first ensured that they agreed to be contacted about participation in the interviews from the survey data; participants who did not agree were not contacted. Participants who agreed to be contacted were recruited by email which contained information about the interview procedure; participants who did not respond to the initial email were sent a reminder email after one week. (See Appendix F: Recruitment Emails for interview recruitment emails.) If participants agreed to participate, a neutral, mutually-agreed upon location was chosen to create an environment in which individuals were open and willing to share their stories (Creswell, 2013). I also emailed participants a consent form to review to ensure their understanding of their role in this portion of the study; a printed copy of the consent form was signed at the beginning of the interview. (See Appendix G: Consent Forms for the interview consent form.)

During the interview, participants were presented with each item from the SSLI and asked to discuss their thoughts on the statement and elaborate on why they responded as they did

104 on the survey. Through these interviews, I explored trends from the quantitative data in more detail and developed a deeper understanding of participants’ language ideologies. I also investigated the experiences that participants felt impacted their language beliefs. Practicing a responsive interviewing model, a semi-structured interview protocol guided the interview (See

Appendix H: Study Instruments for semi-structured interview protocol); this protocol helped me to maintain structure in the interviews and create a format in which participant voices dominated the interviews. Therefore, despite having knowledge of participants’ SSLI scores, the structure of the interviews was the same for each participant, allowing for equal opportunity for all participants to share their beliefs about each SSLI belief. I also asked follow-up questions that required participants to expand on complex thoughts and emergent ideas (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

The interviews lasted approximately one hour, and a digital recording device was used to audio- record all interviews. As an incentive, participants were made aware that upon completion of the interview, they would be compensated with a $20 Amazon.com gift card. After two weeks of data collection, I began the qualitative data analysis.

Data collection. One instrument was used to collect data in the qualitative portion of the study: a semi-structured interview protocol.

Semi-structured interview protocol. Individual interviews were conducted using a semi- structured interview protocol that employed open-ended questions and broad prompts in order to provide in-depth discussion of relevant topics (McCracken, 1988). By using a semi-structured interview protocol to ask participants the same questions, there was general uniformity across the interviews; however, this approach also provided flexibility in how individual participants guided the process. The protocol asked participants to elaborate on and explain their responses to all statements from the SSLI as well as reflect on experiences that they believed had impacted

105 their language beliefs; this aided in capturing these PSTs’ language ideologies and the ways in which they made sense of those beliefs.

Sample. Five of the six original PSTs who were recruited to participate in the interviews based on their SSLI scores agreed to participate. The PST who declined to participate was from the high school program and had the lowest SSLI composite score; however, this PST was replaced with another member of the high school program with a SSLI composite score only two points higher than the original recruit. These six participants made up the sample for the qualitative portion of the study.

Demographics. Participants’ SSLI scores ranged from 47 to 109 with a possible range of

24 to 168 (see Table 3.9 for all SSLI scores and demographic differences). Lower scores indicated less alignment with the SLI whereas higher scores indicated more alignment with the

SLI. Participant ages ranged from 20-22 and all participants were female. Most participants identified exclusively as white except for two participants: Megan identified as Asian and Delila identified as white, Latina, and Native American. Although Megan’s ethnic background is Asian, she was adopted as a child and raised by a white, military family in the Southeastern U.S.

Similarly, Delila grew up in a predominantly white, rural town with little diversity and did not reference her Latina or Native American heritage throughout the interview; instead, she often framed herself as part of a white, high income area who gravitates towards standardized English.

Additionally, one participant, Melissa, identified solely as white on the survey, yet she shared that she was half-Mexican in the interview. All participants were upperclassmen; four identified as juniors whereas two identified as seniors. For political affiliation, most of the participants indicated that they were moderately conservative; only one participant identified as moderate and one participant identified as liberal. All participants reported English as their first language and

106 the language spoken most commonly in their homes as they grew up; however, Melissa mentioned that her mother would occasionally speak Spanish in the home. Finally, all but one participant reported that they had grown up in the South Atlantic regional division of the U.S.

Lana and Alex had grown up in more than one South Atlantic state whereas Megan, Kacee, and

Delila had grown up in a single South Atlantic state. Melissa was the only participant who grew up in two regional divisions: the South Atlantic and the Pacific.

Table 3.9 SSLI Scores and Demographics of Interview Participants SSLI Age Gender Race Year Program Political Home Region Score Affiliation Lang. Megan 109 21 Female Asian SR MG Mod Con English SA Alex 89 21 Female White JR HS Mod Con English SA Melissa 79 22 Female White JR MG Mod Con English P, SA Kacee 72 20 Female White JR HS Mod English SA Lana 58 20 Female White JR MG Lib English SA Delila 49 22 Female Mixed SR HS Mod Con English SA Note. SSLI score represents the composite score of each participant with a possible range from 24 to 168. High scores represent more alignment with the SLI. For race, the participant who identified as “mixed” listed white, Latina, and Native American on the survey. For year, “SR” represents a senior academic standing and “JR” represents a junior academic standing. For program, “MG” represents the middle grades program and “HS” represents the high school program. “Home Lang.” stands for home language. For political affiliation, “mod” indicates moderate, “con” indicates conservative, and “lib” indicates liberal. For region, “SA” represents participants who grew up in the South Atlantic regional division of the U.S. The South Atlantic region includes the following states: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). “P” represents participants who grew up in the Pacific regional division of the U.S. The Pacific region includes the following states: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).

Experiences. None of the participants had taken part in international education (Table

3.10 for all experiences differences). All but two of the participants, Kacee and Lana, had traveled abroad. Megan had traveled to Guatemala and China before the age of six; Alex had traveled to Spain, France, and Panama as an adolescent and adult; Melissa had traveled to Great

Britain, Romania, Italy, Panama, and Mexico, predominantly on mission trips; and Delila had traveled to Mexico as an adult. All participants had taken a linguistics course; however, Megan was the only participant to take a linguistics course outside of Southern University. The

107 linguistics course that Megan took was at a local community college and focused on linguistic theories and methods; Megan claimed it turned her off of linguistics completely. In contrast, the rest of the participants took a linguistics course at Southern University that was taught by Dr.

Ringer and focused on the study of language structure, regional dialects, differences between spoken and written language, and applications of linguistic knowledge in the classroom. These participants often referenced this course throughout the interviews. Participants’ experience level with diverse populations ranged from high to low; participants discussed these experiences with regard to interactions on the job as well as in public school classrooms. The environmental communities of all participants fell into three categories: suburb, rural, and exurb. Alex, Lana,

Megan, Kacee, and Delila reported growing up in small, homogenous, and conservative environments. Melissa, moving from a diverse suburb environment in the Pacific regional division to an exurb in the South Atlantic as an adolescent. Finally, self-reported foreign language proficiency levels ranged from intermediate to no proficiency at all. Melissa was the only participant to report an intermediate proficiency level; she shared that she knew some

Spanish due to her family background. Megan, Kacee, and Delila identified as having an elementary proficiency level; Megan reported learning Spanish and French in high school, Kacee reported taking Spanish classes in high school, and Delila reported studying Spanish in high school and college. Alex and Lana reported that they had both learned about Spanish in school but had no proficiency in the language.

108 Table 3.10 Experiences of Interview Participants Education Foreign Linguistics Experience Environmental Foreign Abroad Travel Course(s) with Diverse Community Language Populations Proficiency Megan No Yes Yes High Suburb, Rural Elementary Alex No Yes Yes Average Suburb, Exurb No Prof Melissa No Yes Yes Average Suburb, Exurb Intermediate Kacee No No Yes Average Rural Elementary Lana No No Yes Low Suburb, Rural No Prof Delila No Yes Yes Low Rural Elementary Note. For experience with diverse populations, high represents a great deal of experience, average represents an average amount of experience, and low represents little to no experience. For foreign language proficiency, “No Prof” indicates a self-report of no foreign language proficiency.

Analysis. Data analysis for the qualitative portion of the study was guided by thematic analysis, which is defined as “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organises and describes your data set in (rich) detail. However, frequently it goes further than this, and interprets various aspects of the research topic” (Braun &

Clarke, 2006, p. 79). By breaking narrative data down into smaller units, I was able to provide a complex and detailed account of the data as a whole (Sparker, 2005). Additionally, thematic analysis offered a way to feature similarities and differences across the dataset and provided a method for both social and psychological data interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Therefore,

I chose to employ the six-phase approach to thematic analysis developed by Braun and Clarke

(2006) in this study (see Figure 3.2); specifically, I used a theoretical thematic analysis approach as the analysis was driven by my interest in the six SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM (Lippi-Green,

2012) and identified explicitly in my research questions. Although a theoretical approach often results in a less rich description of the overall dataset, I was able to produce a more detailed analysis of specific aspects of the data, particularly insights into each SLI belief.

109

Figure 3.2. The six phases of thematic analysis as outlined by Braun & Clarke (2006).

Phase one. In the first phase, I familiarized myself with the data by transcribing the audio recordings of each interview by hand, reading and rereading the transcripts, and recording initial ideas about the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). (See Appendix K: Qualitative Data Analysis for an excerpt from interview transcripts and an excerpt from notes on initial ideas.)

Phase two. As I was conducting a theoretical thematic analysis, I had six theory-driven themes for which I was coding in phase two: Mystification, Authority, Misinformation,

Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers, Promises/Threats. Therefore, I created a “start list”

(Miles, 1994) that defined the parameters of each SLI theme by which responses were coded.

(See Appendix K: Qualitative Data Analysis for start list.) Using the start list, I read through the dataset and categorized responses by SLI theme; responses that corresponded to more than one theme were recorded in all relevant categories. Data that did not align with an SLI theme, such as those in response to questions regarding personal experiences or pedagogy, were initially coded as “Miscellaneous” (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

I then returned to the dataset and manually generated initial codes within each SLI category which were used to systematically analyze the data and make meaningful interpretations (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In order to manually code the dataset, I uploaded the data to Google Docs and used the comment feature to highlight phrases from participant responses and subsequently code them; I then collated data within each theme that had been identified by the same code. These initial codes were developed from both the LSM theoretical framework as well as the data itself; additionally, codes were based on participants’ language

110 (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011). Throughout data analysis, these a priori and emergent codes were used to develop a theory- and data-driven codebook which helped to ensure that the analysis was organized and methodical, thereby enhancing the credibility of the study (Charmaz,

2006; Glaser, 1978). The codebook featured three components: code name/label, full definition of code, and an example (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011). (See Appendix K:

Qualitative Data Analysis for samples from the codebook.)

Codes were continually refined throughout the analysis by combining, separating, adding, and subtracting potential codes (Saldana, 2009). The cyclical process of coding involved going back and forth between the phases of data analysis in order to both reduce and complicate the data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Data reduction took place during coding as I simplified and organized the data by paying attention to responses that specifically informed my understanding of participants’ language ideologies, identifying similarities and differences across participant narratives, and collecting textual examples from interview transcripts (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996;

Seidel & Kelle, 1995). Data complication occurred during coding as I generated interpretations and theories regarding PSTs’ language ideologies and reflected on the relationships within and among the data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). This allowed me to re-conceptualize the dataset and contextualize it in a way that opened it up for further examination (Tesch, 1990). I used the comment feature on Google Docs and created separate documents to take detailed notes about the development of concepts and themes throughout the entire data analysis process; this method served to enhance the trustworthiness of the study (Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017).

Phase three. Moving into the third phase, I had coded the dataset for seven themes:

Mystification, Authority, Misinformation, Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers,

Promises/Threats, and Miscellaneous. I next examined the initial codes that were identified in

111 order to discern if any codes could be combined to form one or more overarching themes within the Miscellaneous category. In this portion of the analysis, I attempted to discern what was important and meaningful about the data within each theme as well as capture patterned responses (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes emerged through similarities and differences in participants’ language and recurring patterns (Saldana, 2009). My analysis revealed one new theme in the Miscellaneous category: Experiences.

Phase four. In the fourth phase, I reviewed the themes identified in phase three on two different levels (Braun & Clarke, 2006). On the first level, I evaluated the coded data to ensure that they aligned with the themes in order to form coherent patterns; coded data that did not align with the theme or significantly overlapped between themes were reworked and/or reassigned

(Braun & Clarke, 2006). On the second level, I ensured that the data matched the thematic map I created by re-reading the data and coding any data that were overlooked in previous stages (see

Figure 3.3); I also reflected on how the themes worked together to portray a story about the dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Finally, I had two peer reviewers, who were doctoral students in

English education and literacy, code a set of data in an attempt to demonstrate the credibility of the codebook and data analysis by achieving a reliability rate of at least 90% (Creswell & Poth,

2017); together, the peer reviewers achieved a 94% reliability rate.

112

Figure 3.3. Initial thematic map, showing seven overall themes.

Phase five. In the fifth phase, I determined the essence of each theme, described how it meaningfully contributed to the research project, and developed clear definitions for each theme

(Braun & Clarke, 2006). I also identified sub-themes that emerged in each theme and, accordingly, updated the thematic map based on these developments (see Figure 3.4). For

Experiences, I identified the sub-themes of Positive and Negative. For Authority, I discerned the sub-themes of People and Concepts. For Misinformation, I distinguished the sub-themes of

Obvious and Obscure. For Trivialization, I identified the sub-themes of Significant, Capable, and

Appropriate. For Conformers/Non-Conformers, I discerned the sub-themes of Positive and

Negative. For Promises/Threats, I distinguished the sub-themes of Profitable and Detrimental.

113

Figure 3.4. Developed thematic map, showing seven overall themes and thirteen sub-themes.

Phase six. Finally, in the sixth phase, I selected compelling textual examples from the data to represent the story of my data and used thick description to support my findings and provide a complete account of the data (Guest et al., 2011; Patton, 2015). The rich description of the data employed the participant’s own words and provided a detailed account of the context in which participants described their experiences; this was used to support the asserted claims that concluded the study (Merriam, 2009). The thick description also permitted readers to apply the findings of the study to other contexts due to the “shared characteristics” established in the researcher’s account (Erlandson, 1993, p. 32). Trustworthiness was also demonstrated through the use of member checking (Patton, 2015); after the findings were laid out, participants were emailed a copy of the textual examples that were selected from their transcripts to use in the results section and asked to verify the accuracy of these transcriptions. Minor alterations were made based on participant feedback, but, overall, all participants approved and confirmed the textual examples.

The purpose of the qualitative portion of this project was to elicit participants’ rationalizations for their responses to language belief statements; in doing so, I hoped to move beyond capturing what ideologies ELA PSTs hold about language to why ELA PSTs maintain

114 these beliefs. Through the six phases of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and the employment of language ideologies as an analytical lens (Woolard, 1998), I was able to come to a deeper understanding of how participants made sense of their beliefs regarding Mystification,

Authority, Misinformation, Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers, and Promises/Threats and what experiences they felt impacted those ideologies.

Data Integration

After analyzing both the quantitative and qualitative data, I proceeded with data integration. In an explanatory sequential design, both data sources were first discussed separately and then together. The integration was used to explain quantitative findings with qualitative data that reinforced, disputed, and extended the results (Creswell, 2015). The quantitative data also informed and provided context for emergent themes that arose from the interviews. Findings were presented through both traditionally quantitative and qualitative formats: text, tables, and figures.

Meta-inferences. Defined as interpretations drawn from the independent evaluation of qualitative and quantitative methods and then drawn from the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, “meta-inferences” are viewed as ways to improve on and substantiate the conclusions developed from mixed methods studies (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In order to assess the quality of meta-inferences drawn from this study, I employed the legitimation model which suggests that validity be continuously addressed throughout the research project

(Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). Through a sequential design that collects and analyzes data separately and then moves to integration, I was able to assess validity repeatedly throughout the research process using strategies, such as expert ratings, cognitive interviewing, Cronbach’s alphas, Bonferroni adjustments, peer review, member checking, thick description, and

115 transparency. Additionally, I continually reflected on the consequences of this study for the participants and the larger community at Southern University (Dellinger & Leech, 2007).

Responding to and discussing beliefs on topics as deeply entrenched as language has the potential to be upsetting, confusing, and frustrating for participants; however, the prospect of mapping out ELA PSTs’ language ideologies and identifying experiences that could be implemented into teacher education programs to positively shift those beliefs is an endeavor worth pursuing. Following quantitative data analysis, qualitative data analysis, and data integration, I reported the findings from these analyses within the context of each theme:

Experiences, Mystification, Authority, Misinformation, Trivialization, Conformers/Non-

Conformers, and Promises/Threats.

116 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

This chapter provides a detailed account of the findings of this study. First, I share the process and results of index construction and validation for each SLI belief category; this also includes a report on the normality of distribution and a correlational analysis between all indexes.

Second, I discuss how I approached the three research questions of this study in reference to the relationship between the SSLI, demographic/experience variables, and the interview responses. Following this description, I first report the results of the zero-order correlations for both the indexes and items which were used to determine the variables employed in the hierarchical regressions. Next, I present with more detail the relationship between the SSLI and three interrelated variables that the zero-order correlations revealed had statistically significant relationships with one or more SSLI index or item. Finally, I report the findings for each SLI belief. To start, I explain how and why the emergent theme Experiences is integrated into the results for each SLI belief. Subsequently, instead of sharing all quantitative and qualitative results separately, I report the quantitative, qualitative, and integrated findings for each SLI belief (Mystification, Authority, Misinformation, Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers,

Promises/Threats) independently. Being able to view the progression of the results (quantitative to qualitative to integration) for each SLI category aids in understanding how the belief functions independently, contextualizes the findings with the results of each method, and highlights its unique findings. The quantitative results for each SLI category include findings from descriptive statistics, correlational analyses, and hierarchical multiple regressions. The qualitative results for each SLI category include findings based on the thematic analysis of the interview data. The

117 integrated findings describe a synthesis of the ways in which the quantitative and qualitative results for each SLI belief contradict, corroborate, and/or expand on each other.

Index Construction and Validation

SSLI indexes. In order to construct the SSLI indexes, I first examined the empirical relationships between the items within each category by calculating the correlation coefficients between pairs of items. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for all SSLI item correlation tables.) Items were only retained in each index if they had a moderate to strong correlation with the other items retained in the index. As this study attempted to investigate constructs that were difficult to measure and not easily quantifiable, such as beliefs and ideologies, correlation coefficients were expected to be lower; therefore, I considered correlations below 0.2 as weak, at or between 0.2 and 0.4 as moderate, and above 0.4 as strong

(Shortell, 2001). These correlational analyses resulted in seven indexes: Mystification, containing three items (correlations were moderate to strong ranging from 0.33 to 0.47);

Authority, containing three items (correlations were moderate to strong ranging from 0.26 to

0.52); Misinformation, containing three items (correlations were moderate to strong ranging from 0.21 to 0.52); Trivialization, containing four items (correlations were moderate to strong ranging from 0.30 to 0.49); Conformers/Non-Conformers, containing four items (correlations were moderate to strong ranging from 0.33 to 0.60); Promises, containing two items (correlation was moderate as 0.33); and Threats, containing two items (correlation was strong as 0.48).

Although Promises/Threats originally served as one SLI belief category, correlation coefficients revealed that only the two items written as “Promises” and the two items written as “Threats” moderately to strongly correlated with each other. Correlation coefficients between “Promises” items and “Threats” items ranged from -0.12 to 0.09, well under the cutoff for a moderate

118 correlation classification. Therefore, this SLI belief was split into a Promises index and a Threats index. Outside of this division, all selected items aligned with their original SLI category (Table

4.1-4.6).

Following the construction of the SSLI indexes, I then identified Cronbach’s alphas for each index to establish internal reliability. As this is a newly developed instrument, an alpha value of 0.60 was considered an acceptable measure of reliability (Churchill & Peter, 1984;

Nunnally, 1978). All indexes had an alpha level above 0.60 except the Promises index, which was 0.46; as this index was considerably lower than the 0.60 cutoff, it was excluded from the analysis. Alphas for the rest of the new indexes ranged from 0.60 to 0.78 and were used in the subsequent analyses.

Table 4.1 Items on Mystification Index Item Number Item 5 Students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently in their day-to-day lives. 11 Most students are capable of effectively structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school. 17 It is difficult for students to verbally express their ideas without being taught how to do so. Note. The alpha for the Mystification index is 0.67.

Table 4.2 Items on Authority Index Item Number Item 4 Grammar rules help us to determine the best way to speak English. 10 Students should strive to speak like their teachers. 22 Teachers should decide how students speak in the classroom. Note. The alpha for the Authority index is 0.60.

119 Table 4.3 Items on Misinformation Index Item Number Item 3 Every single person speaks a dialect. 15 Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules. 21 Using standardized English is the correct way to speak in English. Note. The alpha for the Misinformation index is 0.60.

Table 4.4 Items on Trivialization Index Item Number Item 2 When having serious conversations, it is best to use standardized English. 8 Vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American culture. 14 Speaking in a vernacular dialect is a simpler form of communication. 20 Students can precisely articulate their thoughts when speaking a vernacular dialect. Note. The alpha for the Trivialization index is 0.71.

Table 4.5 Items on Conformers/Non-Conformers Index Item Number Item 6 Students who speak standardized English are usually intelligent. 12 Students who speak a vernacular dialect are often cocky. 18 Students who speak standardized English are typically hardworking. 24 Students who speak a vernacular dialect tend to have behavior issues. Note. The alpha for the Conformers/Non-Conformers index is 0.78.

Table 4.6 Items on Threats Index Item Number Item 7 Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have trouble on the job market. 19 Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have difficulties succeeding in school. Note. The alpha for the Threats index is 0.64.

Normality of distribution. Distribution is considered within a normal range when indicators of the skewness and the kurtosis values are less than two and three respectively

(Azzalini, 2005; Hair, Bush, & Ortinau, 2003). The data was examined for normality and the skewness and kurtosis for all SSLI indexes (Tables 18) and individual SSLI item statements

120 (Table 20-31) fell well below two and three respectively. These values indicate that the responses were relatively normally distributed.

Correlation between indexes. A correlational analysis was conducted to assess any relationships between the SSLI indexes (Table 4.7). Statistically significant positive relationships were found among all SSLI indexes except Authority and Threats, Misinformation and Threats,

Trivialization and Threats, and Conformers/Non-Conformers and Threats.

Table 4.7 Correlations Between SSLI Indexes MYST AUTH MIS TRIV CONF THR MYST 1.000 AUTH 0.572*** 1.000 MIS 0.563*** 0.605*** 1.000 TRIV 0.545*** 0.556*** 0.616*** 1.000 CONF 0.448*** 0.638*** 0.582*** 0.460*** 1.000 THR 0.308* 0.200 0.060 -0.001 0.213 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographics, and experiences questions (N = 58). MYST represents Mystification, AUTH represents Authority, MIS represents Misinformation, TRIV represents Trivialization, CONF represents Conformers/Non-Conformers, and THR represents Threats.

Relationships between the SSLI, Demographics, Experiences, and Interview Responses

In order to address all three research questions with regard to each SLI belief that I investigated in this study, I organized the results as follows: Mystification, Authority,

Misinformation, Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers, and Promises/Threats. Within each SLI belief category, I methodically attended to each research question. To address the first research question regarding how middle grades and high school ELA PSTs respond to language belief statements based on the six SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012), I examined the means for each SSLI index in order to initially discern any overall patterns in the responses (Table 4.8). I also examined differences in SLI beliefs between the two programs by conducting two-sample t-tests to determine if statistically significant differences existed between the means of each program from the mean of the overall sample. Finally, I examined the means

121 and the response percentages for each SSLI item to detect any specific trends related to the various linguistic issues addressed by each statement.

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for and Ranking of SSLI Indexes Rank Index Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis Overall SSLI 3.17 0.79 1.58 5.29 0.95 0.47 1 Mystification 3.98 1.26 1.33 7 0.59 0.63 2 Threats 3.70 1.16 1.5 7 0.87 0.82 3 Authority 3.57 1.23 1.33 7 0.02 0.75 4 Trivialization 3.14 1.10 1 7 0.08 0.13 5 Conformers/Non-Conformers 2.79 1.16 1 7 0.01 0.07 6 Misinformation 2.22 0.97 1 4.33 0.23 0.00 Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

In reference to the second research question regarding the potential relationships between the SSLI and the demographic/experience variables, I first examined zero-order correlations between all independent variables and each index in order to determine which variables to include and exclude in the multiple regressions, thereby increasing the parsimony of the regression models. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for zero-order correlations between all independent variables and SSLI indexes.) Only five variables statistically significantly correlated with at least one index: program, academic standing, political affiliation, linguistics course(s), and gender; however, I was unable to use gender in the analyses as it was completely confounded with program. Therefore, the remaining four variables were then used in hierarchical multiple regression analyses for each index in which the first block included only the program and the second block added the rest of the variables to the regression model. Using these regressions, I observed the change in program correlation coefficients and the change in R2 between the two models; using these measures, I was able to tease apart associations between the index and independent variables, determine which variables added more explained variance over program, if any, and identify important variables that statistically significantly predicted index scores for each SLI belief. In these regressions, program, academic standing, linguistics

122 course(s), and political affiliation were coded as dummy variables. Academic standing was broken up into three dummy-coded variables (sophomore, junior, and senior), and senior was used as the reference group in all regressions. Political affiliation was broken up into three dummy-coded variables (conservative, moderate, and liberal), and liberal was used as the reference group in all regressions. Conducting the hierarchical multiple regressions with all correlating demographic and experiences variables served to control for the linguistics course(s) variable, which statistically significantly differed by program, and take into account the covariance of the demographic and experience variables.

Based on the fact that I designed the items on the SSLI to explore the widest range of topics within each SLI belief, I conducted regression analyses for all SSLI items as well. When conducting these item regressions, I followed the same protocol as I did for the index regressions outlined above; this included identifying significant variables for each item through zero-order correlations (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for zero-order correlations between all independent variables and SSLI items) and employing hierarchical multiple regressions with program in the first block and the other variables in the second block in order to tease apart associations between the item and potential predictors (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data

Analysis for regression results for all SSLI items). However, adding 24 item regressions to the six index regressions I had already conducted increased my error rate and necessitated the application of a Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002). Therefore, for the item regressions below, only predictors that were significant at the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut- off were reported.

Finally, to address the third research question regarding how ELA PSTs explain their responses to these language belief statements, I reported and then integrated my qualitative

123 findings for each SLI belief from the interviews with the quantitative results for each SLI belief derived from the survey; this included incorporating the findings for the Experiences theme within the qualitative results for each SLI belief. As the interviews allowed me a more in-depth understanding and nuanced interpretation of participants’ language ideologies, I used the qualitative findings to confirm and/or contradict the quantitative results, when applicable, as well as offer new insights that the quantitative measures were unable to capture.

Zero-order correlations for indexes. The results of the zero-order correlations between all independent variables and SSLI indexes follow below. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data

Analysis for zero-order correlation results between all independent variables and SSLI indexes.)

Mystification index. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and the

Mystification index revealed statistically significant negative relationships between the index and being in the high school program, r = -0.59, p < .001, being a senior, r = -0.27, p = .04, and having taken linguistics course(s), r = -0.40, p = .002. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between the index and being a sophomore, r = 0.32, p = .02.

Authority index. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and the

Authority index revealed statistically significant negative relationships between the index and being in the high school program, r = -0.46, p < .001, being a senior, r = -0.27, p = .04, and having taken linguistics course(s), r = -0.40, p = .002. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between the index and being a sophomore, r = 0.32, p = .02.

Misinformation index. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and the

Misinformation index revealed statistically significant negative relationships between the index and being in the high school program, r = -0.57, p < .001, being a liberal, r = -0.28, p = .03, and having taken linguistics course(s), r = -0.64, p < .001. Additionally, statistically significant

124 positive relationships were identified between the index and being a sophomore, r = 0.34, p =

.01, and being a male, r = 0.26, p = .04.

Trivialization index. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and the

Trivialization index revealed statistically significant negative relationships between the index and being in the high school program, r = -0.45, p < .001, being a senior, r = -0.27, p = .04, being a liberal, r = -0.37, p = .005, and having taken a linguistics course, r = -0.37, p = .005.

Additionally, statistically significant positive relationships were identified between the index and being a sophomore, r = 0.32, p = .01, and being a conservative, r = 0.26, p = .04.

Conformers/non-conformers index. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and the Conformers/Non-Conformers index revealed statistically significant negative relationships between the index and being in the high school program, r = -0.30, p = .02, being a liberal, r = -0.41, p = .002, and having taken a linguistics course, r = -0.26, p = .04. Additionally, statistically significant positive relationships were identified between the index and being a conservative, r = 0.30, p = .02.

Threats index. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and the Threats index revealed no statistically significant relationships between the index and any of the independent variables.

Zero-order correlations for items. The results of the zero-order correlations between all independent variables and all SSLI items follow below. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data

Analysis for zero-order correlations between all independent variables and SSLI items.)

Mystification items. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and

Mystification items revealed statistically significant negative relationships between various items and being in the high school program, being a senior, having taken a linguistics course, and age.

125 Additionally, statistically significant positive relationships were identified between various items and being male and being a sophomore. Subsequently, the following variables were employed in the hierarchical multiple regressions for each Mystification item: program, academic standing, linguistics course(s), gender, and age.

Authority items. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and Authority items revealed statistically significant negative relationships between various items and being in the high school program, being a senior, being a liberal, having taken a linguistics course, and having a high level of experience with diverse populations. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between various items and being a conservative, being a sophomore, and age. Subsequently, the following variables were employed in the hierarchical multiple regression for each Authority item: program, academic standing, political affiliation, diverse populations, linguistics course(s), and age.

Misinformation items. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and

Misinformation items revealed statistically significant negative relationships between various items and being in the high school program, being a senior, being a liberal, and having taken a linguistics course. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between various items and being a male, being a sophomore, and being politically moderate.

Subsequently, the following variables were employed in the hierarchical multiple regression for each Misinformation item: program, academic standing, political affiliation, linguistics course(s), and gender.

Trivialization items. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and

Trivialization items revealed statistically significant negative relationships between various items and being in the high school program, being a senior, being a liberal, having a high level of

126 experience with diverse populations, and having taken a linguistics course. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between various items and being a sophomore and being a conservative. Subsequently, the following variables were employed in the hierarchical multiple regression for each Trivialization item: program, academic standing, political affiliation, diverse populations, and linguistics course(s).

Conformers/non-conformers items. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and Conformers/Non-Conformers items revealed statistically significant negative relationships between various items and being in the high school program, being a liberal, being educated abroad, having traveled abroad, and having taken a linguistics course. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between various items and being a conservative and having an average amount of experience with diverse populations.

Subsequently, the following variables were employed in the hierarchical multiple regression for each Conformers/Non-Conformers item: program, political affiliation, linguistics course(s), diverse populations, education abroad, and travel abroad.

Promises/threats items. Zero-order correlations between all independent variables and

Promises/Threats items revealed statistically significant negative relationships between Item 1 and being a junior. Additionally, a statistically significant positive relationship was identified between Item 1 and being a senior and traveling abroad. There were no statistically significant correlations between the variables and any other item. Subsequently, the following variables were employed in the hierarchical multiple regression for each Promises/threats item: program, academic standing, and travel abroad.

Relationships between the SSLI, program, academic standing, and linguistics courses. Zero-order correlations revealed that academic program (high school or middle grades)

127 and experience with linguistics course(s) were two variables that statistically significantly correlated with SSLI scores on several indexes and items, both together and separately.

Specifically, results consistently indicated that being in the high school program and having taken a linguistics course both had a statistically significant negative relationship with SSLI scores, suggesting more progressive language ideologies and less alignment with the SLI.

Hierarchical regression allows me to determine if linguistics course(s) add more explained variance over program for each SLI belief; however, if program surfaces as a predictor, I am unable to discern whether it is due to the impact of the program itself or due to selection factors driving program choice as there are unmeasured characteristics associated with program that are also associated with the indexes. Furthermore, program and linguistics course(s) are interrelated because the most notable difference between the high school and middle grades programs regarding language is that the high school program requires students to take a linguistics course that specifically applies sociolinguistic facts to educational contexts, whereas students in the middle grades program have the option to take this course but are not required to do so.

Therefore, I wanted to explore the relationships between participants’ SSLI scores, program, academic standing, and experience with linguistics course(s) in order to identify potential relationships between the variables that I could share in the discussion.

I first investigated the relationship between participants’ SSLI scores, program, and academic standing in order to discern any differences or trends in language ideologies within these parameters. Figure 4.1 shows that the average SSLI score for the high school program is highest for sophomores (M = 80), medial for juniors (M = 72.33, SD = 15.87), and lowest for seniors (M = 58.45, SD = 7.20), with lower scores representing more progressive language ideologies. The graph also shows that the average SSLI score for the middle grades program is

128 highest for freshmen (M = 90) and sophomores (M = 87.75, SD = 9.46) and lowest for juniors (M

= 74.55, SD = 8.86); however, seniors had the highest mean (M = 85.92, SD = 12.32).

Two sample t-tests revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between programs for juniors’ average SSLI scores, t(18) = 0.39, p = .70; however, there was a statistically significant difference between programs for the seniors’ average SSLI scores, t(22) =

6.50, p < .001, such that seniors in the high school program had a statistically significantly lower average than seniors in the middle grades program. Additionally, in order to determine if academic standing differed in experience with linguistics course(s), a chi-square test was conducted and revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between participation in linguistics course(s) for academic standing, χ2(1, N = 57) = 19.70, p < .001. Given that three pairwise comparisons were made, I used the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .017).

There was a statistically significant difference between participation in linguistics course(s) for seniors and sophomores, χ2(2, N = 57) = -0.75, p < .001, and juniors and sophomores, χ2(2, N =

57) = -0.60, p < .001, but no statistically significant difference between seniors and juniors, χ2(2,

N = 57) = -0.15, p = .71. These results indicated that more seniors and juniors had taken a linguistics course than sophomores.

129

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50 Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors

High School Middle Grades

Figure 4.1. Average SSLI score for participants by academic standing within each program. The freshman in the middle grades program (n=1) had an average SSLI score of 90. The sophomore in the high school program (n=1) had an average SSLI score of 80; the sophomores (n=12) in the middle grades program had an average SSLI score of 87.75. There was no statistically significant difference in the average SSLI score between juniors in the high school program (n=9) and the middle grades program (n=11). There was a statistically significant difference in the average SSLI score between seniors in the high school program (n=11) and the middle grades program (n=13).

Next, I examined the relationship between participants’ SSLI scores, academic program, and experience with linguistics course(s) in order to discern any differences or trends in language ideologies within these parameters. Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that for Model 1, program contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 21.06, p < .001, and accounted for 27.3% of the variation in overall SSLI scores (Table 4.9). I then introduced program, which explained an additional 13.0% of the variation; this change in R2 was significant,

F(1, 55) = 11.94, p = .001. Regression results indicated that having taken a linguistics course (β

= -0.31, p = .01) negatively predicted overall SSLI scores. On average, participants who had taken a linguistics course scored 9.14 points lower on the SSLI than participants who had never taken a linguistics course, holding all else constant, β = -0.38, t(57) = -2.54, p = .008. Results also revealed that being in the high school program (β = -0.42, p = .001) negatively predicted

130 overall SSLI scores. On average, participants in the high school program scored 12.94 points lower on the SSLI than participants in the middle grades program, holding all else constant, β = -

0.42, t(57) = -3.46, p = .001. Overall, in addition to linguistics course(s), program statistically significantly increased the explained variance in overall SSLI scores and was the strongest predictor. (See Figure 4.2 below for visual representation of interaction between overall SSLI scores, program, and linguistics course(s).)

Table 4.9 Regressions of SSLI on Program and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -17.815*** -12.945*** (3.369) (3.745) Junior -9.142 (3.602) N 58 58 R2 0.333 0.403 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .01). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

131

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40 No Linguistics Course Taken Linguistics Course

High School Middle Grades

Figure 4.2. Average SSLI score for participants based on experience with linguistics course(s) within each program. There was no statistically significant difference in the average SSLI score between participants in the high school program (n=3) and middle grades program (n=25) who had not taken a linguistics course. There was a statistically significant difference in the average SSLI score between participants in the high school program (n=18) and middle grades program (n=12) who had taken a linguistics course. There was a statistically significant difference in the average SSLI score between participants in the high school program who had taken a linguistics course (n=18) as opposed to those who had not (n=3). There was no statistically significant difference in the average SSLI score between participants in the middle grades program who had taken a linguistics course (n=12) as opposed to those who had not (n=25).

Experiences. As participants explained and justified their language ideologies throughout the interviews, they often referenced experiences that they had had with languages and dialects; therefore, Experiences was identified as an emerging theme representative of participants’ reflections on these experiences in a variety of contexts, such as taking a linguistics course, visiting a different state, learning a foreign language, or interacting with family and friends. Data analysis for Experiences revealed two sub-themes: Positive and Negative. The sub-theme of

Positive experiences includes experiences that participants cited to justify divergence from the

SLI, signaling a positive impact on their language beliefs. Additionally, this sub-theme includes positively perceived experiences with language and dialects in which participants described

132 favorable interactions with diverse speakers or experiences with linguistic variation. The sub- theme of Negative experiences includes experiences that participants referenced to justify alignment with the SLI, signaling a negative impact on their language beliefs. Additionally, this sub-theme includes negatively perceived experiences with language and dialects in which participants described unfavorable interactions with diverse speakers or experiences with linguistic variation. Findings on Experiences were integrated into the qualitative findings of each

SLI belief as they were employed in participants’ explanations and rationalizations for their language ideologies and served to corroborate, contradict, and expand on the quantitative results.

Mystification. The survey items and interview questions for this SLI belief attempted to measure and explore participants’ beliefs about the ability or inability of students to speak and communicate effectively in their everyday lives without grammar instruction or guidance from a teacher.

Quantitative findings. The overall Mystification index average (M = 3.98, SD = 1.26) ranked the highest compared to the rest of the indexes, suggesting that participants’ responses in this category aligned most with the SLI (Table 4.10)

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for Mystification Index Group Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis All 3.98 1.26 1.33 7 0.59 0.63 High School 2.98 1.15 1.33 5.67 0.47 0.95 Middle Grades 4.49 0.92 2.67 6 0.61 0.22 Note. All participants includes those who had any data for the SSLI, including those who only partially completed the SSLI and did not complete later sections of the survey (N = 65). Program-specific groups are limited to those in the final analysis sample: High School (n = 21) and Middle Grades (n = 37).

First, I examined the means and response percentages of each item in the Mystification category (Tables 4.11-4.12). The Mystification item with the lowest mean (M = 2.53, SD = 1.36) was “Students can communicate effectively in their everyday lives without their teachers’ guidance” with almost three-fourths of participants (75%) agreeing to some degree with the

133 statement; this item was not included in the index. The item “Most students are capable of effectively structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school” had the second- lowest mean (M = 3.05, SD = 1.38) with almost two-thirds of participants (65%) agreeing to some degree with the statement; additionally, this is the item for which the most participants selected “Neither Agree nor Disagree” (17%).

In contrast, the item with the highest mean (M = 4.83, SD = 1.68) was “Students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently in their day-to-day- lives” with almost two-thirds of participants (66%) agreeing to some degree with the statement.

The item “It is difficult for students to verbally express their ideas without being taught how to do so” had the second-highest mean (M = 3.95, SD = 1.69), and was evenly split between those who agreed to some degree with the statement (45%) and those who disagreed to some degree with the statement (45%).

Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for Mystification Item Item No. Item Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis 5 Students need to be taught about 4.83 1.68 1 7 0.01 0.52 grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently in their day-to-day lives. 11 Most students are capable of 3.05 1.38 1 6 0.22 0.16 effectively structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school. 17 It is difficult for students to 3.95 1.69 1 7 0.63 0.00 verbally express their ideas without being taught how to do so. 23 Students can communicate 2.53 1.36 1 6 0.01 0.72 effectively in their everyday lives without their teachers’ guidance. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

134

Table 4.12 Response Percentages for Mystification Items Item Item Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly No. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 5 Students need to be 10.94% 35.94% 18.75% 10.94% 10.94% 7.81% 4.69% taught about grammar (n=7) (n=23) (n=12) (n=7) (n=7) (n=5) (n=3) structure in order to use oral language proficiently in their day- to-day lives. 11 Most students are 12.70% 26.98% 25.40% 17.46% 12.70% 4.76% 0.00% capable of effectively (n=8) (n=17) (n=16) (n=11) (n=8) (n=3) (n=0) structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school. 17 It is difficult for students 8.06% 9.68% 27.42% 9.68% 17.74% 24.19% 3.23% to verbally express their (n=5) (n=6) (n=17) (n=6) (n=11) (n=15) (n=2) ideas without being taught how to do so. 23 Students can 20.34% 47.46% 6.78% 11.86% 11.86% 1.69% 0.00% communicate effectively (n=12) (n=28) (n=4) (n=7) (n=7) (n=1) (n=0) in their everyday lives without their teachers’ guidance. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that for Model 1, program contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 29.87, p < .001, and accounted for 34.8% of the variation in Mystification (Table 4.13). I then introduced academic standing, political affiliation, and linguistics course(s), which explained an additional 5.7% of the variation in Mystification; however, this change in R2 was not significant, F(5, 51) = 0.52, p = .76. There was an increase

(.49) in the program correlation coefficient from Model 1 to Model 2 and program was statistically significant in both models. Regression results indicated that being in the high school program (β = -0.53, p < .001) negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on

Mystification and was the only statistically significant predictor. On average, participants in the high school program scored 4.02 points lower on the Mystification index than participants in the middle grades program, holding all else constant, β = -0.53, t(57) = -4.06, p < .001. Overall, the addition of other variables to program in Model 2 did not statistically significant increase the

135 explained variance in Mystification or reveal any additional statistically significant predictors; therefore, for participants’ reported language beliefs on Mystification, program served as the strongest and only statistically significant predictor.

Table 4.13 Regressions of Mystification Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -4.507*** -4.017*** (0.825) (0.989) Junior 0.662 (0.942) Sophomore 1.417 (1.304) Conservative -0.358 (0.890) Moderate 0.066 (1.455) Linguistics Course(s) -0.371 (1.104) N 58 58 R2 0.348 0.379 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .76). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

The item regression results aligned with the index regression results. For Items 5 and 11, being in the high school program and not the middle grades program was the only variable to negatively predict participants’ reported language beliefs both independently and in addition to the other variables. There were no statistically significant predictors for Items 17 or 23 on either model, corroborating the fact that it was not included in the index. (See Appendix J: Quantitative

Data Analysis for all hierarchical regression results for all Mystification items.)

136 Qualitative findings. Although all participants contended that formal education had the potential to help “fine-tune” and “assist” in the advancement of students’ speaking skills, they acknowledged that students were capable of orally communicating without their teacher’s guidance or explicitly learning about grammar. When elaborating on this position, all participants referenced how students acquire language from those around them before even entering school. For example, Melissa, who had a moderate SSLI score, responded, “I think a lot of oral language proficiency can come from just speaking with people in a general sense. Like, with your parents, with your siblings, with your friends, with teachers.” These stances indicated a recognition that the ability to orally communicate is not a skill that necessitates explicit grammar instruction; however, there were varying interpretations of and consistencies with participants’ beliefs about Mystification at each level.

Despite having acknowledged that students are capable of verbally expressing themselves without their teachers’ guidance, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores directly contradicted their own positions at different points in their interviews (see Table 4.14). In the textual examples below, Megan simultaneously claimed that students naturally learn to speak at home, yet also need education to learn how to “communicate the most basic thing.” Similarly,

Alex stated that students can “definitely communicate effectively” without their teacher’s guidance but then implied that students would not develop their language enough to speak like an “adult” without learning about grammar in school. These contradicting responses suggested inconsistencies in these participants’ beliefs on Mystification.

137 Table 4.14 Contradicting Beliefs for Mystification Participant Level Non-SLI SLI Megan High “I don’t know, because school “If you’re trying to communicate or isn’t the place that they learn get somewhere by something, I feel about language first. It’s at like you at least need to know how home.” to communicate the most basic thing “You don’t have to teach so you can at least do what you’re dialect necessarily because trying to do correctly. And…in you’re going to pick up on it education you are teaching them on your own anyway.” how to do that, so you can’t expect them to already know that.” Alex High “Yeah, I think that students “I think it’s necessary [to be taught can definitely communicate about grammar to speak effectively [without their proficiently]…I feel like if you teacher’s guidance]—with listen to little children speak, then each other, with other people, they speak much differently than with peers. I think they can adults, but adults want to hear how communicate effectively with adults speak spoken with them. So, most levels of people.” you have to learn that somewhere.” Melissa Moderate “Communicate? Yeah. “But I think to be fully proficient [in Effectively? Yeah. I think oral language]—not perfect, but as students can communicate close to perfect as anyone can get—I effectively in their everyday think grammar structure is definitely lives without their teachers’ needed.” guidance.” Kacee Moderate “I really hope I put heavily “So for this one I do think that disagree on this one because students need to be taught about students can express their ideas grammar structure because it’s very without being taught how to important that they use sentence speak.” structures and everything like that.” Note. Non-SLI represents divergence from the standard language ideology. SLI represents alignment with the standard language ideology.

At other times, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores specified certain situations in which students would need their teacher’s guidance to be able to speak effectively.

For example, Alex differentiated “the way that some people speak in their house” from “the way the guy interviewing you for your job [speaks]”; therefore, she contended that students must learn to structure their speech in school in order to “match that level of professionalism.”

Likewise, Melissa explained that “Grammar structure should be taught for them to be proficient in their day-to-day lives. I mean, that could be in their day-to-day school life they need it to be

138 proficient and then even when they get out of school they need to be proficient in going into the workforce and doing whatever that they do.” In these academic and professional situations,

Kacee argued that students need their teacher’s guidance be able to “speak formally.”

Participants with the highest SSLI scores, Megan and Alex, exhibited the most direct alignment with Mystification. First, Alex alluded to the idea that spoken language is too complex for native speakers to make sense of themselves: “I think it’s necessary [to be taught about grammar to speak proficiently] because so many grammar rules are just really confusing.” She further affirmed the mystification of language by claiming that people do not speak their own language well: “So, if people can’t speak English very well, native speakers really can’t either.

And it’s not our second or third or fourth language.” Additionally, even when Megan seemed to diverge from the SLI within this category, she would minimize the linguistic skills that students acquire outside of school by making them appear primitive and animalistic: “So, I think that they can express their ideas verbally without being taught—anyone can make noises with their mouths as long as they have a tongue and they’re not mute.”

In contrast, Lana and Delila, the participants with low SSLI scores, remained consistent in their belief that the ability to verbally communicate was not dependent on learning how to do so from an educational institution, and they did not qualify these responses with situations in which students would or would not be able to speak proficiently. Delila claimed that “people who never go to school can speak English just fine and not know anything about grammar.”

Furthermore, they demonstrated the most sophisticated ability to justify their claims with linguistic knowledge. Beyond references to language acquisition within the home that all participants cited, Lana and Delila also pointed to the validity of vernacular dialects to defend their assertions. For example, Lana explained that

139 Everyone’s dialect is different and that’s okay and they’re all good in their own equal

way. So, if you even just take that, you wouldn’t even need to factor school into that

because language and language skills and dialects are good in their own individual way.

And they work and that’s why they persist. So then you don’t even have to think about

[teaching] grammar structure [to use oral language proficiently] because they’re already

good on their own.

In this response, Lana used her knowledge of the rules that govern all dialects to contend that the spoken language students learn outside of school allows them to effectively communicate with those around them. She noted that if dialects are not effective in their own right, then they would not continue to exist. Delila and Lana also exhibited an appreciation and respect for students’ language abilities learned within the home. Delila claimed that children can talk “pretty eloquently” and declared that vernacular speakers are “proficient in something that I’m not.”

Similarly, Lana asserted that vernacular speakers “know what they’re talking about.” Finally,

Delila and Lana employed their understanding of the differences between spoken and written language to propose that learning about grammar structure is more applicable to the development of students’ conventional writing skills than it is necessary for them to be able to verbally express themselves. Lana clarified that “oral language doesn’t have the same grammar rules” as written language “because you can start a sentence with ‘because’ and ‘but’”; therefore, she concluded, standardized grammar rules are “important to know when you’re writing papers, if you want to use Standard American English, but for regular [oral] proficiency in your day-to-day life, you don’t need [to learn] the grammar structure as much because you’re taught it at a young age as you grow up learning the language.” These consistent attitudes exhibited a strong

140 divergence from the SLI, specifically on Mystification, that were defended by sociolinguistic facts and asset-based beliefs towards non-mainstream dialects and speakers.

Positive experiences. With regard to experiences that participants cited as positively impacting their beliefs on Mystification, participants with moderate and low SSLI scores both referenced their experiences as children or with children to support the idea that language is first acquired at a young age within the home and that students learn how to orally communicate in an effective way without explicitly learning about grammar. As a child, Melissa explained that

I used to tell these crazy stories and even with my little brother coming up with his own

jokes…I don’t think that’s something you have to be taught how to do. I think if you mean

‘taught how to do it’ in a sense where you learn it from your family just living with them,

[then that] is taught then maybe. But not in a school setting you don’t have to be taught

how to do that. It’s something you just do.

Similarly, Kacee recounted her time spent with children as an adult to corroborate this rationale as well:

Probably babysitting a lot. Because I babysit too. And these kids, they’re not taught how

to speak properly. It’s just ‘food,’ ‘chicken nugget.’ And you’re just like, ‘Okay. That’s

what you want. I got the idea, kid. Slow down.’ But it’s one of those things that

experience just kind of teaches you.

Additionally, the linguistic facts about the equality of all dialects that Delila and Lana referenced to contradict language mystification were identified specifically from their experiences in the linguistics course at Southern University with Dr. Ringer. Speaking of this course, Lana clarified that

141 I just feel like with all these questions, I wouldn’t have really had any idea how to even

start to describe my thoughts on this. I wouldn’t just be like, ‘Maybe. I don’t know?’ So,

really delving into language and what makes language with him has just really been super

useful. Everyone should take that class. It’s really hard, but it’s really good. [laughs]

Lana attributed her exposure to language study in the linguistics course to her ability to thoughtfully discuss linguistic issues, such as Mystification.

Negative experiences. Conversely, there was only one experience that a participant, Alex, cited as justification for her alignment with the SLI beliefs laid out in Mystification. When reflecting on learning a foreign language, Alex stated:

I think it just makes me realize how confusing English is. Because [with] Spanish there’s

pretty much hard and fast rules. All the vowels pretty much make the same sound over and

over versus for English it’s very tricky, which, again, if people can’t speak English very

well, native English speakers really can’t either. [And] that’s really important to remember

is that our language makes literally no sense.

This recollection pointed to Alex’s assertion that people do not speak their own language well because speaking English is extremely complex.

Integrated findings. Quantitative data analysis of the means for each SSLI index revealed that Mystification was the highest-ranked mean (M = 3.98, SD = 1.26), suggesting the most alignment with the SLI. This quantitative finding was relatively substantiated through the qualitative data as all high- and moderate-level participants claimed that students need to learn about grammar in school in order to use oral language proficiently. However, analysis of interview responses revealed that these participants also expressed attitudes that contradicted

142 Mystification, such as alleging that students can orally communicate successfully without formal education.

The contradiction and inconsistency of beliefs regarding Mystification was intimated in the survey response percentages as well. In the survey, 65% of participants agreed that students are capable of effectively structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school, suggesting divergence from the SLI; however, 66% of participants also agreed that students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently, suggesting alignment with the SLI. As over half of participants agreed with each of these contradicting statements, there was evidence of at least some overlap in participants who subscribed to these opposing beliefs on Mystification, yet it was not possible to discern how many participants exhibited inconsistent beliefs on Mystification solely from the survey responses percentages.

Therefore, I further investigated this ostensible contradiction in beliefs by examining participants’ survey responses on Items 5, 11, 17, and 23 for all those who completed the SSLI

(N = 59).

The quantitative data for Mystification revealed that 42% of participants who agreed that students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently and

34% of participants who agreed that students have difficulty verbally expressing their ideas without being taught how to do so also agreed that students can communicate effectively without their teachers’ guidance (see Figure 4.3). Similarly, 49% of participants who agreed that students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently and 29% of participants who agreed that students have difficulty verbally expressing their ideas without being taught how to do so also agreed that students can effectively structure their speech before learning about grammar in school (see Figure 4.4). Overall, 14% (n = 8) of participants agreed

143 with all four Mystification items, even though two statements promoted language mystification and two statements opposed language mystification. These quantitative results displayed inconsistencies in survey participants’ attitudes towards Mystification and, consequently, served to corroborate the contradictions identified in high- and moderate-level participants’ interview responses.

Figure 4.3. Visual representation of inconsistent beliefs on Mystification between Items 5 and 11 and 17 and 11. Out of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59), 49% of participants (n = 29) agreed with both Items 5 and 11 and 29% of participants (n = 17) agreed with both Items 17 and 11.

Figure 4.4. Visual representation of inconsistent beliefs on Mystification between Items 5 and 23 and 17 and 23. Out of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59), 42% of participants (n =

144 25) agreed with both Items 5 and 23 and 34% of participants (n = 20) agreed with both Items 17 and 23.

All hierarchical regressions only identified academic program as a predictor for the

Mystification index and Items 5 and 11; however, qualitative data analysis did not reveal a difference between participants’ responses based on their academic program. Instead, participants with the lowest SSLI scores, Lana and Delila, referenced Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course as an influential factor in their perception of Mystification. Additionally, found only in the qualitative data, one high level participant cited learning a foreign language when defending beliefs that aligned with Mystification, whereas moderate- and low-level participants identified experiences as a child/with children as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about language mystification.

Authority. The survey items and interview questions for this SLI belief attempted to measure and explore participants’ beliefs about who or what has authority over language, specifically in reference to the power of grammar rules, the role of teachers as language experts, teachers’ authority over students’ language use in the classroom, and students’ authority over their own language in a variety of contexts.

Quantitative findings. The overall Authority index average (M = 3.57, SD = 1.23) ranked third out of the six SSLI indexes for the highest mean score (Table 4.15).

Table 4.15 Descriptive Statistics for Authority Index Group Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis All 3.57 1.23 1.33 7 0.02 0.75 High School 2.76 0.80 1.33 4.67 0.20 0.54 Middle Grades 3.83 1.09 1.67 6.33 0.43 0.60 Note. All participants includes those who had any data for the SSLI, including those who only partially completed the SSLI and did not complete later sections of the survey (N = 65). Program-specific groups are limited to those in the final analysis sample: High School (n = 21) and Middle Grades (n = 37).

145 To start, I examined the means and response percentages of each item in the Authority category (Tables 4.16-4.17). The Authority items with the lowest means were “Students should strive to speak like their teachers” (M = 2.92, SD = 1.39) and “Students should be able to speak their own dialect in any given situation” (M = 2.92, SD = 1.36), aligning least with the SLI; however, the latter item was not included in the index. Almost two-thirds of participants (65%) disagreed to some degree with the idea that students should strive to speak like their teachers and over two-thirds of participants (69%) agreed to some degree that students should be able to speak their own dialect in any given situation; additionally, these were the two items for which the most participants selected “Neither Agree nor Disagree” at 19% and 15% respectively. Similarly, the item “Teachers should decide how students speak in the classroom” had the second-lowest mean (M = 3.00, SD = 1.40) as almost 70% of participants disagreed to some degree with the statement. In contrast, the item with the highest mean (M = 4.56, SD = 1.70) was “Grammar rules help us to determine the best way to speak English” with almost two-thirds of participants

(63%) agreeing to some degree with the statement.

As the average of Item 4, regarding grammar rules, appeared much more aligned with the

SLI than the other items, two-sample t-tests were conducted to determine if statistically significant differences existed between the means of each item in the Authority category. The analyses revealed that Item 4 was the only item that statistically significantly differed from every other item in the category; Item 4 was statistically significantly higher than Item 10, t(62) = 6.90, p < .001, Item 16, t(61) = 5.78, p < .01, and Item 22, t(58) = 5.90, p < .001.

146 Table 4.16 Descriptive Statistics for Authority Items Item No. Item Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis 4 Grammar rules help us to determine 4.56 1.70 1 7 0.07 0.10 the best way to speak English. 10 Students should strive to speak like 2.92 1.39 1 6 0.05 0.17 their teachers. 16 Students should be able to speak 2.92 1.36 1 6 0.15 0.21 their own dialect in any given situation. 22 Teachers should decide how 3.00 1.40 1 7 0.05 0.98 students speak in the classroom. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

Table 4.17 Response Percentages for Authority Items Item Item Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly No. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 4 Grammar rules help us 9.38% 25.00% 28.13% 9.38% 10.94% 12.50% 4.69% to determine the best (n=6) (n=16) (n=18) (n=6) (n=7) (n=8) (n=3) way to speak English. 10 Students should strive 0.00% 4.76% 11.11% 19.05% 12.70% 41.27% 11.11% to speak like their (n=0) (n=3) (n=7) (n=12) (n=8) (n=26) (n=7) teachers. 16 Students should be 14.52% 29.03% 25.81% 14.52% 12.90% 3.23% 0.00% able to speak their own (n=9) (n=18) (n=16) (n=9) (n=8) (n=2) (n=0) dialect in any given situation. 22 Teachers should decide 1.69% 1.69% 15.25% 11.86% 27.12% 30.51% 11.86% how students speak in (n=1) (n=1) (n=9) (n=7) (n=16) (n=18) (n=7) the classroom. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that for Model 1, program contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 15.39, p < .001, and accounted for 21.6% of the variation in Authority (Table 4.18). I then introduced academic standing, political affiliation, and linguistics course(s), which explained an additional 25.3% of the variation in Authority; this change in R2 was significant, F(5, 51) = 4.86, p = .001. There was an increase (1.34) in the program correlation coefficient from Model 1 to Model 2 and program was statistically significant in both models. Regression results indicated that being in the high school program (β

= -0.27, p = .03) negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Authority. On

147 average, participants in the high school program scored 1.86 points lower on the Authority index than participants in the middle grades program, holding all else constant, β = -0.27, t(57) = -2.25, p = .03. The results also revealed that having taken a linguistics course (β = -0.38, p = .008) negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Authority. On average, participants who had taken a linguistics course scored 2.54 points lower on the Authority index than participants who had never taken a linguistics course, holding all else constant, β = -0.38, t(57) = -2.54, p = .008. Finally, the results indicated that identifying as conservative (β = 0.46, p

< .001) positively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Authority. On average, participants who identified as conservative scored 3.12 points higher than participants who identified as liberal, holding all else constant, β = 0.46, t(57) = 4.21, p < .001. Overall, in addition to program, political affiliation and experience with linguistics course(s) statistically significantly increased the explained variance in Authority and served as statistically significant predictors. For participants’ reported language beliefs on Authority, political affiliation was identified as the strongest predictor, experience with linguistics course(s) was the second strongest predictor, and program was the weakest predictor.

148 Table 4.18 Regressions of Authority Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -3.201*** -1.857* (0.816) (0.825) Junior -0.125 (0.786) Sophomore -1.230 (1.089) Conservative 3.125*** (0.743) Moderate 1.934 (1.214) Linguistics Course(s) -2.544** (0.921) N 58 58 R2 0.216 0.486 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .001). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

The item regression results aligned with the index regression results. For Item 4, being in the high school program and not the middle grades program negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs both independently and in addition to the other variables. For Item 22, identifying as conservative rather than liberal positively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs. Items 10 and 16 had no statistically significant predictors based on the Bonferroni- adjusted p-value. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for all hierarchical regression results for all Authority items.)

Qualitative findings. Qualitative data analysis for Authority revealed two sub-themes: authority of People and authority of Concepts. The sub-theme of the authority of People includes participant responses that addressed the control over language that people in positions of power,

149 particularly teachers, claim or are afforded and, consequently, the autonomy that students and other individuals are granted over their own speech. The sub-theme of the authority of Concepts includes participant responses that addressed a reliance on and/or rejection of standardized grammar rules as the determinants of superior speech; additionally, this sub-theme also includes participant responses that described submission to and/or resistance against the authority over language exerted by the institution of education.

People. When reflecting on their language ideologies regarding the authority of People, all participants stated that students had the right to speak however they wanted outside of the classroom. Megan, the participant with the highest SSLI score, encapsulated these attitudes by declaring, “I don’t think they [students] need their teacher to tell them how to speak at home or how to talk with their friends. I don’t think that’s necessary. I don’t think that’s warranted or even a good idea.” At first articulating respect for students’ power to determine their own speech in non-academic situations, these ideologies became much more varied when discussed within educational contexts.

Within the classroom, most participants raised concerns about personally serving as a language authority themselves. Alex, who had a high SSLI score, shared

I almost disdain the idea that students are striving to speak like me…I feel like it can be

perceived as very arrogant. At the same time, it’s a bigger responsibility to think that the

way you speak is the way you’re training a generation to…I feel like I almost don’t even

have the authority to speak on it [the use vernacular dialects].

Melissa, Lana, and Delila similarly explained that they did not speak “perfect” English and that their speech was not a standard by which students should be measuring their own. The majority of participants also problematized the idea of claiming authority over language as a teacher due

150 to the inextricable connection between language and students’ identities; however, despite the recognition of these issues, high- and moderate-level participants, once again, exhibited inconsistencies in their stances.

Frequently, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores noted the importance of language to students’ identities and/or expressed compassion for students who were expected to assimilate to a standardized dialect, yet these participants also described attitudes that contradicted these positions (see Table 4.19). For example, in the table below, Kacee raised concerns about African American students feeling as if they had to conform to her speech as a white female; she stated that this was “not okay” and that students should “embrace their own dialects.” Nevertheless, Kacee later claimed that students should speak standardized English to their teachers in order to show “respect and formality” because their teachers were their authority figures, not their “friends.” Likewise, Melissa argued that “nobody should have to be forced to speak something that doesn’t come naturally to them just to fit in,” but also asserted that teachers should “definitely” dictate how students speak in the classroom. Finally, although not included in the table below, Alex asserted that

There’s a time for [vernacular dialects] when students are outside of the classroom. You

know, ‘Speak as you will. Express your individuality. That’s what we do through our

speech. But when you’re in the classroom and you’re doing work or you’re learning a

unit or you’re doing a research paper, then you need to present yourself in more of a

standardized or mainstream—whatever you want to say—English.’

Within this statement, Alex first acknowledged the ways in which language allows students to express their individuality and subsequently declared standardized English was her expectation for classroom discourse.

151 Table 4.19 Contradicting Beliefs for Authority of People Participant Level Non-SLI SLI Megan High “They can speak however they “I think in the class they should want unless it’s for a certain be respectful and they should specific assignment…If they were take into account what their to write it in an essay, I might have teacher’s saying and they should a problem with it, but I’m not try it [standardized English]. If going to be like, ‘You can’t speak you want the ‘A,’ you’re going like that.’ You can speak however to do what the teacher asks you you want.” to do.” Alex High “And I also think that being in “But there is a time where English and English education that students should be able to speak a belief is language is fluid. And their own dialect and there’s a so to teach students the mindset of time where students need to ‘this is the right way to do it,’ then speak more of a standardized that kind of goes against what English, especially going into an you’re teaching—that language English classroom. And it’s the changes and it evolves…So, I same with any class. When you guess I would never want a student are in a course, you are to to think like, ‘Oh, I have to speak produce what’s being taught to like Ms. Smith does so that I can you. There’s a reason you’re be successful.’” being taught it the way you are.” Melissa Moderate “But nobody should have to be “I think teachers should have forced to speak something that that say in their classroom. I doesn’t come naturally to them don’t think they should do it in a just to fit in…You can’t tell dictator way, but I think they somebody that the way they speak should decide how students is wrong. That’s like if I were to speak in their classroom. go to my future students and be Definitely.” like, ‘No. You’re wrong. You can’t speak like that.’ Like, you can’t speak like that? That’s not something you should tell people because who are you to say that that person’s wrong?” Kacee Moderate “Because, like I said, I’m a white “I do believe that students female. I don’t want my African should speak formally to their American students to feel like they teachers. So maybe I do agree have to speak like I do. That’s not somewhat because they should okay. They should embrace their speak with respect and formality own dialects.” with their teachers. Their teachers are not their friends, they’re their advisors and teachers.” Note. Non-SLI represents divergence from the standard language ideology. SLI represents alignment with the standard language ideology.

152 One revealing aspect of the inconsistent beliefs on teachers’ language authority was in how participants articulated their role in the situation. When expressing attitudes that supported students’ rights to their own speech, participants typically talked about their role as a teacher in first person. This can be seen in the “Non-SLI” column in Table 28 when all participants discussed how they would individually approach vernacular dialects as a teacher and their personal discomfort with students having to linguistically assimilate to their own speech. For example, Megan claimed, “I’m not going to be like, ‘You can’t speak like that’” and Alex stated,

“I would never want a student to think like, ‘Oh, I have to speak like Ms. Smith does so that I can be successful.’” However, when high- and moderate-level participants contradicted their positions on the authority of People, and aligned with the SLI, they discussed the role of teachers in third person—removing themselves from those responsible for enacting these policies. This contrast can be seen through all participant responses in the “SLI” column in Table 28. For example, Melissa asserted, “I think teachers should have that say in their classroom” and Kacee claimed that “[students] should speak formally to their teachers.” Therefore, when defending teachers’ control over language, these participants did not refer to their own personal authority, but instead abstractly discussed this exertion of power by teachers in general; on the other hand, when exhibiting empathy for linguistically-marginalized students and support for linguistically- inclusive pedagogy, participants claimed these beliefs and actions as their own by discussing themselves as the teacher.

Participants with high and moderate SSLI scores continued to exhibit alignment with the authority of People when they justified teachers’ power over language in the classroom. First,

Megan and Alex emphasized the fact that teachers are in charge of students’ grades to rationalize why teachers’ authority on language should be respected. For example, as shared in the table

153 above, Megan declared that “They should try it [standardized English]. If you want the ‘A,’ you’re going to do what the teachers asks you to do.” Second, Melissa defended teachers as language authorities by warning of the chaos that would ensue if students were able to speak their own dialects in the classroom:

Don’t let the students get too much control of how they speak because that way then you

won’t be able to—I don’t know. Not you won’t be able to teach them, but if they know

that there’s no rule they have to follow, then they’re kind of just going to go crazy and

not necessarily learn what they need to learn.

She implied that should students be able to use vernacular dialects in the classroom, then this would result in deviant behavior; therefore, in order to maintain order and civility in the classroom, teachers must assert their authority over language. Additionally, Melissa granted language dominance to teachers, and authority figures in general, due to their perceived linguistic mastery. She stated that “you seem to hold teachers and people of authority in higher— they’re more proficient at it [spoken language] because they speak with elegance and they don’t stutter or mess up on their words as much…and they make sense in an easier way.” Melissa not only assumed that all teachers, and authority figures, speak a uniform dialect, but also claimed that this single language variety is superior to others. In glorifying the speech of those in power,

Melissa instinctively gave dominant groups the right to claim authority over language. Likewise,

Alex and Kacee argued that “anybody in a position of power,” specifically employers, dominate language use because their position gives them the right to determine if an applicant is speaking

“correctly” or not and, thus, whether they are given the job. Finally, Alex adhered to one of the foundational aspects of Authority when describing the right of teachers to dictate language in the

154 classroom; she contended that teachers were experts in language because they had studied it. She explained that

I think teachers do have the authority and have gone through the training to make a

decision on how language would be presented in the classroom and…can make an

authoritative decision based on if they want to allow students to speak however or if

they’re going to say, ‘For these 90 minutes in this class we’re going to speak a

standardized way.’ But I only say that knowing that teachers go through a lot of training

and you get a lot of exposure to what works and what doesn’t. And so I do think that

teachers should have some autonomy to get to choose for themselves how they want to

present their class because essentially that’s presenting themselves also.

In this explication, Alex assumed that teachers’ educational experiences warranted them power over language, whereas students had not earned the right to govern their own speech. In contrast,

Lana, who had a low SSLI score, recognized her impulse to grant language authority to those who seemed more qualified based on social conventions, yet actively challenged this bias: “I acknowledge that I have implicit biases, but I really try to check those when it comes to that— that I think the people that sound like they know it [English] best are the people who’ve trained in it. [Because] I don’t think that anyone speaks it better than anyone else.” In this remark, Lana acknowledged that she was not immune to the ideological indoctrination to which she had been exposed with regard to language, yet exhibited an active move away from these ideas.

One way in which moderate- and low-level participants differed from high-level participants was through the way that they described students’ autonomy over language; the former claimed that students do not have the right to choose how they speak, based on societal constraints, whereas the latter claimed that students should not have the right in any given

155 situation. For example, within the context of school, Megan stated that students “should probably speak standardized English” and Alex asserted that students “should try to speak like their teachers.” In contrast, Melissa explained, “I think especially if you’re in a school or you’re doing something professionally-wise, you may not be able to speak in your own dialect. You may have to standardize yourself, which sucks because they should be able to do their natural dialect, but unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.” Similarly, Lana shared, “It’s not whether they

[students] should be able to [speak their own dialect], it’s if they’re able. I think that’s a really big, important distinction. Yes, they should be able to speak in the way that they’ve been raised…Now, are they able to? I think that that’s ‘no’ because it’s not as accepted.” The recognition that students should have power over their own language signified divergence from the SLI with regard to the authority of People. As discussed previously, Melissa contradicted her position on this issue later in the interview; however, Lana and Delila, the participants with the lowest SSLI scores, remained consistent in their beliefs.

Lana and Delila deviated most from the SLI on the authority of People in their regular acknowledgement of the importance of granting students the right to use their home dialects in the classroom due to the inextricable connection between language and identity. Lana discussed the idea that

If every teacher decided that the students should speak the same way, that doesn’t allow

for personality in a lot of ways. And it does not allow for students to really be

themselves. And as a teacher, that’s what you—I would think that you should want more

than anything else is for your students to feel comfortable and feel like they can be

themselves.

156 Lana emphasized that this was especially problematic in situations in which culturally diverse students are forced to assimilate to the standardized speech of the white teacher. Delila echoed this thought when stating that she would not require students to speak standardized English in the classroom “because if we’re doing discussion, I want them to freely express themselves. And if they feel like they have to do it in a certain way, I’m probably not getting the best product.”

Whereas the moderate- and high-level participants defined academic success as getting a good grade by accommodating to the language expectations of the teacher, Lana and Delila defined academic success as comfortably expressing one’s ideas and competently discussing course content in a linguistically-inclusive environment. To further deconstruct teacher authority over language, and Authority in general, Delila stated, “I wouldn’t say there’s necessarily people that they [students] should try and speak like, but maybe pick up tools or methods and how to best articulate themselves. And that doesn’t necessarily mean speaking standardized English, but rather how are they going to best be heard with what’s going on in their head?” With this logic, teachers, and other groups of authority, were divested of their power over language as Delila and

Lana conceptualized different forms of speech as tools instead of a single standard to emulate.

Their understanding of language as a tool also positioned students as decision makers with regard to language; for example, Lana claimed that

Nobody speaks Standard American English, so their [students’] teachers might be able to

sound professional when they want to sound professional and if a student is trying to

implement that then they should talk to their teacher about ways that they can start

sounding more professional rather than [imitating] exactly what their teacher said.

Lana promoted self-determination in a way that allowed students to identify forms of speech that they saw as beneficial to their own lives instead of copying the teacher’s language. In describing

157 standardized English as a tool, Lana epitomized this autonomy over language by stating that if students “don’t want to use the tool, that’s okay. You can use a screwdriver instead of a hammer.

It’s okay.” Overall, Lana and Delila defended their position on the authority of People by asserting that students should have a right to decide how they speak and that oral correction of students’ speech is ineffective and potentially even detrimental to students’ self-confidence, self- expression, and willingness to participate classroom activities.

Positive experiences. Regarding experiences that participants’ cited as having had a positive impact on their beliefs regarding the authority of People, participants with low and moderate SSLI scores specifically referenced Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course when defending the importance of students’ autonomy over language both in and out of the classroom. When questioning teachers’ assumed role as a language authority and the concept of “perfect English,”

Delila concluded that “Ringer’s put me in this whole meta-never-ending question cycle.” From the course, Lana recalled that she learned about the ineffectiveness of oral correction for vernacular speakers. Likewise, although Kacee and Melissa held contradicting ideologies regarding this aspect of Authority, Melissa stated that the course encouraged her to approach

“mistakes” due to dialect and convention differently, whereas Kacee claimed that without the course she “would have been like, ‘Okay, let’s actually say the work ask.’ I probably would have corrected them, but now it’s like, ‘Oh, they’re following their own rules. They’re speaking casually. They’re not trying to be professional.’” In these reflections, Melissa continued to refer to vernacular language features as “mistakes,” and Kacee still expressed beliefs about the inappropriateness of vernacular dialects in “professional” contexts, yet they used their experience in the linguistics course to consider a different way to address students’ stigmatized language varieties in the classroom.

158 Similarly, although Megan expressed inconsistent beliefs, she reflected on the influence of her experiences in an education course at Southern University and student teaching when contradicting the authority of People. Of the education course, Megan stated that “Dr. Foster’s class was probably a big one for me…I think it’s okay that they can speak their own [dialect], but if I’d gone anywhere else, again, I think I would force my kids to speak standardized English because that’s the way they were in the classroom. That’s the way they need to talk.” Megan also stated that she also learned to relinquish control over students’ speech from her cooperating teacher (CT) and the school culture of her field placement:

My CT never corrects students that may speak wrong because that’s just not the point of

her class…I mean, in middle school at Carlisle we don’t correct the way they talk. We

don’t correct their Ebonics…Even when they’re presenting, they can speak the way that

they want because what we’re focused on is ‘Do you understand figurative language? Do

you know what this is? Do you know how to dissect a sentence type thing?’ So that’s not

what we’re looking at.

In this response, Megan still demonstrated alignment with other SLI beliefs, such as the idea that speaking a vernacular dialect is “wrong”; however, she employed her experiences in Dr. Foster’s education course and student teaching when expressing beliefs that disrupted alignment with the authority of People.

Additionally, with regard to the authority of People, Lana critically reflected on the way in which some of her fellow church members claimed authority over language with a vernacular speaker. She shared her impression of the following event:

There’s a young boy at the church that I help with who’s in the youth group who is

African American and speaks in a pretty vernacular dialect. And people get on him all the

159 time for acting out and I’m like, “He’s doing nothing wrong. Maybe he’s just frustrated

because you keep correcting him.”

Lana employed what she learned about the ineffective, and potentially detrimental, impact of oral correction from Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course to condemn the church members’ policing of the child’s vernacular language use as well as defend the child’s right to speak his own dialect.

Negative experiences. Conversely, participants with moderate and high SSLI scores referenced their experiences as students to support their stance that teachers should have control over students’ speech. Melissa shared that this approach to language in the classroom made sense because it was what her own teachers did: “I think in my class my teachers definitely had the authority…So, there’s this one way, but when we’re outside of the classroom it was whatever we wanted to do. But in the class, that was the way it had to be. So, I think that most of my teachers were like that.” Likewise, Alex employed her own linguistic assimilation for a better grade in order to expect her students to do the same. She explained that “when you’re a student you want your teacher to give you a good grade. And your teacher normally grades based on how they speak. So, from the perspective of a student, which I am, I strive to speak like my teachers in the class I’m in…so that I get a good grade.” Most moderate- and high-level participants used their experiences with traditional language instruction to support teachers’ power over language in the classroom.

With regard to students’ language rights outside of the classroom, Megan cited her four years of experience in customer service to conclude that it is “definitely not okay” for students to

“speak however they want” in the business world; she shared, “If someone comes at me wanting a full-time job…and you may speak a certain form of Ebonics, and if I show you something or a portion of the paperwork we do and you can’t tell me in a clear way what the numbers are

160 saying, I’m going to be like, ‘Okay. That dialect—not going to work. I can’t have you messing up my safe.” Similarly, Kacee recalled her experience as an employee for a “phone-calling company” in which she felt her employers “had the power over me to say that I was speaking in a way they saw as wrong.” Participants’ accounts of these personal experiences displayed no critical reflection of why they, or the authority figures and institutions in these situations, were granted this inherent power over language.

Additionally, Kacee negatively perceived a student’s language use when reflecting on her time volunteering at a local high school. She stated that “a lot of students don’t speak formally, especially with teachers, which I think is a little off.” In this example, Kacee’s interpretation of the student’s actions as “a little off” connected to her belief that teachers should serve as the language authority in the classroom and students should assimilate their speech to a teacher’s typical expectation for standardized English.

Concepts. I also attempted to assess the power that participants granted standardized grammar rules and/or the institution of education in determining the best way to speak versus speakers of the language themselves; I wanted to better understand the ways in which participants might be relying on outside sources to validate language use instead of looking to the effective use of language in the speakers around them, such as their students. The analysis revealed that participants with high and moderate SSLI scores endorsed the authority of standardized grammar rules and the institution of education much more consistently than they supported the authority of teachers, whereas participants with low SSLI scores problematized these ideas with linguistic facts.

To start, all high- and moderate-level participants conceptualized grammar rules as those that govern standardized English without any recognition of the rules that govern other dialects,

161 and most argued that these rules were effective determinants of superior speech. For example,

Kacee claimed that “grammar rules help us speak the best way.” Furthermore, there were many ways in which participants justified the power of standardized grammar rules. First, although

Alex acknowledged that standardized grammar rules were written by men, she masked their privileging of mainstream speakers by stating that they were developed from

what became a more popular way of speaking. Because at the end of the day, I feel like

grammar rules are essentially the collective majority’s thoughts on how something

sounds best and how it’s most appealing to our sense of sound. So, I guess after a while

that appealment—I don’t even know if that’s a word—to sound continued and somebody

decided to start writing it down. So, here we are.

In this explanation, Alex proposed that standardized grammar rules were constructed in a way that was equally representative of everyone’s ideas and opinions about language use, obscuring the fact that standardized grammar rules were and are primarily dictated by and characteristic of dominant speakers, thus concealing who is then empowered to claim expertise about the way language “should” be used. Second, Melissa argued that without following standardized grammar rules when speaking, “people would not make any sense to anything. Like, if you don’t pause in certain places, they might not understand what you’re saying because your words might run together or—I think grammar rules definitely help us determine the best way to speak

English.” This rationalization promoted a reliance on standardized grammar rules to master effective speech and assigned these rules supremacy over how effective speech is defined.

Finally, Megan was the only high- or moderate-level participant to contradict the assertion that standardized grammar rules help determine the best way to speak and claim that students could

162 stray from them; however, she only granted this freedom after students had earned the right to do so. She explained that

Grammar rules are the ones that are in the textbooks at school and [students] should learn

them when they’re first starting out. But they also need to learn that it’s okay to deviate

from them at times. But they don’t need to learn that until they understand what the

grammar rules are and what they’re deviating from…How can you speak Ebonics and not

know standardized English? You don’t even know what you’re deciding not to speak

like.

Using this logic, Megan contended that learning standardized grammar rules was the requisite for earning autonomy over one’s own speech, placing these rules, and the institution that enforces them, as gatekeepers to language authority.

Additionally, Megan continued to afford this dominant institution authority over language when claiming that all students need to learn standardized English “as long as that’s what is being taught in schools. If it changes, then it doesn’t really matter. But as of right now, the Standard English is going to be what’s taught.” She even went so far as to profess that should the school system change the “standard” for English in their textbooks and instruction to

“Ebonics,” then “I’ll teach that.” In this explanation, Megan suggested that teachers and students be unquestioningly submissive in conceding all jurisdiction over language to the education system—whatever decisions or mandates it puts in place regarding language use are what is to be followed. Melissa echoed this sentiment when she declared that teachers had “no choice” but to enforce standardized English because that is how “schooling goes”; she lamented the fact, but concluded that “that’s part of teaching, I guess.” Melissa and Megan expressed no concept of self-determination in their future language instruction, and Megan articulated no desire for it.

163 Participants with low SSLI scores, however, combatted these SLIs. Regarding the power over language claimed by the education system, Lana acknowledged that “the standardizations of

American education” might cause her some difficulty in enacting equitable language pedagogy; however, she maintained that, as well as teaching students standardized English, she would

“create a safe environment with language” by encouraging students to use their own dialects when expressing themselves in class and in various assignments. Delila also recognized a

“school language” that is promoted by the institution of education yet never communicated any concern with subverting the system through a pluralistic language approach. It is worth noting that Lana is preparing to teach ELA in middle school in a school system that has recently adopted a scripted curriculum, whereas Delila is preparing teach ELA in high school in which there is more teacher autonomy afforded in curricular decisions.

Low-level participants also challenged the assumed power of standardized grammar rules by deconstructing them. First, Lana complicated the certainty with which standardized grammar rules are defined. She shared that “we have so many different layouts and forms of ‘This is standard—well, no, this is standard,’ that I think it’s mostly based off of what people have learned, which is why you can disagree…So, the whole idea that there’s standardized in the first place is a social construct.” Lana critically examined the existence of one “standard” dialect by arguing that there are contradicting perspectives about what, and who, determines these set of rules. In doing so, she questioned the construct of a single version of standardized grammar rules altogether and consequently stripped them of their projected authority over language. Delila also demonstrated a more acute awareness of the role of power in the determination of standardized grammar rules than Alex did. She postulated that “educated white men” were the ones to dictate what grammatical patterns constituted as “standard” and implied that their ethnicity, gender, and

164 education level allowed them this privilege. This reflection denoted an awareness that some individuals are born into a position that affords them the opportunity to acquire a standardized dialect, consequentially qualifying them as language experts based on this arbitrary benchmark of linguistic mastery. Finally, Lana employed her linguistic knowledge to apply the term

“grammar rules” to all dialects:

Grammar, in general, is where you put the words and why. So…you could say that, yes,

African American dialect grammar rules help you speak African American dialects the

best and Standard American English grammar rules help you speak Standard American

English the best. And so, where can you put “y’all” in a sentence? Where can you put

“be” in a sentence?

She furthered this argument by claiming that abiding by a single set of standardized grammar rules is “very limiting” and does not allow individuals to “take advantage of all the complexities” that language has to offer. Instead of solely granting authority to standardized grammar rules,

Lana gave power to the systematic patterns of all language varieties by applying the concept of

“grammar rules” and “the best way to speak” to all dialects. This interpretation of the item statement gave language authority to the descriptive grammar rules that are based on linguists’ observations of language-in-use, not just the fixed rules of Standard American English found in grammar books. Therefore, Lana did not outsource the authority of language to an “infallible” set of standardized grammar rules; she gave authority to the dialect being spoken, ergo the speakers of the dialect themselves.

Positive experiences. With regard to experiences that participants cited as positively impacting their beliefs about the authority of Concepts, Megan, the only high- or moderate-level

165 participant to explicitly discuss the advantage of deviating from standardized grammar rules, referenced her personal experiences with family to diverge from the SLI. She recalled,

My husband’s family—they’re very rural. And sometimes when I talk, I can tell that I’ve

lost them. But when I start to slur my words a little bit and I take off the “i-n-g” and

replace it with “i-n”—or sometimes I do use “ain’t”—they understand me more. So I

think grammar rules can help you in certain situations, but they can also hinder you from

fitting in or getting your point across or even relating to other people, depending on

where you are.

Despite Megan’s assumption that these speakers could not intellectually keep up with her use of standardized English, her personal relationship and motivation to communicate with these vernacular speakers allowed her the opportunity to question the authority of standardized grammar rules in certain situations. On the other hand, Lana recounted her personal experiences with teachers’ conflicting criteria regarding what was considered “standard” and then applied what we she learned in Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course to be able to question the power, and even existence, of one set of standardized grammar rules. Furthermore, Lana and Delila both cited what they learned in this linguistics course when breaking with traditional and prescriptive approaches to language instruction, often promoted and perpetuated through the education system’s claimed authority over language.

Interestingly enough, when asked to reflect on experiences that informed her beliefs on the authority of Concepts, Melissa shared that in Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course they deconstructed standardized grammar rules; however, she admitted that, even after the class, “I still don’t understand it…It was just because he was breaking down the sentences and the words themselves and where we got them from and why and I was just like, ‘I don’t understand any of

166 this.’” Melissa did not exhibit any beliefs that diverged from the SLI with regard to the authority of Concepts and uniformly supported the use of standardized grammar rules to dictate the best way to speak.

Negative experiences. In contrast, the only experience that a participant used to align herself with the authority of Concepts was learning a foreign language. Alex, a high-level participant, referenced her time learning Spanish to justify the need for a set of grammar rules to determine how English is best spoken: “When I was learning Spanish, which I’m not fluent in or anything—but you do have a list of rules and that helps you get the ideas from the paper out of your mouth. So, I’m sure the same translates back to English.” In this account, Alex utilized her experience as a foreign language learner to suggest that all English speakers, including natives, need to depend on a set of standardized grammar rules in order to successfully translate their thoughts to speech.

Integrated findings. Quantitative data analysis of the means for each SSLI index revealed that Authority was the third-highest ranked mean (M = 3.57, SD = 1.23), suggesting more alignment with the SLI than Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers, and

Misinformation. This quantitative finding was fairly substantiated through the qualitative data as all high- and moderate-level participants granted authority over spoken language to teachers, authority figures, employers, standardized grammar rules, and the institution of education.

However, analysis of interview responses revealed that these participants also claimed that no one has the right to dictate the speech of others.

The contradiction and inconsistency of beliefs on the authority of People was impossible to discern just from the survey response percentages as less than half of participants, ranging from 16% to 32%, exhibited alignment with the SLI on items that discussed the authority of

167 teachers and students (Items 10, 16, and 22). Overall, based on the participants’ survey responses, it appeared that there was a relatively strong divergence from the SLI for this aspect of Authority. Nevertheless, I further investigated this potential contradiction in beliefs regarding the authority of People by examining the survey responses to Items 10, 16, and 22 of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59).

The quantitative data for authority on People revealed that 19% of participants who agreed that teachers should decide how students speak in the classroom and 15% of participants who agreed that students should strive to speak like their teachers also agreed that students should be able to speak their own dialect in any given situation (see Figure 4.5). Overall, only

5% (n = 3) of participants agreed with all three items on the authority of People, even though two statements promoted teachers’ language authority and one statement promoted students’ language authority. These quantitative results displayed modest inconsistencies in survey participants’ attitudes towards authority on People and, therefore, only somewhat corroborated the contradictions identified in all high- and moderate-level participants’ interview responses.

Figure 4.5. Visual representation of inconsistent beliefs on authority of People between Items 10 and 16 and 22 and 16. Out of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59), 15% of participants (n = 9) agreed with both Items 10 and 16 and 19% of participants (n = 11) agreed with both Items 22 and 16.

168 In the survey, when presented with statements claiming that teachers should dictate students’ speech and serve as language role models, participants predominantly disagreed with the items, suggesting less alignment with the SLI, such as in Items 10 (M = 2.92, SD = 1.39) and

22 (M = 3.00, SD = 1.40). However, the statement that declared that grammar rules helped to determine the best way to speak had a statistically significantly higher mean (M = 4.56, SD =

1.70) than Items 10 and 22, suggesting more alignment with the SLI. This quantitative finding and the interview responses aided in determining the authority of People and the authority of

Concepts as two separate sub-themes of Authority. Furthermore, the fact that participants were more likely to grant authority to standardized grammar rules than teachers was corroborated by the qualitative findings as high- and moderate-level participants consistently supported the right of grammar rules to measure superior speech, whereas they exhibited contradiction and uncertainty in their beliefs on the authority of teachers. Finally, although agreeing with the idea that grammar rules help determine the best way to speak English, such as in Item 4, and agreeing with the idea that students should be able to speak their own dialect in any given situation, such as in Item 16, are not direct contradictions of each other, the former was designed to represent alignment with the SLI on Authority and the latter was designed to represent divergence from the

SLI on Authority. Therefore, it is interesting to note that 47% of participants who agreed with

Item 4 also agreed with Item 16 (see Figure 4.6), suggesting that almost half of survey participants felt that no one should dictate how students speak, yet grammar rules do determine the best way to speak.

169

Figure 4.6. Visual representation of beliefs on Authority between Items 4 and 16. Out of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59), 47% of participants (n = 28) agreed with both Items 4 and 16.

Hierarchical regression for the Authority index, as well as the regression for Item 22, revealed that identifying as conservative over liberal was the strongest predictor for a higher

SSLI score on this index and item. Qualitatively, for both the authority of People and the authority of Concepts, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores held the beliefs that most consistently aligned with the SLI, and all but one of these individuals identified as moderately conservative—Kacee instead identified as moderate. Conversely, participants with low SSLI scores held the beliefs for this category that most consistently diverged from the SLI. In line with the regression results, Lana identified as liberal and demonstrated the most astute, well- articulated, and unwavering contradictions of Authority. On the other hand, Delila identified as moderately conservative, yet still exhibited consistent divergence from the SLI; however, her responses at times lacked the depth of linguistic knowledge, and resulting certainty, with which

Lana addressed these issues. It should be noted that participants did not explicitly reference their political affiliations when discussing their beliefs on Authority, although more conservative ideals were evident in the responses of high- and moderate-level participants as they supported traditional approaches to language in the education system that positioned teachers, and the standardized grammar rules they instill, as the incontestable authorities on language.

Accordingly, Lana, the only participant who identified as liberal, expressed more progressive values in her willingness to question these conventional norms.

170 The regression for the Authority index also indicated that having taken a linguistics course and being a student in the high school program negatively predicted participants’ SSLI scores for this belief, yet linguistic course(s) was a stronger predictor than program. This quantitative finding was corroborated by low-level participants who repeatedly referenced what they learned in Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course to defend their contradictions of the SLI. In contrast, qualitative data analysis did not reveal a difference between participants’ responses based on their academic program. The regression for Item 4, regarding grammar rules, did, however, identify being in the high school program as the only negative predictor for SSLI scores on this item.

Qualitative findings regarding participants’ beliefs on the authority of Concepts not revealed in the quantitative analysis included how Megan and Lana cited the positive impact that personal experience with diverse dialects and linguistics course(s) had on them as well as the negative impact of learning a foreign language that Alex and Melissa referenced. Additionally,

Megan referenced the positive influence of her education courses and experiences student teaching on her beliefs about the authority of People. In contrast, high- and mid-level participants used their personal experiences as students to justify their alignment with the authority of People; this result was identified only in the qualitative findings but not captured quantitatively.

Misinformation. The survey items and interview questions for this SLI belief attempted to measure and explore participants’ beliefs about the logical, aesthetic, and historical aspects of language varieties, specifically in reference to dialect use, language change, language patterns, and conceptions of “correctness.”

171 Quantitative findings. The overall Misinformation index average (M = 2.22, SD = 0.97) ranked the lowest compared to the rest of the indexes, suggesting that participants’ responses in this category aligned least with the SLI (Table 4.20).

Table 4.20 Descriptive Statistics for Misinformation Index Group Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis All 2.23 0.97 1 4.33 0.23 0.00 High School 1.52 0.73 1 4 0.00 0.00 Middle Grades 2.68 0.85 1 4.33 0.93 0.08 Note. All participants includes those who had any data for the SSLI, including those who only partially completed the SSLI and did not complete later sections of the survey (N = 65). Program-specific groups are limited to those in the final analysis sample: High School (n = 21) and Middle Grades (n = 37).

First, I examined the means and response percentages of each item in the Misinformation category (Tables 4.21-4.22). The Misinformation item with the lowest mean (M = 1.48, SD =

0.81) was “Every single person speaks a dialect” with all participants agreeing to some degree with the statement, except one; it is the item with the lowest average out of all SSLI items. In contrast, the item with the highest mean (M = 2.81, SD = 1.61) was “Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules” with only about 18% of participants agreeing to some degree with the statement.

The item “Spoken standardized English has changed a lot over the last few decades” had the second-lowest mean (M = 2.20, SD = 1.24) with most participants (88%) agreeing to some degree with the statement; this item was not included in the index. Finally, the item “Using standardized English is the correct way to speak in English” had the second-highest mean (M =

2.48, SD = 1.38); although only about 7% of the participants agreed to some degree with the statement; this item also elicited the most responses for the “Neither Agree nor Disagree” option

(21%).

172 Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics for Misinformation Items Item No. Item Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis 3 Every single person speaks a 1.48 0.81 1 6 0.00 0.00 dialect. 9 Spoken standardized English has 2.20 1.24 1 6 0.00 0.01 changed a lot over the last few decades. 15 Vernacular dialects follow grammar 2.81 1.61 1 6 0.10 0.06 rules. 21 Using standardized English is the 2.48 1.38 1 6 0.03 0.55 correct way to speak in English. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

Table 4.22 Response Percentages for Misinformation Items Item Item Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly No. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 3 Every single person 63.08% 30.77% 4.62% 0.00% 0.00% 1.54% 0.00% speaks a dialect. (n=41) (n=20) (n=3) (n=0) (n=0) (n=1) (n=0) 9 Spoken standardized 31.25% 39.06% 17.19% 7.81% 0.00% 4.69% 0.00% English has changed a lot (n=20) (n=25) (n=11) (n=5) (n=0) (n=3) (n=0) over the last few decades. 15 Vernacular dialects 30.16% 14.29% 25.40% 12.70% 9.52% 7.94% 0.00% follow grammar rules. (n=19) (n=9) (n=16) (n=8) (n=6) (n=5) (n=0) 21 Using standardized 0.00% 3.23% 3.23% 20.97% 14.52% 27.42% 30.65% English is the correct (n=0) (n=2) (n=2) (n=13) (n=9) (n=17) (n=19) way to speak in English. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that for Model 1, program contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 27.49, p < .001, and accounted for 32.9% of the variation in Misinformation (Table 4.23). I then introduced academic standing, political affiliation, and linguistics course(s), which explained an additional 18.1% of the variation in

Misinformation; this change in R2 was significant, F(5, 51) = 3.76, p = .005. There was an increase (1.53) in the program correlation coefficient from Model 1 to Model 2 and program was statistically significant in both models. Regression results indicated that being in the high school program (β = -0.32, p = .007) negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on

Misinformation. On average, participants in the high school program scored 1.96 points lower on

173 the Misinformation index than participants in the middle grades program, holding all else constant, β = -0.32, t(57) = -2.80, p = .007. The results also revealed that having taken a linguistics course (β = -0.50, p < .001) negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Misinformation. On average, participants who had taken a linguistics course scored

2.94 points lower on the Misinformation index than participants who had never taken a linguistics course, holding all else constant, β = -0.50, t(57) = -3.77, p < .001. Overall, in addition to program, experience with linguistics course(s) statistically significantly increased the explained variance in Misinformation and served as a statistically significant predictor. For participants’ reported language beliefs on Misinformation, experience with linguistics course(s) was identified as the strongest predictor and program was identified as the weakest predictor.

Table 4.23 Regressions of Misinformation Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -3.483*** -1.956* (0.664) (0.698) Junior -0.232 (0.664) Sophomore -0.731 (0.920) Conservative 0.760 (0.628) Moderate 1.089 (1.027) Linguistics Course(s) -2.936*** (0.779) N 58 58 R2 0.329 0.510 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .005). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

174 The item regression results aligned with the index regression results. For Items 15 and 21, being in the high school program and not the middle grades program negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs independently; however, when combined with the other variables, no statistically significant predictors were identified for either item based on the

Bonferroni-adjusted p-value. Items 3 and 9 had no statistically significant predictors in either model. (See Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for all hierarchical regression results for all

Misinformation items.)

Qualitative findings. Qualitative data analysis for Misinformation revealed two sub- themes: Obvious and Obscure. The sub-theme of Obvious misinformation includes participant responses that addressed language myths that were more easily observable in everyday experiences, such as misconceptions about the universality of dialects and language change. The sub-theme of Obscure misinformation includes participant responses that addressed language myths, such as those regarding vernacular grammar rules and linguistic “correctness,” that were less discernible in everyday experiences, especially to individuals with no or minimal exposure to linguistic study.

Obvious. One of the language myths categorized in Obvious misinformation was the idea that only some people speak a dialect. Every participant disputed this linguistic misconception and instead asserted that everyone speaks a language variety. The only apparent difference between the participants of each SSLI level was the certainty with which they communicated this belief. Megan and Alex, who had the highest SSLI scores, simply stated that they agreed with the idea that everyone speaks a dialect. Melissa and Kacee, the moderate-level participants, demonstrated increased conviction by both claiming that they subscribed to this belief “one hundred percent.” Finally, Lana and Delila, who had the lowest SSLI scores, displayed the most

175 confidence in this idea by identifying it as an empirical truth. Delila stated, “I don’t even know if that’s a matter of agreeing; I feel like it’s just a fact.” However, these differences were subtle and did not deter participants from a strong and consistent conviction that everyone speaks a dialect.

Participants at all levels collectively employed arguments and observations to justify their belief in the universality of dialects. Alex claimed that in talking with people it was clear that

“every person just sounds different.” Kacee noted that dialects can vary by region: “My roommate—she’s from Maryland. I say carmel, she says caramel, and it’s just part of our dialect, I guess. It’s all about how our environment influenced us to speak.” Similarly, Megan declared that language can vary based on one’s home life: “It’s based on how you were raised and who you were raised with.” Lana extended this argument by claiming that speech can even vary between family members: “The members of my family speak differently and we’ve lived in the same house the whole time. So, why would we speak differently? And it’s just related to every single aspect of your life that influences that dialect in some way or another.” Participants also recounted times in which they denied that they spoke a dialect, but this experience then led to their acknowledgement of it. For example, Delila shared that “I would notice it when I would go to California and people would be like, ‘You have a southern accent.’ And I’d be like, ‘No, I don’t’…But you can tell from the way I speak, I guess. And I know I have a dialect of some sort.” Overall, this was the linguistic fact about which participants exhibited the most certainty.

The second language myth categorized in Obvious misinformation is that spoken standardized English has remained the same over time. All participants contradicted this linguistic misconception and instead claimed that spoken standardized English, and language in general, had changed. However, there was a notable difference in the depth of linguistic

176 knowledge between Megan, who had the highest SSLI score and had not taken Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, and the rest of the respondents.

First, Megan strictly discussed the evolution of spoken standardized English in the past by comparing speech from previous generations: “I guess you can tell it by your parents and their parents. My mom was raised in Charleston, so my great-grandmother, my grandmother, and [my mom] all speak a standardized English…but I can hear them—it’s different. So, I guess even looking at your family you can tell that it’s changed over the decades.” She also noted that she could discern a difference between the way characters spoke on The Andy Griffith Show and the way language is used today. In all of Megan’s observations and commentary, she consistently referred to language change as a past occurrence. In contrast, all other participants not only discussed the evolution of spoken standardized English from the past to the present, but also applied this truth to the present and future. For example, Alex asserted that

English has evolved, and I’m sure it will continue to evolve. I think it’s very arrogant to

think [that] we’re at a point where like, ‘Oh, the language has formed completely and

here we are.’ No. In a few hundred years from now they’re going to look at how we

spoke now and it’ll probably be somewhat different.

She even contemplated the ways in which her generation would transform standardized English in their approach to language as they took “more prominent roles in the business world and the education world.” Clearly, Alex did not solely conceptualize language change in the past, but anticipated linguistic evolution in the future. Melissa believed that the continuous change to spoken standardized English is due to the fact that “we don’t have set what standardized English is—or there’s no set definition of it out there.” By questioning the existence of a single Standard

American English, she could then account for its development over time. In general, participants

177 other than Megan continually referred to language as “always changing,” “constantly evolving,”

“fluid,” and “dynamic” to explain their stances on this issue.

The second observable difference between Megan and the other participants was their ability to identify specific ways that language had changed over time and the reasons for those changes. Although Megan contended that she could detect variation between older and younger speakers, she was unable to decipher the characteristics of these contrasts:

I don’t know how to explain it. It’s not the words they use because we’re all speaking

English. It’s not like they’re speaking a different language. And it’s not like they’re

changing up the subject-verb tenses or anything. But it just sounds different. And I don’t

know if it’s just maybe their pitch? I don’t know. But it definitely has changed.

On the other hand, the rest of the participants cited specific examples of language change; however, unlike the prompt, these examples typically illustrated differences between current standardized English and that from over a hundred years ago. For example, Melissa discussed language change based on semantic shifts: “It never stays the same because I know the word

‘gay’ definitely means something different back then than it does now.” Similarly, Delila noted how the meaning of “fair” has shifted from the 1600s to now. Alex, in turn, mentioned how new vocabulary, such as the term “selfie,” become more prominent and are then added to the dictionary. With regard to grammar, Delila and Alex commented on the fact that English has significantly developed in structure from Old English to Early Modern English, as in the time

Shakespeare, to now; however, Lana declared that grammar is slower to change than vocabulary.

The final difference between Megan and the other participants was in their ability to pinpoint the reasons for language change. Throughout the interview, Megan never offered any explanation for why shifts in spoken standardized English occurred. However, the rest of the

178 participants cited technology, culture, and language contact as stimuli for linguistic evolution. In reflecting on the impact of culture, Melissa argued that a rise in political correctness has changed spoken standardized English; she specifically referenced how use of the “n-word” is now only acceptable by African American speakers, but was frequently employed by white speakers in the past. Discussing the influence of language contact, Delila claimed that linguistic changes depend on “how long we’re in a certain place, who’s coming into that space, and how that shifts the way someone speaks in a native space.” Alex provided a specific example of this impetus for language development in the United States: “I think it’ll also change with just how immigration is changing and more people come into America and other people leave America. It’ll definitely change. And I think right now the amount of people who speak Spanish fluently in America—I think that’s definitely going to impact…the way we speak English.” Based on these responses, it appeared that Megan had less depth in linguistic knowledge regarding language change than the other participants.

Although every participant ultimately declared that spoken standardized English had changed over time, overall many struggled initially to respond to this statement by claiming that they were too young to observe linguistic changes over the last few decades, sharing that it was not something that they had studied. For example, Alex stated, “I really don’t know because I’ve only been alive for just over two decades. And for fifteen years of that I was living in a small mountain town.” However, when prompted to consider whether language had changed over time, participants almost immediately responded affirmatively and recalled examples of linguistic changes; they then applied that knowledge to the evolution of spoken standardized

English. Therefore, there seemed to be difficulty with instinctively considering spoken standardized English as part of participants’ knowledge about “language change.” This

179 disconnect between spoken standardized English and language itself was captured in Lana’s initial response to this language myth: “Language as opposed to standardized English really evolves a lot in what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable.” It was as if Lana was not even considering standardized English as a dialect of the English language, yet after reflecting on her knowledge of language change in general, Lana declared that spoken standardized English had

“evolved just as much as any of the other languages,” citing the addition of new words and the semantic shift of old words.

Positive experiences. With regard to experiences that participants cited as positively impacting their beliefs on Obvious misinformation, all participants, except Megan, named Dr.

Ringer’s linguistics course as influential in their refutation of both language myths. With language change, participants shared learning about the fluidity of language by tracing the origins of words to learn about the evolution of their meaning; Delila referred to this as

“deconstruction theory.” In contrast, with the fact that everyone speaks a dialect, participants claimed that the linguistics course served to solidify and deepen their understanding of observations that they had made about language variation in their own lives. Lana explained that

“I might have agreed with this statement earlier, but I didn’t know why probably until I took Dr.

Ringer’s class. It was transforming.” Delila also shared that explicitly discussing varying terminology with classmates in this linguistics course forced her to acknowledge her own dialect:

“I think we were looking at maps and kind of going over like, ‘Oh, this region says this for

‘soda’ and this one says ‘pop’ and this one says ‘coke’…But there were certain ones for me that I was like, ‘Oh, I say that.’ And everyone else was like, ‘No one says that.’ And I was like, ‘Eh.’”

In these examples, participants claimed that Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course facilitated conversations about and strengthened their understanding of dialect diversity.

180 The other experiences that participants referenced as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about the universality of dialects and language change were exposures to and observations about linguistic diversity from traveling abroad, traveling in the U.S., learning about foreign languages, and interacting with diverse speakers, such as family, friends, classmates, roommates, acquaintances, and community members. With regard to the universality of dialects, Melissa recounted that she noticed different dialects when vacationing abroad as well as in the U.S.; likewise, Alex described observing language variation when traveling to New

England and “deep south Georgia” with her family. Regarding experiences with foreign language, both Kacee and Delila shared that they learned about the different dialects of Spanish, whereas Melissa learned about language variation in American Sign Language (ASL). All participants also described a time in which they personally interacted with someone who spoke a different dialect than themselves. For example, Alex shared her debate over the pronunciation of the word “bagel” with a friend from Long Island. Likewise, Megan recalled interactions with diverse speakers from New York, Russia, and Cuba at her international high school; she remembered thinking “Oh, wow—there’s a lot of different ways to talk” and concluded that she had to “be okay with that.” Using these experiences, participants acknowledged linguistic variation across all speakers.

With regard to language change, Kacee recounted miscommunications with her parents based on certain phrases or terminology to support her belief in the evolution of spoken language; Alex similarly declared,

Hearing a group of people at my grandparent’s age talking and speaking versus hearing

the way my friends and I speak. Or my brother and his friends speak. They’re both

181 English, but there’s a difference there. And it’s kind of a generational difference. So, I

guess that’s where I feel like I’ve noticed a change in the way people speak.

She also identified changes in her own vocabulary as well as the transformation of “classic” literature in her English classes. As mentioned previously, Megan compared the language in old television programs to current speech. All of these observations highlighted the ways in which participants used their own observations of language to challenge Obvious misinformation.

Negative experiences. Participants did not cite any experiences to justify alignment with

Obvious misinformation as no one overtly subscribed to those linguistic misconceptions.

Furthermore, participants did not share any negative experiences with languages and dialects regarding this SLI belief.

Obscure. One of the language myths categorized in Obscure misinformation was the idea that vernacular dialects do not follow grammatical rules. Although high- and moderate-level participants automatically associated the term “grammar rules” with standardized English, when explicitly asked whether vernacular dialects follow their own set of grammar rules, all participants agreed with this statement. Similar to beliefs about the universality of dialects, the one detectable difference between participants was the certainty with which they made their claims; participants with high and moderate SSLI scores typically used “I think” and “I believe” when stating their opinions about this linguistic misconception, whereas participants with low

SSLI scores assertively referred to the statement as factual. For example, Melissa expressed the following idea about vernacular dialects: “I think they follow their own grammar rules…Each dialect probably has its own grammar rules that we may not have written down, but are an unspoken thing that everybody knows who speaks it.” Melissa did reject the language myth, yet she did not appear unconditionally confident. In contrast, Lana responded without reserve:

182 “True. They all have their own grammar, their own syntax, [and their own] sentence structure.

Rules for when you can use stuff, when you can’t use stuff. Yes. True.” Despite the fact that certainty in the grammaticality of vernacular dialects increased from high- and moderate-level participants to low-level participants, all participants exhibited a consistent and uniform conviction in this linguistic fact.

The other discernible difference, similar to beliefs about language change, was in the depth of linguistic knowledge between Megan, who had the highest SSLI score and had not taken Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, and the rest of the participants. Like the other participants,

Megan acknowledged the systematic patterns that define vernacular dialects: “They do follow their own rules. There is consistency…It’s not some arbitrary way that people talk.” However, when discussing vernacular grammar rules, Megan had a limited knowledge of what those rules are and would often discuss them in elementary, derogatory, and indecipherable ways. When describing vernacular patterns, Megan explained that speakers “drop the ‘g’ [and] add an apostrophe. You put together and slur together those type of words and you take out articles.”

The only linguistic phenomenon that Megan clearly identified was g-dropping; she did not communicate knowledge of any other vernacular grammar rules throughout the interview. Also, her use of the word “slur” to describe this linguistic feature characterizes the speech as indistinguishable and unclear. Finally, Megan suggested that a vernacular grammar rule was the deletion of articles; however, I am unaware of any such language pattern in English dialects.

Conversely, the other participants referenced vernacular grammar rules, such as habitual be in

AAE and a-prefixing in Appalachian English; pronunciations, such as aks for ask in AAE; and grammatical pronouns, such as y’all. In their responses, high- and moderate-level participants simply cited the vernacular linguistic feature; however, low-level participants accurately

183 explained the phenomenon. For example, when explaining habitual be in the phrase “She be working,” Delila clarified that this meant “she will always be working and it will never stop. You could never meet with her during this time type thing.” In turn, compared to Megan, the participants demonstrated more breadth of knowledge about various vernacular language characteristics and objectively described them.

The second language myth categorized in Obscure misinformation is that standardized

English is the correct way to speak English. This was the only linguistic misconception to which one participant, Megan, agreed; the rest of the participants adamantly disputed the idea. In spite of the fact that Megan expressed concern that her beliefs on this issue made her “sound really bad” and previously demonstrated an understanding that vernacular dialects follow different yet purposeful grammar rules, she still argued that standardized English was the “correct” form of

English: “Is it the correct way to speak in English? It may not be correct for us to think that way, but I think the answer now is ‘yes’ because that’s the way that everyone’s been taught.” In justifying her thoughts, Megan argued that because

most of us do speak standardized English…so, you should probably learn to speak

standardized English. Not because it’s the right way, but it’s so that you can

communicate with people because that’s what they speak. So, I guess there is a correct

way to speak English and the correct way is going to change, but right now it’s

standardized English.

When explaining her position, Megan attempted to distance herself from the right/wrong construct of language, but then ended by reaffirming her conviction that there is a “correct” form of English. Based on Megan’s responses, it appeared that her overall argument was that the

“correct” way to speak is based on majority rule; she considered minority language varieties

184 “incorrect” because most people in society do not speak them. Therefore, Megan alleged that her definition of “correct” language use was founded on the potential for maximum communicability, not the linguistic structure of the dialect; however, this mindset still served to perpetuate the privileging of and bias towards standardized English as she continuously referred to standardized English as “correct” and “right” and vernacular dialects as “incorrect” and

“wrong.”

In contrast, the other participants did not frame spoken language as right or wrong based on its alignment with or deviation from standardized English; instead, they validated different ways of speaking and broadened the conceptualization of what “correctness” in language entails.

For example, when envisioning what she would say to a vernacular speaker, Delila declared,

“‘No, you are correct. You have rules that people don’t understand besides the people who speak your dialect and the people who study your dialect’…It’s just variation. It’s not a matter of correctness.” As mentioned previously, participants who took Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course also questioned the existence of one “perfect” version of Standard American English, which many used to challenge the idea that there is one “correct” variety of English. Furthermore, several participants rationalized their attitudes by clarifying how they determined “correct” language use. Melissa intimated that it depends on the speakers themselves; she questioned, “who are you to say that that person’s wrong? To them, you’re wrong. The way you speak is wrong. You don’t speak their dialect, so why is yours right and mine’s wrong? So, I don’t think ‘correct’ is the world I would use.” Lana similarly proposed that the “right” way to speak depends on the speaker’s evaluation of their own communicative effectiveness:

The correct way to speak in English is whatever way you feel most gets your point

across. And if you’re using your vernacular, then that’s good. And if that’s using

185 Standard American English, then good…I think they’re both good and they both have

their time and place. None is any more correct than another.

Additionally, Lana suggested that “correctness” depends on the situation of the communicative act; she explained that

Standard American English isn’t always going to get the same point across. I mean,

nobody yells at a kid in Standard American English. [laughs] So, I don’t think there’s a

correct way. And sometimes…you think the other dialect is the way to better get the

point across. And so, it can be a more correct time to use it.

Lana regularly acknowledged that standardized English has its own limitations, depending on the context of the situation. Along these same lines, Alex and Melissa did not allow people’s expectations for speech in various situations to define linguistic accuracy; they clarified that using a vernacular dialect of English is not “incorrect” or “wrong,” but that in “certain environments” there is an “expected way to speak.” Finally, participants even reflected on the negative implications of assuming that standardized English is the only correct way to speak;

Alex argued that it can cause people to not “listen to ideas from other people because they sound different” and Melissa contended that it “can hinder us in a lot of ways when we put prejudices and discriminations against [vernacular] dialects because we like to think ours is the superior one, even though it’s probably not.” Overall, these participants’ interpretations of what defines

“correct” language use exhibited a steady divergence from the SLI and appeared to legitimize the structure and linguistic assets of vernacular dialects.

However, despite consistently demonstrating progressive language ideologies when explicitly asked to discuss the accuracy of spoken language, high- and moderate-level participants periodically used standardized English as the implicit default by which to verify

186 “correct” language use, much like Megan. Kacee demonstrated this unconscious act when recounting how students will “use the wrong tense of the word” or not put words in the “right order.” Although Kacee was referring to students’ adherence to standardized English grammar rules, she did not specify this criterion, thereby insinuating that standardized English is the benchmark of correctness. Additionally, all participants, except Delila, used positive descriptors to portray the aesthetic appeal of standardized English to a much greater extent than they did with vernacular dialects. (See Trivialization Qualitative Findings below for negative descriptors of vernacular dialects.) For example, Alex described standardized English as “polished,” “put together,” “well-crafted,” “fluid,” and “appealing.” Melissa employed other adjectives, such as

“elegant,” “fine-tuned,” and “proper.” Kacee and Lana used the least amount of positive descriptors but occasionally illustrated standardized English as speaking “well” and being

“clear.” Exhibiting these implicit biases towards standardized English demonstrates that although most participants have clearly learned about linguistic equality and profess acceptance of its principles, the deep-seated nature of their SLIs seem to remain entrenched in their subconscious.

Positive experiences. By and large, the experience that participants cited as having had the most positive impact on their beliefs about Obscure misinformation was Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course. For both linguistic misconceptions, all participants, except Megan, identified this class as pivotal in their understanding of vernacular grammar rules and perceptions of linguistic “correctness.” Regarding vernacular grammar rules, Kacee specifically shared that Dr.

Ringer had students identify language patterns in a letter written by an AAE speaker, which allowed her to see that

vernacular dialects have their own set of rules. Like I said with the Darius case, he

followed everything—he wrote how he talked. And everything he did, he did over and

187 over again…The rules were ingrained into him. I’ve never noticed the patterns before

taking Dr. Ringer’s class.

Alex confessed that learning about vernacular grammar rules resulted in her conception of stigmatized dialects as “far more intelligent than I think I would have thought of before” and

Lana claimed that she “respected them more—they were so much more complex than I had ever imagined.” When considering moments in the course that impacted their perception of linguistic accuracy, Lana and Melissa cited the same letter assignment as Kacee. Melissa explained that she originally assessed the vernacular features in the letter as “wrong,” but by the end of the class she realized that “the way he was writing was more [because of] his dialect than it was him just being wrong.” Delila and Melissa also noted that watching documentaries in class on people’s impressions of various American dialects and AAE in particular helped them broaden their conceptions of what it means to speak “correctly.” Overall, Alex concluded that by the end of the linguistics course, she felt that “it’s so arrogant to think that there is a standardized English and

[that] there truly is a by-the-book correct way [to speak].”

Beyond Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, Megan recalled learning about vernacular grammar rules from her education and sociology classes at Southern University; she also remembered being introduced to non-mainstream dialects by her seventh grade teacher when reading The Classic Tales of Brer Rabbit. Megan recounted realizing that “each dialect actually has its own way of writing and its own language, but it’s just different rules,” despite it being

“really frustrating because I had standardized English ingrained [in me].” Participants did not cite any experiences that they believed to have negatively impacted their beliefs about vernacular grammar rules as no one overtly subscribed to this linguistic misconception.

188 With regard to additional experiences that participants’ cited as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about the “correctness” of language, Alex and Lana identified their interactions with ethnically and linguistically diverse populations as beneficial. Alex shared that spending time with her African American roommate helped her realize that “without ever having said it, I believed stereotypes and…it’s good to be aware that if you subconsciously think you’re right, then that means you’re thinking other people are wrong.” Alex, in turn, applied this concept to linguistic diversity. Similarly, Lana reflected on her experience listening to an African

American woman giving a “really powerful speech” in AAE and recognized that she “did it way better than any white man speaking in American English would be able to do it.” The other experience that Delila and Alex named as valuable in disrupting this linguistic fallacy was traveling abroad. For example, Alex claimed that having the opportunity to visit countries like

Spain, France, and Panama “makes you appreciate people more and it even eradicates the idea that there should be a standardized English because, yes, English is a growing language [and] it’s prominent in many areas, but it’s not the end-all be-all.” Likewise, Delila employed her experiences with different language varieties of Spanish in Mexico and Spain in order to view all dialects through the lens of variation, not correctness.

Negative experiences. Conversely, the only participant to subscribe to any linguistic misconception in Misinformation was Megan, who argued that standardized English was the correct way to speak English, and she pointed to her upbringing as the catalyst for this belief.

Megan shared that she is

from a military family and some tend to be more on the right side. So, standardized

English was pushed when I was a kid as well. So, I can always detect when someone

doesn’t speak correctly or when they’re not speaking the way that I think they should in

189 the professional sense…So, I guess that’s why. [My mom] always pushed the ‘talk right,

act right’ type mentality.

Although Megan identified one source of her alignment with this particular aspect of

Misinformation, she expressed no desire to abandon the principle.

Integrated findings. Quantitative data analysis of the means for each SSLI index revealed that Misinformation was the lowest-ranked mean (M = 2.22, SD = 0.97), suggesting the least alignment with the SLI. This quantitative finding was substantiated through the qualitative data as only one participant, Megan, subscribed to one language myth, linguistic “correctness,” used to assess participants’ beliefs on Misinformation. However, despite the majority of participants’ explicit rejection of linguistic misconceptions, both on the survey and in the interviews, the qualitative data uncovered underlying, implicit biases towards standardized

English. For example, participants occasionally used standardized English as a default for discussing the accuracy of spoken language and more frequently employed positive adjectives to describe the aesthetic nature of standardized English. Additionally, I was curious if any survey participants, like Megan, acknowledged that vernacular dialects are rule-governed yet also believed that standardized English is the correct way to speak English; however, in addition to

Megan, only one other survey participant agreed with both of these statements.

The two items with the lowest average SSLI scores were Items 3 (M = 1.48, SD = 0.81) and 9 (M = 2.20, SD = 1.24); these statements asserted that everyone speaks a dialect and spoken standardized English has changed over the last few decades, respectively. Qualitative findings validated these results as participants categorically endorsed these linguistic facts with the most certainty. Out of the four Misinformation items, these two items had the second-strongest correlation, r = 0.36, p = .005. Alternatively, the two items with the highest mean scores were

190 Items 15 (M = 2.81, SD = 1.61) and 21 (M = 2.48, SD = 1.38); these statements asserted that vernacular dialects follow grammar rules and standardized English is the correct way to speak

English, respectively. Qualitative findings corroborated these results as the majority of participants rejected the linguistic misconceptions and upheld the linguistic facts presented in each statement, yet Item 21 was the one statement in which a participant exhibited alignment with the SLI. Additionally, out of the four Misinformation items, these two items had the strongest correlation, r = 0.53, p < .001. These quantitative findings and the interview responses helped to determine Obvious misinformation and Obscure misinformation as two separate sub- themes for Misinformation. Specifically, the qualitative data revealed that participants more easily disputed the language myths of Obvious misinformation through their own personal observations; however, explicit linguistic instruction was more necessary to contradict the language myths of Obscure misinformation.

Hierarchical regression for the Misinformation index revealed that having taken a linguistics course was the strongest predictor for a lower SSLI score on this index and item; this quantitative finding was substantiated through the qualitative data, considering that all participants, except Megan, cited Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course as an influential factor in their repudiation of the language myths in Misinformation. The one contradiction to the regression result was that Megan did not identify her experience in a linguistics course at the local community college that she discussed in the interview as having any impact on her beliefs on

Misinformation, yet she rejected all but one of the language myths. The regression also indicated that being in the high school program was a negative predictor of SSLI scores on the

Misinformation index; however, it was a weaker predictor than participation in linguistics

191 course(s). Furthermore, the qualitative data did not reveal a difference between participants’ responses based on their academic program.

Other findings identified only in the qualitative data revealed that participants cited exposure to linguistic diversity from traveling abroad, traveling in the U.S., learning a foreign language, and interacting with diverse speakers as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about Obvious misinformation. Likewise, experiences with diverse dialects, ethnically and linguistically diverse populations, foreign travel, and foreign languages, were referenced as positively affecting participants’ attitudes towards Obscure misinformation yet were not captured quantitatively. Finally, only the qualitative data revealed that one participant, Megan, cited her upbringing as justification to align with Obscure misinformation.

Trivialization. The survey items and interview questions for this SLI belief attempted to measure and explore participants’ beliefs about whether vernacular dialects are inferior to standardized English in terms of their significance, seriousness, complexity, or precision.

Quantitative findings. The overall Trivialization index average (M = 3.14, SD = 1.10) ranked fourth out of the six SSLI indexes for the highest mean score (Table 4.24).

Table 4.24 Descriptive Statistics for Trivialization Index Group Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis All 3.14 1.10 1 7 0.08 0.13 High School 2.43 1.02 1 4.5 0.08 0.94 Middle Grades 3.36 0.84 2 5.25 1.00 0.26 Note. All participants includes those who had any data for the SSLI, including those who only partially completed the SSLI and did not complete later sections of the survey (N = 65). Program-specific groups are limited to those in the final analysis sample: High School (n = 21) and Middle Grades (n = 37).

To start, I examined the means and response percentages of each item in the

Trivialization category (Tables 4.25-4.26). The Trivialization item with the lowest mean (M =

1.92, SD = 1.13) was “Vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American culture” with almost all participants (92%) agreeing to some degree with the statement. In contrast, the item

192 with the highest mean (M = 4.69, SD = 1.40) was “When having serious conversations, it is best to use standardized English” with about two-thirds of the participants (66%) agreeing to some degree with the statement. The item “Students can precisely articulate their thoughts when speaking a vernacular dialect” had the second-lowest mean (M = 2.29, SD = 1.11) with over three-fourths of participants (82%) agreeing to some degree with the statement; however, the highest percentage of participants chose “Neither Agree nor Disagree” for this item (16%).

Finally, the item “Speaking a vernacular dialect is a simpler form of communication” had the second-highest mean (M = 3.40, SD = 1.73) with over one third of participants (35%) agreeing to some degree with the statement. Overall, the averages for the items in this category had the largest range (2.77) of all categories and all items were included in the index.

Table 4.25 Descriptive Statistics for Trivialization Items Item No. Item Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis 2 When having serious conversations, 4.69 1.40 1 7 0.04 0.92 it is best to use standardized English. 8 Vernacular dialects significantly 1.92 1.13 1 6 0.00 0.00 contribute to American culture. 14 Speaking a vernacular dialect is a 3.40 1.73 1 6 0.96 0.00 simpler form of communication. 20 Students can precisely articulate 2.29 1.11 1 5 0.14 0.04 their thoughts when speaking a vernacular dialect. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

193 Table 4.26 Response Percentages for Trivialization Items Item Item Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly No. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 2 When having serious 6.15% 23.08% 36.92% 12.31% 12.31% 7.69% 1.54% conversations, it is best (n=4) (n=15) (n=24) (n=8) (n=8) (n=5) (n=1) to use standardized English. 8 Vernacular dialects 43.75% 34.38% 14.06% 4.69% 0.00% 3.13% 0.00% significantly contribute (n=28) (n=22) (n=9) (n=3) (n=0) (n=2) (n=0) to American culture. 14 Speaking a vernacular 0.00% 12.70% 22.22% 12.70% 15.87% 17.46% 19.05% dialect is a simpler form (n=0) (n=8) (n=14) (n=8) (n=10) (n=11) (n=12) of communication. 20 Students can precisely 29.03% 32.26% 20.97% 16.13% 1.61% 0.00% 0.00% articulate their thoughts (n=18) (n=20) (n=13) (n=10) (n=1) (n=0) (n=0) when speaking a vernacular dialect. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that for Model 1, program contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 14.03, p < .001, and accounted for 20.0% of the variation in Trivialization (Table 4.27). I then introduced academic standing, political affiliation, and linguistics course(s), which explained an additional 12.6% of the variation in Trivialization; this change in R2 was not significant, F(5, 51) = 1.91, p = .11. There was an increase (.96) in the program correlation coefficient from Model 1 to Model 2 and program was statistically significant in both models. Regression results indicated that being in the high school program (β

= -0.33, p = .02) negatively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Trivialization.

On average, participants in the high school program scored 2.76 points lower on the

Trivialization index than participants in the middle grades program, holding all else constant, β =

-0.33, t(57) = -2.46, p = .02. The results also revealed that identifying as conservative (β = 0.28, p = .03) positively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Trivialization. On average, participants who identified as conservative scored 2.27 points higher on the

Trivialization index than participants who identified as liberal, holding all else constant, β =

0.28, t(57) = 2.25, p = .03. Overall, although identifying as conservative did not statistically

194 significantly increase the explained variance in Trivialization in addition to program, it did increase the explained variance and serve as a statistically significant predictor in Model 2.

However, program was still the strongest predictor for participants’ reported language beliefs on

Trivialization.

Table 4.27 Regressions of Trivialization Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -3.718*** -2.756* (0.993) (1.120) Junior 1.425 (1.066) Sophomore 1.484 (1.477) Conservative 2.272* (1.008) Moderate 1.009 (1.648) Linguistics Course(s) -1.002 (1.250) N 58 58 R2 0.200 0.326 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .11). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

The item regression results revealed that there were no statistically significant predictors for Items 2, 8, 14, or 20 in either model based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value. (See

Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for all hierarchical regression results for all

Trivialization items.)

Qualitative findings. Qualitative data analysis for Trivialization revealed three sub- themes: Significant, Capable, and Appropriate. The sub-theme of Significant trivialization

195 includes participant responses that addressed the importance and significance of vernacular dialects to the identity of speakers and American culture in general. The sub-theme of Capable trivialization includes participant responses that addressed the capacity of vernacular dialect to be complex and precise. The sub-theme of Appropriate trivialization includes participant responses that addressed the appropriateness of vernacular dialects in “serious,” important, and intellectual settings; additionally, this sub-theme addresses the connection between Appropriate trivialization and participants’ perceptions of code-switching, or alternating between two languages or language varieties.

Significant. All participants recognized the connection between language and identity; however, Megan’s perception of this relationship dramatically differed from that of the rest of the participants. To start, Megan claimed that, “Language, to me, isn’t really personal. It’s not cultural. Language, to me, is a form of communication. I’m not attached to one language. I’m attached to the language because it’s what gets me what I want or gets me where I’m going.”

Megan declared no personal connection to language and refused to acknowledge any way in which her language contributed to her identity; instead, she appeared to view it solely as a commodity by which needs could be met and success could be acquired. She further explained that should “Standard English” be changed to “Ebonics,” then she “could easily be like, ‘Okay, this is what we’re going to use…It’s just a simple mindset shift.” In this explanation, Megan seemed to be implying that the ways in which she communicates to those around her is not a reflection of who she is and can be replaced without difficulty. Even when conceding that a connection could exist between language and identity, she distanced the idea from herself and projected it onto “other” people who are “brought up somewhere different in a different culture.”

By using the word “different” twice, she insinuated that this personal connection to language was

196 not typical, and certainly not universal. The single time that Megan mentioned celebrating students’ dialects, she immediately qualified it by claiming that there are still “cases where you do need to talk with the standardized English.” Megan’s dissociation between language and identity were evident in her beliefs on other aspects of Trivialization as well.

Conversely, the rest of the participants not only recognized the existence of a connection between language and identity but championed its importance. Alex and Delila asserted that language is a large part of people’s identity, and Kacee maintained that this is why “they don’t want it taken away from them.” Commenting on this relationship, Lana claimed that when people speak in their own language variety, they can “really be their most authentic selves” and that it “allows for personality.” These participants also extended these beliefs to the classroom, contending that, because of the connection between language and identity, they, as teachers, desired to respect and celebrate students’ home dialects. Alex wanted to “create an environment where people feel free to speak the dialect they have” and Kacee questioned why she would not celebrate linguistic diversity as it is “part of their culture.” On a personal level, Delila declared that the legitimacy of vernacular dialects was something she “could celebrate about people.”

Alternatively, Lana reflected on the fact that dismissing diverse language varieties in the classroom could have a detrimental impact on students because of their relationship with identity:

It really negates a lot of people’s cultures…because it really unfairly stigmatizes a lot of

different groups by saying that, ‘What my teacher says is right and what you’re saying is

wrong.’ It’s like this really big dichotomy. ‘So, if this is right, then everything that I’ve

done at home or with my friends and everything is wrong.’ That’s not really a good

dichotomy to have.

197 Lana contended that the rejection of students’ language is also a rejection of the family and community from which they came—the people and places that contribute to their sense of self.

Overall, it appeared that these participants respected the relationship between language and identity and even wanted to apply this philosophy to their teaching; however, it is important to remember that these are the same beliefs that high- and moderate-level participants contradicted in their beliefs on the authority of People.

Similarly, all participants acknowledged that vernacular dialects contribute to American culture, yet, once again, Megan differed from the other participants by asserting that they do not contribute significantly. She negated their significance by claiming that “when foreigners come over they still expect to hear the way that we’re being taught to speak” and asserted that vernacular dialects do not significantly contribute to the “job market.” Megan’s first remark based the cultural significance of dialects on whether or not they match standardized language norms and meet others’ expectations of alleged homogeneity. Her second comment returns back to her conception of language as nothing more than a commodity—a currency by which to accomplish and acquire what you want; in this example, Megan asserted that if a language variety is not profitable in the job market, then it is not significant to the national culture. She also suggested that linguistic diversity hinders mutually intelligibility when vernacular speakers do not “try and communicate with you” and claimed that non-mainstream dialects are “still foreign to us.” This othering of marginalized groups’ languages varieties further reinforced

Megan’s notion that vernacular dialects do not significantly contribute to American culture. On the other hand, Megan cited one way that non-mainstream dialects contribute to national culture; she claimed that “America was originally a melting pot, and when you think of America now you don’t just think of people that talk exactly like me.” Although Megan referenced the impact

198 of language variation on American diversity, she did not classify this as a significant contribution nor discuss any other cultural benefits that it has to offer.

In contrast, all other participants unequivocally agreed that vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American culture and they warranted this claim with several reasons.

The rest of the participants contended that non-mainstream language varieties play an important role in the makeup of America’s cultural diversity. Alex referred to the United States as a

“melting pot” and Melissa labeled it a “mosh pit” when describing all of the different dialects, from Maine to Kansas to Minnesota, that are instrumental in its diverse constitution. However, unlike Megan, Kacee and Alex argued that vernacular dialects significantly contribute to

American culture because they are “part of our culture as Americans,” considering “we’re pretty much all immigrants from somewhere here.” Instead of excluding stigmatized language varieties from what is considered “American,” Kacee and Alex embraced them as important to its cultural fabric. Additionally, these participants maintained that vernacular dialects aid in America’s progress.

In reference to linguistic progress, Kacee suggested that having “multiple dialects” provided “new ways of speaking with each other.” Delila concurred when she explained that

“someone could communicate a phrase or an inflection and I’m like, [snaps fingers] “I like that.

And that’s clicked for me in your vernacular—in your dialect. And that didn’t click for me in my own because that’s almost not even invented yet.’” Kacee promoted the idea that all language varieties “correlate ideas” and “contribute to each other,” whereas Delila spoke specifically about the linguistic assets offered by stigmatized dialects that are not available to her in a standardized variety. On the other hand, Alex and Kacee asserted that linguistic diversity contributes to innovation. Speaking of language variation, Alex claimed that “progress happens

199 and discoveries get created when instead of trying to eradicate change or standardize everything, we embrace individuality and we allow those differences to all provide solutions on different things” because people who “speak different, therefore, think differently.” Likewise, Kacee stated that it “brings in new ideas.” Thus, Alex and Kacee argued that various ways of speaking are representative of various ways of thinking and, therefore, beneficial to a society’s development. As the final aspect of progress, Melissa proposed that having various dialects

“makes us open to more” as we acknowledge different ways of doing things; she further explained that linguistic diversity “shows that we have all these opportunities. We can be so different in our same country and yet have so many options in being able to do whatever.”

Melissa seemed to imply that exposure to language variation is an important component of accepting other people and recognizing their abilities.

Along the same lines, Delila and Kacee shared that language itself contributes to

American culture because it shapes the way people see each other and the world around them.

Delila clarified that “language can shape our perception of the way we see things. It almost adds to the human experience in a way. Like, how language shapes our perception of everything we’re witnessing. So, I feel like we would be missing out.” Similarly, Kacee stated that vernacular dialects “do contribute to how I see my friends or a stranger—how I perceive someone else. I believe that’s a big part of the contribution.” Without variation in language, they seemed to suggest, speakers would be unable to index their identity with different social, ethnic, and regional groups in order to best communicate who they are; in turn, listeners would be unable to participate in this social exchange of identity, resulting in a monochrome impression of people and culture in the world. Conversely, the only concern high- and moderate-level participants had about the impact of linguistic diversity on American culture related to this exact idea; they

200 claimed that it provided opportunities for prejudice and marginalization against speakers of stigmatized dialects. Alex even recognized her own bias:

You could say that because there are people who don’t like people who sound different—

and I’m sure I’m guilty of it at some point. We think we’re speaking Standard English, so

I think we get hurt when we get caught up in the mindset of, ‘Oh, we all should be the

same.’ Or, in our stubbornness, we don’t listen to ideas from other people because maybe

they sound different.

Melissa agreed with this sentiment claiming that it “hinders us in a lot of ways when we put prejudices and discriminations against dialects because we like to think ours is the superior one, even though we’re probably not.” In both of these explanations, instead of blaming attitudes of intolerance and acts of subordination on the existence of language variation, participants structured their responses to suggest that it is instead these beliefs and behaviors that jeopardize

American culture.

Regarding pop culture in particular, Lana and Delila commented on the important contribution of vernacular dialects to social media, music, and art. Lana explained that

We have African American dialects being more accepted in pop culture, which is

awesome…On the opposite side of that, you can think about country music and

everybody has to say the ‘A’s the same way. And it doesn’t matter where you’re from as

long as you can sing the song the right way with the right pronunciation and everything.

Delila, on the other hand, discussed the impact of vernacular dialects on “rap music, pop music, modern art, fashion” and social media. Delila shared that language use on Instagram, Facebook,

Twitter, and Snapchat is largely informed by AAE, “and so it’s kind of funny in that sense how there can be this social tax but you love the culture.” Although both participants recognized the

201 significance of stigmatized language varieties in various aspects of pop culture, Delila was the only one to note the hypocrisy of the dominant culture celebrating and, at times, appropriating vernacular language features in certain settings yet rejecting the same dialect in others.

This duplicity is suggested in the final way that participants conceptualized the contribution of vernacular dialects to American culture; they declared that non-mainstream dialects are more “fun.” Alex claimed that having diverse dialects “just makes it more fun. It’s more exciting when everything isn’t the exact same way and everyone doesn’t sound the exact same.” Likewise, when reflecting on the benefit of learning about linguistic diversity to people’s cultural awareness, Lana stated that “being opened to so many of the dialects, people are like,

‘Oh, this is fun. Let’s include this’” and declared that vernacular speakers’ cultural linguistic backgrounds are “really cool” and have “a lot of fun things about [them].” Melissa also described non-mainstream accents as “cool.” On the surface, perceiving vernacular dialects and their contribution to society as “fun,” “exciting,” and “cool” appears to be complimentary and portray a positive attitude towards the significance of stigmatized language varieties; however, it is possible that these seemingly supportive and affirmative conceptions can also be used to marginalize these dialects in situations deemed to be more “serious” or “important” as well as solely frame them in terms of what they can provide for standardized English speakers.

Positive experiences. With regard to experiences that participants cited as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about Significant trivialization, low- and moderate-level participants referenced Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course. Melissa and Kacee both pointed to documentaries that they watched in the class on language variation in general as well as AAE; reflecting on the AAE film, Kacee stated that “we studied how African Americans today feel about their dialect and how it’s a part of their culture. There was this man in New York City,

202 actually, and he was so enthusiastic about his dialect and he was telling people that this is my dialect.” Alternatively, Delila recounted that learning about the grammatical patterns of stigmatized dialects helped her to “celebrate” that about people; she continued, “I had to do a lot of reflecting in that class and continue asking myself questions…I felt more enlightened and like

I could actually speak about [linguistic issues] and not just think about them on my own.”

Explicit linguistic instruction, therefore, was referenced as a positive influence on these participants’ perceptions of the importance of vernacular language to a speaker’s identity as well its legitimacy.

Another experience participants noted as having positively affected participants’ attitudes on Significant trivialization was experience with linguistically and ethnically diverse populations. Alex shared that moving away from her homogenous hometown in the mountains allowed her to “interact with people who sound different, who speak different…And I think the more I’ve gotten to experience it, the more I appreciate it.” Similarly, Melissa’s job at a hospital provided her with opportunities to converse with people who “had accents from different walks of life. Some people from different countries or different states would come through. And I really appreciate it because the stories they have and the way they tell their stories.” Finally,

Delila reflected on her very personal and extensive interaction with her ethnically and linguistically diverse teammates at Southern University and her participation in a diverse

Christian organization for athletes on campus; she recalled recognizing the ability of vernacular dialects to communicate certain ideas better than standardized English during this time, which forced her to confront her “implicit biases” about the dialects and the speakers.

As the participant whose responses exhibited no detectable alignment with the SLI for

Significant trivialization, Delila offered another experience with language that she felt positively

203 influenced her attitudes. She claimed that traveling abroad to Mexico allowed her to “see how much language can create community” and inspired her to “educate myself on language variation because if I don’t relate to my students and they don’t relate to me, they’re not going to want to learn from me.” With this in mind, during student teaching, Delila designed a unit on how “high art” is defined; she discussed the “genius” behind rapper Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics and found that her students “almost stood up a little straighter” as they now thought, “‘Yeah, I listen to literature.’” Delila recounted this moment as a positive experience with language and dialects as she celebrated how her students were learning to value vernacular dialects.

Negative experiences. In order to justify her alignment with Significant trivialization,

Megan referenced her experiences with diverse dialects to explain why vernacular language varieties do not significantly contribute to American culture. She recounted asking non- mainstream speakers

“Are you from here?” I try and mask that when I’m working because I don’t want to

offend them, but sometimes I am right. Sometimes they speak with a certain vernacular

dialect and I’m like, “Oh, they’re not from here. I need to scale back my vocabulary a

lot.” So, I guess it definitely contributes to it in the way in which people think about

American culture, but it doesn’t significantly contribute to America in the job market or

something.

Megan used her recognition of stigmatized language features to argue that vernacular dialects are not significant to American culture because they are noticeable to standardized speakers and, therefore, unprofitable.

Capable. Regarding participants’ beliefs on the capacity of vernacular dialects to be complex, the findings revealed similar results to that of their significance. In general, Megan

204 held the least sophisticated beliefs about this aspect of Capable trivialization compared to the rest of the participants; however, there was some overlap in attitudes with a moderate-level participant. Megan endorsed the idea that non-mainstream dialects are simpler forms of communication in claiming that, within these varieties, “the meaning’s dumbed down,” “there’s less syllables,” “the words are way more rudimentary,” they are “not as elegant or evolved,” and they are “broken.” Reflecting on an interaction she had with a vernacular speaker at work, she shared that the “dialect was really irritating to me because it was so simple.” Based on these responses, and Megan’s continuous referral to stigmatized dialects as “simple” throughout the interview, she alludes to these language varieties as unsophisticated, unrefined, and primitive.

The only remotely positive adjective Megan used to describe non-mainstream dialects was

“efficient,” based on linguistic features, such as g-dropping, and the use of acronyms; however, this descriptor still appeared to connote simplicity as Megan followed this characterization with comments on the underdeveloped nature of these language varieties. In contrast, Kacee also referred to vernacular dialects as simpler, but was careful to point out that she did not mean this as a “derogatory thing”; she explained that these dialects are a “more condensed form of speaking” because “they’ll shorten words and they’ll just shorten phrases…One example would be ain’t. ‘I ain’t doin’ that’—a common thing in vernacular dialect. And instead of saying ‘I ain’t doin’ that,’ I can say ‘I am not going to do that.’ And that just seems so much shorter—so much simpler.” Furthermore, Kacee revealed a more progressive belief on the issue later on in the interview when stating that non-mainstream language varieties are “just as complex as standardized English.”

The rest of the participants disagreed with the claim that vernacular dialects are simpler forms of communication and validated their complexity by citing the rules that govern them.

205 Melissa reflected on the quantity of grammatical patterns to justify the intricacy of stigmatized language varieties: “Each dialect and language has so many rules that are impossible to have written down completely, so I wouldn’t say it’s simpler.” On the other hand, Lana and Delila equalized the complexity of vernacular dialects and standardized English based on the fact that they both follow their own rules; Delila explained that “Every dialect is patternized [and] has rules just like standardized English” and Lana referenced the grammatical pattern habitual be to substantiate her claim. Finally, Alex and Delila defended the complexity of stigmatized language varieties by discussing their understanding of AAE as standardized English speakers; Alex referred to it as “a code that I’m not aware of” and Delila acknowledged that speaking AAE is

“something I don’t know how to do. If I tried talking black, I would do it wrong.” In recognizing the proficiency and mastery required to speak AAE according to its rules and acknowledging their own inability to speak it correctly, Delila and Alex validated its complex structure. These attitudes are in direct contradiction to the ease with which Megan previously suggested that she could adopt “Ebonics” with a “simple mindset shift,” further demonstrating her pejorative beliefs which charged vernacular dialects with structural and lexical simplicity.

Participants’ beliefs on the capacity of vernacular dialects to be precise were somewhat more stratified by SSLI level. The high- and moderate level participants argued that vernacular dialects can be precise, depending on the audience, yet are not as precise as standardized

English; in contrast, low-level participants asserted that vernacular dialects were just as precise as standardized English, without stipulation. Basing precision on the audience’s comprehension,

Megan stated that students who speak stigmatized language varieties can precisely articulate themselves “but that would mean that the person they’re talking to would have to also understand their dialect.” When pointedly asked if vernacular dialects can be as precise as

206 standardized English, Megan responded that they currently are not because “standardized

English is so ingrained” and there are “some vernaculars I’m not going to be able to understand.”

Likewise, Melissa asserted that standardized English is more precise “to a larger group of people” and because “most everyone knows standardized.” Therefore, they argued that because more people are taught standardized English and supposedly more people understand it, the variety is inevitably more precise than its vernacular counterparts. Kacee and Alex also claimed that non-mainstream speakers can speak precisely, yet qualified their responses based on the situation and the audience. For example, Kacee explained that an English language learner

“might have trouble picking up on some of what you say in your vernacular,” which results in the dialect being less precise.

In contrast, participants with low SSLI scores maintained that stigmatized language varieties are just as precise as standardized English in their ability to express speakers’ thoughts.

Referencing vocabulary, Lana explained that vernacular dialects “can be just as precise…because Standard American English doesn’t account for vocabulary in the same way.

And the vocabulary in one dialect can be just as useful as the vocabulary in Standard American

English. And it can be just as efficient.” Delila similarly noted that there are words developed in non-mainstream varieties that are “attributed to the culture and what they might believe or their history type thing. And so, in terms of what they’re talking about, like subject matter, certain things might be articulated more.” Furthermore, drawing on her knowledge of foreign languages, she described how “other languages have different words for love and what kind of love that is, so that would be being more articulate in what they mean…So, I feel like in ways standardized

English is more precise and in other ways it’s not where other vernaculars are more precise.”

Based on these responses, Lana and Delila seemed to be stressing the equality of all dialects in

207 their ability to be precise; instead of evaluating the precision of language varieties on whether standardized English speakers or learners can comprehend them, they argued that each dialect is precise in its own right and offers tools for precise communication on various topics. Delila even recounted identifying certain phrases used by non-mainstream speakers that “clicked” for her and expressed a sentiment with more exactness than her own standardized variety. Similarly, Lana shared an example from a character who spoke a stigmatized dialect in the book Gone with the

Wind to illustrate how vernacular language varieties can precisely convey tone and emotion as well: “The midwife in that, you know? ‘I ain’t never been birthin’ no babies.’ That really gets the tone across a lot more and the thoughts and the feelings of, ‘Oh my gosh. This is happening.’

And fear if this is going to go wrong.” She then translated the midwife’s exclamation to standardized English as “You know, I’m just feeling a little nervous about this and I haven’t ever done this before” and concluded that “vernacular can be just as good, if not better [than standardized English].” In sum, low-level participants argued that all dialects have equal capacity to be precise, and, in certain circumstances and on certain subjects, stigmatized language varieties can even be more exact in their articulation than standardized English.

Positive experiences. Regarding experiences that participants cited as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about Capable trivialization, three experiences were identified as influential: Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, interactions with linguistically-diverse populations, and learning a foreign language. All participants, except Megan, shared that learning about vernacular grammar rules in the linguistics course resulted in their view of stigmatized varieties as “far more intelligent,” “complex,” consistent, and patterned than they had originally thought.

Likewise, participants with moderate SSLI scores, as well as Delila, cited experiences with diverse speakers as instrumental in their divergence from Capable trivialization with regard

208 to casting vernacular dialects as simple and imprecise. Melissa recounted learning about the complexity of non-mainstream dialects when visiting “family members that live in different parts of the country” and recognizing that they had their “own kind of language and…so many rules.”

Similarly, Kacee recalled conversations with her friend who speaks AAE to defend the capacity for stigmatized varieties to be precise: “My friend Tiana, she can speak in her vernacular dialect and I know exactly what she’s talking about…Usually they can articulate their thoughts very well.” Additionally, she shared that she had “teachers that speak in the vernacular dialect and they get across their lessons. They teach a whole class of thirty students in their dialect and everybody understands.” Participants were able to use their experiences with explicit linguistic instruction and personal experiences with linguistically-diverse populations to question Capable trivialization.

Finally, learning about a foreign language was the only other experience that a participant,

Delila, cited as influential in her perception of stigmatized varieties as precise; she used this experience to defend that the idea that different languages and vernacular dialects can both offer unique, and at times more effective, forms of expression.

Negative experiences. In contrast, Megan was the only participant to reference experiences with diverse speakers that she felt led her to believe that non-mainstream language varieties are more simplistic than standardized English. Recounting an experience with a vernacular-speaking customer at work when completing paperwork, Megan expressed irritation and frustration at the speaker’s use of abbreviations, such as “ID” and “SSN,” and even described the speaker as

“cocky.” She claimed that this was when she surmised that stigmatized dialects are “simpler” because “it’s probably not as elegant or evolved as the way I was trying to present the transaction to him.”

209 Appropriate. Participants’ beliefs on the appropriateness of vernacular dialects in serious settings, however, cut across SSLI levels and exhibited a certain degree of alignment with the

SLI from every participant. To start, Megan was the only participant who explicitly stated that vernacular dialects are incompatible with serious topics; however, most participants made this implication more subtly. She alleged,

I feel like if I were to talk to someone who had different religious views than I did and I

started slurring my words and talking in slang, they would think I was making fun of what

they were saying or what they thought was right. [Speaking in standardized English] is

kind of a polite thing to do when you’re talking about something serious.

In this explanation, Megan insinuated that non-mainstream dialects are not serious enough to discuss sensitive subject matters without being perceived as mockery. She further claimed that speakers of stigmatized language varieties “normally don’t talk about things that are quite as important” and that speaking standardized English indicates that “you want to talk to me about something. You don’t want to just joke around. You actually want to have a serious conversation with me.” Based on this assertion, Megan relegated vernacular dialects to conversations about that which is superficial and negligible, thus implying that they had no place in serious situations.

Conversely, the rest of the participants claimed that the appropriateness of using a non- mainstream language variety in a serious conversation is dependent on to whom someone is speaking, not the content of the exchange. For example, Alex explained that “it depends on who you’re talking with. If I’m talking with my family—even if we’re talking about something serious—the way I speak might sound different than if I’m having a serious conversation with a stranger on the street.” On the other hand, Lana described exchanges between friends: “If you’re

210 having a serious conversation about [how] somebody’s boyfriend broke up with them and it’s actually serious, then you can be like, ‘Oh my gosh, girl’ and break into that more colloquialism, not-so-standardized English.” Although these participants did not automatically demote vernacular dialects to conversations about frivolous and inconsequential topics, the fact that participants only described social situations with family and friends as times in which it would be acceptable to speak seriously with a stigmatized language variety implied that they too did not consider non-mainstream dialects to be as appropriate as standardized English in all situations.

This finding was further substantiated as all participants declared that mainstream English is best for professional situations, whereas vernacular dialects are more appropriate for casual situations. Although participants previously acknowledged that discussions in social contexts can be serious as well, their descriptions of professional and casual situations did not reflect this recognition. Professional situations were described as being “serious” and “important”; examples of these settings included being in the workplace, in an interview, at the doctor’s office, and in a debate. Conversely, casual situations were described as “loose,” “relaxed,” “less serious,”

“personal,” “social,” and “comfortable”; they were also characterized as “goofing off.” Examples of these settings included talking with family, friends, and peers. Melissa explained that

“Something that addresses a lot of people or important people should use standardized English.”

Overall, participants appeared to dichotomize the aptness of language use based on the perceived seriousness and importance of the people with which and places in which the speech act takes place, in turn consigning non-mainstream dialects to communication outside of dominant,

“government-run” institutions in “less serious” places with “less important” people.

Participants cited many reasons why they believed standardized English was most appropriate for serious conversations within professional situations. First, they argued that it

211 makes speakers appear as if they “care,” “are put together,” “know what they’re talking about,” and “are engaged in the conversation.” This assignment of positive attributes to speakers of standardized dialects will be discussed further in Conformers/Non-Conformers below. Second, participants claimed that speaking mainstream English is to “speak with respect” and, therefore, more acceptable in serious situations; Melissa maintained that this is necessary “so you can’t mess up or offend somebody by using some dialect that people are offended by.” These examples illustrated an attentive concern to show respect for and not offend authority figures, yet disregarded the rights of and affronts on speakers of stigmatized language varieties; consequently, participants seemed to dismiss the significance of vernacular dialects to speakers’ identities and American culture as well as the linguistic assets offered by these dialects based on their unique complexity and precision—all attributes most participants plainly acknowledged previously. Third, participants contended that standardized English is the “socially contrived norm that everyone has agreed upon as best to use” and that “most people understand it better.”

The assumption that mainstream English is a norm to which “everyone” has consented obscures the privilege it grants those who grew up speaking it and the advantage it affords them in these

“serious” settings. Finally, Kacee explained that if a speaker uses a vernacular dialect in a serious situation “then people are just like, ‘You’re trying to make a point and you’re kind of ruining it with the slang or the improperness of how you speak.’ It kind of takes away from your overall point.” Overall, conceptualizing standardized English as more appropriate for the seriousness of professional situations than vernacular dialects relied heavily on participants’ regard for the perceptions and attitudes of those in power and revealed a more insidious alignment with the authority of People and the authority of Concepts to justify their beliefs on this aspect of Capable trivialization.

212 However, when discussing the appropriateness of non-mainstream dialects to seriously engage in academic settings, the common divide between low-level participants and high- and moderate-level participants resurfaced. Recasting their arguments in support of Authority, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores limited the use of stigmatized language varieties to serious conversations held outside of the classroom and envisioned the concept of code-switching as a complete divide between educational and social contexts. For example,

Kacee argued that “code-switching could really help [students] to understand ‘I need to speak formally when I’m talking to my professor’ versus ‘I can speak casually when I’m with my friends and my family.’” Alex shared that she would use herself as an example and tell students,

“‘I’m in a classroom. I’m speaking the way I am…because this is a more professional setting.

When I’m outside this setting, I’m not speaking like this necessarily.’” Megan went so far as to state that an appropriate context for speaking a vernacular dialect is “when you’re at home alone or with your family.” Within the classroom, Melissa stated that “serious conversations would be when you’re talking to the whole class and the teacher” and, thus, require standardized English; she further implied that stigmatized language varieties are only useful for lowbrow communication, devoid of intellectual content: “I think if [students] are done with their assignment and goofing around, I’m not going to stop them from speaking their dialect. Like,

‘Your school portion is done, so you can go ahead and talk how you want to.’ But as they’re working on school work, they need to be standardized.” It is interesting to note that within the context of this discussion, the prior inconsistencies and hesitations these participants exhibited about the exclusion of vernacular dialects from the classroom were nonexistent; they appeared to hold firm in their beliefs that standardized English is more appropriate for the serious, intellectual, and scholarly subject matter and environment of an educational setting.

213 Although Lana and Delila, the participants with the lowest SSLI scores, also fell victim to rejecting the use of stigmatized language varieties for serious conversations in professional situations outside of academia, they challenged these beliefs within the context of schools, similar to their attitudes on Authority. They re-emphasized how they would teach students that all language varieties, including standardized English and vernacular dialects, are tools that can be used to students’ advantage, should they decide to utilize them. Furthermore, they promoted a more flexible idea of code-switching than the strict dichotomy for language use that was upheld by the other participants. Lana explained that “teaching a code-switching method” in which students “have just as many opportunities to be able to use their own dialect and choice of style” is crucial because using those language varieties is “just as important to use as often.” Just as

Delila and Lana articulated in their discussions about Authority, they believed that encouraging students to speak their home dialect in the classroom would generate a better academic “product” because students would feel comfortable expressing themselves. Additionally, they expressed no concern about the ability of vernacular dialects to communicate serious and intellectual ideas within the classroom; Delila even critically examined the tendency to label “standardized English as academic and [vernacular speech] as social” and concluded that “it’s still kind of saying

‘You’re not accepted here.’” Overall, Lana and Delila conveyed significantly more progressive beliefs regarding the use of stigmatized language varieties to hold serious conversations in academic settings than they did in professional settings. It is likely that their concern about the way vernacular dialects are perceived in the “real world,” pointing to their beliefs about

Promises/Threats, prompted this contrast. For example, Lana contended that employing mainstream dialects in professional situations will “make people take you seriously” even though she “[wishes] that wasn’t the case.” It is also possible that the ability of Delila and Lana to

214 control the way language variation will be treated in their future classrooms versus their inability to control the way they believe the world works might have given rise to this disparity as well.

Positive experiences. As only low-level participants diverged from Appropriate trivialization, there was only one experience that they cited as having had a positive impact on their beliefs: Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course. Delila referenced this class when expressing a more progressive view of code-switching than the traditional home versus school dichotomy and Lana claimed she learned about the inequality of linguistic norms from the course as well.

Negative experiences. In contrast, Megan was the only participant to reference experiences with diverse speakers that she felt led her to believe that non-mainstream language varieties are less appropriate for serious situations. Defending the use of standardized English for serious conversations in professional settings, Megan shared a work experience in which the opinion of a co-worker, who she described as “redneck,” was “dismissed” because he spoke “more casual and loose” and seemed to be “joking,” thus concluding that “that type of serious conversation calls for standardized English.”

Integrated findings. Quantitative data analysis of the means for each SSLI index revealed that Trivialization was the third-lowest ranked mean (M = 3.14, SD = 1.10), suggesting less alignment with the SLI than Mystification, Promises/Threats, and Authority. This quantitative finding was predominantly substantiated through the qualitative data as all participants, except Megan, generally recognized vernacular dialects as significant, complex, and precise. However, when discussing the appropriateness of stigmatized language varieties in serious contexts, especially professional settings, participants relegated their use to social situations described as “relaxed,” “less serious,” “comfortable,” and “personal.” This perception of non-mainstream dialects as less serious was further substantiated in the qualitative results of

215 Significant trivialization when non-mainstream dialects were also depicted as “fun,” “exciting,” and “cool.” Although participants did not display inconsistencies in their beliefs within each sub- theme, most participants did not appear to use their recognition of these dialects as important, intricate, and exact to warrant their use in situations perceived as “serious”; for high- and moderate-level participants, this included the classroom.

I investigated the pattern of endorsing stigmatized dialects as significant, precise, and complex yet not serious in the quantitative data as well by examining the survey responses to

Items 2, 8, 14, and 20 for all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59). The results revealed that 63% of participants who agreed that vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American culture and 49% of participants who agreed that speakers of vernacular dialects can be used to precisely articulate their thoughts also agreed that standardized English is best to use when having serious conversations (see Figure 4.7). Additionally, 24% of participants who disagreed that a vernacular dialect is a simpler form of communication also agreed that standardized

English is best to use when having serious conversations (see Figure 4.8). Overall, 19% of participants agreed with Item 2, yet also agreed with Items 8 and 20 and disagreed with Item 14, suggesting that they believed standardized English is best for serious conversations yet also acknowledged them as significant, complex, and precise. Therefore, these quantitative results relatively corroborate the qualitative findings, especially with regard to participants’ recognition of stigmatized dialects as significant and precise, but not appropriate for serious conversations.

216

Figure 4.7. Visual representation of endorsement for statements that both align with and diverge from various aspects of Trivialization. Out of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59), 63% of participants (n = 37) agreed with both Items 8 and 2 and 49% of participants (n = 29) agreed with both Items 20 and 2.

Figure 4.8. Visual representation of both alignment with and divergence from two aspects of Capable trivialization. Out of all participants who completed the SSLI (N = 59), 24% of participants (n = 14) agreed with Item 2 and disagreed with Item 14.

The survey results also indicated that the statement regarding significance had the lowest average (M = 1.92, SD = 1.13), which was substantiated by the qualitative findings as all participants, except Megan, strongly defended this idea. The statement regarding seriousness had the highest average (M = 4.69, SD = 1.40), which was also corroborated by the qualitative findings as all participants, to some degree, supported the exclusion of vernacular dialects in certain “serious” situations. The averages for the statements regarding simplicity (M = 3.40, SD

= 1.73) and precision (M = 2.29, SD = 1.11) fell between the other two items, which was likewise supported in the qualitative findings as responses to these items exhibited somewhat

217 more alignment to the SLI than responses about significance yet much less alignment than responses about seriousness; however, having a higher average for the item on simplicity and a lower average for the item on precision was not reflected as strongly in the qualitative findings as all participants, except Megan, argued for the complexity of vernacular dialects, yet beliefs regarding the precision of stigmatized dialects were more varied in their alignment with and divergence from the SLI. These quantitative findings and the interview responses aided in determining Significant trivialization, Capable trivialization, and Appropriate trivialization as three separate sub-themes of Trivialization.

Hierarchical regression for the Trivialization index revealed that being in the high school program was the strongest predictor for a lower SSLI score on this index; however, qualitative data analysis did not expose a difference between participants’ responses based on their academic program. Instead, all participants, except Megan, referenced Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course as influential in their divergence from at least one feature of Trivialization.

In addition, the regression indicated that identifying as conservative over liberal was the other predictor for a higher SSLI score on this index. Qualitatively, Megan, the participant with the highest SSLI score and who had not taken Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, exhibited the most alignment to the SLI for Significant trivialization and Capable trivialization and also identified as moderately conservative. In contrast, Alex, Melissa, and Delila also politically aligned themselves as moderately conservative but generally did not hold the same beliefs as Megan on these aspects of Trivialization. Furthermore, Kacee identified as moderate and Lana identified as liberal, but, in general, neither of these participants exhibited more divergence from Significant trivialization and Capable trivialization than Alex, Melissa, or Delila. For Appropriate trivialization, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores most consistently aligned with

218 Appropriate trivialization and all but one of these individuals, Kacee, identified as moderately conservative. Conversely, participants with low SSLI scores were the only participants to partially diverge from Appropriate trivialization, yet only one of these participants, Lana, identified as liberal. It should be noted that participants did not explicitly reference their political affiliations when discussing their beliefs on Trivialization, although more conservative ideals were evident in the responses of high- and moderate-level participants on Appropriate trivialization as they supported the traditional dichotomy of language use between school and home. Accordingly, Lana, the only participant who identified as liberal, expressed more progressive views in her support of incorporating vernacular language use into academic activities.

Qualitative findings revealed that most participants cited experiences with linguistically- diverse populations as having positively impacted their perceptions of vernacular dialects as significant, complex, and precise, excluding Megan who expressed a negative perception and impact of these interactions. Finally, although not captured quantitatively, Delila claimed that foreign travel and learning a foreign language had a positive influence on her beliefs about

Significant trivialization and Appropriate trivialization respectively.

Conformers/non-conformers. The survey items and interview questions for this SLI belief attempted to measure and explore participants’ beliefs about the association between speakers of standardized English or a vernacular dialect and certain character traits, such as intelligence, arrogance, work ethic, and deviance.

Quantitative findings. The overall Conformers/Non-Conformers index average (M =

2.79, SD = 1.16) ranked second-lowest compared to the rest of the SSLI indexes, suggesting that participants’ responses in this category aligned less with the SLI than most others (Table 4.28).

219 Table 4.28 Descriptive Statistics for Conformers/Non-Conformers Index Group Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis All 2.79 1.16 1 7 0.01 0.07 High School 2.35 0.96 1 4.25 0.26 0.41 Middle Grades 2.96 0.97 1.25 5.25 0.57 0.31 Note. All participants includes those who had any data for the SSLI, including those who only partially completed the SSLI and did not complete later sections of the survey (N = 65). Program-specific groups are limited to those in the final analysis sample: High School (n = 21) and Middle Grades (n = 37).

First, I examined the means and response percentages of each item in the

Conformers/Non-Conformers category (Tables 4.29-4.30). The Conformers/Non-Conformers item with the lowest mean (M = 2.14, SD = 1.09) was “Students who speak a vernacular dialect are often cocky” with over three-fourths of participants disagreeing to some degree with the statement (81%). The item “Students who speak a vernacular dialect tend to have behavior issues” had the second-lowest mean (M = 2.29, SD = 1.20) with over three-fourths of participants disagreeing to some degree with the statement (76%).

In contrast, the item with the highest mean (M = 3.36, SD = 1.55) was “Students who speak standardized English are usually intelligent” with one fourth of participants agreeing to some degree with the statement (25%); the item “Students who speak standardized English are typically hardworking” had the second-highest mean (M = 3.15, SD = 1.30), yet only about 10% of participants agreed to some degree with the statement. These two items elicited the most responses for “Neither Agree nor Disagree” with 30% and 42%, respectively. Overall, the averages for the items in this category had the smallest range (1.22) of all categories. All items were included in the index.

220 Table 4.29 Descriptive Statistics for Conformers/Non-Conformers Items Item No. Item Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis 6 Students who speak standardized 3.36 1.55 1 7 0.83 0.01 English are usually intelligent. 12 Students who speak a vernacular 2.14 1.09 1 5 0.01 0.79 dialect are often cocky. 18 Students who speak standardized 3.15 1.30 1 6 0.87 0.05 English are typically hardworking. 24 Students who speak a vernacular 2.29 1.20 1 5 0.14 0.00 dialect tend to have behavior issues. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

Table 4.30 Response Percentages for Conformers/Non-Conformers Items Item Item Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly No. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 6 Students who speak 1.56% 4.69% 18.75% 29.69% 6.25% 26.56% 12.50% standardized English are (n=1) (n=3) (n=12) (n=19) (n=4) (n=17) (n=8) usually intelligent. 12 Students who speak a 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 17.46% 4.76% 46.03 30.16% vernacular dialect are (n=0) (n=0) (n=1) (n=11) (n=3) (n=29) (n=19) often cocky. 18 Students who speak 0.00% 3.23% 6.45% 41.94% 9.68% 27.42% 11.29% standardized English are (n=0) (n=2) (n=4) (n=26) (n=6) (n=17) (n=7) typically hardworking. 24 Students who speak a 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 22.03% 13.56% 28.81% 33.90% vernacular dialect tend to (n=0) (n=0) (n=1) (n=13) (n=8) (n=17) (n=20) have behavior issues. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that for Model 1, program contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 5.44, p = .02, and accounted for 8.9% of the variation in Conformers/Non-Conformers (Table 4.31). I then introduced academic standing, political affiliation, and linguistics course(s), which explained an additional 15.7% of the variation in Conformers/Non-Conformers; this change in R2 was not significant, F(5, 51) = 2.13, p = .08. There was an increase (1.01) in the program correlation coefficient from Model 1 to

Model 2 and program was only statistically significant in Model 1. Regression results indicated that identifying as conservative (β = 0.36, p = .009) positively predicted participants’ reported language beliefs on Conformers/Non-Conformers. On average, participants who identified as

221 conservative scored 2.89 points higher on the Conformers/Non-Conformers index than participants in the middle grades program, holding all else constant, β = 0.36, t(57) = 2.73, p =

.009. Overall, although identifying as conservative did not statistically significantly increase the explained variance in Conformers/Non-Conformers in addition to program, it did increase the explained variance and serve as the only statistically significant predictor in Model 2. It was also the strongest predictor of participants’ reported language beliefs on Conformers/Non-

Conformers between the two models.

Table 4.31 Regressions of Conformers/Non-Conformers Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -2.457* -1.448 (1.053) (1.177) Junior -0.378 (1.121) Sophomore -0.001 (1.553) Conservative 2.890** (1.059) Moderate 3.091 (1.732) Linguistics Course(s) -1.014 (1.314) N 58 58 R2 0.089 0.246 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .08). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

The item regression results aligned with the index regression results. For Item 6, being in the high school program and not the middle grades program negatively predicted participants’ language beliefs independently; however, when combined with the other variables, there were no

222 statistically significant predictors based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value. In contrast, for Item

24, identifying as conservative rather than liberal was the only variable to positively predict participants’ language beliefs. There were no statistically significant predictors for Items 12 and

18 for either model based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value. (See Appendix J: Quantitative

Data Analysis for all hierarchical regression results for all Conformers/Non-Conformers items.)

Qualitative findings. Qualitative data analysis for Conformers/Non-Conformers revealed two sub-themes: Positive and Negative. The sub-theme of Positive conformers consists of participant responses to the assignment of positive attributes, such as being intelligent and hard- working, to standardized English speakers. The sub-theme Negative non-conformers consists of participant responses to the assignment of negative attributes, such as being cocky and deviant, to vernacular speakers.

Positive conformers. Most participants’ reactions to the assignment of intelligence to standardized English speakers predominantly argued against such an association; however, there were some exceptions and inconsistences within these beliefs across the high- and moderate- level participants. When first responding to this assumed relationship, Megan, like the other participants, claimed that she did not think that “standardized English is a way for you to determine whether a person is smart or not smart.” Nonetheless, serving as the outlier, Megan was also the only participant to explicitly state that students who speak standardized English are typically smarter in “academic intelligence” and freely admit that she “gauges” someone’s

“intelligence level” by “how they speak to me, how they ask me about things, how they communicate with me.” She also shared, “In my everyday interactions with people—whether it’s vendors, customers, students, parents—anyone. That if they speak standardized English to me then I’m like, ‘Okay, you know what you’re talking about.’” Furthermore, Megan applied this

223 stereotype to the classroom by claiming that students who “are speaking standardized English understand what’s going on” and vernacular speakers are “trying to understand what you just said.” She seemed to be implying that mainstream speakers automatically grasp the content or instructions within an academic context, whereas speakers of stigmatized dialects inevitably struggle to understand. Megan continued to disparage vernacular speakers when recounting a situation in which she was having trouble communicating with a non-mainstream speaker she considered to be acting “cocky”; she recalled asking the speaker, “Is that too many syllables for you? Do I need to break that down for you?” Overall, Megan explicitly expressed contradicting attitudes towards the assignment of intelligence to standardized English speakers, yet primarily conveyed support for the association, both implicitly and explicitly.

In contrast, the rest of the participants more consistently and strongly disputed the idea of ascribing intelligence level to language use. Lana explained that “a lot people can speak in a lot of ways and it doesn’t determine their intelligence level. It has to do with what they’ve been taught. So, IQ doesn’t depend on how you speak.” All participants cited counterexamples of vernacular speakers who they considered to be intelligent and mainstream speakers who they considered to be unintelligent in order to contradict this assertion. For example, Delila claimed that her teammates who “don’t gravitate towards standardized English are much more intelligent than I am. [laughs] They’re just capable of different things. Great at math or science or just better people skills than me. So, I don’t think [dialect] has anything to do with their natural ability of intelligence.” Alternatively, Melissa shared that her boyfriend can speak standardized English but is not “book smart.” Furthermore, Alex and Lana asserted that promoting mainstream speakers as typically intelligent is problematic because it implies that non-mainstream speakers are not. In turn, Lana argued that the content of an individual’s speech should determine their

224 intellect, not the dialect they use; she concluded that “just because you can speak Standard

American English doesn’t mean that what’s coming out of your mouth is the best.” Overall, these participants primarily diverged from this aspect of Positive conformers through the use of counterexamples; however, a few participants did exhibit inconsistencies in their beliefs.

Although all participants, except Megan, articulated attitudes contrary to the association between intelligence and mainstream English, the other high- and moderate-level participants demonstrated some subtle inconsistencies with their professed beliefs on this aspect of Positive conformers. Kacee both stated that she did not support the idea that standardized English speakers are typically intelligent, yet drew her own conclusion that “if a student can speak formally, they have the ability to be more intelligent.” Kacee seemed to be implying that learning mainstream English could increase the mental capacity of an individual, thereby also advancing the connection between intelligence and dialect, although more implicitly. Likewise, Alex provided many counterexamples to contradict the assignment of intellect to standardized

English; however, at a different time in the interview, when discussing her family from Georgia, she contended that “they don’t sound as smart sometimes. Like, the people there. Just the way they speak. The tone of voice.” Similar to Kacee, Alex avoided openly aligning herself with

Positive conformers by suggesting that these speakers do not sound as smart instead of directly stating that they are not as smart. These participants also shared that speaking in a mainstream dialect can make an individual seem smart or intelligent, leaving themselves technically blameless in the evaluation of the speaker.

Whereas only participants with high and moderate SSLI scores drew an explicit or implicit connection between the way someone speaks and their innate intelligence, all participants associated standardized language use with being educated. Megan explained that “If

225 you’re speaking standardized English to me, I’m probably going to think that you did have some sort of education. Maybe not even to the highest degree, but you did have some sort of schooling in your life and you did retain it.” Similarly, Lana declared that speaking mainstream English is a

“sign of good schooling,” yet distinguished that it is not “necessarily a sign of intelligence.”

Although moving away from assessing speakers’ natural abilities based on their dialect, automatically assuming that speaking a standardized dialect denotes being educated carries its own problems, such as obscuring the privilege of the upper middle class in school. For example,

Alex reflected on this idea by stating that “If you can speak standardized English, then you probably have gone through schooling to learn how to speak standardized English. Because a little kid sounds different than an adult and that’s because of education.” In her explanation, Alex both implied that being formally educated is what moves an individual’s speech past that of a child and ignores the fact that some people grow up speaking a standardized dialect in the home.

The latter implication appeared to shape Alex’s association between language use and work ethic as well.

The other attribute examined in Positive conformers was being hardworking. Most participants disagreed with the idea of instinctually assigning the characteristic of being hardworking to standardized English speakers; however, both high-level participants defended the association to a certain degree. Once again, Megan exhibited inconsistent beliefs as she first claimed that although “stereotypes tell us that the person with standardized English is going to be more hardworking, it might not be the case…So, it just depends on the student’s work ethic.”

Originally appearing to assess students’ work ethic based on the individual, Megan later asserted that people often believe that “The person who speaks standardized English is working harder than the person who’s speaking Ebonics” and concluded, “in my time teaching and observing,

226 that’s been more so the case than not.” Even though Megan acknowledged that expecting a certain level of work ethic based on a student’s speech was stereotyping, she eventually conceded to it. Alex, on the other hand, employed her association between language use and being educated to presume that speaking mainstream English denotes hard work in school. She explained that “speaking standardized English then, again, means you’ve probably gone through a lot of coursework and you’ve passed, so you’re probably trying there…you’ve put in some work.” In this example, Alex assumed that speaking standardized English is automatically a sign of hard work without recognition of individuals who grow up speaking standardized English in the home. Although Megan, Alex, and Lana contradicted this speculation at different points in the interview by recognizing the easy linguistic transition into school for standardized speakers and the potential difficulty for vernacular speakers, it did not stop the high-level participants from explicitly identifying mainstream speakers as typically more hardworking.

Conversely, all other participants held to their conviction that someone’s speech is not indicative of their work ethic. These participants predominantly defended their stances on this issue by referencing counterexamples to the claim that standardized English speakers are typically hardworking. Reflecting on mainstream speakers she considered to lack work ethic,

Melissa cited “All my cousins. [laughs] They all grew up in the private schools and they all know standardized English. And they are lazy…There’s a couple of them [who] are 30- somethings and they still live at home with their parents. Not that that’s necessarily a problem, but they’re lazy.” Alternatively, Kacee named a friend of hers “who speaks a vernacular dialect” and “is so hardworking. He works and he goes to school both full-time to be in the police academy.” Participants cited these observations to assert that “we can’t generalize students’ personalities on how they speak” and that “language has [nothing] to do with personality traits.”

227 Despite the certainty with which most participants made this claim, much like the use of

“sounds” and “seems” employed by high-level participants previously, other participants used similar constructions throughout the interviews to vaguely ascribe positive attributes to mainstream speakers. This included comments that the dialect “carries connotations that you care because you’re engaged in the conversation,” that it “has a certain connotation that, ‘Oh, they’re brought up well,’” and that “we, as humans, can perceive that as like, ‘Oh, a sign of respect or they’re responsible or they’re really well put together.’” Therefore, although participants did not make overt claims about the positive characteristics of speakers based on language use, they subtly implied it through more obscure and indirect expressions. These formulations distanced participants from the judgment and pointed instead to an ambiguous third party or “we” as the collective human race.

Positive experiences. In reflecting on experiences that they believed to have positively impacted their beliefs on Positive conformers, participants cited interactions with diverse speakers, Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, education courses, and foreign travel. All participants, except Megan, referenced experiences that they had had with speakers of vernacular dialects to contradict the idea that language use dictates intelligence or work ethic. As mentioned previously, Delila alluded to the intelligence of her teammates and Kacee described the superior work ethic of her friend in the police academy, all of whom were depicted as speaking a vernacular dialect. Alex, on the other hand, mentioned how she learned about language prejudice from Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course. Alex recalled that

I remember hearing in that class being like, ‘You know, just because someone doesn’t

speak English doesn’t mean they’re not a doctor in their own country’…And that was a

228 wake-up call to me. I need to be more conscientious of how I think about people who

don’t speak a standardized English. That moment has continually resonated with me.

Applying this shift in her language attitudes to her interactions with speakers of Indian English in her job at the gym, Alex recounted originally feeling frustrated when conversing with vernacular speakers, but then thinking “I’ve probably been checking racquetballs out to doctors.” Much like

Alex, after taking the linguistics course, Lana referenced what she learned in the linguistics course when evaluating a speaker of AAE who was applying for a principal preparation program; she shared that her first reaction to the candidate’s speech was “Oh my goodness”; however, she then intentionally acknowledged her inherent bias and instead focused on the content of the candidate’s responses and concluded, “You need to be a principal. You’d be so good at it.” Lana also claimed that the basis for her beliefs on Positive conformers was founded in her education classes at Southern University where there is “constant reinforcement of ‘Just because they speak or look or act in any way doesn’t mean any of them are above the other.’” Finally, Alex referenced her family trip to Spain as a time when she realized that “people’s worth or people’s intelligence should not be solely based on this one language.” Overall, participants cited personal relationships with vernacular speakers and favorable experiences with diverse cultures to justify divergence from Positive conformers; some participants also described positive perceptions of strangers who spoke stigmatized language varieties.

Negative experiences. When defending her assumption that students who speak standardized English are usually hardworking, Megan cited her experiences with linguistically- and ethnically-diverse students when student teaching and doing classroom observations. For example, during student teaching, she described a little girl who spoke mainstream English as someone who “wants to follow the directions. She’s a teacher’s pet. She’ll be like, ‘What can I

229 do today? I want to do something. I always want to be doing something I always want to do it right by the book.’” In contrast, she claimed that “the person next to her does speak Ebonics and he’s lazy. He doesn’t want to do anything. If you ask him to do anything he’ll probably cuss at you.” Based on her perception of this situation, she concluded that most often students that speak standardized English work harder than those who speak AAE. This example also highlights

Megan’s negative perceptions of these students and their characters.

Negative non-conformers. Regarding negative attributes linked to students who do not conform to the use of standardized English, everyone but Megan emphatically argued against the assignment of cockiness to vernacular speakers; however, once again, she demonstrated inconsistencies in her beliefs. When initially responding to this assumption, Megan disagreed by stating that “it just depends on the person,” yet she subsequently shared her own ethnic stereotypes about arrogance in order to suggest that there is an association between cockiness and speakers of Latino English. Megan asserted that “I think we assume that this Latino over here’s going to be cocky because we think of Latinos as a loud, boisterous culture…A lot of them do tend to be cocky. They know what they want and they’re almost entitled when they talk.” Furthermore, when defining “cockiness,” Megan explained that she interpreted it as “Not confident, but kind of superior. When you talk to someone, they’re not talking to you, they’re talking at you. They’re talking down to you. I do sometimes get that from Latino cultures a lot.”

As is the nature of linguistic prejudice, in these assumptions, Megan is not only stereotyping the speech of Latinos, but Latinos themselves.

In contrast, the rest of the participants dismissed any connection between language use and cockiness. Melissa clearly stated, “I don’t think [dialect] correlates to cockiness. I don’t think dialects do that. I’ve never known anybody to be more cocky just because they have a

230 vernacular dialect.” As with their contradiction of Positive conformers, participants employed counterexamples to defend their refutation of this association. Kacee spoke of her friend, Tiana, who “speaks with a vernacular dialect” and is “not cocky in the slightest. She’s a shy, reserved person.” Alternatively, Melissa described her brother: “He’s so standardized. Like, so…But he is so annoying because he is cocky about how smart he is and how he talks.” Pointing to specific examples of individuals who challenged the assignment of arrogance to vernacular speakers allowed participants question the validity of doing so. In sum, Lana noted the importance of recognizing one’s own biases when it comes to associating negative attributes to speakers of stigmatized dialects explaining that

anybody who speaks any kind of dialect can be cocky and sometimes we can—because

of our implicit bias—we can be like, ‘Oh, yeah. They’re talking in this way, so they’re

probably…’ And you have to really learn to check that and be like, ‘No. This is what I’m

hearing. This is the first place that my brain steps to, but I need to step back and think

about this in a logical way. And just because they said it in this way doesn’t mean that

they’re cocky.

In this call to action, Lana emphasized that when making assumptions about people, such as basing impressions of individuals’ personalities on their speech, it is important to attempt to identify from where that bias is coming in order to combat the linguistic prejudice it generates.

The other aspect of Negative non-conformers to which participants responded was the assertion that students who speak stigmatized dialects tend to have behavior issues. Overall, participants appeared to demonstrate divergence with the attribute of deviance; however, their responses revealed variation across all SSLI levels. To start, Melissa and Megan did recall times as a student in which they remembered vernacular speakers “getting in a lot of trouble” and

231 “having a lot of behavior issues”; however, all participants claimed that someone’s dialect is not the source of deviant behavior. For example, Megan asserted that if a student “started exhibiting

[behavior issues], then I would expect it from that student. But not because he had a dialect, just because he’d been exhibiting that behavior from day one.” A couple participants used counterexamples to question this assumption; for example, Kacee described a student she works with who speaks standardized English yet “is off the wall…And you’re constantly saying his name because he’s always misbehaving.” Instead, participants, like Alex, suggested that if students have behavior issues, “it’s not because of how they speak. It’s about something else in their life and it’s another aspect. If they also happen to speak a vernacular, then so be it. But I don’t think it’s the vernacular that drives the behavior issue.” Consequently, Megan and Delila proposed that behavior is instead based on “what’s accepted and what’s not accepted” in students’ cultures as well as the values of their families and society; however, Megan was the only one to suggest that socioeconomic status correlated to behavior as well. Although Megan and Delila did not draw an explicit connection between behavior and dialect, their expectation of student behavior based on entire cultural groups or economic classes is just as dangerous as expecting certain behavior based on dialect because language is an integral part of culture and varies based on different social and regional groups (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016); therefore, even if Megan and Delila did not name language use as the basis for their assumptions about students’ behavior, it is likely to play a role in it.

Participants also hypothesized about the origin of students’ behavior issues in school with regard to language, and there was a significant difference in the responses between Megan and the rest of the participants. In her explanations, Megan appeared to place the blame of behavior issues solely on students who speak stigmatized language varieties. She suggested that deviant

232 behavior could be due to students’ “frustration because they don’t understand something that’s going on” or how students “don’t want anything to do with [learning standardized English] because it’s different from what they have at home.” These implications either attributed students’ perceived disobedience to their ineptitude in the classroom or their deliberate insubordination against the teacher. Megan also insinuated that some vernacular speakers “just don’t care” and intentionally try to confuse her.

Conversely, the other participants demonstrated much more empathy and linguistic awareness in conceptualizing why vernacular students might be perceived as more disobedient.

With regard to empathy, Alex considered, “if I spoke a vernacular dialect that greatly contrasted with what most of my teachers did, I’d be really annoyed with having to consciously think about switching all the time. So, I don’t think those students should be perceived as cocky.” Similarly,

Lana reflected that “If you’re in school or you’re in a situation where you’re constantly being told you’re wrong, then I’d want to sit down and pout too. So I think that people from the position of power can cause people to want to behave in a way that may be considered an issue, but then it’s not innately the student [or] the language.” Although beforehand Lana and Alex stated that there is no correlation between language use and behavior, in these examples they attempted to defend vernacular speakers who might be observed as uncooperative in a classroom.

Using her linguistic knowledge, Delila recounted miscommunications that can take place between teachers and students which can potentially cause negative associations between vernacular speakers and behavior; she described a situation in which a teacher asks a student if his mom can meet with her after school and he replies “She can’t. She be workin’.” Then the teacher suggests another date after school and the student replies the same because “he was trying to tell the teacher that [his mom] will always be working [at that time] and it will never

233 stop.” Delila concluded that this can “cause lots of frustration and almost distrust between a student and teacher.” Finally, Melissa cited the Pygmalion effect to suggest that it might, in fact, be teachers’ expectations for disobedience from vernacular speakers that precipitates misbehavior, not the students themselves or their language. In general, participants appeared to predominantly diverge from Negative non-conformers, yet some potentially insidious associations between students’ culture/socioeconomic status and their behavior were detected as well.

Positive experiences. All participants, except Megan, cited experiences with diverse populations and in an education or linguistics course as having positively impacted their beliefs on Negative non-conformers. Participants referenced interactions with linguistically-diverse family members, friends, customers, students, and children as counterexamples to challenge the assignment of negative attributes, like cockiness and deviance, to vernacular speakers; all of these experiences were shared within the findings of Negative non-conformers. Alternatively,

Melissa recalled reading about the Pygmalion effect in an article she was assigned in either Dr.

Ringer’s linguistics course or an education course. When contradicting the association of non- mainstream speakers with behavior issues, she claimed that learning about the impact of teachers’ expectations on student performance “stuck in my head” and “really spoke to me.”

Overall, unlike the positive experience in Positive conformers, participants used all of their interactions with diverse populations, whether with strangers, family, or friends, to diverge from

Negative non-conformers.

Negative experiences. When justifying her assumptions about vernacular speakers’ tendencies to be cocky and deviant, Megan cited her experiences with linguistically- and ethnically-diverse individuals at work. For example, in the following example she defended her

234 association of Latino male speakers as cocky: “Maybe because we’re a company and I’m working with money that’s just their way of communicating and doing business, but to me it’s very arrogant, very cocky, very superior, and I’m very quick to put that down.” Alternatively, in the following example Megan rationalized an association between vernacular speakers and deviant behavior based on her experiences with co-workers: “If we have someone who speaks

Ebonics come in, I’ve had plenty of them be fine and they thrive in our company. And I’ve had others that we’ve had to arrest because they’ve been stealing. And that stereotype has just been ingrained in the situation.” This also highlights a negative perception that Megan had of these speakers and their dispositions.

Integrated findings. Quantitative data analysis of the means for each SSLI index revealed that Conformers/Non-Conformers was the second-lowest mean (M = 2.79, SD = 1.16), suggesting less alignment with the SLI than Trivialization, Authority, Threats, and Mystification.

This quantitative finding was predominantly substantiated through the qualitative data as typically only one participant, Megan, overtly endorsed the positive and negative attributes assigned to groups of speakers. However, despite most participants’ explicit repudiation of judging speakers’ personality traits and behavior based on their speech, qualitative data analysis revealed more variation and complexity in their beliefs, which are outlined below.

The two items with the lowest average SSLI scores were Items 12 (M = 1.09, SD = 1.00) and 24 (M = 2.29, SD = 1.20); these statements asserted that speakers of vernacular dialects tend to be cocky and have behavior issues, respectively. Qualitative findings validated these results as all participants claimed that arrogance and deviance depended on the individual, not his/her dialect; however, inconsistencies arose when Megan contradicted her original assertions by drawing from ethnic stereotypes and perceptions of student disobedience to then confirm these

235 associations. Furthermore, expectations for student behavior based on culture and socioeconomic status, both connected to language variation, were also revealed. However, more consistency in divergence from the SLI on Item 12, regarding cockiness, was corroborated by participants’ interview responses. Alternatively, the two items with the highest mean scores were Items 6 (M

= 3.36, SD = 1.55) and 18 (M = 3.15, SD = 1.30); these statements asserted that speakers of vernacular dialects are typically intelligent and hardworking, respectively. Qualitative findings corroborated these results as, although most participants disputed these claims, there were also more participants to articulate positive associations between standardized English speakers and their intelligence and work ethic. Particularly, some participants drew a connection between standardized dialect use and being educated as well as working hard in school. Additionally, qualitative data analysis revealed subtle associations in Positive conformers through the use of more ambiguous linguistic constructions (i.e., seems, sounds) and associations with other positive attributes throughout the interviews. Finally, these quantitative findings and the interviews responses helped to determine Positive conformers and Negative non-conformers as two separate sub-themes for Conformers/Non-Conformers, especially considering the fact that participants seemed more willing to assign positive attributes to standardized English speakers than negative attributes to vernacular speakers. However, as the index and item means suggest, there was a notable divergence from the SLI demonstrated by most participants. It is interesting to note that in the survey responses, whereas participants explicitly disagreed with assumptions that vernacular speakers are cocky or have behavior issues, most participants selected “neither agree nor disagree” for the positive associations with mainstream speakers.

Hierarchical regression for the Conformers/Non-Conformers index, as well as the regression for Item 24, revealed that identifying as conservative over liberal was the strongest

236 predictor for a higher SSLI score on this index and item. Qualitatively, for all aspects of

Conformers/Non-Conformers, Megan demonstrated the most alignment with the SLI and identified herself as moderately conservative. Furthermore, Alex, who identified as moderately conservative as well, was one of the only other participants to exhibit alignment with the SLI beliefs in Positive conformers. Regarding the regression results for Item 24 on behavior issues,

Megan, Delila, and Melissa were the only participants to indicate any alignment with the SLI on this aspect of Negative non-conformers and all of these participants politically identified as moderately conservative. Finally, Lana, who identified as liberal, displayed the most divergence from all aspects of Conformers/Non-Conformers. It should be noted that participants did not explicitly reference their political affiliations when discussing their beliefs regarding this SLI category.

Other findings identified only in the qualitative data included the reported positive impact that interactions with linguistically-diverse populations had on every participant for all aspects of

Conformers/Non-Conformers, except Megan who expressed negative perceptions of most experiences with diverse speakers. Likewise, the potential positive effect of linguistics and education courses were cited for both Positive conformers and Negative non-conformers and the prospective of a positive impact from foreign travel was referenced for Positive conformers, yet these experiences were only identified in the qualitative findings.

Promises/threats. The survey items and interview questions for this SLI belief attempted to measure and explore participants’ beliefs about the jobs, social acceptance, opportunities, and academic success that will be lost or gained if a student does or does not conform to standardized

English.

237 Quantitative findings. The overall Threats index average (M = 3.70, SD = 1.16) ranked second-highest compared to the rest of the SSLI indexes suggesting that participants’ responses in this category aligned more with the SLI than most others (Table 4.32).

Table 4.32 Descriptive Statistics for Threats Index Group Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis All 3.70 1.16 1.5 7 0.87 0.82 High School 3.81 0.90 2.5 5.5 0.79 0.25 Middle Grades 3.54 1.16 1.5 5.5 0.75 0.01 Note. All participants includes those who had any data for the SSLI, including those who only partially completed the SSLI and did not complete later sections of the survey (N = 65). Program-specific groups are limited to those in the final analysis sample: High School (n = 21) and Middle Grades (n = 37).

To start, I examined the means and response percentages of each item in the

Promises/Threats category (Tables 4.33-4.34). The Threats item with the lowest mean (M = 3.48,

SD = 1.34) was “Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have difficulties succeeding in school” with half of participants disagreeing to some degree with the statement

(50%). The item “Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have trouble on the job market” had the second-lowest mean (M = 3.84, SD = 1.22) with about 41% of participants disagreeing to some degree with the statement. Additionally, these two items elicited the most responses for “Neither Agree nor Disagree” with 26% and 22% respectively.

In contrast, the two items that were written as Promises and were not included in the index had the highest means out of the four items in the category. The item with the highest mean (M = 5.72, SD = 0.82), within this category and out of all SSLI items, was “Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students” with almost two thirds of participants agreeing to some degree with the statement (66%). Similarly, the item “Learning to speak standardized English means that students will be accepted by those outside of their own community” had the second-highest mean (M = 4.24, SD = 1.25) in the category with over half of participants agreeing to some degree with the statement (54%).

238 Even without the inclusion of the Promises items, the Threats index (M = 3.70, SD =

1.16) ranked second-highest out of all indexes, suggesting more alignment with the SLI for this particular belief category. However, it is clear that the Promises items contain some of the highest averages out of all SSLI items. Including the Promises items in calculating the overall mean for all items in the Promises/Threats category resulted in an average of 4.32, which is higher than the Mystification index (M = 3.98, SD = 1.26), the highest ranking index. Therefore, although index construction did not result in a cohesive Promises/Threats index, it should be noted that over half of participants agreed with the statements on Promises.

Table 4.33 Descriptive Statistics for Promises/Threats Items Item No. Item Mean SD Min Max Skew Kurtosis 1 Learning to speak standardized 5.72 0.82 3 7 0.10 0.16 English means that doors will open for students. 7 Speaking a vernacular dialect 3.84 1.22 1 7 0.68 0.33 means that students will have trouble on the job market. 13 Learning to speak standardized 4.24 1.25 1 7 0.08 0.76 English means that students will be accepted by those outside of their own community. 19 Speaking a vernacular dialect 3.48 1.34 1 7 0.53 0.44 means that students will have difficulties succeeding in school. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

239 Table 4.34 Response Percentages for Promises/Threats Items Item Item Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly No. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 1 Learning to speak 15.38% 47.69% 32.31% 3.08% 1.54% 0.00% 0.00% standardized English (n=10) (n=31) (n=21) (n=2) (n=1) (n=0) (n=0) means that doors will open for students. 7 Speaking a vernacular 1.56% 1.56% 34.38% 21.88% 25.00% 14.06% 1.56% dialect means that (n=1) (n=1) (n=22) (n=14) (n=16) (n=9) (n=1) students will have trouble on the job market. 13 Learning to speak 1.59% 7.94% 44.44% 17.46% 17.46% 9.52% 1.59% standardized English (n=1) (n=5) (n=28) (n=11) (n=11) (n=6) (n=1) means that students will be accepted by those outside of their own community. 19 Speaking a vernacular 1.61% 3.23% 19.35% 25.81% 22.58% 22.58% 4.84% dialect means that (n=1) (n=2) (n=12) (n=16) (n=14) (n=14) (n=3) students will have difficulties succeeding in school. Note. This includes data from all participants that provided it and is not limited to the final analysis sample (n=65).

The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that in Model 1, program did not statistically significantly contribute to the regression model, F(1, 56) = 0.84, p = .36, for Threats

(Table 4.35). I then introduced academic standing, political affiliation, and linguistics course(s), which explained an additional 10.4% of the variation in Threats; this change in R2 was not significant, F(5, 51) = 1.20, p = .32. There were no statistically significant predictors of participants’ reported language beliefs on Threats for either model.

240 Table 4.35 Regressions of Threats Index on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School 0.538 0.640 (0.588) (0.684) Junior -0.783 (0.651) Sophomore 1.279 (0.902) Conservative -0.676 (0.616) Moderate -0.892 (1.006) Linguistics Course(s) 0.454 (0.763) N 58 58 R2 0.015 0.118 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .32). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.

The item regression results revealed that there were no statistically significant predictors for Items 1, 7, 13, or 19 in either model based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value. (See

Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis for all hierarchical regression results for all

Trivialization items.)

Qualitative findings. Qualitative data analysis for Promises/Threats revealed two sub- themes: Profitable and Detrimental. The sub-theme of Profitable promises includes participant responses about the benefits afforded to those who speak standardized English, specifically to what degree participants believe that these benefits are guaranteed. The sub-theme Detrimental threats consists of participant responses about the barriers vernacular speakers face, specifically to what degree participants believe these barriers guarantee failure.

241 Profitable. Participants’ responses to the idea that learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students indicated that all participants agreed with this assertion; they explained that students would benefit in professional and academic situations as well as improve how they are perceived by the public. However, participants subscribed to this belief with varying levels of certainty. When first asked to respond to this assumption, high-level participants used definitive language to defend the statement. Megan claimed that learning to speak standardized English “definitely does open doors for students” and Alex contended that

“doors do get opened for them.” On the other hand, when explicitly asked if learning to speak mainstream English guarantees students opportunities, Megan and Alex stated that they did not think that it ensured it, yet immediately followed their responses with the allegation that it would still “get [students] a foot in the door” and “give them more of an advantage,” signaling a return to definitive language use and certainty in the outcome. Alex further claimed that “it’s not a secret: if you can speak standardized English then there’s a lot of opportunities that are given to you, especially in this country. So, I think if students can learn to speak it well then there’s more opportunities.” In this explanation, Alex even suggested that upon learning to speak standardized

English, individuals do not have to work for the opportunities—they are “given.”

Melissa and Delila demonstrated more hesitation in their acceptance of the promise that learning standardized English will open doors. Melissa responded, “I think that it’s kind of true—not that it should be true, but I believe that it is true now-a-days because we’re trying to get everybody to speak whatever people decide is standardized English so that they can get ahead in their career and what they want to do for the rest of their lives.” Although she exhibited a certain amount of reluctance at the beginning of her statement, she eventually made the claim that learning standardized English will enable students to succeed in the workplace and their

242 lives. Similarly, Delila “generally agreed with this” and asserted that students must “speak in a certain way in order to gain access to a certain power or in order to gain access to academia or whatever.” Only “generally” concurring with the statement to start, in the end Delila communicated a seemingly evident path for students to access power through standardized language use. Conversely, when asked explicitly if learning mainstream English guarantees these opportunities in the workforce and academia, both participants argued that it did not and followed these statements with examples of successful individuals who did not learn and jobs

(e.g., broadcasting) that do not require standardized English in order to thrive.

Finally, Lana was the only participant to not fully subscribe to this promise; she stated that “a lot of that is assumptions that if you do speak Standard American English…then that will somehow help you in life, which is a yes and a no at the same time.” She explained her doubt in the inevitability of doors opening for students who learn to speak standardized English by recounting a documentary in which she saw African Americans “speak with standardized

English on the phone…and that was helpful, but once people saw [them] there was still the implicit discrimination because of [their] race anyway. So, yes, it helps if you don’t talk black, but you’re still African American should somebody be racist.” In turn, although Lana recognized how speaking standardized English can be “helpful” in professional settings, such as job interviews, she also acknowledged that discrimination exists outside of dialect and that learning to speak mainstream English does not ensure success for all speakers.

The other aspect of Profitable promises was the assurance that learning to speak standardized English means that students will be accepted by those outside of their own community. All participants agreed to the statement to some degree suggesting that speaking mainstream English provided opportunities to “fit in” and avoid negative stereotypes. However,

243 with regard to certainty, participants’ responses exhibited a strong divide between those of the low-level and those of the high- and moderate-levels. To start, participants with high and moderate SSLI scores were much more likely to promote acceptance based on using mainstream

English as a foregone conclusion. Melissa claimed that because “everybody basically knows standardized English…I think that’s definitely a key to being accepted. You’re definitely guaranteed, I believe, to be accepted.” She continued that students will “be accepted outside of their community and the job market and anywhere they go.” Similarly, Kacee stated that she agreed with the statement “pretty much whole-heartedly” and Alex explained, “If you replicate the English being spoken to you, then you’re going to be, I believe, taken more serious by the person speaking.” Overall, high- and moderate-level participants displayed relatively strong convictions in the outcomes of such a promise about language use.

In contrast, participants with low SSLI scores demonstrated a more cautious reservation towards the assurance that students will be accepted by those outside of their community if they learn to speak mainstream English. Lana and Delila explicitly stated that acceptance for speaking standardized English is not guaranteed. In doing so, Lana problematized the use of the word will; she reflected on how using this word is “a very definite thing. So, ‘speak standardized American

English and all your dreams will come true’ is kind of similar to what this is saying”; however, she continued, “It doesn’t change the community’s biases…[and] it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re accepted fully.” Delila defended this position by stating that “there’s plenty of people that speak standardized English who aren’t accepted by people who speak standardized

English”; however, she also made a definitive claim that her students are “not going to be accepted because they can’t code-switch.” In sum, all participants acknowledged that learning to speak standardized English has the potential to help students gain access to acceptance in certain

244 situations; however, high- and moderate-level participants had a tendency to promote this outcome as an inevitability, whereas low-level participants recognized other factors that might impede students’ success.

Positive experiences. Only two participants, Lana and Melissa, cited specific experiences that they believed to have had a positive impact on their beliefs about Profitable promises: Dr.

Ringer’s linguistics course, membership in a church group, and interactions with linguistically- and ethnically-diverse populations. First, Lana shared that the documentary she watched about the African American who was accepted speaking standardized English on the phone yet rejected in person was from the linguistics course; she claimed this was what helped her to challenge the assumption that learning to speak mainstream English guarantees opportunities. Second, Melissa and Lana both referenced interactions with diverse populations as influential as well. Melissa recalled her time working at a hospital with an Indian doctor who did not speak standardized

English yet was very accomplished; she employed this experience to question the definitiveness of the assumption that only speaking mainstream English will “open doors.” Additionally, using a counterexample to the assertion regarding acceptance, Lana described how her Muslim friend can speak standardized English, yet she is still not accepted because she wears a hijab. Finally,

Lana explained that the church group she is a part of is “really big into social justice” and they talk about different forms of discrimination “all the time”; she claimed to learn from this experience that you can speak mainstream English but it “doesn’t mean you’re accepted by everyone.”

Negative experiences. On the other hand, participants also cited experiences that they believed led them to align with Profitable promises. Kacee cited a documentary from Dr.

Ringer’s linguistics course in which they witnessed language discrimination over the phone;

245 although this experience allowed her to learn about linguistic prejudice, Kacee also employed what she learned to amplify her conviction that speaking standardized English will guarantee equal opportunities for everyone. In contrast, Megan recalled her interactions with linguistically- diverse customers to claim that because she “wouldn’t recommend [vernacular speakers] for hiring,” other employers must feel the same; therefore, learning to speak mainstream English will ensure their success. Additionally, Melissa used the linguistic prejudice within her church community to allege that “if you came in with a really strong dialect, you would not be accepted” in my church, reinforcing her conviction that speaking standardized English “definitely” secures acceptance with outside communities. Surprisingly, learning about “how much language can create community” when watching her sister be celebrated for speaking Spanish in Mexico,

Delila applied this experience to vernacular speakers in the United States and concluded that if speaking Spanish can guarantee her sister acceptance, then learning to speak mainstream English can guarantee acceptance for speakers of stigmatized language varieties. Finally, Megan and

Delila both cited their upbringings as influential in their beliefs on Profitable promises; however, the former recounted her mother’s staunch support of the inherent superiority and comprehensive power of standardized English and the latter recalled the existence of negative language attitudes towards non-mainstream dialects in her white, homogenous small town. Both referenced these experiences when reflecting on why students will benefit from speaking mainstream English.

Detrimental. Participants’ responses to the idea that speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have trouble on the job market indicated that all participants agreed with this assertion to a certain degree. Overall, they explained that speaking a stigmatized language variety has a “stigma associated with it” and that oftentimes other people do not “trust you as a person” because of it; therefore, vernacular speakers “struggle more than people who may have

246 full utilization of Standard American English” and finding a job might be “trickier for them,” especially in professions like “politics” and “sales.” However, unlike some of the responses to aspects of Profitable promises, participants did not express these claims with absolute certainty; instead, they framed the potential for linguistic prejudice on the job market as a “possibility” through the use of auxiliary verbs like might, may, and can.

Participants also countered the inevitability of failure to find employment due to speaking a non-mainstream dialect in several ways. Lana suggested that being a vernacular speaker does not guarantee defeat because “there are good people who don’t stigmatize people based off of their dialect and their appearance…I think as a general whole for our society we do, but it doesn’t ensure it.” Alternatively, Megan and Melissa cited examples of co-workers that spoke with vernacular dialects, yet were able to be successful within their jobs and advance in their careers. For example, Megan shared that she works with “someone who’s from Mexico and she has a very thick accent, but she works really well because she communicates with us and we can understand what she’s saying. And her math matches up with her numbers, so in that case her dialect is not hindering her at all working with us.” Finally, when describing jobs that would not cause problems for vernacular speakers on the job market, such as “heavy labor jobs” like construction and mining, Delila included the teaching profession in this category: “I feel like

[for] a teacher it would be accepted because you’re communicating with a huge number of people who do have vernacular dialects and that goes into connecting with your students. I feel like that would be a good place for someone with a vernacular dialect.” In contrast, Melissa shared, “I know that I haven’t met any teachers that have had really strong dialects. So, I know that if you’re trying to be a teacher, especially an English teacher, I feel like [in] that job market you can’t have a dialect because they expect teachers to be more standardized than most people.”

247 Delila and Melissa held contradicting views of what kind of speakers can be teachers that appeared to be representative of their beliefs on the authority of People as well as the authority of

Concepts.

Overall, moderate- and low-level participants were the only ones to explicitly lament the reality of linguistic prejudice in the job market. Kacee stated that this reality is “unfortunate” and

Delila stated that it is not something she “would hope for.” Similarly, Lana shared, “[It] makes me really said, really upset, and I just want to change all that. That’s, I guess, why we’ve decided to teach all of the students Standard American English is to get them that way. But I still really wish that that wasn’t the case.”

The other aspect of Detrimental threats was the warning that students who speak vernacular dialects will have difficulties succeeding in school. Similar to the previous statement, all participants agreed with this idea up to a certain point. They suggested that speaking a stigmatized dialect “may make it harder” for students to do well in school and “can definitely be troublesome for students as people see it as a bad thing”; participants also indicated that vernacular speakers could struggle with “reading comprehension” and non-mainstream language use might hinder performance on “classwork, but even in social relationships with people.” Lana explained that it might “change the way that your peers see you and so that makes it harder to do well in school.” However, once again, most participants problematized the certainty of failure in school due to a student’s dialect, except one participant, Alex, who exhibited more alignment with the SLI based on her use of more definitive language and her conceptions of what would hinder students in school.

To start, Melissa challenged this assumption through the use of counterexamples; she shared that “even on this college level there are a couple kids in my classes that have a strong

248 dialect and they’re still super smart. They still are doing really good in the class” and “some kids will have difficulties in school even if they don’t have a dialect that differs from the ones [used when] teaching.” Additionally, Megan differentiated between students’ dialect use and their ability to understand mainstream English, stating that “speaking a vernacular dialect isn’t necessarily going to harm you in class, but you do need to at least understand standardized

English.” In contrast, Alex asserted that students must be able to switch to “a Standard English that is required in the classroom” in order to be successful because “if you’re speaking aloud in a class, then you are going to have less difficulty in succeeding if you present your thoughts orally in the same [dialect]” as your teacher.

In opposition to the assumption that students who speak vernacular dialects will not do well in school because of their own language use, all participants with low and moderate SSLI scores acknowledged the mediating role of teachers in these situations. Kacee explained that

some teachers will be accepting of your dialect…It’s very dependent because I know I

had some teachers who would speak in their vernacular dialect in a heartbeat…but then

we had some teachers—you had to speak in the most formal tone at all times in their

class. So, it’s one of those things it really just depends on the teacher if [vernacular

speakers] can succeed or do well in that class.

She also suggested that non-mainstream speakers can learn in the classroom, yet not “have the marks to prove it because they spoke or wrote in their vernacular dialects.” Melissa concurred by stating, “Their dialect may make it harder for them in English classes if the teacher’s trying to get them more standardized.” Lana and Delila, the low-level participants, even indicted the overall school system and curriculum writers, claiming that students who speak stigmatized

249 language varieties will have difficulties succeeding in school if they are being guided by an institution that “doesn’t value different dialects.”

Participants at all levels also noted the relevance of the content area to the potential impact of a student’s dialect on their academic success; they claimed that speaking a vernacular dialect matters less in math and science classes than ELA and social studies. Megan clarified that

“in English and social studies it’ll be more apparent that they speak a vernacular dialect than something like math or science where it’s so concrete. Then speaking the way you speak doesn’t matter. It’s the way that you’re thinking about the concept.” On the other hand, Alex implied that non-mainstream speakers will have trouble in education in general because “a language component is a part of pretty much every school.”

Overall, Kacee reflected that “speaking a vernacular dialect can definitely be troublesome for students in school as people see it as a bad thing. Not that they should, but they do.”

However, she concluded that “It’s one of those evils in life that you can’t really control.” Lana also expressed discontent with the reality of linguistic subordination in schools, yet she took a more active approach and claimed that “as a teacher, part of your job is to make sure that dialects—that the way you grew up speaking doesn’t impede [succeeding in school] in any way, shape, or form because you can’t control who you were born to and what vernacular your parents talk. I think that it can [cause] difficulties—it doesn’t have to.”

Positive experiences. High- and moderate-level participants, except Alex, cited several experiences that they believed to have had a positive impact on their beliefs about Detrimental threats: interactions with linguistically-diverse populations, experiences as a student in K-12 education, and experience living in different regions of the U.S. As shared previously, both

Megan and Melissa referenced successful co-workers and classmates who spoke a vernacular

250 dialect when challenging the idea that the use of stigmatized language varieties automatically results in failure in the workplace and in school. For example, Melissa shared how a co-worker at the hospital was “taking all these classes” and “trying to move up in the ranks,” and, although

“he had this heavy dialect from Africa,” he did not have “any trouble” because “he knew his stuff.” Additionally, Kacee employed her personal experiences with her teachers as a K-12 student to question the source of vernacular speakers having difficulties in schools; she concluded that teachers are a mediating force in this association and problematized the assumption laid out in this aspect of Detrimental threats. Finally, Melissa cited her time living on the West Coast where she claimed many people “speak a heavy accent,” yet that does not “really stop them from getting whatever job they want” because of the widespread linguistic diversity.

Overall, participants diverged from the SLI beliefs laid out in Detrimental threats based on their use of personal experiences with counterexamples and the questioning of Authority.

Negative experiences. As most participants, except Alex, exhibited generally consistent divergence from Detrimental threats, they did not reference any experiences that prompted them to fully subscribe to the guarantee that students who speak vernacular dialects will have trouble on the job market or difficulties succeeding in school. Instead, Megan, Melissa, and Lana claimed that their experiences at work and school served to expose them to the realities of linguistic prejudice. On the other hand, Kacee, who expressed a fatalist view towards her own ability to impact the realities of language discrimination, did share being deeply affected by witnessing her friend endure linguistic prejudice on the job market. She recounted,

I’ve had my friends not be able to get jobs because they were African American and

spoke in an African American dialect. My friend, Tiana,…she’ll get the job interview and

come in and then she’ll speak and she says she can see the look on their face when she

251 starts speaking because she speaks [with] an African American dialect—that’s what she

was raised in. She’s had a lot of trouble getting a job and she just recently got one at

Lowe’s for the first time—she’s been trying for two years and this is the first place that

looked past her dialect to actually give her a chance. So, I strongly agree with this.

Additionally, Kacee discussed how learning about housing discrimination based on language use in Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course also solidified her belief that vernacular speakers are guaranteed to suffer at the hands of language discrimination, potentially resulting in her belief that nothing can be done to change it.

Integrated findings. Quantitative data analysis of the means for each SSLI index revealed that Threats was the second-highest mean (M = 3.70, SD = 1.16), suggesting more alignment with the SLI than Misinformation, Conformers/Non-Conformers, Trivialization, and

Authority. This quantitative finding was only partly reflected in the qualitative data, for although participants’ interview responses did predominantly demonstrate agreement with the item prompts provided, as suggested in the survey data, the quantitative analysis was unable to capture the complexity of these beliefs. Specifically, agreeing with the statements did not necessarily represent participants’ beliefs that the Profitable promises or Detrimental threats presented were inevitabilities; in fact, most participants who agreed with the statements regarding these aspects of Promises/Threats in the interviews explicitly stated that these outcomes were not guarantees. On the other hand, participants’ definitive language use, especially with Profitable promises, did exhibit some alignment with the SLI and signaled inconsistencies in their explanations; in contrast, their language became much more indefinite when explicitly asked about the certainty of these statements.

252 The two items with the lowest average SSLI scores were Items 7 (M = 3.84, SD = 1.22) and 19 (M = 3.48, SD = 1.00); these statements asserted that students who speak vernacular dialects will have trouble on the job market and difficulties succeeding in school, respectively.

Alternatively, the two items with the highest mean scores were Items 1 (M = 5.72, SD = 0.82) and 13 (M = 4.24, SD = 1.25); these statements claimed that learning to speak standardized

English means that doors will open for students and they will be accepted by those outside of their own community, respectively. Overall, the fact that these items have higher means than items in other indexes was not substantiated by the qualitative findings, as explained previously; however, qualitative data analysis did reveal that participants more consistently diverged from the SLI when it came to Detrimental threats than Profitable promises, which is corroborated in the item averages. Whereas Alex predominantly only demonstrated alignment with one aspect of

Detrimental threats, there was more variation in participants’ beliefs regarding Profitable promises as several participants explicitly stated that speaking standardized English would ensure students certain benefits. Finally, these quantitative findings and the interview responses helped to determine Profitable promises and Detrimental threats as two separate sub-themes for

Promises/Threats, especially considering that participants appeared more willing to promote the advantages of speaking standardized English than promulgate the disadvantages of speaking vernacular dialects.

Hierarchical regressions for the Threats index and the Promises/Threats items revealed no statistically significant predictors in either model. Findings identified only in the qualitative data included the positive impact that participants claimed their experiences with linguistically- diverse populations had on their beliefs regarding all aspects of Promises/Threats; however, these experiences were also used by some participants to align with various aspects of this SLI

253 belief. Finally, qualitative data analysis indicated that experiences with a social-justice oriented organizations, experiences in K-12 schools, and living in different regions of the U.S. were cited as having had a positive influence on participants’ beliefs on Promises/Threats, whereas negative interactions with diverse populations, foreign travel, witness to linguistic prejudice, and a participant’s conservative upbringing were referenced to defend alignment with it. Overall, participants’ responses to language belief statements on the SSLI and throughout the interviews provided a detailed picture of how and why they aligned with and diverged from the SLI and will be further explicated in light of prior research in the following chapter.

254 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore ELA PSTs’ SLIs; specifically, I aimed to 1) investigate the ways in which participants responded to language belief statements based on the six SLI beliefs laid out in the LSM (Lippi-Green, 2012), 2) examine what demographic and experience variables correlated with their language ideologies, and 3) explore how participants explained their language attitudes. Therefore, in this chapter, I elaborate on the findings to these research questions by first reflecting on the results of the Experiences theme and then breaking down the discussion by SLI belief to address more specific results for each category. During this reflection, I connect the findings to prior literature in order to corroborate and/or contradict other research and theories. Next, I address the limitations of this particular research project and, lastly, I describe the implications of this study for practice and future research.

Experiences

As the experiences results were integrated into the qualitative findings throughout the results section, Figure 5.1 offers a comprehensive view of all experiences that participants cited throughout their interviews as having impacted their beliefs on each SLI category, separated by the Positive and Negative sub-themes. Below, I share some of the common themes of these findings.

255

Figure 5.1. Visual representation of all experiences that participants cited as having a positive or negative impact.

Overall, for positive experiences in the qualitative data, Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course was referenced as a positive influence on participants’ beliefs in all SLI categories; likewise, other studies have identified the positive impact of linguistics courses and critical language study on PSTs as well (Ball & Muhammad, 2003; Carter, 2015; Godley et al., 2015). The only SLI belief for which the linguistics course was identified as having a negative impact was

Promises/Threats as participants used what they learned about linguistic prejudice to justify their belief in the inevitable outcomes of speaking a particular language variety. All participants who took the linguistics course, which was everyone but Megan, appeared to use what they learned to disrupt their beliefs in various aspects of the SLI; however, participants with low SSLI scores seemed to apply their linguistic knowledge to more SLI categories and with more depth. It is possible that it was not just the linguistics course but a combination of certain experiences that most positively affected these participants’ divergence from the SLI; this is discussed further in the “Participant spotlight” section below.

256 The second most common experience that participants referenced as positively influencing their beliefs was interactions with linguistically- and/or ethnically-diverse populations; this experience was cited to diverge with all SLI beliefs, except Mystification.

Several studies confirmed these findings and indicated that interacting with individuals from different ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds can positively shape PSTs’ beliefs about diversity in general (Garmon, 2004; Ukpokodu, 2004) as well as dialect diversity (Taylor, 1973).

However, experience with diverse populations was also cited as having had a negative impact on

Trivialization, Conformers/Non-Conformers, and Promises/Threats; similarly, some research has found no influence of experience with diverse populations on teachers’ language beliefs (Blake

& Cutler, 2003). Although experience with diverse populations was cited as justification for alignment with the SLI by some participants, mainly Megan, it is possible that it was not just these experiences themselves that impacted participants’ attitudes but their perception of the situation and speaker(s) based on their language beliefs. This potential corresponding relationship between experiences and language ideologies is discussed further in the “Reciprocal relationship” section below.

Some participants identified learning a foreign language as having had a positive impact on their beliefs about Misinformation and Trivialization; likewise, some literature has suggested that learning a foreign language enhances metalinguistic awareness and knowledge (Elder &

Manwaring, 2004; Ter Kuile et al., 2011). However, one participant, Delila, cited her experience with foreign languages to justify ensuring that standardized English would lead to acceptance.

Another participant, Alex, referenced what she learned about English from studying foreign language as having had a negative impact on her beliefs about Mystification and Authority.

Potential reasons for this negative impact are discussed under the “Mystification” section below.

257 The final most common experience was foreign travel, which participants cited as positively influencing their beliefs on Misinformation, Trivialization, and Conformers/Non-

Conformers; other studies have indicated that traveling abroad enhances an appreciation and respect for cultural diversity (Jackson, 2008; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004) as well as students’ attitudes towards vernacular dialects (Einstein, 1982; Shiri, 2013). However, travel within the

U.S. was also identified as having a positive impact on participants’ beliefs about

Misinformation and Promises/Threats as well.

One experience to highlight, although it was singular to Megan, was the positive impact that student teaching had on her attitude towards Authority. As the participant with the highest

SSLI score and who demonstrated the most alignment to the SLI in her interview responses, it is important to feature one of the few experiences that she believed to positively shift her language attitudes. Megan explained that her cooperating teacher and the school in which she was placed allowed students to speak in their vernacular dialects in the classroom; she claimed that they focused more on what the student was saying and whether they knew the material than on how they were speaking. Therefore, Megan often communicated that she would allow students to express themselves in their own dialect in her future classroom, referencing what she learned from her cooperating teacher in combination with what she was taught in her education courses.

The potential positive impact of moving linguistic curricula for PSTs into the classroom is corroborated by research that has found that professional development in which teachers learn about language pedagogy through teaching is an effective tool for improving their language ideologies (Sweetland, 2013). Furthermore, providing PSTs with experiences to teach about linguistics in the classroom has the potential to not only shape their language attitudes but also their language pedagogy, especially considering that even one of the participants with the most

258 progressive language attitudes, Lana, claimed that “I’ve got the theory. And now I need the ‘This is how we’re going to do it and we’re going to let you go into the classroom and you’re going to do it.’ And that’s going to be scary.” Lana shared that she hoped she had a good cooperating teacher for student teaching who would “help her see actual strategies” for teaching effective language pedagogy. Delila, on the other hand, had reached out to other teachers to request books on how to approach language in the classroom as she still felt unsure of how to teach what she has learned from Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course. Therefore, it appears that even if teacher education programs have positively impacted PSTs’ language ideologies, students might not know how to go about enacting these changes in their future classrooms (Godley et al., 2015).

The potential impact of experiences and demographics was also explored through regressions. Regressions for all SSLI indexes revealed three predictors: political affiliation, linguistics course(s), and program. However, only the positive impact of linguistics course(s) on teachers’ language attitudes was corroborated by prior literature (Bowie & Bond, 1994; Pietras &

Lamb, 1978; Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000). I did not identify any studies that examined the relationship between teachers’ or PSTs’ political affiliations or academic programs.

Reciprocal relationship. Reflecting on the qualitative findings for Experiences, I identified a potentially reciprocal relationship between participants’ experiences with languages and dialects and their language ideologies, such that their experiences appeared to both impact and be impacted by their SLI beliefs, and vice versa. Figure 5.2 visually depicts the overall interaction between these experiences and beliefs. The inconsistencies revealed in some participants’ language beliefs is also represented in the figure but are discussed within their respective SLI categories below.

259

Figure 5.2. Visual representation of the reciprocal relationship between experiences with language and the SLI.

In essence, some experiences with language appeared to positively or negatively impact participants’ SLIs, such that a positive experience seemed to encourage divergence from the SLI and a negative experience seemed to encourage alignment with the SLI. The potential impact of these experiences on participants’ language attitudes was discussed above and substantiated by other research. However, participants’ divergence from or alignment with the SLI also seemed to impact the way in which they interpreted an experience with language diversity, such that more divergence resulted in a more positive experience and more alignment resulted in a more negative experience. For example, Megan, the participant with the highest SSLI score, often spoke of negative interactions that she had with vernacular speakers; for example, as shared in the results, she spoke of frustrating experiences with vernacular speakers who were “cocky” and intentionally uncommunicative in order to justify her alignment with the SLI. However, referencing the same SLI category, other participants with more progressive language ideologies spoke of positive interactions with vernacular speakers in which they shared that they learned something new about language from the individual or appreciated the way the individual spoke.

This interplay is representative of the “language ideology filter” described by Lippi-Green

(2012) in which she asserts that in an interaction with another speaker, an individual will

260 interpret the speech of the other through their language ideology filter and, thus, make a positive, negative, or neutral evaluation of the speaker. In turn, it appeared that participants’ positive or negative perceptions of an experience with language, as interpreted through their language ideologies, was then used to defend their alignment with or divergence from the SLI.

Participant spotlight. Overall, there were two participants, Lana and Delila, who demonstrated the most consistent divergence from the SLI. Although they both reported growing up in small, homogenous, conservative communities, they exhibited the most acceptance towards and understanding of linguistic diversity; therefore, I specifically wanted to highlight their common experiences as they could serve to guide future approaches to disrupting PSTs’ SLIs in teacher education. Despite Lana and Delila’s unique experiences as individuals, there was a similar combination and ordering of experiences that appeared to positively impact their language ideologies that was not present in the other participants. Upon moving to college, there were two initial experiences that both Lana and Delila had that they claimed influenced their overarching beliefs on language: experiences with diverse populations and social-justice oriented

Christian organizations and education. Delila, who is part of a varsity sports team at Southern

University, recounted having to confront her biases about other ethnicities as she became friends with teammates who were from diverse backgrounds; in combination with this experience, she was also a member of a Christian organization for athletes in which she shared that she had extended conversations with athletes of other ethnicities about discrimination and racism.

Likewise, Lana recalled being introduced to social justice issues from both the church she attended as well as her introductory education courses. Within her church, Lana explained that she was able to interact with different ethnicities who shared the same faith as her and hear their stories. These participants claimed that their appreciation for other dialects, and, in essence, the

261 people of different cultures, started with these experiences. Delila and Lana then shared that they took Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course their third year in college and asserted that the assimilation of this material was easier as they considered it another aspect of diversity—one that fell in line with what they had learned from their prior experiences.

Based on the sequence of these experiences, it appeared as if learning about social justice and developing an appreciation of other aspects of diversity before taking the linguistics course served as an important foundation for developing their critical language awareness. Instead of trying to make sense of both the linguistic material and be confronted with social justice issues for the first time, they were able to incorporate the principles of critical language awareness into what they had already learned about diversity. Additionally, it appeared that the similarities between these participants and the diverse populations with which they interacted, such as their shared goals and shared faith, served as a common ground upon which to challenge their biases about others, see them as equals, and develop an appreciation for diversity; research has found the positive effective of common ground in instruction as well (Knight, 2010). In sum, it appeared to be Lana and Delila’s prior introduction to social justice and personal relationships with diverse individuals, with whom they shared common ground, followed by their exposure to sociolinguistic material through Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course that potentially helped them to develop more progressive language ideologies and diverge more from the SLI than the other interview participants.

Mystification

Overall, based on index averages, Mystification was identified as the SLI belief with which most participants aligned; both in the survey responses and interviews, the majority of participants reported believing that students need to be taught about grammar structure in order

262 to use oral language proficiently, which is also corroborated by prior research (Smitherman &

Villanueva, 2000; Taylor, 1973). This finding is not surprising considering that the act of mystifying language has been centuries in the making, including decontextualized English grammar instruction introduced in the 1700s (Applebee, 1974; Lyman, 1921) and cultural deprivation theories presented in the 1900s (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Bernstein, 1960).

Only one experience was identified in the study to have potentially aided in fostering these beliefs: foreign language learning. An interview participant explained that, within this context, she came to see English as extremely complex and a language that most people do not speak well; she appeared to be applying the, at times, convoluted grammar rules of written

Standard American English to the concept of effective spoken communication, leading her to believe that even native speakers are incapable of proficiently speaking in their own language well. Although learning a foreign language has typically revealed positive shifts in language ideologies (e.g., Elder & Manwaring, 2004; Ter Kuile et al., 2011), it is possible that students can be influenced by their confrontation with metalinguistic awareness about the rules and patterns of their own language that they may not have been exposed to before (Alderson et al.,

1997; Elder et al., 1999), resulting in a perception that English is more confusing or difficult than they had originally thought. Regardless, it seems that foreign language learning without the facilitation of sound linguistic instruction can lead to the endorsement of Mystification’s most basic principles. Furthermore, although not identified in the study, participants’ alignment with this SLI belief could have also been a result of students’ lifelong indoctrination to the SLI through traditional “language study” in public schools, exemplified predominantly by daily oral language exercises that force most students to rely on their teachers or grammar books to be successful at language use (Godley et al., 2007).

263 However, almost half of survey participants and the majority of interview participants did not solely align with Mystification; instead, they exhibited inconsistencies in their beliefs by agreeing both with the idea that students are capable of structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school and asserting that students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently in their day-to-day lives. This demonstration of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), in which participants have sided with two conflicting beliefs, lines up with the fundamental ideological foundation of Mystification: distortion

(Woolard, 1998). Distortion serves to mask the reality that spoken language is innate and that vernacular speakers communicate effectively every day without the help of their teachers’

“expert guidance” by promoting a dependence on those in authority to guide them in “effective” language use. Therefore, it is likely that throughout the interviews and the survey, these participants were simultaneously drawing from the logic and observations of their own personal experiences with language, such as interview participants’ references to experiences with children, to concede that students can verbally express themselves without being taught how to do so while also surrendering to their continuous exposure to language mystification within dominant institutions and by dominant speakers (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Beyond using personal experiences with basic communication to logically contradict the assumptions of Mystification, being in the high school program was the only predictor identified in regression analyses that correlated with divergence from this SLI belief. The relationship between the SSLI, program, and linguistics course(s) in the previous chapter indicated that participants in both programs who had not taken a linguistics course had similar average SSLI scores; however, participants in the high school program who had taken a linguistics course had statistically significantly lower SSLI scores than middle grades participants who had taken a

264 linguistics course. In combination with the fact that all high school participants are required to take Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, it is possible that Mystification was an aspect of linguistics course(s) that predominantly impacted participants in the high school program as opposed to participants in the middle grades program. This could be due to the fact that middle grades participants had taken a different linguistics course that was potentially less effective at addressing Mystification than Dr. Ringer’s course or middle grades participants had taken Dr.

Ringer’s course but did not understand this aspect of the material as well as high school participants. However, without more data on program selection and identification of the specific linguistics course(s) that were reported, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from this finding. Regardless, the interview participants who demonstrated the most divergence from this

SLI belief cited what they learned from the course, particularly the validity of vernacular dialects and the difference between spoken and written language, to contradict Mystification, suggesting that the linguistics course, in combination with other experiences, could serve to develop respect and appreciation for all students’ language abilities.

Although some other studies (e.g., Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000; Taylor, 1973) have addressed Mystification in their language surveys, I am unaware of any other research that has included reverse-coded items on Mystification that would enable observation of the ways in which participants might exhibit inconsistent attitudes towards this SLI belief. Furthermore, I have not come across any qualitative or mixed methods studies that have allowed participants to explain their, potentially contradictory, beliefs on this construct. However, as a well-supported finding in this study, the cognitive dissonance demonstrated in Mystification appears to be a topic ripe for study. Overall, Mystification is a relatively under-researched aspect of language ideologies, yet it deserves much more attention; believing students, especially those who speak

265 stigmatized language varieties, incapable of effective, competent, and powerful communication can result in a dismissal of the linguistic assets that they bring to the classroom (Godley et al.,

2007) and a prejudicial perception of their academic ability (Bernstein, 1960; Bereiter &

Engelmann, 1966).

Authority

In general, the majority of survey participants reported relatively progressive beliefs on

Authority. In contradiction to prior survey research that found that roughly half of teachers believed that they should restrict and discourage vernacular speech in the classroom (Taylor,

1973) and that AAE should not even be accepted socially (Bowie & Bond, 1994), well over half of participants in this study reported that students should be able to speak their own dialect in any given situation and teachers should not decide how students speak in the classroom; these results demonstrated a strong divergence from the SLI for this category and appeared to move away from the tendency of teachers to claim authority over language (Tchudi & Mitchell, 1989).

However, the qualitative findings for most participants did not reflect such a progressive mentality and instead revealed cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) in some participants’ responses, such that they simultaneously claimed that no one has the right to dictate the speech of others while also claiming that teachers have the right to dictate how students speak in their classrooms. It is possible that these inconsistences were a result of participants’ projection of language control onto other teachers instead of addressing their role in it themselves (Freud,

Riviere, Strachey, & Strachey, 1950); as PSTs, participants seemed to feel more comfortable referring to language authorities as teachers in the abstract but rarely discussed their own power in the classroom in first person—removing themselves completely from those responsible for enacting these policies, despite being teacher candidates. Furthermore, when they shared their

266 own language pedagogy regarding their expectations for language use in the classroom, they took on a more compassionate, humble role that made space for students’ linguistic and cultural identities, yet when considering “other” teachers’ authority over language, they assumed a more rigid, traditional persona that made little room for linguistic diversity. As PSTs, participants need to reconcile the fact that they will one day have their own classroom and serve as the point of contact between a student’s community and the world of education (Fillmore & Snow, 2002); therefore, they need to be prepared to create an environment in which this introduction to academia allows all students to thrive, not just those who were raised speaking standardized

English.

On the other hand, both survey and interview responses indicated that participants had much less trouble outsourcing language authority to concepts, like standardized grammar rules and the institution of education, than they did to teachers or themselves; however, relying on rule books to determine how to speak “correctly” is not new (Burling, 1973). Nevertheless, defining the best way to speak only based off of the grammar rules prescribed by the education system positions the institution as the overarching language expert—a post it holds with other dominant establishments, such as the media, the corporate world, and the entertainment industry (Lippi-

Green, 2012). Some participants, like Megan, did not seem bothered by this idea and appeared to willingly submit to the linguistic whims of the education system, acting more as a cog-in-the- wheel than an autonomous teacher; however, research indicates that teachers who report less autonomy and self-determination are less likely to support their students’ autonomy (Marshik,

Ashton, & Algina, 2017). Translated to language pedagogy, it is likely that teachers who yield to the authority that school systems exert over language will teach their students to do the same, thus perpetuating the cycle of language subordination. Overall, as laid out in Figure 5.3, the more

267 distant the responsibility was from participants, ranging from first person to third person to the abstract, the more comfortable they felt openly aligning with the SLI. This finding suggests that when participants discuss other teachers’ right to authority over language or the power granted the institution of education, they may be representing their own beliefs but in a way that removes them from any blame or accountability for those attitudes.

Figure 5.3. Visual representation of Authority findings.

Additionally, being conservative was the strongest predictor of alignment with the SLI for the Authority index. In considering the association between being conservative and aligning with Authority, research suggests that conservatives demonstrate significantly more trust in the government and its institutions than liberals (Rudolph & Evans, 2005); therefore, it is possible that conservative participants were more likely to consent to teachers’ and schools’ standardization of language because “linguistic assimilation to an abstracted standard is cast as a natural one, necessary and positive for the greater social good” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 68).

The second strongest predictor for lower SSLI scores was participation in a linguistics course(s), which was reflected in the qualitative findings as well. Based on the inferences made about the relationship between SSLI scores, program, and experience with linguistics course(s) above, beliefs on Authority may have been an aspect of linguistics course(s) that positively

268 influenced both members of the middle grades and high school programs, especially as it was a stronger predictor than program. Alternatively, the regression for Item 4, regarding grammar rules, revealed that being in the high school program was the only negative predictor for SSLI scores for this item. Unlike the overall index, it is possible that this more abstract aspect of

Authority was a part of linguistics course(s) that only positively affected the beliefs of participants in the high school program. In the qualitative data, Melissa, a member of the middle grades program, demonstrated this potential correlation in that she had taken Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course yet confessed that she did not understand any of the material on grammar rules; her failure to grasp this particular content possibly resulted in her categorical endorsement of the authority of Concepts, specifically standardized grammar rules.

In sum, encouraging PSTs to question the language authority claimed by dominant institutions, people in positions of power, and mainstream speakers, as well as the grammar rules they uphold, is an important aspect of teacher education because promoting “the notion of an overarching, homogenous standard language which is primarily white, upper middle class, and

Midwestern...[starts with] the devaluation of all that it is not (or does not seek to be)” (Lippi-

Green, 2012, p. 68). Therefore, granting power over language to anyone other than speakers themselves serves as the backbone to the SLI.

Misinformation

Overall, based on index averages, Misinformation was identified as the SLI belief from which most participants diverged; both in the survey responses and interviews, the majority of participants reported believing that everyone speaks a dialect, that spoken standardized English changes, that vernacular dialects follow grammar rules, and that standardized English is not the only correct way to speak English; this finding is also corroborated by more recent positive

269 trends in research on teachers’ and PSTs’ language beliefs (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Godley et al.,

2015). It is possible that because this research project and Godley et al.’s (2015) study were conducted at universities in which the participants were able, and some were required, to take a course on sociolinguistics, that this could have been influential in participants’ superior knowledge of sociolinguistic content. To that end, for this study, having taken a linguistics course served as the strongest predictor for a lower SSLI score on this index and was substantiated through the qualitative data as well; based on the relationship between SSLI scores, program, and experience with linguistic course(s), attitudes towards the language myths in

Misinformation may have been an aspect of linguistic course(s) that positively influenced both members of the middle grades and high school programs, especially as it was a stronger predictor than program. In general, these results suggest that explicit linguistic instruction has the potential to disrupt alignment with Misinformation and might be the most accessible place to start initiating positive change in PSTs’ language beliefs. However, as exhibited by the varying and, at times, discriminatory nature of participants’ attitudes towards other aspects of the SLI, instruction cannot stop there.

Although both survey and interview participants explicitly rejected the linguistic misconceptions presented, participants’ discourse throughout the interviews revealed implicit biases towards standardized English and its more aesthetic quality, describing it as “appealing” and “fluid”; Bowie and Bond (1994) similarly reported that most teachers in their study did not believe that AAE sounded as good as mainstream English. However, the aesthetic superiority of any dialect is a language myth unto itself. This association is demonstrative of the “social connotation hypothesis” which asserts that the pleasantness attributed to a language variety is dependent on a listener’s perception of the speaker as well as the power of the dialect; therefore,

270 participants’ interpretations of standardized English in this study as “polished” and “well- crafted” is more indicative of their impressions of the upper middle class (Giles, Bourhis,

Trudgill, & Lewis, 1974). Although some might interpret this finding as troublesome, Giles and

Niedzielski (1998) argue that making judgements about the attractiveness of dialects is a cultural norm and subjective conceptions of language cannot be argued with linguistic facts; in turn, instead of rebuking PSTs for instinctive reactions or feelings, it is more effective to teach students to “recognize them for what they are: the result of a complex of social, cultural, political and personal associations and prejudices…[that] have no basis in social scientific fact” (p. 92).

Moreover, this was a distinguishing aspect of Lana’s responses in which she did not blindly subscribe to the “right answer,” but consistently reflected on her biases and attempted to articulate what prompted them. In sum, true ideological change might be best measured not by those who get it “right,” but by those who are willing to admit they still get it “wrong.”

Trivialization

For the most part, survey participants and interview participants validated the complexity and precision of vernacular dialects; however, as substantiated in prior literature (Blake &

Cutler, 2003; Bowie & Bond, 1994; Taylor, 1973), the starkest contrast between participants’ beliefs regarding Trivialization was the overwhelming support for the significance of vernacular dialects to identity and culture as opposed to the derision of accepting them into the professional world. Most interview participants discussed the importance of students’ dialects to their cultural identity and had no issues listing contributions that vernacular dialects had made to American culture; however, their continual referral to these language varieties as “fun” and their exclusion of stigmatized dialects from serious conversations held in professional places and academic contexts signaled an underlying subjugation of non-mainstream dialects to standardized English.

271 This dichotomy is reminiscent of the criticisms voiced against multicultural education for being reduced to “trivial examples and artifacts of cultures such as eating ethnic or cultural foods, singing songs or dancing, [and] reading folktales” (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). In the same fashion, participants continuously referenced their desire to “celebrate” linguistic diversity, but were ready to put it back on the shelf when discussions of academia or the workforce surfaced.

Furthermore, this finding alludes to a lack of critical language awareness as participants seem to ignore the power inequities present in a conceptualization of code-switching that limits vernacular language use to outside the school (Ali, 2011; Young et al., 2013).

Overall, Lippi-Green (2012) labels justifications for the prohibition of vernacular dialects in schools, and other dominant institutions, as “appropriacy arguments” that are reflective of the

“separate but equal” doctrine that was in place from the late 1800s to mid-1900s; however, she asserts that this is due, in part, to the fact that most teachers do not recognize the linguistic equality of all dialects—if this is true, what then can be said for the participants of this study who appeared to be well-informed about sociolinguistic facts, yet did not abandon their rejection of stigmatized dialects in the classroom, and all that is deemed “serious” and “important”? It appears that acknowledgement of linguistic equality in and of itself is not enough to fully transform other aspects of the SLI, a finding best demonstrated by Megan, who challenged almost all aspects of Misinformation but subscribed to almost all aspects of Trivialization.

Furthermore, it is possible that other participants’ extended exposure to linguistic content over a semester in Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course, as opposed to the minimal exposure that Megan had to language study in her education and sociology courses, was a mediating factor in these disparate beliefs on Trivialization.

272 For this index, the strongest predictor of a lower SSLI score was being in the high school program. Based on the relationship between SSLI scores, program, and experience with linguistics course(s), is it possible that Trivialization was an aspect of the linguistics course that predominantly impacted high school students who took the class over middle grades students.

Additionally, participants who identified as conservative were more likely to score higher on this

SLI belief than participants who identified as liberal. As two of the statements in Trivialization address the inclusion of vernacular dialects into American culture and acceptance in “serious” discourse, it is possible that participants who identified as conservative viewed these ideas as antithetical to the ideology behind the English-only movement, which promotes English as the only official language in government establishments and is largely supported by conservatives but not liberals (Frendreis & Tatalovich, 1997).

In sum, interview participants often enacted hypothetical conversations that they envisioned having with their future students in which they would respectfully and politely explain how they appreciated students’ vernacular dialects but that they were not appropriate for an academic setting. Participants appeared to feel that these explanations would communicate understanding and acceptance as well as justify their actions; however, PSTs need to acknowledge the fact that students do not just listen to the words teachers say—they also listen to what is being communicated by the hidden curriculum (Martin, 1983), and the exclusion of stigmatized dialects from the classroom is saying “Not good enough.”

Conformers/Non-Conformers

Overall, for Conformers/Non-Conformers, survey responses primarily exhibited divergence from this SLI belief, whereas prior research found that teachers associated more negative characteristics and held lower expectations for non-mainstream speakers (Blake &

273 Cutler, 2003; Gupta, 2010). Also reflected in both the survey and interview responses was the idea that participants were more likely to associate standardized English speakers with positive characteristics than they were to associate vernacular speakers with negative characteristics. It is possible that this is a result of common diversity training in teacher education programs that primarily focuses on combatting negative stereotypes against minority cultures and less on the positive associations that individuals may have with mainstream culture (Civitillo, Juang, &

Schachner, 2018). However, assuming that students who speak standardized English are typically intelligent or usually hardworking, although seemingly positive, still promotes judging someone based on their speech and also implies that if standardized English speakers are typically intelligent, then those who speak a different language variety are not.

Additionally, all participants associated speaking standardized English with being educated, which was also found in speaker ratings tasks conducted by Cross et al. (2001).

Although relating speech with education moves away from the danger of assessing speakers’ natural abilities based on their dialect, automatically assuming that a mainstream speaker is educated carries its own problems. First, many people conflate education and intelligence, presuming both to mean knowledgeable; therefore, identifying an individual as “educated” based on their speech could mask an association with intellect. Additionally, equating mainstream

English speakers with being educated presents a narrow idea of who is educated (Lippi-Green,

2012); for example, this association disregards vernacular speakers who might have maintained their dialect throughout their education as well as speakers of English as a second language who might have as much or even more education than some standardized English speakers.

Another participant, Alex, used her association between mainstream English and education to justify her assumption that standardized English speakers are typically hardworking

274 because she claimed that they have clearly put time in to speak like that. However, her assertion masks the minimal adaptation that most students from upper middle class homes, who usually already speak a standardized dialect, have to make to their speech in order to verbally communicate in a way that is accepted and valued in an educational setting; in turn, this grants mainstream speakers credence as hard workers, even if they have to do little to explicitly learn their dialect. Much like Godley et al. (2015) found that the ELA PST participants in their study avoided acknowledging their own white privilege, Alex’s assumption appears to avoid the privilege afforded mainstream speakers altogether and suggests that everyone starts school on a level playing field. Consequently, Davila (2016) argues that believing everyone has equal access to standardized English is a foundational principle of the SLI.

When responding to associations between vernacular speakers and behavior issues, there were two participants who claimed that they would not draw a correlation between a student’s behavior and their dialect, and instead suggested that behavior has more to do with someone’s culture or socioeconomic status. However, what participants failed to recognize is the inextricable relationship between culture, socioeconomic status, and language, as well as many other factors that make up an identity (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). They seemed to be suggesting that by associating a certain type of behavior with a particular culture or social class that this was somehow independent from language; however, language is an fundamental aspect of how we perceive other people as they are filtered through our language ideologies. In this process, we evaluate not just an individual’s dialect, but their culture, social class, ethnicity, gender, etc. (Giles & Niedzielski, 1998). Therefore, to draw a connection between behavior and culture or behavior and socioeconomic status is to draw a connection between behavior and language.

275 Finally, identifying as politically conservative rather than liberal was the strongest and only predictor for a higher SSLI score on Conformers/Non-Conformers, and was mostly corroborated by the qualitative findings. It is possible that liberals were less likely to associate groups of speakers with certain attributes because research has indicated they are more open- minded than conservatives, scoring significantly higher on the Openness domain of the Five

Factor Model of human personality traits (Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). This could potentially lead liberal participants to have a broader conceptualization of the different characteristics and behaviors that could be embodied by an individual rather than a more fixed categorization of what someone is like based on their speech. It is also this disposition of openness that some have found to be pivotal in changing pre-service teachers’ beliefs on diversity (Garmon, 2004).

Promises/Threats

Although Mystification was the highest index mean, the items regarding Promises had some of the highest averages out of all of the SSLI statements; furthermore, survey responses indicated that participants were more likely to agree with statements regarding Promises than

Threats. These findings were corroborated in prior research (Blake & Cutler, 2003; Taylor,

1973); however, some studies found even higher percentages of agreement with Promises than those of this project (Gupta, 2010; Smitherman & Villanueva, 2000). The Promises/Threats items were designed to assess alignment with the SLI, particularly participants’ beliefs that speaking standardized English guarantees advantages and speaking a vernacular dialect ensures difficulties, as research and history has indicated that these are not inevitabilities (Cross et al.,

2001). However, the definitive language of these statements (e.g., “Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students”) did not appear to be strong

276 enough to encourage all students who felt that these Promises/Threats were only strong possibilities to disagree with the statements. This potentially inflated the results of the

Promises/Threats items as some participants who might not have believed that these outcomes were guaranteed still might have agreed with the statements.

However, based on interview participants’ explanations of their beliefs on these issues, what the survey responses might be more indicative of is an acceptance of the conclusive language with which outcomes of language use are often communicated. For example, most participants did not believe that speaking standardized English ensured that doors would open for students; however, participants often spoke about the outcome definitively unless directly asked whether it was guaranteed. It is possible that declaring the benefits or ramifications of speaking a particular language variety come naturally to participants as these promises and threats are constantly disseminated through dominant bloc institutions, often pointing to each other as proof that resistance against them is hopeless (Lippi-Green, 2012). However, speaking with certainty about inevitable failure for vernacular speakers or guaranteed success for mainstream speakers only perpetuates these myths and contributes to the cycle of linguistic subordination; therefore, teachers who speak accordingly to their students about language end up doing the dominant institutions’ linguistic bidding.

Lastly, although Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course was cited as having had a positive impact on participants’ beliefs about almost every aspect of the SLI beliefs, learning about linguistic prejudice appeared to impact some interview participants in a way that they came to see it as an inevitability—at times even exhibiting a fatalistic attitude towards their ability to impact change.

However, a major tenet of CLA is taking action in order to disrupt the social inequalities present in communicative acts (Clarke & Ivanic, 1999); therefore, PSTs must learn to walk a line

277 between acknowledging the marginalization of vernacular dialects yet recognizing their ability to challenge it.

Limitations

This study presented several limitations. First, the study sample is only reflective of the population of two ELA teacher educations programs within a single university and cannot be generalized outside of these parameters. A larger population derived from more institutions in more geographically diverse locations would be needed to apply the findings of this study on a national level. Also, due to a small sample size, it is possible that certain independent variables did not show significance in the regressions when they would have with a larger sample size, resulting in an increased potential for type II (false negative) errors. Additionally, the small sample size could have also led to the weaker fit indices in the confirmatory factor analysis and the theoretically-inconsistent factor loadings on the exploratory factor analysis, potentially obscuring the existence of an overall measurement model.

Second, although validity and reliability were established for the SSLI through cognitive interviewing, expert ratings surveys, correlational analyses, and Cronbach’s alpha, a pilot study was not conducted which could have enhanced the tool and provided additional validity and reliability (Benson & Clark, 1982).

Third, the data collected did not make it possible to determine why academic program was a significant predictor in several index and item regressions; there were unmeasured characteristics associated with program choice and the indexes that were not captured by the data of this study, making it impossible to disentangle whether program was a predictor due to the impact of the program itself or due to other factors driving program choice. Furthermore, participation in linguistics course(s) was also identified as a predictor in some index and item

278 regressions; however, the survey did not require participants to identify which linguistics course they took. Therefore, although Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course is required for all high school participants and is the linguistics course most middle grades participants take, if any, in the quantitative data I was unable to discern if this correlation between the index and participation course(s) was strictly in relation to Dr. Ringer’s linguistics course.

Fourth, there were some items on the SSLI that did not effectively capture the intended measurement of alignment with or divergence from the SLI. For example, Promise/Threats items were not written definitively enough to assess whether participants felt that the outcome of the situation presented was guaranteed—an assumption of the SLI. Although the responses to the items did reveal some degree of consent or disapproval to this aspect of the SLI, the responses for these items could have potentially inflated the number of participants who agreed with the statements, making it more difficult to discern how participants’ alignment with or divergence from this SLI belief compares to that of the other SLI beliefs.

Fifth, there were some limitations with regard to the participants. To start, the middle grades participants were part of a teacher licensure program for both ELA and social studies; therefore, I was unable to determine the ways in which being in a dual licensure program impacted middle grades participants’ language beliefs in comparison to the high school participants who were obtaining certification only in ELA. For the interview participants, all participants except Megan had taken the same linguistics course at Southern University required in the high school program; this made Megan the outlier with regard to this specific aspect of her experiences and I was unable to corroborate her language beliefs with other participants who had not taken this course either.

279 Finally, data analysis also had some limitations. To begin with, political affiliation surfaced as a predictor for several indexes; however, I was unable to explore their impact on participants’ language beliefs in the interviews as participants did not directly discuss these ideologies. In turn, I could only share the political affiliations that the participants reported on the survey and the language beliefs that they shared throughout the interviews, yet I could not draw any associations between these two findings. Additionally, when analyzing the qualitative data, I did not remove participants’ names from the data which made me vulnerable to my biases towards the identifiable participants; this could have skewed my interpretation of the qualitative results. Lastly, I did not explore the interaction effects between program and linguistics course(s), yet it could have contributed a more nuanced interpretation of the regression results.

Implications for Practice

Based on the findings of this study, there are several implications for teacher education programs that have the potential to positively shift students’ language ideologies to be more linguistically-informed about the language variation and, hopefully, create an inclusive classroom environment in which all voices are heard and respected. However, the most important takeaway overall is the necessity to address language curricula and foster critical language awareness in teacher education as PSTs’ language beliefs can impact the ways in which they perceive and interact with their future students. Additionally, the recommendations made below are given within the context of the findings of this study; as displayed in Figure 5.4, participants demonstrated a good deal of linguistic knowledge regarding facts about language and unfounded associations between speakers and dialect. However, this foundation of sociolinguistic facts did not often translate to participants being able to critically analyze systems of power and discriminatory practices against vernacular language use. To this point, scholars

280 have argued that simply recognizing dialects as equal ignores issues of ideology and power and masks social inequities by portraying them as diversity (Alim, 2010; Clark & Ivanic, 1999;

Fairclough, 2014). Therefore, although the ability to engage in a critical analysis of the relationship between language and power necessitates a linguistically-informed awareness of language, it does not automatically produce this skill. Consequently, without metalinguistic awareness and the ability to critically analyze language practices and policies, teacher educators cannot hope to develop autonomous teachers who challenge inequities and subvert dominant institutions by employing critical language pedagogy. Focusing only on awareness and lacking a critical component to language curricula instead results in teachers who are aware of language prejudice and discrimination but view themselves as powerless to disrupt it.

Figure 5.4. Visual representation study findings in relation to CLA.

In turn, the findings of this study suggested that many aspects of awareness, critical analysis, and transformation must be developed through explicit linguistic instruction. With this in mind, I make the following recommendations for practice:

 As students’ language ideologies impact the ways in which they perceive other speakers

(Kroskrity, 2010; Lippi-Green, 2012), when facilitating interactions between students and

diverse populations, whether through school partnerships or student teaching, help

students identify ways in which they are similar to those with whom they are working,

especially when they are interacting with vernacular speakers. Based on the findings of

281 this study, sharing a common ground with diverse populations, in combination with other

experiences, can help students to see the assets of different language varieties and

appreciate different forms of speaking.

 In combination with facilitating positive interactions with diverse populations, addressing

ideas of social justice and diversity that are more commonplace (e.g., race, gender, social

class) before students are asked to question their language beliefs may help students

connect to concepts like linguistic prejudice and systemic forms of language

subordination and more easily assimilate them into their prior knowledge.

 Although occasionally addressing issues of linguistic diversity in education classes is

better than none at all, the positive impact of a course specific to linguistics showed to be

an influential factor in both the quantitative and qualitative data, as well as prior research

(Ball & Muhammad, 2003; Carter, 2015; Godley et al., 2015). Therefore, requiring

students to take a class strictly devoted to understanding language variation and other

linguistic issues appears to be more impactful than intermittent discussions about

language in other courses. Additionally, substantially increasing the time spent

addressing language variation in methodology courses also has the potential to positively

affect PSTs’ language ideologies.

 As students’ understanding of linguistic concepts can vary, facilitating experiences in

which students are able to enact language pedagogy can move these concepts from theory

to practice and have more impact on positively shifting PSTs’ language beliefs away

from the SLI (Sweetland, 2010), especially as the recognition of linguistic facts does not

always translate to effective language pedagogy (Godley et al., 2015). Additionally,

having the opportunity to teach effective language pedagogy could help PSTs’ begin to

282 see themselves as the teacher instead of distancing themselves from the responsibility of

making decisions about language in the classroom, thus relying on more traditional

conceptions of language instruction that do not align with their understanding of the

connection between language and identity.

 It is important for both instructors and students to be aware of the cognitive dissonance

that can exist in language ideologies, particularly for Mystification, Authority, and

Trivialization, and address them accordingly; however, inconsistent beliefs can be hard to

capture. Therefore, instructors can use the SSLI to help identify areas of cognitive

dissonance in their students’ language ideologies as well as encourage students to

examine the inconsistencies in their own beliefs upon reviewing their survey responses.

This can help students reconcile their conflicting beliefs (Festinger, 1957) through

explicit discussion of their implicit biases with an instructor who can offer support

through their knowledge of sociolinguistic facts. This can include the delineation of

spoken and written language as well as the connection between language and power.

 Instructors must address PSTs’ conceptualizations of code-switching and help students

recognize the discriminatory and damaging effects of a classroom policy that prohibits

students from speaking their home dialects. Instead, instructors can advocate for and

teach about practices like contrastive analysis (Lado, 1957), code-meshing (Young et al.,

2013), and translanguaging (Canagarajah, 2011).

 Language curricula developed for ELA PSTs’ should start with addressing language

myths through the presentation of sociolinguistic facts as participants seemed most

willing to accept these ideas; recognition of these facts can then serve as the foundation

upon which to confront more controversial and abstract assumptions of the SLI, such as

283 Authority. Considering that many participants did not apply their knowledge of these

linguistic truths to other aspects of the SLI, language curricula cannot stop at addressing

the language myths of Misinformation; it must include material on all SLI beliefs to

encourage an overall divergence from the SLI, not just from Misinformation.

 Based on the results from Conformers/Non-Conformers, it is important to not only

address the negative associations people make with vernacular speakers but also the

positive associations people make with mainstream speakers, especially as participants

seemed more comfortable doing the former than the latter. Instead of focusing solely on

the immorality of negatively judging someone based on their speech, just as most

curricula about diversity focuses on negative stereotypes (Civitillo et al., 2018),

confronting the impulse to assign positive attributes to mainstream speakers can help

deconstruct language authority and a bias towards standardized English. Overall,

instructors should be aware of and draw attention to the tendency of PSTs to articulate

SLI beliefs through positive language constructions than negative language constructions,

such as in Conformers/Non-Conformers and Promises/Threats.

 Finally, instructors must take care when teaching students about linguistic prejudice and

discrimination. Focusing strictly on these realities without acknowledgement of the fact

that some vernacular speakers have achieved success despite these barriers or effectively

challenged dominant institution’s authority over language can lead students to believe

that there is no hope for change and that resistance is useless (Lippi-Green, 2012).

Therefore, instructors must help students both recognize the language subordination that

exists in society and the inequities it perpetuates while also acknowledging the successes

of those who have subverted this system and the potential for change.

284 Implications for Future Research

One of the most notable findings from this study was the stark contrast in language ideologies between participants in the high school program and participants in the middle grades program, as evidenced in the quantitative data. As this study did not have the necessary data to interpret the ways in which the programs may or may not have impacted their students’ language beliefs, further investigation into the differences between teacher education programs of various grade levels, content areas, and/or institutions, in conjunction with a longitudinal examination of

PSTs’ language attitudes, could reveal ways in which various program practices and policies are impacting students’ language ideologies.

Another finding of this study was the cognitive dissonance demonstrated by both interview and survey participants on various SLI beliefs. Future research could explore students’ explanations for these inconsistencies and examine the ways in which they might reconcile them.

This could help instructors better anticipate these contradictions and work to dispel beliefs which are not based in linguistic fact. Additionally, based on the findings of this study, future research in language ideologies, especially through surveys, must include reverse-coded items in order to discern these potential inconsistences.

Finally, many participants often discussed how they would approach language in the classroom, often in ways that aligned with their SLIs. Furthermore, one participant discussed the impact that her cooperating teacher had on her approach to language in the classroom. However, as this study did not include any observation, future research could examine PSTs’ expressed language beliefs in comparison to their actual instructional practices during student teaching.

This examination of pedagogy could reveal different ways in which PSTs’ may subordinate

285 language in the classroom and potentially identify the impact a cooperating teachers or a school placement has on PSTs’ approach to language instruction.

In conclusion, there is much more work to be done in improving PSTs’ language ideologies. Although participants readily refuted the linguistic myths in Misinformation, underlying beliefs about the way the world should work with regard to language were still present in most SLI categories; however, two participants, in particular, demonstrated that linguistic ideological change is possible. Disrupting this alignment with the SLI becomes ever more important as student populations continue to diversify (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2017) and dialects continuing to diverge (Wolfram & Schilling, 2016). In turn, teacher educators have a responsibility to prepare PSTs for linguistically-diverse classrooms, especially as calls for social justice and inclusion abound. For although the education system has been referred to as “the heart of the standardization process” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 68), as Lana said,

“It doesn’t have to be.”

286 REFERENCES

Achugar, M. (2015). Theme: Critical language awareness approaches in the Americas:

Theoretical principles, pedagogical practices and distribution of intellectual labor.

Linguistics and Education, 32, 1-4.

Adger, C. T., Christian, D., & Taylor, O. (1999). Making the connection: Language and

academic achievement among African American students. Washington, DC: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Adger, C. T., Snow, C. E., & Christian, D. (2003). What teachers need to know about language.

Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Adorno, T. (1966/1973). Negative Dialectics. New York: Seabury.

Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological

relevance. In W. R. Scott & J. Blake (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (Vol. 17, pp.

105-131). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude

and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93-121.

Ali, S. (2011). Critical language awareness in pedagogic context. English Language Teaching,

4(4), 28-35.

Alim, H. S. (2004). Hearing what's not said and missing what is: Black Language in White

public space. In S. F. Kiesling & C. B. Paulson (Eds.), Intercultural discourse and

communication: The essential readings (pp. 180–197). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and

revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. American Educational Research

Association, 34(7), 24-31.

287 Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. H. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.).

Sociolinguistics and language education (Vol. 18, pp. 205-231). Multilingual Matters.

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books.

Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and

practice in “New Times.” The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 193-205.

Andrews, L. (2006). Language exploration and awareness: A resource book for teachers.

Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press.

Aplin, R. (1981). Introduction to Language. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Apple, M. W., & Buras, K. L. (2006). The subaltern speak: Curriculum, power, and educational

struggles. London: Routledge.

Applebee, A. N. (1989). The teaching of literature in programs with reputations for excellence in

English courses (Vol. Report Series 1.2). Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and

Teaching of Literature, SUNY at Albany.

Aydin, S., Demirdogen, B., Tarkin, A., Kutucu, S., Ekiz, B., Nur Akin, F., . . . Uzuntiryaki, E.

(2013). Providing a set of research-based practices to support preservice teachers' long-

term professional development as learners of science teaching. Science Education, 97(6),

903-935.

Azzalini, A. (2005). The skew-normal distribution and related multivariate families.

Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 32(2), 159-188.

Baker-Bell, A. (2013). “I never really knew the history behind African American Language”:

Critical language pedagogy in an advanced placement English language arts class. Equity

& Excellence in Education, 46(3), 355-370.

288 Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas

Press. (Original work published in 1975)

Ball, A., & Muhammad, R. J. (2003). Language diversity in teacher education and the classroom.

In G. Smitherman & V. Villanueva (Eds.), Language diversity in the classroom: From

intention to practice (pp. 76–88). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.

Bauer, L., & Trudgill, P. (1998). Language myths. London: Penguin Books.

Baugh, J. (2003). Linguistic profiling. In S. Makoni, G. Smitherman, A. F. Ball, & A. K. Spears

(Eds.), Black linguistics: Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas (pp.

155–168). London: Routledge.

Baugh, J. (2007). At last: Plantation English in America: Nonstandard varieties and the quest for

educational equity. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), 465-472.

Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287-311.

Bell, H. (2016). Teacher knowledge and beliefs about grammar: A case study of an English

primary school. English in Education, 50(2), 148-163.

Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 10-17.

Benson, J., & Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. The

American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(12), 789-800.

Bissonnette, J. D., Reaser, J., Hatcher, J., & Godley, A. J. (2016). Regional differences in pre-

service teachers’ responses to critical language pedagogies. Southern Journal of

Linguistics, 40(1), 1-39.

Blake, R., & Cutler, C. (2003). African American English and variation in teachers’ attitudes: A

289 question of school philosophy? Linguistics and Education, 14, 163-194.

Blommaert, J. (2004). Grassroots historiography and the problem of voice: Tshibumba’s Histoire

du Zaire. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14, 6-23.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indian Language

(Vol. 40, pp. 1-83). Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bowie, R., & Bond, C. (1994). Influencing teacher attitudes toward Black English: Are we

making a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 112-118.

Brashears, K. (2014). Examining teacher perceptions of the Appalachian dialect in one rural

Appalachian elementary school. The Rural Educator, 35(2), 1-10.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Briggs, C. L. (1996). Disorderly dialogues in ritual impositions of order: The role of

metapragmatics in warao dispute mediation. In C. L. Briggs (Ed.), Disorderly Discourse:

Narrative Conflict, and Inequality (pp. 204-242). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Bunte, P. A. (2009). “You keep not listening with your ears”: Ideology, language socialization,

and Paiute identity. In P. Kroskrity & M. Field (Eds.), Native American Language

290 Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Community (pp. 172-189). Tucson,

AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M. (1997). Teachers' attitudes about language

diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 637-644.

Cajkler, W., & Hislam, J. (2010). Trainee teachers’ grammatical knowledge: The tension

between public expectations and individual competence. Language Awareness, 11(3),

161-177.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and

pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-28.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and

conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind.

Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.

Carroll, J. E. (2016). Grammar. Nazis. Does the grammatical ‘release the conceptual’? Teaching

History, 163, 8-16.

Carter, R. (2003). Language Awareness. ELT Journal, 57(1), 64-65.

Carter, P. M. (2015). Critical language study and modern English grammar in context. American

Speech, 90(2): 246-266.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.).

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cecil, N. (1988). Black dialect and academic success: A study of teacher expectations. Reading

291 Improvement, 25, 34-38.

Charity Hudley, A. H., & Mallinson, C. (2015). Understanding English language variation in US

schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Cheshire, J. (1998). Double negatives are illogical. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language

myths. London: Penguin Books.

Chisholm, J. S., & Godley, A. (2011). Learning about language through inquiry-based

discussion: Three bidialectal high school students' talk about dialect variation, identity,

and power. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 430-468.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects on the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Christiansen, M. S. (2018). ‘¡Hable Bien M’ijo o Gringo o Mx!’: language ideologies in the

digital communication practices of transnational Mexican bilinguals. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(4), 439-450.

Churchill, G. A., & Peter, P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of marketing

research. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 360-375.

Civitillo, S., Juang, L. P., & Schachner, M. K. (2018). Challenging beliefs about cultural

diversity in education: A synthesis and critical review of trainings with pre-service

teachers. Educational Research Review, 24, 67-83.

Clark, R., Fairclough, N., Ivanic, R., & Martin-Jones, M. (1990). Critical language

awareness part I: A critical review of three current approaches to language awareness.

Language and Education, 4(4), 249–260.

Clark, R., Fairclough, N., Ivanic, R., & Martin-Jones, M. (1991). Critical language

awareness part II: Towards critical alternatives. Language and Education, 5(1), 41–54.

292 Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1999). Raising critical awareness of language: a curriculum aim for the

new millennium. Language Awareness, 8(2), 63-70.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of

Life Research, 12, 229-238.

Collins, J. (1991). Hegemonic practice: Literacy and standard language in public education. In C.

Mitchell & K. Weisler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other

(pp. 229-253). New York: Bergin and Garvey.

Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of

mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294.

Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale

and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.

Comber, B. (1993). Classroom explorations in critical literacy. The Australian Journal of

Langauge and Literacy, 16(1), 73-83.

Cook, T. D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.),

Social science and social policy (pp. 21-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). Schooling and literacy: An unchanging equation? In J. Cook-

Gumperz (Ed.), The social construction of literacy (pp. 16-44). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

293 Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity,

evaluation, and ideology. In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland, & D. Galasinki (Eds.),

Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 15-51). Mouton de Gruyter.

Courtenay, B. C., & Weidemann, C. (1985). The effects of a don't know response on Palmore's

facts on aging quizzes. The Gerontologist, 25, 177-181.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, J., DeVaney, T., & Jones, G. (2001). Preservice teacher attitudes toward differing dialects.

Linguistics and Education, 12, 211-227.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research

process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crowl, T., & MacGinitie, W. (1974). The influence of students' speech characteristics on

teachers' evaluations of oral answers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 304-

308.

Cummins, R. A. & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case

for subjective quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the Proceedings, Second

294 International Conference on Quality of Life, Singapore: National University of

Singapore.

Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal, professional,

and global competencies in an age of globalization. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 6(1), 44-58.

Daugherty, S. D., Harris-Kojetin, L., Squire, C., & Jael, E. (2001, August 5-9). Maximizing the

quality of cognitive interviewing data: An exploration of three approaches and their

informational contributions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American

Statistical Association.

Davila, B. (2016). The inevitability of “standard” English: Discursive constructions of standard

language ideologies. Written Communication, 33(2), 127-148.

DeCapua, A. (2017). Grammar for teachers: A guide to American English for native and non-

native speakers. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Springer.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2008). Mixed methods research in the social sciences. In J. W. Osborne

(Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 125-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a

codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional

development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Schutz, P. A. (2017). Developing a mixed methods proposal: A practical

guide for beginning researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:

New Press.

295 Derewianka, B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English.

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(2), 127-146.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New

York: Praeger.

Dickar, M. (2004). "Words is changin' every day": Language and literacy in the urban contact

zone. In B.R.C. Barrell, R.F. Hammett, J. S. Mayher, & G.M. Pradl (Eds.), Teaching

English today: Advocating change in the secondary curriculum (pp. 68-80). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Donmall, G. (1985). Language Awareness. NCLE (National Congress on Languages in

Education) Papers and Reports No. 6. London: Centre for Information on Language

Teaching and Research.

Doubet, K. J., & Southall, G. (2018). Integrating reading and writing instruction in middle and

high school: The role of professional development in shaping teacher perceptions and

practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57(1), 59-79.

Duranti, A. (2009). Linguistic anthropology: A reader (Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dyson, A. H., & Smitherman, G. (2009). The right (write) start: African American Language and

the discourse of sounding right. Teachers College Record, 111, 973-998.

Dzurec, L. C., & Abraham, J. L. (1993). The nature of inquiry: Linking quantitative and

qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 16, 73-79.

Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management,

39(1), 118-128.

296 Eisenstein, M. (1982). A study of social variations in adult second language acquisition.

Language Learning, 32, 367-391.

Elder, C., & Manwaring, D. (2004). The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and

learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness,

13(3), 145-162.

Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., & Davies, A. (1999). Metalinguistic knowledge:

How important is it in studying a language at university? Australian Review of Applied

Linguistics, 22(1), 81-95.

Ellis, E. M. (2012). Language awareness and its relevance to TESOL. University of Sydney

Papers in TESOL, 7, 1-23.

Oxford University Press. (2018). Ending sentences with prepositions. Retrieved from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/ending-sentences-with-prepositions

Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and

quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.

Erlandson, D. A. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Errington, J. J. (1988). Structure and style in Javanese: A semiotic view of linguistic etiquette.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2014). Critical language awareness. London: Routledge.

Fareed, A. H. (1971). Interpretive responses in reading history and biology: An exploratory

study. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 493-532.

297 Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998). In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black–White test score gap (pp.

273–317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and quantitative

methods in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2011). Language ideology dimensions of politically active Arizona

voters: an exploratory study. Language Awareness, 20(4), 295-314.

Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S., Palmer, D., & Henderson, K. (2015). Educator language ideologies and

a top-down dual language program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 1-18.

Forza, C., & Filippini, R. (1998). TQM impact on quality conformance and customer

satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1-

20.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon Books.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context.

Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7-16.

Freeden, M. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction (Vol. 95). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Freeman, J. (2010, April 10). I [heart] the OED: Is the Oxford English Dictionary stooping? The

Boston Globe.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

298 Frendreis, J., & Tatalovich, R. (1997). Who supports English-only language laws? Evidence

from the 1992 National Election Study. Social Science Quarterly, 354-368.

Freud, S., Riviere, J., Strachey, A., & Strachey, J. (1950). Case histories (Vol. 3). Hogarth Press.

Friedrich, P. (1989). Language, ideology and political economy. American Anthropologist, 91,

295-312.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of

acting White." Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206.

Fry, G., Chantavanich, S., & Chantavanich, A. (1981). Merging quantitative and qualitative

research techniques: Toward a new research paradigm. Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 12, 145-158.

Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 345–367.

Gal, S. (1993). Diversity and contestation in linguistic ideologies: German speakers in Hungary.

Language in Society, 22, 337-359.

Gans, H. J. (1963). Urban villagers: Group life and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New

York: Free Press.

Garmon, M. A. (2004). Changing preservice teachers attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are

the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(3), 201-213.

Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and poor readers’

awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 12, 55-

63.

Gartland, L. B., & Smolkin, L. B. (2016). The histories and mysteries of grammar instruction.

The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 391-399.

299 Gaskins, R. W. (1996). “That’s just how it was”: The effect of issue-related emotional

involvement on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 386-405.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Trudgill, P., & Lewis, A. (1974). The imposed norm hypothesis: a

validation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 405-410.

Giles, H., & Niedzielski, N. (1998). Italian is beautiful, Danish is ugly. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill

(Eds.), Language myths (pp. 85-93). London: Penguin.

Gill, M. (2013, August 13). Have we literally broken the English language? Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/literally-broken-english-

language-definition

Giroux, H. (1988). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse

of educational research. In R. Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in

education: Focus and methods (pp. 190-210). New York, NY: Falmer.

Giroux, H. A. (2004). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of

democracy. Herndon, VA: Paradigm Publishers.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Gobo, G., & Mauceri, S. (2014). Constructing survey data: An interactional approach.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Godley, A. J., Carpenter, B. D., & Werner, C. A. (2007). "I'll speak in proper slang": Language

ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 100-131.

Godley, A. J., & Escher, A. (2012). Bidialectal African American adolescents’ views on spoken

language expectations in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,

55, 704-713.

300 Godley, A. J., & Minnici, A. (2006, April). A critical approach to teaching about language with

adolescent African American students. Oral presentation at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Godley, A. J., & Minnici, A. (2008). Critical language pedagogy in an urban high school English

class. Urban Education, 43(3), 319-346.

Godley, A. J., Reaser, J., & Moore, K. G. (2015). Pre-service English language arts teachers’

development of critical language awareness for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 32,

41-54.

Godley, A. J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R. S., Minnici, A., & Carpenter, B. D. (2006). Preparing

teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 30-37.

Goodman, S. K., & Buck, C. (1973). Dialect barriers to reading comprehension revisited. The

Reading Teacher, 27(1), 6-12.

Gouldner, A. W. (1976). The dialectic of ideology and technology: The origins, grammar, and

future of ideology. New York: Seabury Press.

Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the

Schools, 13(1), 93-98.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The

challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms: New directions for evaluation,

74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for

mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3),

255-274.

301 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging

confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Gumperz, J. J. (1961). Speech variation and the study of Indian civilization. American

Anthropologist, 63(5), 976-988.

Gupta, A. (2010). African-American English: Teacher beliefs, teacher needs and teacher

preparation programs. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 152-164.

Gutierrez, K. (2008). Developing sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research

Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.

Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2003). Marketing research: Within a changing

information environment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language

and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in

teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education,

21(8), 967-983.

Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London, UK: Duckworth.

Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

302 Heath, S. B. (1989). Language ideology. In International Encyclopedia of Communications,

(Vol. 2, pp. 393-395). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hill, J. H. (1985). The grammar of consciousness and the consciousness of grammar. American

Ethnologist, 12, 725-737.

Hill, J. H. & Hill, K. C. (1986). Speaking mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in central

Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Hoffman, K. E. (2008). We share walls: Language, land, and gender in berber Morocco.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1949). Elmtown’s youth. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hoover, M., Lewis, S., Politzer, R., Ford, J., McNair-Knox, F., Hicks, S., et al. (1996). Tests of

African American English for teachers of bidialectal students. In R. L. Jones (Ed.),

Handbook of tests and measurements for black populations (Vol. 1, pp. 367−381).

Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

Horkheimer, M. (1937/1976). "Traditional and Critical Theory". In P. Connerton (Ed.), Critical

sociology: Selected readings (pp. 206-224). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

House, E. R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis

(Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 13-22). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hudgens Henderson, M. (2016). Sociolinguistics for kids: A curriculum for bilingual students.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No. 3264028)

303 Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In A. Tashakkori & C.

Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577-

594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hymes, D. H. (1960). Field work in linguistics and anthropology. Studies in Linguistics, 14, 82-

91.

Inoue, M. (2004). What does language remember?: Indexical inversion and the naturalized

history of Japan. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14, 39-56.

Irvine, J. T. (1989). When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American

Ethnologist, 16, 248–267.

Irvine, J. T. (2012, January 11). Language ideology. Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-

9780199766567-0012.xml

Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V.

Kroskrity (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 402-434). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Jackson, J. (2008). Globalization, internationalization, and short-term stays abroad. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 349-358.

Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Zeisel, H. (1931/2003). Marienthal: The sociography of an

unemployed community. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

James, C., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1991). Language awareness in the classroom. London:

Longman.

Janks, H. (1999). Critical language awareness journals and student identities. Language

Awareness, 8(2), 111-122.

304 Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis model for critical

literacy education. Education Review, 52(2), 175-186.

Janks, H. (2002). Critical literacy: Beyond reason. Australian Educational Researcher, 29, 7-27.

Jeurissen, M. (2012). ‘Perhaps I didn’t really have as good a knowledge as I thought I had.’

What do primary school teachers know and believe about grammar and grammar

teaching? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(3), 301–316.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,

and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm

whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed

methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In

A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, P. T., & Chen, H. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge about language: Issues of pedagogy and

expertise. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35, 147-172.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.

Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R.,

De Groot, E., Gilbert, M. C., Musu, L. E., Kelly, K., Kempler, T. M. (2007). Cognitive

305 processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean?

Establishing the cognitive validity of motivation-related assessments. Educational

Psychologist, 42, 139-151.

Kirkland, D. E., & Jackson, A. (2008). Beyond the silence: Instructional approaches and

students' attitudes. In J. Scott, D. Y. Straker, and L. Katz (Eds.), Affirming students' right

to their own language: Bridging educational policies and language/language arts

teaching practices (pp. 160–180). Urbana, IL: NCTE/LEA.

Knafl, K. A., & Breitmayer, B. J. (1989). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of

conceptual clarity and purpose. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A

contemporary dialogue (pp. 209-220). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Knight, J. (2010). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach to dramatically improving

instruction. London: Sage Publishing.

Kohl, H. (1991). I won't learn from you! The role of assent in education. Minneapolis, MN:

Milkweed Editions.

Kolln, M., & Hancock, C. (2005). The story of English grammar in United States schools.

English Teaching, 4(3), 11-31.

Kroskrity, P. V. (2009). Narrative reproductions: Ideologies of storytelling, authoritative words,

and generic regimentation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19, 40-56.

Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies—evolving perspectives. In J. Verschueren and J.

Ostman (Eds.), Society and language use (pp. 192-211). Amsterdam, NL: John

Benjamins Publishing Co.

306 Kroskrity, P. V. (2016, April 28). Language ideologies and language attitudes. Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-

9780199772810-0122.xml

Krosnick, J. A., Narayan, S., & Smith, W. R. (1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. In

M. T. Braverman & J. K. Slater (Eds.), Advances in survey research (pp. 29-44). San

Francisco: Sage.

Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert

response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred

meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 489-493.

Labov, W. (1972). The logic of nonstandard English. In W. Labov (Ed.). Language in the inner

city: Studies in the Black English vernacular (pp. 201-240). Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W. (1979). Locating the frontier between social and psychological factors in linguistic

variation. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. S. Y. Wang, Individual differences in

language ability and language behavior (pp. 327-339). New York: Academic Press.

Labov, W. (1982). Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science. Language in Society, 11,

165-201.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teacher’s

College Record, 97, 47-68.

307 Lakoff, R. T. (2004). Language and woman's place: Text and commentaries (Vol. 3). Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational

reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1),

44-51.

Larzén-Östermark, E. (2011). Intercultural sojourns as educational experiences: A narrative

study of the outcomes of Finnish student teachers’ language-practice periods in Britain.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5), 455-473.

Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA:

An easy-to use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1-11.

Leets, L., & Giles, H. (1993). Does language awareness foster social tolerance? Language

Awareness, 2(3), 159-168.

Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the

courts. Language in Society, 23(2), 163-198.

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the

United States (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Llorente, E. (2011, March 15). English-only bills spark new battle over language. Fox News.

Retrieved from http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/03/16/new-battle-

brewingunited-states needs-official-english-law/

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using

Stata. (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51(1), 4-11.

308 Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1929/1959). Middletown: A study in modern American culture.

Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Madden, T. M., & Klopfer. F. J. (1978). The "cannot decide" option in Thurstone-type attitude

scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 259-264.

Maftoon, P., & Sabbaghan, S. (2010). Utilizing the analysis of social practices to raise critical

language awareness in EFL writing courses. Journal of Language Teaching and

Research, 1(6), 815-824.

Makihara, M. (2007). Linguistic purism in Rapa Nui political discourse. In M. Makihara & B.

Schieffelin (Eds.), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and the Sociocultural

Transformation of Pacific Societies (pp. 46-69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mannheim, K. (1936/1985). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge.

San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Marcuse, H. (1960/1993). A Note on Dialectic. In A. Arato & E. Gebhardt (Eds.), The essential

Marcuse: Selected writing of philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse. Boston,

MA: Beacon Press.

Marshik, T., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2017). Teachers’ and students’ needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness as predictors of students’ achievement. Social Psychology of

Education, 20(1), 39-67.

Martin, J. (1983). What should we do with a hidden curriculum when we find one? In H. Giroux

& D. Purpel (Eds.), The hidden curriculum and moral education (pp. 100-121). Berkeley,

CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Marx, K. (1906). Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Chicago, IL: Kerr and Co.

309 Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1989). The German ideology. Edited by C. J. Arthur. New York:

International Publishers.

Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale

effects of testing time and scale properties? Effects of testing time and scale properties.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 506-509.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the

achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235-261.

McLaren, P. (2009). Critical pedagogy: A look at major concepts. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano,

and R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 61-83). New York, NY:

Routledge.

McLaren, P. (2011). The death rattle of the American mind: A call for pedagogical outlawry.

Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 11(4), 373-385.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1990). Staff development and school change. In A.

Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 213-

232). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.

McWhorter, J. H. (1998). The word on the street: Fact and fable about American English.

London: Plenum Press.

Medina-López-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program

duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary

Journal of Study Abroad, 10(1), 179-199.

310 Meraji, S. M. (2013, December 3). Why Chaucer said “ax” instead of “ask,” and why some still

do. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/03/248515217/why-

chaucer-said-ax-instead-of-ask-and-why-some-still-do

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.

Miles, M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Milroy, L. (1999). Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In T.

Bex & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 173-206). London,

UK: Routledge.

Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of

Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555.

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1991). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and

standardisation. London: Routledge.

Moje, E. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on

disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1-44.

Moore, P., & Tlen, D. (2007). Indigenous linguistics and land claims: The semiotic projection of

Athabaskan directionals in Elizah Smith’s radio work. Journal of Linguistic

Anthropology, 17, 266-286.

Morgan, M. J. (2009). The bearer of this letter: Language ideologies, literacy practices, and the

Fort Belknap Indian community. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

311 Morrow, R. A. & Brown, D. D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing

Research, 40, 120-123.

Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A.

Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mulroy, D. D. (2003). The war against grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Murphy, A. N. E. (2012). Teaching dialect awareness in the college composition classroom: An

evaluation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No. 3507926)

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017, May). Racial/Ethnic enrollment in public

schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp

National Council of the Teachers of English. (1974). Resolution on the students’ right to their

own language. Retrieved from http://www2.ncte.org/statement/righttoownlanguage/

National Council of the Teachers of English. (1996). NCTE/IRA standards for the English

language arts. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/standards

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). English language arts standards. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service

teachers' evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,

26(2), 278-289.

312 Norment, N., Jr. (2005). Readings in African American language: Aspects, features, and

perspectives (Vol. 1). New York: NY: Peter Lang.

North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social

justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507-535.

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to

meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-

13.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Hallaron, C., Palincsar, A., & Schleppegrell, M. (2015). Reading science: Using systemic

functional linguistics to support critical language awareness. Linguistics and Education,

32, 55-67.

Okawa, G. Y. (2003). "Resurfacing roots": Developing a pedagogy of language awareness from

two views. In G. Smitherman & V. Villanueva (Eds.), Language diversity in the

classroom: From intention to practice (pp. 109-133). Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Olson, K. (2010). An examination of questionnaire evaluation by expert reviewers. Field

Methods, 22(4), 295-318.

O’Muircheartaigh, C., Krosnick, J. A., & Helic, A. (1999). Middle alternatives, acquiescence,

and the quality of questionnaire data. Paper presented at the American Association for

Public Opinion Research annual meeting, St. Petersburg, FL.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in

the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.

313 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?

Quality & Quantity, 41(2), 233-249.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Mallette, M. H. (2011). Mixed research techniques in literacy research. In

N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed.) (pp. 301–330).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and

practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.

Pasta, D. J. (2009). Learning when to be discrete: Continuous vs. categorical predictors.

Retrieved from http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings09/248-2009.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and evaluation methods

(pp. 421-431). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (Eds.) (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language and the

education of African-American children. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Pietras, T., & Lamb, P. (1978). Attitudes of selected elementary teachers toward nonstandard

black dialects. Journal of Educational Research, 71(5), 292–297.

Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of

language and social interaction (1st ed.) (pp. 1-10). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods

research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature.

Psychology in Schools, 45, 291-309.

Ragin, C. C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative

research [Report]. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf

314 Rampton, B. (2005). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents (2nd ed.).

Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

Reaser, J. (2006). The effect of dialect awareness on adolescent knowledge and attitudes.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No. 3264028)

Reaser, J., Adger, C. T., Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (2017). Dialects at school: Educating

linguistically diverse students (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Redeker, G. (1984). On differences between spoken and written language. Discourse Processes,

7(1), 43-55.

Reichardt, D. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D.

Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation

research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning.

Journal of sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196-213.

Richland, J. B. (2008). Arguing with tradition: The language of law in Hopi tribal court.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rickford, J. (1985). Standard and non-standard language attitudes in a creole continuum. In N.

Wolfson and J. Manes (Eds.), Language of Inequality (pp. 145-160). Berlin: Mouton.

Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American Vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational

implications. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Rickford, J. R., Sweetland, J., & Rickford, A. E. (2004). African American English and other

vernaculars in education: A topic-coded bibliography. Journal of English Linguistics, 32,

230–320.

315 Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step: Mixed

methods research in organizational systems. Information Technology, Learning, and

Performance Journal, 21(1), 19-29.

Roehr, K. (2008). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners.

Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173-199.

Rogers, R. (Ed.) (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. London:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged. Scientific

American, 218(4), 19-23.

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and

qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-

643.

Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher

expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3),

429-444.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, K. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government

spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660-671.

Rumberger, R., & Scarcella, R. (2000). Academic English. Linguistic Minority Research

Institute Newsletter, 1, 1–2. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California.

Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92,

346-361.

316 Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Sánchez, D. M., & Paulson, E. J. (2008). Critical language awareness and learners in college

transitional English. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 36(2), 164-176.

Sangster, P., Anderson, C., & O’Hara, P. (2013). Perceived and actual levels of knowledge about

language amongst primary and secondary student teachers: Do they know what they think

they know? Language Awareness, 22(4), 293-319.

Schieffelin, B. B. (2007). Found in translating: Reflexive language across time and texts in a

Bosavi, Papa New Guinea. In M. Makihara & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Consequences of

Contact: Language Ideologies and the Sociocultural Transformation of Pacific Societies

(pp. 140-165). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Schuster, E. H. (2003). Breaking the rules: Liberating writers through innovative grammar

instruction. London, UK: Heinemann.

Schutz, P. A., Chambless, C. B., & DeCuir, J. T. (2003). Multimethods research. In K. B.

deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in

education and the social science (pp. 267-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scott, J. C., & Smitherman, G. (1985). Language attitudes and self-fulfilling prophecies in the

elementary school. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English language today (pp. 302–314).

Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Sechrest, L. & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?

Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77-87.

317 Seidel, J. & Kelle, U. (1995). Different functions of coding in the analysis of textual data. In U.

Kelle, G. Prein, & K. Bird (Eds.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory,

methods and practice (pp. 52-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sheidlower, J. (2005, November 3). Use or abuse of the word “literally.” Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4988053

Shiri, S. (2013). Learners' attitudes toward regional dialects and destination preferences in study

abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 565-587.

Shortell, T. (2001). An introduction to data analysis and presentation. Amsterdam: Elsevier

Publishing.

Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K. H. Basso

and H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11-55). Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press.

Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, and

C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp.

193-247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Silverstein, M. (1981). The limits of awareness. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 84. Austin,

TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Silverstein, M. (1985). Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure,

usage and ideology. In E. Mertz and R. J. Parmentier (Eds.), Semiotic Mediation (pp.

219-259). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of

linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. H. S. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of

language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284-305). Oxford, UK: Westview.

318 Silverstein, M. (1998).The uses and utility of ideology: A commentary. In B. B. Schieffelin, K.

A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp.

123-145). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sleeter, C. (2011). An agenda to strengthen culturally responsive pedagogy. English Teaching,

10(2), 7-23.

Smith, M. (2006). Overcoming theory–practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information

systems research. Information and Organization, 16(3), 191-211.

Smitherman, G. (1994). "The blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice": African American student

writers. In A. H. Dyson (Ed.), The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom and

community (pp. 80-101). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Smitherman-Donaldson, G. (1988). Discriminatory discourse on Afro-American speech. In G.

Smitherman-Donaldson and T. A. van Dijk (Eds.), Discourse and Discrimination (pp.

144-175). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (2000). Language knowledge and awareness survey: Final

research report. Urbana, IL: Conference on College Composition and Communication/

National Council of Teachers of English.

Sparker, A. (2005). Narrative analysis: Exploring the whats and hows of personal stories. In I.

Holloway (Ed.) Qualitative Research in Health Care (1st ed.) (p. 191-208). Berkshire,

UK: Open University Press.

Spitulnik, D. (1998). Mediating unity and diversity: The production of language ideologies in

Zambian broadcasting. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.),

Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 163-188). New York: Oxford University

Press.

319 Sonntag, S. K., & Pool, J. (1987). Linguistic denial and linguistic self-denial: American

ideologies of language. Language Problems and Language Planning, 11, 46-65.

Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward

integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education

Quarterly, 19(1), 1-8.

Stockman, I. J. (2010). A review of developmental and applied language research on African

American children: From a deficit to difference perspective on dialect differences.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(1), 23-38.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stritikus, T. T., & Varghese, M. M. (2007). Exceptionality: Educational equality for students

with disabilities. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education:

Issues and perspectives (6th ed.) (pp. 285-303). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Sutherland, J. (2013, August 14). How language is literally losing its meaning. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/language-literally-losing-its-

meaning

Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. ELT Journal, 40, 287-

308.

Sweetland, J. (2006). Teaching writing in the African American classroom: A sociolinguistic

approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No. 3235360)

Sweetland, J. (2010). Fostering teacher change: effective professional development for

sociolinguistic diversity. In D. Cole, B. Meadows, & L. A. Murillo (Eds.), Linguistics at

320 school: Language awareness in primary and secondary education (pp. 161-174).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods [Editorial]. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, O. (1973). Teachers’ attitudes toward Black and nonstandard English as measured by the

Language Attitude Scale. In R. Shuy & R. Fasold (Eds.), Language ideologies: Current

trends and prospects (pp. 174-201). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.

Tchudi, S., & Mitchell, D. (1989). Explorations in the teaching of English. (3rd ed.) New York:

Harper.

Teddlie, C., & Johnson, R. B. (2009a). Methodological thought before the 20th century. In C.

Teddlie & A. Tashakkori, Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 40-61).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C. & Johnson, R. B. (2009b). Methodological thought since the 20th century. In C.

Teddlie & A. Tashakkori, Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 40-61).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

321 Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ter Kuile, H. Veldhuis, M., Van Veen, S. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Bilingual education,

metalinguistic awareness, and the understanding of an unknown language. Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition, 14(2), 233-242.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools (Vol. 337). London,

UK: Falmer Press.

Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and

dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Todor, I. (2015). Integrating multicultural education in pre-service teacher training courses. The

Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education, 8, 213-224

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, C. (2017, September 24). Teachers told to stop stressing about split infinitives, as study

finds they are now part of everyday language. Retrieved from

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/09/24/teachers-told-stop-stressing-split-

infinitives-study-finds-now/

Ukpokodu, O. N. (2004). The impact of shadowing culturally different students on preservice

teachers' disposition toward diversity. Multicultural Education, 12(2), 19-28.

Urciuoli, B. (1996). Entextualization, replication, and power. In M. Silverstein and G. Urban

(Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp. 21-44). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

322 U.S. Census Bureau. (2015, February 9). Census bureau regions and divisions with state FIPS

codes. Retrieved from

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/mapsdata/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Aims of critical discourse analysis. Japanese Discourse, 1(1), 17-27.

Wallace, C. (1997). The role of language awareness in critical pedagogy. In Encyclopedia of

language and education, Volume 6: Knowledge about language, ed. L. van Lier and D.

Corson, 241-249. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wassink, A. B., & Curzan, A. (2004). Addressing ideologies around African American English.

Journal of English Linguistics, 32(3), 171-185.

Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-

efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-165.

Webster, G. (2012). Confessions of a reformed grammar Nazi. Idiom, 48(1), 25.

Weninger, C., & Kan, K. (2013). (Critical) language awareness in business communication.

English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 59-71.

Wetzel, M., & Rogers, R. (2015). Constructing racial literacy through critical language

awareness: A case study of a beginning literacy teacher. Linguistics and Education, 32,

27-40.

Whiting, E. F., & Cutri, R. M. (2015). Naming a personal "unearned" privilege: What pre-service

teachers identify after a critical multicultural education course. Multicultural

Perspectives, 17(1), 13-20.

Williams, J. (2003). Grammar and usage. In I. L. Clark (Ed.), Concepts in composition: Theory

and practice in the teaching of writing, (pp. 313-337). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

323 Williams, R. (2017, April 9). Ordinal independent variables. Retrieved from

https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats3/OrdinalIndependent.pdf

Willis, G.B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wilton, D. (2014). Rethinking the prescriptivist-descriptivist dyad: Motives and methods in two

eighteenth-century grammars: Revising the prescriptivist-descriptivist dyad. English

Today, 30(3), 38-47.

Windsor, P. (1993). Clague teacher's remarks show bias, black parents charge. Ann Arbor News,

April 22, 1993, pp. Cl, C3.

Wolfram, W. (1993a). Ethical considerations in language awareness programs. Issues in Applied

Linguistics, 4, 225-255.

Wolfram, W. (1993b). Teaching the grammar of vernacular English. In A. Wayne & D. M.

Lance (Eds.), Language variation in North American English: Research and teaching

(pp. 107-142). New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Wolfram, W. (2000). Linguistic diversity and the public interest. American Speech, 75(3), 278-

280.

Wolfram, W. (2010). Dialect awareness, cultural literacy, and the public interest. In M. Farr, L.

Seloni & J. Song (Eds.), Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: Language, literacy, and

culture (pp. 129-149). New York: Routledge.

Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1976). Appalachian speech. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied

Linguistics.

Wolfram, W., & Ward, B. (2006). American voices: How dialects differ from coast to coast.

Marden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

324 Wolfram, W., & Schilling, N. (2016). American English: Dialects and variation (3rd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Woolard, K. A. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of

sociolinguistics and social theory. American Ethnologist, 2, 738-748.

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B.

Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice

and theory (pp. 3-47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Young, V., Barrett, R., Young-Rivera, Y., & Lovejoy, B. (2013). Other people’s English: Code-

meshing, code-switching, and African American literacy. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

325 APPENDICES

326 Appendix A: Research Design Diagram

PHASE 1 = Three months

Procedure Product QUAN  Recruit participants (N = 92)  SSLI scores  Likert-format survey (online)  Demographics Data Collection  Experiential inventory

Procedure Product QUAN  Descriptives  Cronbach’s alpha  Correlational analysis  Correlations Data Analysis  T-tests  T-statistics  Multiple regressions  p-values

Procedure Product Participant  Consider interesting findings  List of potential  Determine criteria for participant participants based on Selection selection SSLI scores  Interview protocol

PHASE 2 = Five months

Procedure Product qual  Recruit participants with various  Transcripts range of composite scores from Data Collection grade level (n = 6)  Conduct interviews

Procedure Product qual  Thematic analysis  Coded transcripts  Peer review reliability  Codebook Data Analysis  Member checking  List of themes

Procedure Product Data Integration &  Compare quan and qual data  Summary of quan data  Integrate quan and qual data  Summary of qual data Interpretation  Comparison of quan and qual data

327 Appendix B: Survey Development Instruments

Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing Protocol

Instructions: The following statements are designed for a survey regarding pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language. The survey will ask participants to read the statement and rate the statement on a scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Please read the following statements and consider whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Also consider if there is anything unclear or confusing about the statement as you are assessing it. Please share your thoughts with me as you work your way through the statements.

Students need their teacher’s guidance to speak skillfully. Teaching grammar rules is necessary for students to be able to speak effectively. Formal education enables students to understand the complexities of oral language. Speaking a language is so complex that it is difficult for students to make sense of it by themselves. Students can speak their own language well without studying it in the classroom. A specialized knowledge of language is not required for students to speak proficiently. Most Americans speak the English language well. Students are capable of understanding the complexities of oral language without teachers’ instruction. Grammar books determine how to speak correctly. Students should strive to speak like their teachers. People who speak well, like news anchors, are experts on language. Teachers have a responsibility to teach their students how to speak correctly. Everyone is an expert in the language that they speak. Teachers should encourage students to speak vernacular dialects in the classroom. Those who have studied language do not have authority over how to speak it. Students should be able to choose how they speak in school. Standardized English sounds better than vernacular dialects. Speaking standardized English has remained the same for hundreds of years. Vernacular dialects do not follow grammar rules. There is a correct way to speak English. Standardized English and vernacular dialects are equally logical.

328 Everyone speaks his/her language correctly. Language is always changing. Vernacular dialects sound beautiful when they are spoken. Speaking standardized English enables students to express most ideas better than vernacular dialects. Vernacular dialects cannot be used to discuss the complex concepts of school. When people speak in a vernacular dialect, they typically do it to be silly. Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful when trying to be funny. Speaking a vernacular dialect creates an indispensable bond of solidarity among those who speak it. Speaking a vernacular dialect is more appropriate than speaking standardized English in many contexts. Correcting students’ oral use of vernacular dialects can damage their self-esteem. Speaking a vernacular dialect enriches a student’s linguistic skills. Speaking standardized English shows that a student is respectful of school. Students who work hard typically speak standardized English. Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent. Students who speak vernacular dialects are too proud to learn standardized English. Students who speak in a vernacular dialect were raised without principles. Speaking a vernacular dialect shows that a student is respectful of his/her culture. The way students speak is not an indicator of their work ethic. It is impossible to tell how smart a student is based on the dialect he/she speaks. Students need to master speaking standardized English to gain material wealth. If students learn to speak standardized English, employers will take them seriously. More doors will open for students who speak standardized English over those who do not. Speaking standardized English ensures that a student is accepted in society. Speaking a vernacular dialect can be useful in getting a job. Speaking a vernacular dialect is as important for social gains as speaking standardized English. Students can be successful even if they speak a vernacular dialect. Speaking a vernacular dialect provides many benefits to its speaker.

329 Expert Ratings Survey

Instructions: The purpose of these survey item statements is to eventually use them to examine pre-service teachers’ language ideologies, specifically how their beliefs align with or diverge from the standard language ideology. Lippi-Green (2012) defines the standard language ideology as a bias toward an idealized, homogeneous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions and is based predominantly on the spoken language of the upper middle class (p. 67). Furthermore, Lippi-Green (2012) designed an analytical framework called the “language subordination model” that breaks down the individual language beliefs that constitute the standard language ideology.

In the following pages, you will read a description of six standard language ideology beliefs pulled from the “language subordination model” that are accompanied by survey item statements. The first set of statements are worded to align with its respective standard language ideology belief and desire a "strongly disagree" response from participants. The second set of statements are worded to contradict its respective standard language ideology belief and desire a "strongly agree" response from participants.

You will be asked to score each item statement based on how well you believe it will be able to effectively measure pre-service teachers' attitudes towards that specific standard language ideology belief. The scale ranges from 1 to 5 with a “1” denoting a statement that is “not effective” and a “5” denoting a statement that is “very effective.” You will also be offered an opportunity to explain your scores or provide suggestions for item statements; however, comments are optional.

Two terms with multiple connotations are used in many of the survey statements: standardized English and vernacular dialects. These terms will be defined for pre-service teachers before taking the survey to avoid confusion. Standardized English will be defined as “the type of English most frequently valued in schools and academia.” Vernacular dialects will be defined as “dialects that carry substantial social stigma and are not often valued in school contexts but are specific to different social groups and regional areas.” Also, all item statements are designed to measure pre-service teachers' language ideologies regarding spoken language, not written language, and are composed as such.

Standard Language Ideology Belief #1: Language is mystified. “You can never hope to comprehend the difficulties and complexities of your mother tongue without expert guidance.” This belief holds that the spoken language is so complex that native speakers cannot sort things out for themselves and “expert guidance” is needed to understand its intricacies and complexities. It mystifies language in a way that urges speakers to believe that they do not and cannot speak their own language well or without expert assistance.

The following survey statements align with this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly disagree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

330

Students need their teacher’s guidance to speak skillfully in their daily lives.

Teaching grammar rules is necessary for students to be able to speak effectively in the classroom.

Formal education is necessary for students to understand the complexities of oral language.

Speaking a language is so complex that it is difficult for students to make sense of it by themselves.

The following survey statements contradict this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly agree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Students can speak effectively in the classroom without formally studying how to do so.

A specialized knowledge of language is not required for students to speak skillfully in their everyday lives.

Students can understand the intricacies of speaking a language without learning grammar rules.

Students are capable of understanding the complexities of oral language without teachers’ instruction.

Optional: If you would like to explain your scoring or provide a suggestion for any of the item statement above, please share here:

Standard Language Ideology Belief #2: Authority is claimed. “We are the experts. Talk like me/us. We know what we are doing because we have studied language, because we write well.” This belief holds that those who have authority over language are those who are already in authority, have studied language, or write well. It assumes that these individuals or groups of people should have control and power over language and that all others should aspire to use language in the same way.

The following survey statements align with this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly disagree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Grammar books determine how to speak correctly.

331

Students should strive to speak like their teachers.

People who speak well, like news anchors, are experts on language.

Teachers have a responsibility to teach their students how to speak correctly.

The following survey statements contradict this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly agree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Students are experts in the language that they speak.

Teachers should seek to learn about language from students who speak vernacular dialects.

Teachers who have studied language do not have the right to tell others how to speak.

Students should be able to speak vernacular dialects in the classroom.

Optional: If you would like to explain your scoring or provide a suggestion for any of the item statement above, please share here:

Standard Language Ideology Belief #3: Misinformation is generated. “That usage you are so attached to is inaccurate. The variant I prefer is superior on historical, aesthetic, or logical grounds.” This belief is based on misinformation and misconceptions regarding language variation. It argues that vernacular dialects lack grammar, history, beauty, and common sense, especially compared to standardized English.

The following survey statements align with this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly disagree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Standardized English sounds better than vernacular dialects when it is spoken.

Speaking standardized English has remained the same for hundreds of years.

332

Vernacular dialects do not follow grammar rules.

There is a correct way to speak English.

The following survey statements contradict this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly agree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Standardized English and vernacular dialects are equally logical.

Everyone speaks a dialect.

Standardized English has changed a lot over the last few centuries.

Vernacular dialects sound as good as standardized English when they are spoken.

Optional: If you would like to explain your scoring or provide a suggestion for any of the item statement above, please share here:

Standard Language Ideology Belief #4: Target languages are trivialized. “Look how cute, how homey, how funny.” This belief trivializes vernacular dialects by making them seem less important, significant, or complex than they really are. It asserts that standardized English is to be taken seriously and is capable of intellectual discourse whereas vernacular dialects only serve superficial and insubstantial purposes.

The following survey statements align with this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly disagree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Speaking standardized English enables students to express most ideas better than vernacular dialects.

Vernacular dialects cannot be used to discuss the complex concepts of school.

When people speak in a vernacular dialect, they typically do it to be silly.

333

Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful when trying to be funny.

The following survey statements contradict this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly agree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Speaking a vernacular dialect creates an indispensable bond of solidarity among those who speak it.

Speaking a vernacular dialect is more appropriate than speaking standardized English in many contexts.

Correcting students’ oral use of vernacular dialects can damage their self-esteem.

Speaking a vernacular dialect enriches a student’s linguistic skills.

Optional: If you would like to explain your scoring or provide a suggestion for any of the item statement above, please share here:

Standard Language Ideology Belief #5: Conformers are held up as positive examples. “See what you can accomplish if you only try, how far you can get if you see the light.” This belief holds that conformers of standardized English are positive examples that should be emulated. It assumes that those who speak standardized English are more capable, intelligent, and hard- working than those who do not. Non-conformers are vilified or marginalized. “See how willfully stupid, arrogant, unknowing, uninformed, and/or deviant these speakers are.” This belief also vilifies and marginalizes non-conformers who continue speaking a vernacular dialect by labeling them as unintelligent, proud, and lazy. It assigns negative attributes to the speakers of vernacular dialects.

The following survey statements align with this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly disagree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Speaking standardized English shows that a student is respectful of school.

Students who work hard typically speak standardized English.

334

Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent.

Students who speak vernacular dialects are too proud to learn standardized English.

Students who speak in a vernacular dialect were raised without principles.

The following survey statements contradict this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly agree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Speaking a vernacular dialect shows that a student is respectful of his/her culture.

The way students speak is not an indicator of how hard they work.

It is impossible to tell how smart a student is based on the dialect he/she speaks.

Optional: If you would like to explain your scoring or provide a suggestion for any of the item statement above, please share here:

Standard Language Ideology Belief #6: Explicit promises are made. “Employers will take you seriously; doors will open.” This belief makes explicit promises to standardized English speakers by claiming that they will be rewarded with more opportunities and respect. These opportunities can be in regard to jobs, material wealth, social gains, etc. Threats are made. “No one important will take you seriously; doors will close.” This belief also threatens vernacular speakers by claiming that they will not be rewarded with the aforementioned opportunities due to their speech and damage their reputation with other social groups.

The following survey statements align with this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly disagree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Students need to master speaking standardized English to gain material wealth.

If students learn to speak standardized English, employers will take them seriously.

335

More doors will open for students if they speak standardized English instead of a vernacular dialect.

Speaking standardized English ensures that a student is accepted in society.

The following survey statements contradict this standard language ideology and desire a “strongly agree” response from participants:

Not Very effective effective 1 2 3 4 5

Speaking a vernacular dialect can be useful in getting a job.

Speaking a vernacular dialect is important for social gains.

Students can be successful even if they speak a vernacular dialect.

Speaking a vernacular dialect provides many benefits to its speaker.

Optional: If you would like to explain your scoring or provide a suggestion for any of the item statement above, please share here:

1. Prior to completing this survey, how familiar were you with Lippi-Green’s (2012) “language subordination model”? a. Extremely familiar b. Very familiar c. Moderately familiar d. Slightly familiar e. Not familiar at all

2. How would you identify yourself? a. Faculty b. Graduate student c. Other (please specify): ______

3. If you are a graduate student, are you currently a pre-service teacher in a teacher education program? a. Yes b. No c. I am not a graduate student.

336 4. With which program(s) of study are you affiliated at your university? Please choose all that apply. a. Linguistics b. English education c. Literacy d. English e. Other (please specify): ______

5. Optional: Is there anything else you would like to add?

Final Cognitive Interviewing Protocol

Say: Thank you for helping me with the questions I am writing for this survey. We are going to go through 24 statements about language and dialects. I will record your answers so that I can be sure to know exactly what you’ve said. I’m going to ask you to read each statement out loud, tell me what you think the question is asking, choose the answer that is best for you, and tell me why you chose that answer. It is important for you to know that there are no right or wrong answers to these questions, only what you think is right for you. You can skip any questions you don’t feel comfortable answering, and you can stop any time you want.

1. Please read the statement out loud. 2. Item Interpretation: What is this statement trying to find out from you? What issue is this statement about? 3. Response: How would you respond to this statement? (strongly agree to strongly disagree) 4. Coherent Elaboration: Please explain to me why you chose that response. a. Are there any experiences you had that influenced you to choose that response? b. Can you tell me a little bit more about why you chose that response? c. Are there any other reason why you responded that way? d. Is there anything else you can tell me about why you chose that response?

Notes on Consent Form ● ______Notes on Instructions

● ______SSLI

337 1. It is difficult for students to effectively express their ideas to others without formal education. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 2. Grammarians have the right to make decisions about how English should be spoken. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 3. Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: ______4. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to discuss the complex concepts of school. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 5. Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 6. If students learn to speak standardized English, then employers will take them seriously. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: ______7. Students can communicate effectively in their everyday lives without their teacher’s guidance. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 8. Students should strive to speak in the same way as government officials. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 9. Spoken standardized English has remained the same over the last few decades. a. Interpretation: b. Response:

338 c. Elaboration: ______10. When having conversations about serious topics, it is best to use standardized English. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 11. Students who speak a vernacular dialect often have behavior issues as well. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 12. If students speak a vernacular dialect, then they will have trouble on the job market. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: ______13. Students need to learn grammar rules in order to proficiently use oral language in their day-to-day interactions. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 14. Students should be able to decide how they want to speak in any given situation. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 15. There is a correct way to speak English. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: ______16. Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful when trying to be funny. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 17. Speaking standardized English usually shows that a student is hardworking. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 18. Learning to speak standardized English means that more doors will open for students. a. Interpretation: b. Response:

339 c. Elaboration: ______19. English language arts instruction is needed for students to be able to articulate their thoughts to those around them. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 20. Students should speak in the way that their teachers instruct them to. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 21. Everyone speaks a dialect. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: ______22. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to express their thoughts precisely. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 23. Speaking standardized English shows that a student is respectful. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 24. Students who speak a vernacular dialect will have difficulties learning in school. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration: 25. Speaking standardized English grants equal access to opportunities for all who use it. a. Interpretation: b. Response: c. Elaboration:

______Notes on Demographics

1. Age: 2. Gender: 3. Ethnicity: 4. Academic Standing:

340 5. Degree Program: ______

6. Political Affiliation: 7. First Language: 8. Region: 9. Environment: ______Notes on Experiences

1. Study Abroad: 2. Travel within US: 3. Travel Abroad: 4. Linguistics Courses: 5. Diverse Populations: 6. Foreign Language Proficiency: ______Overall Comments 

Final Cognitive Interviewing Survey

Instructions: Please respond to the following questions regarding your beliefs about language and dialects. Before doing so, read the information below:  In this survey, you will encounter the term standardized English. This refers to the type of English most frequently valued in schools and academia. Other terms used to describe standardized English have been Standard English, Standard American English, mainstream English, and mainstream American English.  You will also encounter the term vernacular dialects. This refers to dialects that carry substantial social stigma and are not often valued in school contexts but are specific to different social groups and regional areas. Examples of vernacular dialects include African American English, Chicano English, Appalachian English, etc.  In the questions that follow, indicate to what degree that you agree or disagree with the statement by using this 7-point scale: 1=“Strongly Disagree,” 2=“Disagree,” 3=“Somewhat Disagree,” 4=“Neither Agree Nor Disagree,” 5=“Somewhat Agree,” 6=“Agree,” 7=“Strongly Agree” Part 1: Beliefs

Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly Agree 6 Agree Agree Disagree 2 Disagree 7 5 Nor 3 1 Disagree 4

341

1. It is difficult for students to effectively express their ideas to others without formal education.

2. Grammarians have the right to make decisions about how English should be spoken.

3. Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules.

4. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to discuss the complex concepts of school.

5. Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent.

6. If students learn to speak standardized English, then employers will take them seriously.

7. Students can communicate effectively in their everyday lives without their teacher’s guidance.

8. Students should strive to speak in the same way as government officials.

9. Spoken standardized English has remained the same over the last few decades.

10. When having conversations about serious topics, it is best to use standardized English.

11. Students who speak a vernacular dialect often have behavior issues as well.

12. If students speak a vernacular dialect, then they will have trouble on the job market.

342

13. Students need to learn grammar rules in order to proficiently use oral language in their day-to-day interactions.

14. Students should be able to decide how they want to speak in any given situation.

15. There is a correct way to speak English.

16. Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful when trying to be funny.

17. Speaking standardized English usually shows that a student is hardworking.

18. Learning to speak standardized English means that more doors will open for students.

19. English language arts instruction is needed for students to be able to articulate their thoughts to those around them.

20. Students should speak in the way that their teachers instruct them to.

21. Everyone speaks a dialect.

22. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to express their thoughts precisely.

23. Speaking standardized English shows that a student is respectful.

24. Students who speak a vernacular dialect will have difficulties learning in school.

Part 2: Demographics/Experiences Questionnaires

343 Instructions: Please provide the following information and remember that all information collected will be kept confidential.

1. Age (in years): ______

2. With which gender do you identify? a. Male b. Female c. Other (please specify): ______

3. With which ethnicity do you identify (choose all that apply): a. African American/Black b. Asian/Pacific Islander c. Hispanic/Latino(a) d. Middle Eastern e. Native American f. White/Caucasian g. Other (please specify): ______

4. What is your current academic standing? a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior

5. What is your current program? a. Bachelor’s in Middle Grades ELA & Social Studies Education b. Bachelor’s in English with a Concentration in Teacher Education c. None of the above

6. What is your political affiliation? a. Very conservative b. Conservative c. Moderately conservative d. Moderate e. Moderately liberal f. Liberal g. Very liberal h. Other (please specify): ______

7. What is your first language (the language you grew up speaking)? a. English b. Spanish c. Bilingual/Multilingual (please list languages): ______d. Other (please specify): ______

344 8. What regional area did you grow up in? a. South b. North c. Midwest d. Northwest e. Southwest f. Other (please specify): ______

9. Select experiences that you have taken part in. Choose all that apply: a. Study abroad b. Foreign language class(es) c. Travel within the U.S. d. Travel abroad e. Linguistic course(s) f. Experience with diverse populations 10. Optional: Is there anything else you would like to add? ______

Thank you for your participation!

345 Appendix C: Survey Development Emails

Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing Email Hello, My name is Nicolette Filson and I am interested in constructing and validating a survey that attempts to measure pre-service teachers’ language beliefs. To help validate the survey that I have been designing, I am hoping that you would be willing to look through the survey statements that I have designed and provide feedback on them. Your participation would offer invaluable feedback in designing and validating the survey instrument. The interview should take about 30-45 minutes and your responses and feedback will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research. If you are interested in participating, please let me know and we can schedule a time to meet. I will go over what we will be doing during our time together, you can ask any question that you have, and, if you decide to continue, you will be asked to sign a consent form, which is attached to this email. Thank you so much for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Nicolette Filson Expert Ratings Emails Initial Email Hello, My name is Nicolette Filson and, for my dissertation, I am constructing a survey that attempts to measure pre-service teachers’ language ideologies, specifically how they align with or diverge from the standard language ideology. To help validate the survey that I am designing, I am hoping that you would be willing to participate in scoring the survey item statements that I have created based on how effectively you believe they will be able to capture future participants' language beliefs. As an expert in the field of linguistics and/or English education, you are able to offer invaluable feedback in the design and validation of the survey instrument. This survey should take about 15-20 minutes and your answers will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research. If you are interested in participating, please click on the following link to access the survey: XX Please complete the survey by date: XX Thank you so much for your time and consideration! Nicolette Filson Follow-up Email (one week after first email) Hello, About a week ago you were invited to help validate a survey that attempts to measure pre-service teachers’ language ideologies. As an expert in the field of linguistics and English education, your

346 feedback in designing and validating the survey instrument would be invaluable. If you would be willing to rate the survey item statements based on how effectively you believe they will be able to capture future participants' language beliefs, please click on the link below. Survey link: XX Please complete the survey by date: XX Thank you for your consideration and take care! Nicolette Filson Cognitive Interviewing Emails Initial Email Hello, My name is Nicolette Filson and I am interested in constructing and validating a survey that attempts to measure pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language and dialects. To help validate the survey that I have been designing, I am hoping that you would be willing to participate in an interview in which you take the survey and provide feedback on its contents. Your participation would offer invaluable feedback in designing and validating the survey instrument. The survey and interview should take about 30-45 minutes and your responses and feedback will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research. If you are interested in participating, please let me know and we can schedule a time to meet. I will go over what we will be doing during our time together, you can ask any question that you have, and, if you decide to continue, you will be asked to sign a consent form, which is attached to this email. Thank you so much for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Nicolette Filson Follow-up Email (one week after first email) Hello, About a week ago you were invited to help validate a survey that attempts to measure pre-service teachers’ language ideologies. Your feedback in designing and validating the survey instrument would be invaluable. If you would be willing to participate in an interview in which you take the survey and provide feedback on the instrument, please let me know by responding to this email. Thank you for your consideration and take care! Nicolette Filson

347 Appendix D: Survey Development Consent Forms

Preliminary Cognitive Interviewing Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FORM for RESEARCH Validating the Standard Language Ideology Survey Nicolette Filson ______

What are some general things you should know about research studies? You are being asked to take part in a research study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to be a part of this study, to choose not to participate, or to stop participating at any time without penalty. The purpose of research studies is to help validate a survey instrument. You are not guaranteed any personal benefits from being in a study. Research studies also may pose risks to those that participate. In this consent form, you will find specific details about the research in which you are being asked to participate. If you do not understand something in this form, it is your right to email the researcher for clarification or more information. If at any time you have questions about your participation, do not hesitate to contact Nicolette Filson at [email protected].

What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is help validate a survey instrument that attempts to measure pre- service teachers’ language ideologies regarding the following beliefs: language mystification, language authority, language misconceptions, language trivialization, attitudes towards language users, and promises/threats about language use.

What will happen if you take part in the study? If you decide to participate, you will read through survey item statements regarding your language beliefs. As you review the statements, you will be asked to think aloud about how you interpret the statements, how you would respond to them, questions you have regarding the survey itself, and comments on aspects of the statements that confuse you. The interview will take about thirty minutes to forty-five minutes.

Risks There are minimal risks or discomforts.

Benefits There is no direct benefit to you; however, this research may help us construct and validate a survey that can capture pre-service teachers' language ideologies. By developing and validating this survey, we can better understand the many beliefs that make up pre-service teachers' language ideologies and, in turn, design teacher education programs that specifically address these beliefs.

Confidentiality

348 The information in the study records will be kept confidential to the full extent allowed by law. The digital data will be kept on a secure server. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study.

Compensation None.

What if you have questions about this study? If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Nicolette Filson, at [email protected].

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant? If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator.

Consent To Participate “I have read and understand the above information. I agree to participate in this study with the understanding that I may choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled.”

Subject’s signature______Date______

Investigator’s signature______Date______

Expert Ratings Survey Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FORM for RESEARCH Validating the Standard Language Ideology Survey Nicolette Filson ______What are some general things you should know about research studies? You are being asked to take part in a research study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to be a part of this study, to choose not to participate, or to stop participating at any time without penalty. The purpose of research studies is to help validate a survey instrument. You are not guaranteed any personal benefits from being in a study. Research studies also may pose risks to those that participate. In this consent form, you will find specific details about the research in which you are being asked to participate. If you do not understand something in this form, it is your right to email the researcher for clarification or more information. If at any time you have questions about your participation, do not hesitate to contact Nicolette Filson at [email protected].

What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is help validate a survey instrument that attempts to measure pre- service teachers’ language ideologies regarding the following beliefs: language mystification,

349 language authority, language misconceptions, language trivialization, attitudes towards language users, and promises/threats about language use.

What will happen if you take part in the study? If you decide to participate, you will read through descriptions of the six beliefs listed above as well as survey item statements aimed to represent each construct. You will then rate each item statement based on how well you believe it represents the construct. The survey will take about twenty to thirty minutes.

Risks There are minimal risks or discomforts.

Benefits There is no direct benefit to you; however, this research may help us construct and validate a survey that can capture pre-service teachers' language ideologies. By developing and validating this survey, we can better understand the many beliefs that make up pre-service teachers' language ideologies and, in turn, design teacher education programs that specifically address these beliefs.

Confidentiality The information in the study records will be kept confidential to the full extent allowed by law. The digital data will be kept on a secure server. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study.

Compensation None.

What if you have questions about this study? If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Nicolette Filson, at [email protected].

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant? If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator.

Consent To Participate “I have read and understand the above information. I agree to participate in this study with the understanding that I may choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled.”

Agree ___ Disagree ___

Final Cognitive Interviewing Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FORM for RESEARCH

350 Validating the Standard Language Ideology Survey Nicolette Filson ______

What are some general things you should know about research studies? You are being asked to take part in a research study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to be a part of this study, to choose not to participate, or to stop participating at any time without penalty. The purpose of research studies is to help validate a survey instrument. You are not guaranteed any personal benefits from being in a study. Research studies also may pose risks to those that participate. In this consent form, you will find specific details about the research in which you are being asked to participate. If you do not understand something in this form, it is your right to email the researcher for clarification or more information. If at any time you have questions about your participation, do not hesitate to contact Nicolette Filson at [email protected].

What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is help validate a survey instrument that attempts to measure pre- service teachers’ language ideologies regarding the following beliefs: language mystification, language authority, language misconceptions, language trivialization, attitudes towards language users, and promises/threats about language use.

What will happen if you take part in the study? If you decide to participate, you will take a survey regarding your language beliefs. As you take the survey, you will be asked to think aloud about how you arrived at your responses, questions you have regarding the survey itself, and comments on the usability of the survey. The survey and interview will take about thirty minutes to forty-five minutes.

Risks There are minimal risks or discomforts.

Benefits There is no direct benefit to you; however, this research may help us construct and validate a survey that can capture pre-service teachers' language ideologies. By developing and validating this survey, we can better understand the many beliefs that make up pre-service teachers' language ideologies and, in turn, design teacher education programs that specifically address these beliefs.

Confidentiality The information in the study records will be kept confidential to the full extent allowed by law. The digital data will be kept on a secure server. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study.

Compensation None.

What if you have questions about this study?

351 If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Nicolette Filson, at [email protected].

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant? If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator.

Consent To Participate “I have read and understand the above information. I agree to participate in this study with the understanding that I may choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled.”

Agree ___ Disagree ___

352 Appendix E: Survey Development Data

Averages for Expert Ratings Survey Items

Item Belief Mean Students need their teacher’s guidance to speak skillfully in Mystification 3.91 their daily lives. Teaching grammar rules is necessary for students to be able Mystification 4.06 to speak effectively in the classroom. Formal education is necessary for students to understand the Mystification 3.79 complexities of oral language. Speaking a language is so complex that it is difficult for Mystification 3.74 students to make sense of it by themselves. Students can speak effectively without formally studying how Mystification 4.15 to do so. A specialized knowledge of language is not required for Mystification 4.26 students to speak skillfully in their everyday lives Students can understand the intricacies of speaking a Mystification 3.71 language without learning grammar rules. Students are capable of understanding the complexities of Mystification 3.85 oral language without teachers’ instruction. Grammar books determine how to speak correctly. Authority 3.68 Students should strive to speak like their teachers. Authority 3.47 People who speak well, like news anchors, are experts on Authority 3.35 language. Teachers have a responsibility to teach their students how to Authority 3.85 speak correctly. Students are experts in the language that they speak. Authority 3.97 Teachers should seek to learn about language from students Authority 4.35 who speak vernacular dialects. Teachers who have studied language do not have the right to Authority 3.71 tell students how to speak. Students should be able to speak vernacular dialects in the Authority 4.24 classroom. Standardized English sounds better than vernacular dialects Misinformation 3.74 when it is spoken. Speaking standardized English has remained the same for Misinformation 3.41 hundreds of years. Vernacular dialects do not follow grammar rules. Misinformation 3.97 There is a correct way to speak English. Misinformation 4.00

353 Standardized English and vernacular dialects are equally Misinformation 4.68 logical. Everyone speaks a dialect. Misinformation 4.56 Standardized English has changed a lot over the last few Misinformation 4.59 centuries. Vernacular dialects sound as good as standardized English Misinformation 4.24 when they are spoken. Speaking standardized English enables students to express Trivialization 3.74 most ideas better than vernacular dialects. Vernacular dialects cannot be used to discuss the complex Trivialization 3.97 concepts of school. When people speak in a vernacular dialect, they typically do Trivialization 3.44 it to be silly. Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful when trying to Trivialization 3.65 be funny. Speaking a vernacular dialect creates an indispensable bond Trivialization 4.09 of solidarity among those who speak it. Speaking a vernacular dialect is more appropriate than Trivialization 4.47 speaking standardized English in many contexts Correcting students’ oral use of vernacular dialects can Trivialization 4.35 damage their self-esteem. Speaking a vernacular dialect enriches a student’s linguistic Trivialization 4.24 skills. Speaking standardized English shows that a student is Conformers/Non- 3.94 respectful of school. Conformers Students who work hard typically speak standardized Conformers/Non- 3.97 English. Conformers Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student Conformers/Non- 4.03 is intelligent. Conformers Students who speak vernacular dialects are too proud to learn Conformers/Non- 3.50 standardized English. Conformers Students who speak in a vernacular dialect were raised Conformers/Non- 3.59 without principles. Conformers Speaking a vernacular dialect shows that a student is Conformers/Non- 3.94 respectful of his/her culture. Conformers The way students speak is not an indicator of how hard they Conformers/Non- 4.65 work. Conformers It is impossible to tell how smart a student is based on the Conformers/Non- 4.76 dialect he/she speaks. Conformers Students need to master speaking standardized English to Promises/Threats 3.76 gain material wealth.

354 If students learn to speak standardized English, employers Promises/Threats 4.09 will take them seriously. More doors will open for students who speak standardized Promises/Threats 4.15 English instead of a vernacular dialect. Speaking standardized English ensures that a student is Promises/Threats 3.74 accepted in society. Speaking a vernacular dialect can be useful in getting a job. Promises/Threats 3.94 Speaking a vernacular dialect is important for social gains. Promises/Threats 4.15 Students can be successful even if they speak a vernacular Promises/Threats 4.53 dialect. Speaking a vernacular dialect provides many benefits to its Promises/Threats 4.44 speaker.

Example of Experts’ Written Feedback on Expert Ratings Survey Standard Language Ideology Belief #1: Language is mystified. “You can never hope to comprehend the difficulties and complexities of your mother tongue without expert guidance.” This belief holds that the spoken language is so complex that native speakers cannot sort things out for themselves and “expert guidance” is needed to understand its intricacies and complexities. It mystifies language in a way that urges speakers to believe that they do not and cannot speak their own language well or without expert assistance. ● Problem with the term “comprehend”—ability is different from understanding Align

LM1: Students need their teacher’s guidance to speak skillfully in their daily lives. ● Teachers can help students speak better; maybe statement should read more explicitly that they couldn’t speak skillfully without teachers ○ Not entirely clear? Or too obviously true? Depends on definition of “skillfully” ○ Maybe use “effectively” the whole time instead of “skillfully”—“interact normally in daily life or on an everyday basis”? ○ If trying to get at point that people can communicate just fine in non- academic settings with vernacular dialects, wording doesn’t quite capture it because of “skillfully” ○ Speak skillfully and speak effectively should be defined LM2: Teaching grammar rules is necessary for students to be able to speak effectively in the classroom. ● When “speak effectively in the classroom,” separate formal presentation/argument from participating? ● Define grammar rules for teachers in the instructions? Speaking of prescriptive rules, not descriptive ● Need to specify for “in the classroom” if teachers teach for both in and outside the

355

classroom?

LM3: Formal education is necessary for students to understand the complexities of oral language. ● Ambiguity of the term “understand”—do students really understand? ○ “Understanding” implies how syntax works and why patterns are the way they are, etc., whereas ability is something that they are skillful at ○ Understanding implies explicit knowledge whereas having a command over speaking a language is tacit knowledge ○ Comprehend implies knowledge of linguistic complexities—not what is meant here LM4: Speaking a language is so complex that it is difficult for students to make sense of it by themselves. ● Not clear what “make sense of it” means

Contradict ● Positive formulations clearer in “contradict” section LM5: Students can speak effectively without formally studying how to do so.

LM6: A specialized knowledge of language is not required for students to speak skillfully in their everyday lives. ● Instead of “specialized knowledge” use “rigorous training in language from an expert” LM7: Students can understand the intricacies of speaking a language without learning grammar rules. ● “Intricacies of speaking a language” is vague—will it mean the same to everyone? ○ Intricacies and complexities might need to be explained—may cause confusion ● Define grammar rules for teachers in the instructions? Speaking of prescriptive rules, not descriptive LM8: Students are capable of understanding the complexities of oral language without teachers’ instruction. ● “Complexities of speaking a language” is vague—will it mean the same to everyone? ○ Intricacies and complexities might need to be explained—may cause confusion

Example of Final Cognitive Interviewing Notes

Notes on Consent Form ● n/a

356 ______Notes on Instructions

● Never heard of Chicano English ______SSLI

1. It is difficult for students to effectively express their ideas to others without formal education. a. Interpretation: Students cannot communicate without a good education; without being taught how to communicate. b. Response: agree c. Elaboration: because I think that’s something we lack in; we don't teach our students how to effectively communicate; they know how to communicate, but getting a point across using less words—not being so wordy 2. Grammarians have the right to make decisions about how English should be spoken. a. Interpretation: Grammarians—unfamiliar word; the people who make the grammar rules should be determining how English is spoken b. Response: somewhat disagree c. Elaboration: I understand that there’s rules in grammar but sometimes I like to make my own twists and do my own thing 3. Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules. a. Interpretation: forgot what vernacular dialects were b. Response: strongly disagree c. Elaboration: they do not follow grammar rules ______4. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to discuss the complex concepts of school. a. Interpretation: students that have vernacular dialects aren’t able to communicate on the complex subjects or concepts b. Response: disagree c. Elaboration: they might not be able to explain it in a nice and pretty tie a bow on it way, but they have the ability to discuss complex concepts as long as they’re taught how to communicate which goes back to #1 5. Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent. a. Interpretation: student has been taught SE and that is the spoken word they use; meaning that they are intelligent b. Response: somewhat disagree c. Elaboration: just because they’re taught to use SE doesn’t mean they understand how to use it; goes back to rote memorization and direct instruction; doesn't mean

357 they’re intelligent and using the words that they're saying—they can just repeat whatever they hear 6. If students learn to speak standardized English, then employers will take them seriously. a. Interpretation: if they speak well then they are more likely to get a job b. Response: agree c. Elaboration: because of the world we live in right now; we are holding people to higher standards; when people cannot speak correctly then they are seen as not capable of doing some things or communicating effectively

358 Appendix F: Recruitment Emails

Online Survey Recruitment Emails

Initial Email

Hello!

My name is Nicolette Filson and I am working on my dissertation and am interested in studying pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language and dialects and I would love for you to be a part of this research project. As a participant, you will be asked to complete a short online survey in which you will share your own language beliefs, basic demographic information, and information about language experiences you have taken part in. The survey should take approximately 15-20 minutes and is completely confidential. Your answers will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research; therefore, please answer openly and honestly.

If you complete the survey by XX date, you can enter to win a $25 Amazon gift card. Eight participants will be selected as winners! The survey can be accessed via the following link: [insert hyperlink].

I truly appreciate your help in making this research project possible. If you have any questions related to the study, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely, Nicolette Filson

Follow-Up Email #1

Hello!

About a week ago you were invited to participate in a survey about your language beliefs. The survey should take only approximately 15-20 minutes and if you complete it by XX date, then you can enter to win a $25 Amazon gift card. Eight participants will be selected as winners! You can access the survey via the following link: XX

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely, Nicolette Filson

Follow-Up Email #2

Hello!

359 About two weeks ago you were invited to participate in a survey about your language beliefs. The survey should take only approximately 15-20 minutes and if you complete it by XX date, then you can enter to win a $25 Amazon gift card. Eight participants will be selected as winners! You can access the survey via the following link: XX

Thank you for your consideration and take care!

Sincerely, Nicolette Filson

Classroom Visit Recruitment Email

Hello!

My name is Nicolette Filson and I am working on my dissertation and am interested in studying ELA pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language and dialects. I have designed a survey to explore their beliefs and will be emailing them a link to the survey soon. I understand that you teach a class that serves this population of students and I was wondering if you would be willing to allow me to speak to your class for no more than 5 minutes to promote the survey and distribute a flyer about it. If this is something you would willing and able to do, please let me know and we can schedule a specific day and time for me to visit.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope to hear from you soon!

Nicolette Filson

Interview Recruitment Emails

Initial Email

Hello!

My name is Nicolette Filson and you recently completed a survey on language and dialects and indicated that you were interested in participating further in this research project.

This portion of the project involves participating in one interview. This first interview will ask you to elaborate on your responses to the survey statements regarding language and dialects. I will also ask you to reflect on experiences you have had with language. It will last about one hour. The interviews will be conducted in-person at a location of your choosing, such as a library or a coffee shop. Upon completion of the interview, you will be compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. Finally, please note that your responses during the interview will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research.

If you are interested in participating, please let me know and I will email you a copy of the consent form for you to review. If you decide to participate, we can schedule a time and place for

360 the first interview where you will also be asked to sign the consent form before beginning the interview.

Thank you so much for your time and I hope to hear from you soon!

Sincerely, Nicolette Filson

Follow-Up Email After No Response (one week later)

Hello!

My name is Nicolette Filson and you recently completed a survey on language and dialects and indicated that you were interested in participating further in this research project. Additionally, about a week ago, you were invited to participate in the next phase of this research project. The details of this opportunity are below:

This portion of the project involves participating in one interview. This first interview will ask you to elaborate on your responses to the survey statements regarding language and dialects. I will also ask you to reflect on experiences you have had with language. It will last about one hour. The interviews will be conducted in-person at a location of your choosing, such as a library or a coffee shop. Upon completion of the interview, you will be compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. Finally, please note that your responses during the interview will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research.

If you are interested in participating, please let me know and I will email you a copy of the consent form for you to review. If you decide to participate, we can schedule a time and place for the first interview where you will also be asked to sign the consent form before beginning the interview.

Thank you so much for your time and I hope to hear from you soon!

Sincerely, Nicolette Filson

361 Appendix G: Consent Forms

Online Survey Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FORM for RESEARCH

Examining ELA Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs about Language and Dialects Nicolette Filson ______

What are some general things you should know about research studies? You are being asked to take part in a research study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to be a part of this study, to choose not to participate, or to stop participating at any time without penalty. This study is not a course requirement and your decision to participate or decline participation will not affect your grades or class standing. The purpose of research studies is to gain a better understanding of a certain topic or issue. You are not guaranteed any personal benefits from being in a study. Research studies also may pose risks to those that participate. In this consent form, you will find specific details about the research in which you are being asked to participate. If you do not understand something in this form, it is your right to email the researcher for clarification or more information. If at any time you have questions about your participation, do not hesitate to contact Nicolette Filson at [email protected].

What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is to learn more about pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language and dialects.

What will happen if you take part in the study? If you decide to participate, you will complete a brief survey in which you will respond to statements about language as well as provide basic demographic information. The survey will take about fifteen to twenty minutes.

Risks There are minimal foreseeable risks or discomforts.

Benefits There is no direct benefit to you; however, this research may help teacher educators better understand how pre-service teachers think about language and dialects. Additional attention to this area could lead to improved teacher education programs that take these beliefs into account and tailor curriculum to foster growth in pre-service teachers’ language attitudes.

Confidentiality The information in the study records will be kept confidential to the full extent allowed by law. The digital data will be kept on a secure server. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study.

362 Compensation For participating in this study, you will be entered into a drawing for a $25 Amazon gift card; eight total gift cards will be awarded to eight different participants. If you withdraw from the study prior to its completion, there will be no partial compensation.

What if you have questions about this study? If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Nicolette Filson, at [email protected].

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant? If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator.

Consent To Participate “I have read and understand the above information. I agree to participate in this study with the understanding that I may choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled.”

Agree ___ Disagree ___

Interview Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FORM for RESEARCH

Exploring ELA Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs about Language and Dialects Nicolette Filson ______

What are some general things you should know about research studies? You are being asked to take part in a research study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to be a part of this study, to choose not to participate, or to stop participating at any time without penalty. This study is not a course requirement and your decision to participate or decline participation will not affect your grades or class standing. The purpose of research studies is to gain a better understanding of a certain topic or issue. You are not guaranteed any personal benefits from being in a study. Research studies also may pose risks to those that participate. In this consent form, you will find specific details about the research in which you are being asked to participate. If you do not understand something in this form, it is your right to email the researcher for clarification or more information. If at any time you have questions about your participation, do not hesitate to contact Nicolette Filson at [email protected].

What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is to learn more about pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language and dialects.

363 What will happen if you take part in the study? If you decide to participate, you will take part in an interview with the researcher. The interview will be audio-recorded. The interview will last about an hour and you will be asked to explain your responses on a survey that you took about language and dialects. You will also be asked to reflect on the experiences that you believe shaped your beliefs about language and dialects. Finally, following the interview, you will be asked to review some of the researcher’s general findings for accuracy.

Risks There are minimal foreseeable risks or discomforts; however, the interviews are about social issues regarding language, which can be sensitive. Therefore, you are free to decline to respond to any question that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Benefits There is no direct benefit to you; however, this research may help teacher educators better understand how pre-service teachers think about language and dialects. Additional attention to this area could lead to improved teacher education programs that take these beliefs into account and tailor curriculum to foster growth in pre-service teachers’ language attitudes.

Confidentiality The information in the study records will be kept confidential to the full extent allowed by law. The digital data will be kept on a secure server. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study. Audio recordings of the interviews will be destroyed five years after the study.

Compensation For participating in the interview, you will be compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. If you withdraw from the interview prior to its completion, there will be no partial compensation.

What if you have questions about this study? If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Nicolette Filson, at [email protected].

What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant? If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact the Regulatory Compliance Administrator.

Consent To Participate “I have read and understand the above information. I agree to participate in this study with the understanding that I may choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled.”

Subject’s signature______Date______

Investigator’s signature______Date______

364 Appendix H: Study Instruments

Survey for the Standard Language Ideology (SSLI)

Instructions: You will be provided with 24 statements that express opinions about language and dialects. The statements are specifically about the ways in which language is spoken, not written. You will then be asked to rate your agreement with each statement. Please share your honest point of view by choosing the category that best describes your agreement with the statement.

The following terms are used throughout the survey but might be unfamiliar. They are defined below:

Standardized English: This is the type of English most frequently valued in schools and academia. Other terms used to describe standardized English have been Standard English, Standard American English, mainstream English, and mainstream American English.

Vernacular dialects: These are the dialects that carry substantial social stigma and are not often valued in school contexts but are specific to different social groups and regional areas. Examples of vernacular dialects include African American English, Appalachian English, Latino English, etc.

Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly agree agree agree disagree disagree nor disagree 1. Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students 2. When having serious conversations, it is best to use standardized English 3. Every single person speaks a dialect 4. Grammar rules help us to determine the best way to speak English 5. Students need to be taught about grammar structure in order to use oral language proficiently in their day-to-day lives. 6. Students who speak standardized English are usually intelligent. 7. Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have trouble on the job market. 8. Vernacular dialects significantly contribute to American culture.

365 9. Spoken standardized English has changed a lot over the last few decades. 10. Students should strive to speak like their teachers. 11. Most students are capable of effectively structuring their speech before learning about grammar in school. 12. Students who speak a vernacular dialect are often cocky. 13. Learning to speak standardized English means that students will be accepted by those outside of their own community. 14. Speaking in a vernacular dialect is a simpler form of communication. 15. Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules. 16. Students should be able to speak their own dialect in any given situation. 17. It is difficult for students to verbally express their ideas without being taught how to do so. 18. Students who speak standardized English are typically hardworking. 19. Speaking a vernacular dialect means that students will have difficulties succeeding in school. 20. Students can precisely articulate their thoughts when speaking a vernacular dialect. 21. Using standardized English is the correct way to speak in English. 22. Teachers should decide how students speak in the classroom. 23. Students can communicate effectively in their everyday lives without their teacher’s guidance. 24. Students who speak a vernacular dialect tend to have behavior issues.

366 Demographics Questionnaire

Instructions: Please provide the following demographic information.

1. Age (in years): ______

2. With which gender do you identify? a. Male b. Female c. Other (please specify): ______

3. With which ethnicity do you identify? (Choose all that apply) a. African American/Black b. Asian/Pacific Islander c. Latino(a)/Hispanic d. Middle Eastern e. Native American f. White/Caucasian g. Other (please specify): ______

4. What is your current academic standing? a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior

5. What is your current program? a. Bachelor’s in Middle Grades ELA & Social Studies Education b. Bachelor’s in English with a Concentration in Teacher Education c. None of the above

6. What is your political affiliation? a. Very conservative b. Conservative c. Moderately conservative d. Moderate e. Moderately liberal f. Liberal g. Very liberal h. Other (please specify): ______

7. What is your first language (the language you grew up speaking)? a. English b. Spanish c. Other (please specify): ______d. Bilingual/Multilingual (please list languages): ______

367

8. Please list the state(s) that you grew up in: ______

9. In what type of environment did you grow up? (Choose all that apply) a. Urban (city) b. Suburbs (residential area outside of a city) c. Exurb (small town beyond the suburbs) d. Rural (countryside) e. Other (please specify): ______Experiences Questionnaire

Instructions: Please provide the following demographic information.

1. Have you participated in any educational opportunities abroad (study abroad, international schools, etc.)? a. Yes b. No

2. Have you traveled within the U.S.? a. Yes b. No

3. Have you traveled to countries outside of the U.S.? a. Yes b. No

4. Have you taken any linguistics courses? For example:  Language & Writing (ENG 328)  Language & Gender (ENG 327)  History of the English Language (ENG 326)  Spoken & Written Traditions of American English Dialects (ENG 325)  Modern English Syntax (ENG 324)  Introduction to Language & Linguistics (ENG 210)

a. Yes b. No

5. Have you had any experience with ethnically and/or linguistically diverse populations? a. Yes, a great deal of experience b. Yes, an average amount of experience c. Yes, a little experience d. No, no experience

368

6. How would you rate your overall proficiency level in a foreign language? a. Not proficient at all b. Elementary c. Intermediate d. Advanced e. Fluent

Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Say: “Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. Before we begin, I’d like to remind you that it is very important that you respond honestly to the questions I will ask you. As this study is all about your beliefs about language and dialects, there are no right or wrong answers to the questions I ask. I also want you to remember that your responses are completely confidential. With that being said, you recently completed a survey in which you responded to statements about language and dialects. Today I am going to ask you to share your interpretation of those statements and elaborate on your responses to them. We will end by reflecting on some of the experiences that you think have shaped your beliefs and attitudes towards language and dialects. If at any point you need to take a break, please let me know.”

SSLI Response Questions 1. Give a notecard to the participant that contains the statement typed out on it. 2. Ask the participant: “Would you please read this statement out loud for me?” 3. Ask the participant: “What do you interpret this statement to mean?” a. Probe: “How did you interpret this particular word?” 4. Ask the participant: “How do you feel about this statement?” a. Probes: i. “Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?” ii. “Can you describe any interactions, situations, observations, or experiences that led you to respond in this way?” iii. “Can you tell me a little more about why you chose this response?” iv. “Are there any other reasons you chose this response?” v. “Is there anything else you can tell me about why you chose this response?” vi. “Was there anything in this statement that you agreed/disagreed with?”

Survey Statements Participant’s Response 1. It is difficult for students to effectively express their ideas to others without formal education.

369 2. Grammarians have the right to make decisions about how English should be spoken. 3. Vernacular dialects follow grammar rules. 4. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to discuss the complex concepts of school. 5. Speaking standardized English often indicates that a student is intelligent. 6. If students learn to speak standardized English, then employers will take them seriously. 7. Students can communicate effectively in their everyday lives without their teacher’s guidance. 8. Students should strive to speak in the same way that national news anchors speak. 9. Spoken standardized English has remained the same over the last few decades. 10. When having conversations about serious topics, it is best to use standardized English. 11. Students who speak a vernacular dialect often have behavior issues as well. 12. If students speak a vernacular dialect, then they will have trouble on the job market. 13. Students need to learn grammar rules in order to proficiently use oral language in their day-to-day interactions. 14. Students should be able to decide how they want to speak in any given situation. 15. There is a correct way to speak English. 16. Speaking a vernacular dialect is mostly useful for goofing off with friends. 17. Speaking standardized English usually shows that a student is hardworking. 18. Learning to speak standardized English means that more doors will open for students. 19. English language arts instruction is needed for students to be able to articulate their thoughts to those around them.

370 20. Students should speak in the way that their teachers instruct them to. 21. Everyone speaks a dialect. 22. Speaking a vernacular dialect limits students’ ability to express their thoughts precisely. 23. Speaking standardized English shows that a student is respectful. 24. Students who speak a vernacular dialect will have difficulties learning in school.

Experiences Questions 1. “What have been some memorable experiences that you have had regarding language and dialects? What was so impactful about those experiences?” 2. “Have you had any experiences with other languages? If so, how did those experiences shape how you understand language and dialects?” a. Probe for foreign language classes/learning/proficiency. 3. “Have you had any experience traveling within the U.S.? If so, did those experiences provide you with any opportunities to learn about language and dialects?” 4. “Have you had any experience traveling outside of the U.S.? If so, did those experiences provide you with any opportunities to learn about language and dialects?” 5. “If you have traveled outside of the country, have you ever had a chance to participate in any educational opportunities, such as study abroad? If so, did those experiences provide you with any opportunities to learn about language and dialects?” 6. “Have you taken any linguistics courses or learned about language and dialects in any class you have taken? If so, what were some of the ideas you remember learning about? How did those experiences shape how you understand language and dialects?” 7. “Have you had any experience with ethnically or linguistically diverse populations? If so, who? And did those experiences provide you with any opportunities to learn about and language and dialects?” 8. “How do you envision approaching language and dialects in your future classroom?” a. Probe: “Do you think any of the specific experiences we just talked about have shaped how you envision approaching languages and dialects in your future classroom?” 9. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Say: “ Thank you for your time!”

371 Appendix I: Recruitment Materials

Classroom Visit Script

Instructions: Pass out flyers. Tell students if they are currently enrolled in a teacher education program to become an English teacher in middle school or high school, then they should take a flyer. This could be the Middle Grades ELA & SS program or the English degree with a concentration in teacher education for high school.

“Hi!

My name is Nicolette Filson and I am working on my dissertation and I am interested in learning more about future English teachers’ beliefs about language and dialects.

In order to explore this subject, I have designed a survey that I emailed out on Monday to all students enrolled in ELA teacher education programs at both the middle school and high school level.

In the survey, you will be asked to respond to statements about language and dialects using a scale that ranges from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and it only takes about 15 minutes to complete.

The survey also contains a small section to collect information on demographics and experiences that you have had related to language.

In order to collect valuable data and truly understand these beliefs, it is extremely important that you answer as openly and honestly as possible. Furthermore, all data collected from the survey is completely confidential and your responses will not be associated with your name in any analysis or presentation of this research.

At the end of the survey, you will be asked if you are interested in participating further in this research project. This would involve sitting down and talking through some of your survey responses. However, indicating that you are interested does not obligate you to participate at all. If you are contacted about the opportunity to participate later and you decide that you do not want to, then that is perfectly okay. However, those who would like to participate and are offered a chance to do so will be compensated for it.

Saving the best for last, if you complete the survey by Sunday, December 3, you can enter into a drawing for a $25 Amazon gift card at the end of the survey. Eight different winners will be selected which means your odds of winning are about 1 in 12.

Thank you for your time and I appreciate your consideration in taking the survey! Are there any questions?”

372 Recruitment Flyer

373 Appendix J: Quantitative Data Analysis

SSLI Item Correlations

Correlations Between Mystification Items Oral Structuring Express Communicate Oral 1.000 Structuring 0.430*** 1.000 Express 0.329* 0.471*** 1.000 Communicate 0.136 0.295* 0.054 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Oral indicates Item 5, Structuring indicates Item 11, Express indicates Item 17, and Communicate indicates Item 23.

Correlations Between Authority Items Rules Strive Situation Decide Rules 1.000 Strive 0.260* 1.000 Situation -0.032 -0.099 1.000 Decide 0.276* 0.517*** -0.054 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Rules indicates Item 4, Strive indicates Item 10, Situation indicates Item 16, and Decide indicates Item 22.

Correlations Between Misinformation Items Person Changed Follow Correct Person 1.000 Changed 0.363** 1.000 Follow 0.230 0.042 1.000 Correct 0.206 -0.041 0.525*** 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Person indicates Item 3, Changed indicates Item 9, Follow indicates Item 15, and Correct indicates Item 21.

Correlations Between Trivialization Items Serious Culture Simpler Articulate Serious 1.000 Culture 0.305* 1.000 Simpler 0.470*** 0.350** 1.000 Articulate 0.344** 0.423*** 0.493*** 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Serious indicates Item 2, Culture indicates Item 8, Simpler indicates Item 14, and Articulate indicates Item 20.

374 Correlations Between Conformers/Non-Conformers Items Intelligent Cocky Hardworking Behavior Intelligent 1.000 Cocky 0.335* 1.000 Hardworking 0.596*** 0.579*** 1.000 Behavior 0.605*** 0.411** 0.482*** 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Intelligent indicates Item 6, Cocky indicates Item 12, Hardworking indicates Item 28, and Behavior indicates Item 24.

Correlations Between Promises/Threats Items Doors Job Accepted Succeeding Doors 1.000 Job 0.012 1.000 Accepted 0.328* -0.116 1.000 Succeeding 0.087 0.477*** -0.050 1.000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences questions (N = 58). Doors indicates Item 1, Job indicates Item 7, Accepted indicates Item 13, and Succeeding indicates Item 19.

Zero-Order Correlation Results for Independent Variables and Indexes

Correlations Between Independent Variables and Indexes MYS AUTH MIS TRIV CONF THR High School -0.590*** -0.464*** -0.574*** -0.448*** -0.298* 0.121 Male -0.011 0.155 0.262* 0.085 0.045 0.126 White 0.094 0.007 -0.085 -0.005 0.078 0.119 Age -0.204 0.070 0.011 -0.117 -0.023 0.143 Sophomore 0.318* 0.246 0.336* 0.320* 0.247 0.163 Junior -0.045 -0.116 -0.123 0.003 -0.146 -0.213 Senior -0.266* -0.189 -0.168 -0.272* -0.086 0.072 English Only 0.112 0.117 -0.044 -0.005 0.075 0.098 Conservative -0.018 0.392** 0.084 0.262* 0.302* -0.060 Moderate 0.139 0.137 0.218 0.106 0.190 -0.071 Liberal -0.052 -0.518*** -0.281* -0.367** -0.408** 0.030 Low Div. Exp. 0.071 0.218 0.155 0.067 -0.016 0.061 Avg. Div. Exp. 0.099 -0.016 -0.126 0.154 0.195 0.014 High Div. Exp. -0.160 -0.161 0.004 -0.214 -0.189 -0.064 Educated Abroad -0.110 -0.143 -0.215 -0.188 -0.247 -0.011 Traveled Abroad -0.035 -0.001 -0.078 -0.074 -0.236 0.148 For. Lang. Prof. -0.189 0.026 -0.078 -0.016 -0.093 -0.226 Ling. Course(s) -0.402** -0.456*** -0.636*** -0.368** -0.265* 0.044 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). MYST represents Mystification, AUTH represents Authority, MIS represents Misinformation, TRIV represents Trivialization, CONF represents Conformers/Non-Conformers, and THR

375 represents Threats. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non-English only group included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

Zero-Order Correlation Results for Independent Variables and SSLI Items

Correlations Between Independent Variables and Mystification Items Oral Structuring Express Communicate High School -0.577*** -0.4510*** -0.346** -0.256 Male -0.010 0.020 -0.032 0.282* White 0.066 0.114 0.046 -0.074 Age -0.105 -0.083 -0.275* 0.148 Sophomore 0.250 0.182 0.299* 0.149 Junior 0.105 -0.115 -0.109 -0.001 Senior -0.360** -0.042 -0.190 -0.137 English Only 0.010 0.095 0.159 -0.045 Conservative 0.038 0.059 -0.127 0.020 Moderate 0.218 -0.099 0.170 -0.098 Liberal -0.098 -0.020 -0.000 -0.035 Low Div. Exp. 0.175 0.008 -0.027 0.031 Avg. Div. Exp. -0.077 0.205 0.125 -0.035 High Div. Exp. -0.063 -0.218 -0.108 0.011 Educated Abroad -0.166 -0.090 -0.000 -0.141 Traveled Abroad -0.002 0.141 -0.194 -0.065 For. Lang. Prof. -0.149 -0.199 -0.101 0.130 Ling. Course(s) -0.448*** -0.176 -0.291* -0.169 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Oral indicates Item 5, Structuring indicates Item 11, Express indicates Item 17, and Communicate indicates Item 23. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non- English only group included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

376 Correlations Between Independent Variables and Authority Items Rules Strive Situation Decide High School -0.6194*** -0.253 0.091 -0.112 Male 0.188 -0.006 -0.020 0.147 White -0.038 0.140 -0.088 -0.074 Age -0.072 -0.034 0.033 0.284* Sophomore 0.329* 0.110 -0.064 0.082 Junior 0.094 -0.232 -0.017 -0.165 Senior -0.403** 0.050 0.120 -0.010 English Only 0.032 0.243 -0.011 0.005 Conservative 0.201 0.285* 0.005 0.416** Moderate 0.216 -0.012 -0.170 0.077 Liberal -0.375** -0.307* 0.158 -0.483*** Low Div. Exp. 0.190 0.175 -0.049 0.120 Avg. Div. Exp. -0.066 0.159 0.087 -0.111 High Div. Exp. -0.086 -0.307* -0.050 0.016 Educated Abroad -0.223 0.039 0.027 -0.108 Traveled Abroad -0.020 -0.014 0.196 0.035 For. Lang. Prof. -0.040 -0.031 0.011 0.140 Ling. Course(s) -0.573*** -0.293* 0.391** -0.112 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Rules indicates Item 4, Strive indicates Item 10, Situation indicates Item 16, and Decide indicates Item 22. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non-English only group included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

Correlations Between Independent Variables and Misinformation Items Person Changed Follow Correct High School -0.236 0.055 -0.536*** -0.452*** Male 0.032 -0.029 0.196 0.312* White -0.113 0.033 -0.055 -0.047 Age -0.038 0.162 -0.010 0.060 Sophomore 0.223 -0.005 0.277* 0.257 Junior -0.087 -0.053 0.040 -0.258 Senior -0.084 0.090 -0.275* 0.017 English Only -0.222 0.029 0.132 -0.117 Conservative -0.126 0.118 0.094 0.146 Moderate 0.068 -0.111 0.134 0.268* Liberal -0.000 0.020 -0.224 -0.338**

377 Low Div. Exp. 0.026 0.012 0.123 0.171 Avg. Div. Exp. -0.083 -0.008 -0.073 -0.133 High Div. Exp. 0.064 -0.002 -0.025 -0.001 Educated Abroad -0.120 0.031 -0.081 -0.242 Traveled Abroad -0.150 0.059 -0.020 -0.052 For. Lang. Prof. 0.050 -0.068 -0.199 0.037 Ling. Course(s) -0.454*** -0.062 -0.575*** -0.406** Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Person indicates Item 3, Changed indicates Item 9, Follow indicates Item 15, and Correct indicates Item 21. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non-English only group included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

Correlations Between Independent Variables and Trivialization Items Serious Culture Simpler Articulate High School -0.379** -0.203 -0.374** -0.354** Male 0.120 -0.024 0.022 0.148 White -0.017 0.060 -0.076 0.058 Age -0.035 -0.087 -0.190 0.006 Sophomore 0.115 0.282* 0.259* 0.318* Junior -0.106 -0.082 0.179 -0.050 Senior -0.006 -0.131 -0.405** -0.212 English Only 0.033 0.024 -0.176 0.190 Conservative 0.273* 0.232 0.064 0.268* Moderate 0.069 -0.029 0.232 -0.034 Liberal -0.335* -0.186 -0.273* -0.290* Low Div. Exp. 0.189 0.029 -0.041 0.039 Avg. Div. Exp. 0.243 -0.006 0.070 0.153 High Div. Exp. -0.405** -0.017 -0.039 -0.190 Educated Abroad -0.137 -0.180 -0.137 -0.108 Traveled Abroad -0.115 0.017 -0.128 0.059 For. Lang. Prof. -0.141 0.064 0.040 -0.012 Ling. Course(s) -0.289* -0.058 -0.359** -0.355** Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Serious indicates Item 2, Culture indicates Item 8, Simpler indicates Item 14, and Articulate indicates Item 20. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non-English only group

378 included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

Correlations Between Independent Variables and Conformers/Non-Conformers Items Intelligent Cocky Hardworking Behavior High School -0.412** -0.141 -0.129 -0.226 Male 0.090 -0.036 -0.009 0.081 White 0.161 -0.116 -0.031 0.199 Age -0.077 -0.044 -0.018 0.076 Sophomore 0.208 0.220 0.121 0.242 Junior -0.106 -0.139 -0.182 -0.037 Senior -0.114 -0.016 0.078 -0.219 English Only 0.056 0.036 0.050 0.097 Conservative 0.250 0.116 0.214 0.369** Moderate 0.189 0.074 0.174 0.149 Liberal -0.345** -0.186 -0.282* -0.467*** Low Div. Exp. 0.001 -0.047 0.038 -0.052 Avg. Div. Exp. 0.182 0.075 0.068 0.289* High Div. Exp. -0.189 -0.040 -0.101 -0.256 Educated Abroad -0.074 -0.221 -0.279* -0.231 Traveled Abroad -0.109 -0.231 -0.289* -0.135 For. Lang. Prof. -0.169 0.060 -0.125 -0.021 Ling. Course(s) -0.354** -0.166 -0.031 -0.270* Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Intelligent indicates Item 6, Cocky indicates Item 12, Hardworking indicates Item 28, and Behavior indicates Item 24. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non- English only group included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

Correlations Between Independent Variables and Promises/Threats Items Doors Job Accepted Succeeding High School -0.112 0.189 -0.195 0.031 Male 0.145 0.170 -0.125 0.055

379 White -0.061 0.194 0.002 0.023 Age 0.105 0.136 -0.134 0.112 Sophomore -0.155 0.041 0.015 0.226 Junior -0.265* -0.132 -0.103 -0.228 Senior 0.373** 0.116 0.061 0.015 English Only -0.012 0.152 -0.007 0.025 Conservative 0.152 -0.037 0.148 -0.064 Moderate -0.224 -0.126 0.060 -0.004 Liberal -0.041 0.039 -0.148 0.014 Low Div. Exp. -0.255 0.025 -0.049 0.076 Avg. Div. Exp. 0.047 0.039 0.111 -0.012 High Div. Exp. 0.159 -0.060 -0.076 -0.050 Educated Abroad -0.073 0.131 0.036 -0.131 Traveled Abroad 0.339** 0.123 0.254 -0.131 For. Lang. Prof. -0.074 -0.174 0.090 -0.213 Ling. Course(s) -0.074 0.127 -0.132 -0.039 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Doors indicates Item 1, Job indicates Item 7, Accepted indicates Item 13, and Succeeding indicates Item 19. Participants not in the “High School” group identified as being in the “middle grades” program. The non-white group included those who self-identified as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino(a) as well as those who identified with more than one ethnicity. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from the analysis of academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). The non-English only group included those who identified another language as their home language or those who identified as growing up in a bi- or multilingual home. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from the analysis of political affiliation (conservative, liberal, and moderate). “Low Div. Exp.,” “Avg. Div. Exp.,” and “High Div. Exp.” represent a low level of experience with diverse populations, an average level of experience with diverse populations, and a high level of experience with diverse populations, respectively. Foreign language proficiency level was treated as a continuous variable and was numerically organized as 1=“No proficiency,” 2=“Elementary proficiency,” 3=“Intermediate proficiency, 4=“Advanced proficiency,” and 5=“Fluent.” Participants not included in the “Ling. Course(s)” group reported never having taken a linguistics course.

Regression Results for SSLI Items

Regressions of Mystification Item 5 (Oral) on Program, Academic Standing, Linguistics Course(s), and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School -2.010***a -1.702***a (0.380) (0.436) Junior 0.784 (0.425) Sophomore 0.326 (0.587) Linguistics Course(s) -0.601 (0.483) Age -0.000 (0.034) N 58 58 R2 0.333 0.406

380 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .19). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Mystification Item 11 (Structuring) on Program, Academic Standing, Linguistics Course(s), and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.302***a -1.388**a 0.3444 (0.415) Junior -0.126 (0.404) Sophomore 0.221 (0.559) Linguistics Course(s) 0.326 (0.459) Age -0.011 (0.032) N 58 58 R2 0.203 0.217 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .93). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Mystification Item 17 (Express) on Program, Academic Standing, Linguistics Course(s), and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.194** -0.857 (0.433) (0.500) Junior -0.175 (0.487) Sophomore 0.407 (0.674) Linguistics Course(s) -0.254 (0.554) Age -0.066 (0.038) N 58 58 R2 0.119 0.206

381 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .24). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Mystification Item 23 (Communicate) on Program, Academic Standing, Linguistics Course(s), and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.716 -0.678 (0.360) (0.425) Junior 0.351 (0.414) Sophomore 0.600 (0.573) Linguistics Course(s) 0.055 (0.471) Age 0.053 (0.033) N 58 58 R2 0.066 0.120 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .53). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Authority Item 4 (Rules) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School -2.169***a -1.567***a (0.367) (0.396) Junior 0.920* (0.377) Sophomore 0.169 (0.539) Conservative 0.914* (0.359) Moderate 0.827 (0.566) Linguistics Course(s) -1.115* (0.432)

382 Average Diverse Exp. 0.132 0.367 Low Diverse Exp. -0.031 (0.466) Age 0.002 (0.029) N 58 58 R2 0.384 0.586 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .008). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Authority Item 10 (Strive) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.707 -0.265 (0.360) (0.412) Junior -0.644 (0.392) Sophomore -0.936 (0.560) Conservative 0.751 (0.373) Moderate 0.071 (0.588) Linguistics Course(s) -0.951* (0.450) Average Diverse Exp. 0.527 (0.382) Low Diverse Exp. 0.630 (0.485) Age -0.026 (0.031) N 58 58 R2 0.064 0.294 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One

383 participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .07). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Authority Item 16 (Situation) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, and Age Model 1 Model 2 High School 0.257 0.196 (0.377) (0.473) Junior -0.259 (0.450) Sophomore -0.259 (0.644) Conservative -0.120 (0.428) Moderate 0.172 (0.676) Linguistics Course(s) -0.192 (0.516) Average Diverse Exp. -0.558 (0.438) Low Diverse Exp. -1.073 (0.557) Age 0.004 (0.037) N 58 58 R2 0.008 0.101 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .76). All coefficients reported are unstandardized.No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Authority Item 22 (Decide) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, and Age Model 1 Model 2

384 High School -0.326 -0.036 (0.386) (0.427) Junior -0.294 (0.406) Sophomore -0.347 (0.581) Conservative 1.330**a (0.387) Moderate 0.964 (0.610) Linguistics Course(s) -0.406 (0.466) Average Diverse Exp. -0.393 (0.395) Low Diverse Exp. -0.219 (0.503) Age 0.049 (0.033) N 58 58 R2 0.013 0.302 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .009). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Misinformation Item 3 (Person) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.411 -0.026 (0.226) (0.251) Junior -0.113 (0.331) Sophomore -0.066 (0.331) Conservative -0.230 (0.226) Moderate -0.215 (0.369) Linguistics Course(s) -0.786** (0.280)

385 N 58 58 R2 0.056 0.227 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .06). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Misinformation Item 9 (Changed) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School 0.144 0.335 (0.347) (0.417) Junior -0.172 (0.397) Sophomore -0.282 (0.550) Conservative 0.277 (0.376) Moderate -0.364 (0.614) Linguistics Course(s) -0.495 (0.466) N 58 58 R2 0.003 0.046 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .81). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Misinformation Item 15 (Follow) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.800***a -1.107* (0.379) (0.411) Junior 0.479 (0.392)

386 Sophomore -0.185 (0.543) Conservative 0.442 (0.370) Moderate 0.173 (0.605) Linguistics Course(s) -1.443** (0.459) N 58 58 R2 0.287 0.443 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .02). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Misinformation Item 21 (Correct) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, and Linguistics Course(s) Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.273***a -0.823 (0.336) (0.372) Junior -0.598 (0.355) Sophomore -0.481 (0.491) Conservative -0.549 (0.335) Moderate 1.130* (0.548) Linguistics Course(s) -0.707 (0.416) N 58 58 R2 0.204 0.352 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .06). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

387 Regressions of Trivialization Item 2 (Serious) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), and Experience with Diverse Populations Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.089** -0.919* (0.355) (0.396) Junior -0.055 (0.368) Sophomore -0.527 (0.508) Conservative 0.692 (0.353) Moderate 0.409 (0.568) Linguistics Course(s) -0.501 (0.431) Average Diverse Exp. 1.051** (0.361) Low Diverse Exp. 0.779 (0.468) N 58 58 R2 0.144 0.365 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .03). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Trivialization Item 8 (Culture) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), and Diverse Populations Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.489 -0.558 (0.315) (0.380) Junior 0.215 (0.353) Sophomore 1.010* (0.488) Conservative 0.411 (0.339) Moderate -0.106 (0.546) Linguistics Course(s) 0.530

388 (0.414) Average Diverse Exp. 0.030 (0.347) Low Diverse Exp. -0.196 (0.450) N 58 58 R2 0.041 0.169 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .39). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Trivialization Item 14 (Simpler) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), and Diverse Populations Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.335** -1.169* (0.443) (0.502) Junior 1.202* (0.467) Sophomore 0.789 (0.645) Conservative 0.506 (0.449) Moderate 1.062 (0.722) Linguistics Course(s) -0.382 (0.547) Average Diverse Exp. 0.379 (0.459) Low Diverse Exp. -0.647 (0.595) N 58 58 R2 0.140 0.338 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A

389 high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .06). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Trivialization Item 20 (Articulate) on Program, Academic Standing, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), and Diverse Populations Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.806** -0.604 (0.285) (0.330) Junior 0.300 (0.307) Sophomore 0.515 (0.424) Conservative 0.488 (0.295) Moderate -0.259 (0.474) Linguistics Course(s) -0.354 (0.360) Average Diverse Exp. 0.443 (0.302) Low Diverse Exp. -0.032 (0.391) N 58 58 R2 0.125 0.298 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .12). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Conformers/Non-Conformers Item 6 (Intelligent) on Program, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, Education Abroad, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School -1.239**a -1.069* (0.367) (0.417) Conservative 0.926* (0.376) Moderate 0.935 (0.620)

390 Linguistics Course(s) -0.451 (0.396) Average Diverse Exp. 0.537 (0.390) Low Diverse Exp. -0.350 (0.502) Educated Abroad 0.188 (0.511) Traveled Abroad -0.262 (0.403) N 58 58 R2 0.170 0.357 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .07). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Conformers/Non-Conformers Item 12 (Cocky) on Program, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, Education Abroad, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.311 -0.229 (0.292) (0.354) Conservative 0.333 (0.319) Moderate -0.004 (0.526) Linguistics Course(s) -0.262 (0.336) Average Diverse Exp. -0.046 (0.331) Low Diverse Exp. -0.417 (0.426) Educated Abroad -0.431 (0.433) Traveled Abroad -0.472 (0.342) N 58 58 R2 0.020 0.140 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two

391 participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .45). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Conformers/Non-Conformers Item 18 (Hardworking) on Program, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, Education Abroad, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.345 -0.411 (0.355) (0.410) Conservative 0.751* (0.370) Moderate 0.669 (0.610) Linguistics Course(s) 0.211 (0.390) Average Diverse Exp. -0.006 (0.384) Low Diverse Exp. -0.255 (0.494) Educated Abroad -0.469 (0.503) Traveled Abroad -0.697 (0.397) N 58 58 R2 0.017 0.215 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .11). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Conformers/Non-Conformers Item 24 (Behavior) on Program, Political Affiliation, Linguistics Course(s), Diverse Populations, Education Abroad, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.561 -0.391 (0.323) (0.338) Conservative 0.993**a (0.305) Moderate 0.777 (0.503)

392 Linguistics Course(s) -0.424 (0.321) Average Diverse Exp. 0.578 (0.317) Low Diverse Exp. -0.363 (0.408) Educated Abroad -0.401 (0.415) Traveled Abroad -0.146 (0.327) N 58 58 R2 0.051 0.376 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Liberal was used as the reference group for political affiliation in this regression. Two participants who identified as libertarian and libertarian/anarchist were excluded from political affiliation (conservative, moderate, and liberal). Participants not included in the “linguistics course(s)” variable reported never having taken a linguistics course. A high level of experience with diverse populations was used as the reference group of experience with diverse populations in this regression (high level of experience, average level of experience, and low level of experience). There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .003). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. a These predictor(s) were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Promises/Threats Item 1 (Doors) on Program, Academic Standing, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.185 -0.258 (0.219) (0.207) Junior -0.582** (0.216) Sophomore -0.588* (0.259) Traveled Abroad 0.461* (0.199) N 58 58 R2 0.013 0.253 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). There was a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .002). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Promises/Threats Item 7 (Job) on Program, Academic Standing, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School 0.453 0.565

393 (0.314) (0.333) Junior -0.298 (0.348) Sophomore 0.228 (0.418) Traveled Abroad 0.315 (0.320) N 58 58 R2 0.036 0.081 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .47). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Promises/Threats Item 13 (Accepted) on Program, Academic Standing, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School -0.488 -0.485 (0.329) (0.344) Junior -0.214 (0.360) Sophomore -0.154 (0.432) Traveled Abroad 0.596 (0.330) N 58 58 R2 0.038 0.106 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .27). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002).

Regressions of Promises/Threats Item 19 (Succeeding) on Program, Academic Standing, and Travel Abroad Model 1 Model 2 High School 0.085 0.351 (0.369) (0.379) Junior -0.413 (0.396) Sophomore 0.721 (0.721)

394 Traveled Abroad 0.419 (0.419) N 58 58 R2 0.001 0.109 Note. <†>p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. The final analysis sample used in all categories is limited to participants who completed all SSLI, demographic, and experiences question (N = 58). Participants not included in the “high school” program identified as being in the “middle grades” program. Seniors was used as the reference group for academic standing in this regression. One participant who identified as a freshman was excluded from academic standing (senior, junior, and sophomore). There was not a statistically significant increase in R2 from Model 1 to Model 2 (p = .11). All coefficients reported are unstandardized. No predictors were statistically significant based on the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value cut-off (p < .002) given the four predictors in the model and the repeated hypothesis testing.

395 Appendix K: Qualitative Data Analysis

Excerpt from Interview Transcripts

L = Lana R = Researcher

L: All right. “Learning to speak standardized English means that doors will open for students.” The main way that I interpret it is talking about, you know, standardized English—sometimes we talked a lot about it in Dr. Ringer’s class was, you know, talking in the way that English teachers normally make you talk. Using, really, that proper grammar and the proper—what is socially contrived to be proper and—for students. And, so, I really—and then the other part of this is that “doors will open for students” and a lot of that is, like, assumptions that if you do speak standard American English—what has been defined as socially acceptable, then that will somehow— somehow help you in life, which is a yes and a no at the same time, so.

R: Okay. Tell me a little bit about what you think about this statement. Agree with it, disagree with it, ways that you agree or disagree.

L: I agree that it’s helpful—that it’s a tool that can be used in certain times ‘cause, like, sometimes you do need to be able to present yourself in a very structured and formal way that has been socially contrived as good. But at the same time, there’s a lot of problems with that because it really negates a lot of people’s cultures and it really closes a lot of doors too because it—it really unfairly stigmatizes a lot of different groups by saying that, you know, “What my teacher says is right and what you’re saying is wrong.” So it’s like this really big dichotomy. So, you know, if—if this is right then everything that I’ve done at home or with my friends and everything is wrong. That’s not really a good dichotomy to have. Also, watching the documentary that Dr. Ringer made, you know, it was talking a lot about how you could speak with standardized English on the phone, but if, you know—and—and that was helpful, but once people saw you there was still the implicit discrimination because of, you know, because of your race anyway. So, like, yes, it helps if you don’t talk black, but you’re still African American should somebody be racist. So, it's a—it’s a tool, but it’s not necessarily the—it’s not for every situation.

R: And so, in what situations do you think that speaking standardized English would be useful for opening doors?

L: I think it’s really useful for, like, more professional things. So, I just came from a job interview and so since I could speak standard Eng—standardized English, you know, that was something that they valued and so being able to speak in that way people are like, “Oh, yeah. You’re educated. You know what you’re talking about.” And there’s just a lot of assumptions that come with being able to speak standardized English. So, a lot of, like, professional things and being able to write in a professional manner really—really does actually open doors.

R: Excellent. And then, so do you think that speaking standardized English guarantees doors to open?

396

L: No. I think that there’s a lot of really successful people who’ve never spoke standardized English. I think that as future English teachers that needs to be something that we really keep in mind that, you know, this is a tool, but it’s not the only tool. That, you know, we probably will encourage students to speak and write in this way, but that—but, we should figure out and learn a way to do so in a way that doesn’t also, like, squash everything else.

R: Right. Can you give me an example of someone—can you think of anyone who has been successful without standardized English? Kind of like you were saying.

L: Not off the top of my head.

R: That’s okay.

L: Which seems bad, but I’m sure that they’re out there. [laughs]

R: I was just wondering. Awesome. Okay. Thank you. [slides next statement card to participant]

L: “When having serious conversations, it is best to use standardized English.” So, my one question with that would be what is “serious conversations.” And I guess that means—for the purpose of this question I’m thinking more, I guess, again, professional conversations. I think serious conversations that are on a more personal level you should talk as you feel most comfortable, but I—I guess I take this to mean using standardized English in more professional conversations, so.

R: So, what do you think that—that you do agree that when having serious conversations it’s best to use standardized English?

L: Yeah. Just because it’s the socially contrived norm that everyone has agreed upon as best to use. After taking Ringer’s class, I wish that wasn’t the case and, you know, he really opens up all these ideas of, you know, it’s actually just the social norm that we’ve decided on that sounds good. But, yeah. I think that for more professional ways I can’t break out my “y’all” and all these things ‘cause people won’t take me seriously.

R: Right. So, you talked about professional versus personal. What about content in terms of a serious conversation? Like, talking about serious matters, whether that’s professional or personal. Do you think it’s best to use standardized English with serious content?

L: I think in a lot of ways some—it carries connotations that, you know, you care because, like— and you’re engaged in the conversation because, you know—I find myself when I’m throwing around words like “y’all” doesn’t come out in conversation like this except for the fact we’re talking about standardized English. And—and that’s a contrast to it. So, I think that in—in general, with serious conversations, that it’s better to use this in general because there’s, like, again, all the connotations with standardized English. It’s—it’s good to use it in more professional settings to make people take you seriously in general.

397 R: Can you give me some examples of serious topics that you think would be best used with standardized English?

L: I can’t think of many things where it wouldn’t be. The only example really that I can think of where it would be a good idea to change from standardized English is, like, when politicians are talking, but, for the most part, every other time people, like, really stick by standardized English to really get across the point. Like, you know, if you’re having a serious conversation about, you know, somebody’s boyfriend broke up with them and it’s, like, actually serious, then you can be like, “Oh my gosh, girl” and, like, break into that more colloquialism, not-so-standardized English. But, like, I think in general, like, with most standard—with most serious conversations that it’s important unless, you know, the group is pretty homogenous and you can relate by all using the same.

R: Right. Do you think it’s easier to communicate a serious topic using standardized English?

L: Depends on the makeup of the group that’s talking. You know, if it’s—if it’s people from other cultures and other various language backgrounds, then it’s probably easier to use standardized English, but, you know, if everyone is on the same place with language backgrounds then, you know, going with what’s really comfortable might—might be better for a serious conversation.

R: Mm-hm. Gotcha. Awesome. [slides next statement card to participant]

Excerpt from Notes on Initial Ideas

1. So many contradictions! Participants claim one thing with a positive statement and another with a negative statement. For example, with language authority, some participants, like Kacee, repeatedly said that students should be able to embrace their own dialect and shouldn’t be expected to speak like their teachers, but then talked about how students should use “formal English” to talk to their teachers.

2. For all the positive effect that the linguistics course had on the students (learning about linguistic discrimination, learning about the validity of other dialects, learning about its significance to culture, etc.), probably actually had a negative impact on the idea of promises/threats. The HUD video really impactful—which turned out to have a negative impact on promises/threats. Upon reflection, although teaching students about linguistic prejudice is necessary and important, it seems that these teachings actually serve to align students more with the standard language ideology on promises/threats as they paint the picture that these examples of language prejudice guarantee problems for vernacular speakers.

3. Participants seemed to grasp overall ideas of linguistic principles but struggled to discuss sociolinguistic information in detail (questioned definition of vernacular dialect, struggled to define dialect, etc.).

4. Participants conveyed desire to embrace and respect all dialects in the classroom yet had not given thought to how that would be executed. Seemed as if she had learned that it was

398 important, but not learned how that could be enacted in the classroom, which led to traditional ways to teaching.

5. Linguistics course is definitely the most influential force in her thoughts about language and dialects—participants bring class up as an example to defend responses frequently and share anecdotes; however, the material from the course seemed to be best solidified when combined with experiences, such as observations in a diverse school, where participants could observe this in action (at least for learning about dialect structure).

6. Participants have many ways of describing and talking about standardized English (formal, proper, professional) and vernacular dialects (slang). They have a variety of word associations with each construct.

7. The burden of communication seems to be a recurring theme, and one that is contradictory. Participants seem to feel that it is most often the responsibility of the vernacular speaker to change their speech to a standardized dialect in order to be understood, accepted, etc.—even to make friends. One participant, Kacee, made it seem as if she couldn’t understand a person in a vernacular dialect and that’s why it was important to learn formal English. In another example, she seemed to suggest that if you are a native English speaker, we can all understand each other.

8. There seems to be a theme of experiences both negatively and positively impacting change in linguistic experiences. For example, some examples of experience with diverse populations, such as observations in a public classroom, result in a negative interaction and understanding of vernacular dialects; however, other experiences with diverse populations, such as travel to different regions of the United States, result in a positive interaction and perception of vernacular dialects. Need to investigate further what sparks these differences.

9. Overall, it seems that promises/threats is the area in which participants have the most beliefs that align with the SLI, regardless of their SSLI score. They seem to be extremely bound by social expectations and constantly refer to the “reality” that students will face when they leave the classroom. They express a desire for things to be different but resign themselves to the way society operates with language.

10. It seems as if participants do not overtly acknowledge many standard language ideology beliefs yet express them more implicitly in their responses to non-corresponding items. For example, in the mystification category, one participant, Melissa, mentioned that teachers spoke significantly better than other speakers and that people in positions of authority typically spoke in a way that made “more sense.” However, in the items that specifically addressed, authority, she was much less likely to give people in positions of power that authority over language.

Start List

1. Mystification: Responses that discuss the ways in which language is mystified. These responses specifically discuss the ability or inability of individuals to communicate

399 effectively without expert guidance. Ability to communicate effectively can be discussed in terms of oral language proficiency, verbal expression, structuring of speech, and overall communication. Expert guidance can be discussed in terms of being taught or learning about grammar and/or grammar structure in school or teacher instruction.

Examples  “So for this one I do think that students need to be taught about structure grammar—grammar structure. Because it’s very important that they use—like I just said, sentence structures and everything like that.”  “So, I do believe that students are capable of structuring their speech before they really even realize why they’re doing what they do. Because I think we, as humans, like, imitate what we hear. So, they’re just repeating speech patterns that they hear. I don’t know.”

2. Authority: Responses that discuss the ways in which authority is claimed over language. These responses specifically discuss who or what is defined as a language expert and the justifications for determining who or what has authority over language. Language authority can be discussed with regard to classroom expectations for student speech and/or overall situations in which an individual has authority over the way he/she speaks.

Examples  “I think teachers can—do have the authority and have gone through the training to make a decision on how language would be presented in the classroom. And so I do think that teachers should have some autonomy to get to choose for themselves how they want to present their class. ‘Cause essentially that’s presenting themselves.”  “I think there’s speakers who—I wouldn’t say there’s necessarily people that they [students] should try and speak like, but maybe pick up tools or methods and how to best articulate themselves. And that doesn’t necessarily mean speaking standardized English, but rather how are they going to best be heard with what’s going on in their head?”

3. Misinformation: Responses that discuss the misinformation that is generated regarding language. These responses specifically discuss language misconceptions about dialect use, language change, language patterns, and conceptions of “correctness.” Additionally, these responses discuss the historical, aesthetic, and logical descriptions of language variants.

Examples  “And so language changes a lot, but standardized English I feel like is one of those that really stays the same because people go to school to teach English and they learn that—they learn Standard American English or at least that’s how I’ve felt sometimes.”

400  “True. They [vernacular dialects] all have their own grammar, their own syntax, sentence structure. Rules for when you can use stuff, when you can’t use stuff. Yes. True.”

4. Trivialization: Responses that discuss the ways in which vernacular dialects are trivialized. These responses specifically discuss how dialects are perceived as either serious or superficial, significant or unimportant, complex or simple, and precise or inarticulate.

Examples  “But if you’re talking about the dialect itself, especially the Southern dialect, like, it’s kind of—it does sound simpler because there’s less syllables and there’s less—the words are way more rudimentary.”  “I would say it [a vernacular dialect] can be just as precise, not that it’s more precise. Because Standard American English doesn’t account for vocabulary in the same way and, you know, some—the vocabulary in one dialect can be just as useful as the vocabulary in Standard American English.”

5. Conformers/Non-Conformers: Responses that discuss the ways in which individuals who conform to standardized English are held up as positive examples and the ways in which individuals who do not conform to standardized English are vilified or marginalized. These responses specifically discuss how individuals are described as either intelligent or unintelligent, respectful or cocky, hardworking or lazy, and well- behaved or deviant.

Examples  “Like, it’s just, like, that type of, like, stereotype that’s present in our classroom that would make someone—an outsider say, ‘Okay. The person who works—who speaks standardized English is working harder than the person who’s speaking Ebonics.’ Because that’s true in that case. So, in my—I guess in my time teaching and, like, observing, that’s been more so the case than not.”  “I think a lot of people can speak in a lot of ways and it doesn’t determine their intelligence level. It has to do with what they’ve been taught. So, IQ doesn’t depend on how you speak.”

6. Promises/Threats: Responses that discuss the ways in which explicit promises are made to those who conform to standardized English and the ways in which threats are made to those who do not conform to standardized English. These responses specifically discuss how individuals are promised or threatened with opportunities, jobs, acceptance, and academic success based on their compliance with or resistance to standardized English.

Examples  “So, I guess as a middle school teacher, I would say that yes it [speaking Standardized English]—I would say it definitely does open doors for students.

401 And I think that’s just because, I mean, we live in America—there is no one language, but because it’s what we speak now and that’s what they’re going to be forced to use when they’re interviewing, at least I hope.”  “No. I mean, there’s plenty of people that speak standardized English who aren’t accepted by people who speak standardized English, so I don’t think—correlation, no causation, I think.”

7. Miscellaneous: Responses that do not correspond to any of the SLI themes listed above. These responses discuss participants’ reflections on their personal experiences with language and dialects, participants’ thoughts on language-related pedagogy, and their participation in the communicative process. Examples  “Just because it [the linguistics course] wrestled with a lot of hard thoughts and things that, you know, people have—I mean, not everybody, but, you know, especially—especially a lot of the people who haven’t had this idea of background of diversity and all these things, like, really struggled with it. And it’s—and he really made it a safe place to struggle with while continuing to reinforce, like, ‘This is okay.’ And offering, you know, the linguistic professional reasons why it’s okay and—and, like, these are examples. And he—John Ringer should be the only one who teaches that class because he just makes it such a good and safe environment to struggle with things like that while still pushing you on towards the finish line.”  “Required things you have to teach and--and working with a PLT I think it would be difficult if they don’t agree with you and you’re all supposed to be on the same page. And, like, Wayne County now has required curriculums and I’ve taught one of those with my cooperating teacher and it was hard. And you wouldn’t have even time to mention, like, you know, ‘This character…’ Like, it was--it was a book about a girl from Vietnam and we didn’t even have time to talk about, you know, like, ‘Wow. Look at the writing she uses.’ Like, because we were so busy pushing through, so.”

Samples from Codebook

Mystification

Code Description Example Grammar structure Participant assumes that “So, by grammar structure I’m assuming is SE “grammar structure” is in that’s, like, the standardized way to put reference to standardized together sentences.” English; does not associate grammar structure with other dialects

402 Oral proficiency as Participant associates “To speak—to get their points across in SE speaking proficiently with their day-to-day lives because they do speaking standardized sometimes need to speak formally. But then English; does not associate other times they’re not gonna speak speaking proficiently with formally with their best friends, you know? other dialects They’re gonna splice their sentences, they’re gonna, you know, talk however they want to. But they need to know how to be able to speak formally. And proficiently.” Learning grammar Participant states that “So, I think yes, that you probably do need structure needed to learning grammar structure to learn grammar structure in order to, like, communicate in school is necessary in communicate and then after you know that order for students to be you’re free to be like, ‘Okay, maybe ‘I am’ able to communicate is not, like, accepted here. Maybe they say effectively in their day-to- ‘I is.’ That’s okay. It’s like a cultural thing day lives. for them.’” Learning grammar Participant states that “So for this one I do think that students structure needed to learning grammar structure need to be taught about structure structure sentences in school is necessary for grammar—grammar structure. Because it’s students to be able to very important that they use—like I just structure their sentences. said, sentence structures and everything like that.” Learning grammar Participant states that “I don’t think it would be impossible… But structure needed to learning grammar structure I think to be, like, fully proficient, like, not speak proficiently in school is necessary for perfect, but as close to perfect as anyone students to be able to use can get, I think grammar structure is oral language proficiently definitely needed. It definitely needs to be in their day-to-day lives. helped in order to get proficient in it, but I don’t think it’s impossible to do it without.” Linguistic Participant defines the “John has really taught me good. [laughs] I definition of phrase “grammar think I’d have to disagree with this one “grammar structure” in a way that because—so, grammar structure, I guess, structure” exhibits linguistic would be like which words go where. I understanding; discusses mean, doesn’t have much—as much to do “grammar structure” in with commas because it’s spoken terms of descriptive language.” language, not prescriptive language. Language Participant recognizes that “And then, so much of oral—being acquisition outside students acquire language proficient in language, like, in spoken of school outside of school, such as language is—has to do with what you’re in the home or amongst taught from a very young age. So, kids can friends, and exhibit speak before they go to kindergarten and linguistic abilities before most kindergarten teachers don’t really entering school. touch on grammar that much. And—and

403 you’re taught by your parents and you’re taught by the people around you and you’re really corrected through them, so I wouldn’t think that a formal grammar structure helps as much, especially early on.” Language Participant recognizes that “So, you know, when you’re getting into, acquisition is language acquisition, such like, why do we order these adjectives in intuitive as the way speech is the way that we order them to make them structured grammatically, sound the best? Like, that’s, like, very— is intuitive that’s very intuitive. Like, most people don’t say, like, ‘the—the green big tractor.’ They’ll say, ‘the big green tractor.’ So, like, that’s very intuitive.” Distinction Participant makes a “I would go a step further and say between learning distinction between the ‘speaking proficiently in day-to-day lives’ grammar for oral need to learn grammar in is—is more what I’m describing, just and written school in order exhibit oral because being able to speak proficiently in language proficiency versus written your day-to-day life is speaking so that the proficiency, such that people around you and the people that you learning grammar is more interact with can understand you. And— appropriate for written and being able to convey ideas and, you language know, collaborate and do all these different things with the people around you. So, yeah, I think that compound complex sentences aren’t really useful for that. And—and they’re important to know when you’re writing papers if you want to use standard American English, but for regular proficiency in your day-to-day life, you don’t need the grammar structure as much because you’re taught it at a young age as you grow up learning the language.” Learning grammar Participant claims that all “Like, you know, everyone’s dialect is structure not dialects have their own different and that’s okay and they’re all needed to effective grammar good in their own equal way. So, you communicate structure; therefore, know, if you even just take that, like, you learning about grammar wouldn’t even need to factor school into structure in school is not that because language and language skills necessary to be able to and dialects are good in their own communicate effectively individual way and they work and that’s why they persist. So, then you don’t even have to think about grammar structure because, like, they’re already good on their own.”

404 Authority

Code Description Example Language Participant implies that a “No. No, I don’t think so. I think in the authority through teacher has authority over class they should be respectful and they grades students’ language as should take into account what their teachers have the power to teacher’s saying. And they should try it assign grades on class [standardized English]—if you want the assignments ‘A’ you’re gonna do what the teacher asks you to do.” Students have Participant explains that “So, as far as, like, being a student, I would language authority students have authority say, yeah, you should try to speak like your outside of the over their language, or the teacher because you want to ultimately get classroom way in which they speak, good grades, but I don’t think outside the when they are outside of classroom you should make it your goal to the classroom, but the speak like a teacher does in their teacher has authority over classroom.” language inside the classroom. Students have Participant explains that “I feel like they can do that when they’re language authority students can have collaborating with each other, if they’re in collaborative authority over their comfortable with each other. Like if you activities language, or the way in have two friends in a class and they were which they speak, in the collaborating together, they should be able classroom when they are to speak in their own dialect—not to speak collaborating with each professional and formal. I feel like that’s a other little rigid to expect for a classroom environment.” Discomfort with Participant expresses “I feel like it’s—I feel like it can be serving as discomfort with serving as perceived as, like, very arrogant and it’s—I language authority the language model that don’t know. At the same time it’s, like, a students should strive to bigger responsibility to think that the way speak like you speak is the way you’re training a generation to.” Teachers are not Participant recognizes that “So, it’s really—it’s been really hard for perfect language teachers are not perfect me to kind of dissect that down into what I models language models by which think about it. But I wouldn’t say they students should measure should strive to speak like their teachers. I linguistic success mean, I don’t speak perfectly. [laughs] So, always question authority. [laughs]” Conflict between Participant recognizes that “So, I don’t—I don’t know what I put for exercising exercising authority over this one, but I know that I don’t agree with language authority language in the classroom this now. Because, like I said, I’m a white and embracing is problematic for female. I don’t want my African American identity vernacular speakers as it students to feel like they have to speak like invalidates their own I do. That’s not okay. They should embrace

405 dialect and conflicts with their own dialects and understand—but I do their ability to embrace want my students to understand that code- their identity switching to a standardized English in certain settings is important.” No language Participant claims that “No. [laughs] No. I’m just—I’m drawing authority in students should not have off of my, I guess, my four years in professional authority over their customer service. No. Knowing, like, you settings language when they are in know, working in business that I—I would professional settings, such definitely say that’s not okay. As an as working in a business accountant I would say no.” Teachers have Participant claims that “I think teachers can—do have the authority over teachers should have authority and have gone through the language due to authority over the training to make a decision on how “training” language that is used in language would be presented in the their classroom because classroom and how—yeah, so, okay, but for they have been through a speaking. So, for writing there’s that lot of “training” that component, but then for speaking I think qualifies them to make this teachers, again, can make an authoritative authoritative decision decision based on if they want to allow students to speak however or if they’re gonna say for these 90 minutes in this class we’re gonna speak a standardized way. But I only say that knowing that teachers go through a lot of training and you get a lot of exposure to what works and what doesn’t. And so I do think that teachers should have some autonomy to get to choose for themselves how they want to present their class. ‘Cause essentially that’s presenting themselves also. Yeah.” Student authority Participant explains that if “Like, don’t let the students get too much over language students gain too much control of how they, like, speak ‘cause that results in chaos control over how they way then you won’t be able to—I don’t speak then it will result in know, like, not you won’t be able to teach chaos and they will not them, but if they, like, know that there’s no, learn like, rule they have to follow then they’re kinda just gonna go crazy and not necessarily learn what they need to learn.” Teacher can Participant explains that it “Maybe not in the way that they speak of dictate content of is the teachers right to the dialect, but their language. I think it is a speech dictate the content of teacher’s right to say, ‘You don’t cuss in students’ speech, such as my classroom.’ Or it’s their right to say, banning cussing and the ‘You don’t use racial slurs in my use of racial slurs classroom.’ Like, in that way you do correct—like, you know, you do dictate the way your students are talking to you. You

406 dictate the way the students are talking to each other. And that’s not dialect. That’s the words, that’s the vocabulary. I guess that you dictate vocabulary, you don’t dictate the way that they’re speaking.”

Misinformation

Code Description Example Ignorance of own Participant explains that “Yeah, it was more when I was traveling dialect individuals, such as and people would be like, ‘You’re so cute! herself, often do not You talk with a southern accent.’ And I was recognize that they have a like, ‘I don’t think I do.’ [laughs]” dialect Everyone has a Participant claims that “I would agree [that everyone has a dialect everyone speaks with a dialect]. And I don’t even know if that’s a dialect matter of agreeing, I feel like it’s just a fact. [laughs]” Spoken SE stays Participant explains belief “And so language changes a lot, but the same that spoken standardized standardized English I feel like is one of English predominantly those that really stays the same because remains the same over people go to school to teach English and time, implying that is they learn that—they learn Standard taught in schools the same American English or at least that’s how way over time I’ve felt sometimes.” Unable to decipher Participant struggles to “And I don’t know how to, like, explain it. how spoken SE identify the ways in which It’s not, like, the words they use because has changed spoken standardized we’re all speaking English. It’s not like English has changed; they’re speaking a different language. And participant cannot provide it’s not like they’re changing up the—the specific examples of subject verb tenses or anything. But it just language change or sounds different. And I don’t know if it’s describe the perceived just maybe their pitch? I don’t know. But it changes definitely has changed.” Spoken SE has Participant explains belief “So it’s—I mean, I don’t know the history changed over time that spoken standardized of how standardized English has evolved, English has changed over but I feel like it probably has evolved just time as much as any other as much as any of the other languages, just language or dialect we’ve allowed this one to continue to be our norm.” Vernacular Participant recognizes that “But, like, each dialect probably has its dialects follow vernacular dialects follow own grammar rules that we may not have grammar rules their own set of grammar written down, but are, like, an unspoken— rules and are patterned unspoken thing that everybody knows who speaks it. So, I think they do follow their own grammar rules.”

407 Impact of learning Participant shares the ways “I feel like I just would have been like, about vernacular in which learning that all ‘Okay, let’s actually say the word ask.’ You grammar rules on dialects, including know, I probably would have corrected practice vernacular dialects, follow them, but now it’s like ‘Oh, they’re grammar rules has following their own rules. They’re speaking impacted the way they will casually. They’re not trying to be approach their teaching professional.’ So, that’s probably how I practice would react.” SE is the correct Participant claims that “Is it the correct way to speak in English? It way to speak standardized English is the may not be correct for us to think that way, correct way to speak but I think the answer now is ‘yes’ because English as it is what is that’s the way that everyone’s been taught.” taught in schools No “correct” way Participant recognizes that “But I think college is where I really to speak English there are many variation learned that there’s different ways to speak within the English English, but that they’re not necessarily language and none of them wrong.” are more “correct” than another, only different Bases correctness Participant explains that “The—the correct way to speak in English of language on speaking English is whatever way you feel most gets your communicative “correctly” is speaking in a point across. And if—and if that’s using ability way that best expresses your vernacular, then that’s good. And if and communicates your that’s using Standard American English, point then good. But—but your own and standard, I think they’re—they’re both good and they both have their time and place. None is any more correct than another.”

Trivialization

Code Description Example SE best for serious Participant claims that “So, I think that in—in general, with conversations standardized English is serious conversations, that it’s better to use best to use in serious this in general because there’s, like, again, conversations, such as all the connotations with standardized those in professional English. It’s—it’s good to use it in more setting, to gain credibility professional settings to make people take you seriously in general.” SE best for serious Participant claims that “Like, talking about politics or whether topics standardized English is you’re talking about someone’s religious best to use for serious views, I guess. Like, I feel like if I were to topics, such discussing talk to someone who had different religious religion or politics, to views than I did and I started, like, slurring avoid offending others my words and talking in slang, like, they

408 would think I was making fun of what they were saying or what they thought was right. So, I feel like it’s kind of like—I don’t know. It’s kind of like a polite thing to do when you’re talking about something serious.” Recognition that Participant explains that “That’s hard. I don’t know ‘cause I would social language is social language, language say social language is still serious. I mean, still serious in which you would use a social language is very serious. [laughs] I vernacular dialect, can be don’t really know. That’s really hard to used for a serious purpose define for me, I guess. ‘Cause, I mean, in and that all conversations any situation you wanna articulate yourself, are legitimate, regardless whether you’re in a drive thru line to get of dialect food or you’re in a classroom. So I don’t really—I couldn’t define that. I’d say every conversation is legitimate.” Vernacular Participant asserts that “I think also, like, American prides itself on dialects contribute vernacular dialects being the melting pot. And we’re pretty to diversity of significantly contribute to much all immigrants from somewhere here, American culture American culture as they so it [a vernacular dialect] definitely does contribute to the diversity contribute to the American culture. It— it is known for by there really isn’t one set way to talk. You representing our migratory can travel across the country and hear, you roots and the diverse know, from, like, how people talk in regions we have Louisiana is very different than Maine, which is different than Kansas. So, yeah. I agree.” Vernacular Participant claims that “Like, people who speak differently—you dialects contribute vernacular dialects kind of think differently ‘cause that to the progress of significantly contribute to probably means, like, you were raised in a American culture American culture as new different area or a different home culture ideas are formed and and that contributes to stronger ideas, better shared when individuals ideas. That I feel like progress happens and are able to embrace their discoveries get created when instead of individuality trying to, like, eradicate change or standardize everything we embrace individuality and we allow those differences to—like, all kind of pieces to solutions just on, like, different things.” Vernacular Participant recognizes that “But vernacular dialects are a part of their dialects are language, and vernacular culture. African American culture—they significant to dialects in particular, have their own dialect; it’s part of their identity contribute to an identity. If I told my friend Tiana, “Don’t individual’s identity and speak in your dialect; speak in mine.” their culture She’d get really offended. That’s just how it is.”

409 Vernacular Participant believes that “But if you’re talking about the dialect dialects are vernacular dialects are a itself, especially the Southern dialect, like, simpler simpler form of it’s kind of—it does sound simpler because communication than there’s less syllables and there’s less—the standardized English, such words are way more rudimentary.” as containing less syllables and more rudimentary vocabulary Vernacular Participant recognizes that “There’s so many dialects and there’s--it’s dialects are not vernacular dialects are essentially its own kind of language and simpler governed by a complex set each dialect and language has so many of rules indicating that rules that are impossible to have written they are not a simpler form down completely, so I wouldn’t say it’s of communication simpler.” Vernacular Participant acknowledges “I would say it [a vernacular dialect] can be dialects are precise that vernacular dialects are just as precise, not that it’s more precise. just as precise as Because Standard American English standardized English as doesn’t account for vocabulary in the same they offer different tools to way and, you know, some—the vocabulary express your point, such as in one dialect can be just as useful as the additional vocabulary vocabulary in Standard American English. And—and just by, like—it can be just as efficient, but I wouldn’t say it’s more so.” Preciseness of Participant explains that “But if it’s within, like, the same—if vernacular dialect vernacular dialects can be everybody’s within the same vernacular depends on just as precise as dialect, then I don’t think standardized audience standardized English if the would make it any different. Then I don’t audience speaks the think articulating—articulating thoughts in vernacular dialect as well the standardized would be any different than doing it in their own dialect.”

Conformers/Non-Conformers

Code Description Example Association Participant draws a “It depends on the type of intelligence. I between SE and connection between mean, if you’re talking academics then academic speakers of standardized yeah, probably.” intelligence English and academic intelligence, assuming that standardized English speakers are typically intelligent Dialect does not Participant states that “I think a lot of people can speak in a lot of determine dialect, or the way ways and it doesn’t determine their intelligence someone speaks, is not intelligence level. It has to do with what associated with their

410 intelligence level, such as they’ve been taught. So, IQ doesn’t depend their IQ on how you speak.” Vernacular Participant shares an “Yeah, I have teammates who were not speakers can be example of an individual from a—I guess they didn’t—they code- intelligent who speaks a vernacular switch, but they don’t gravitate towards dialect and is also standardized English when they’re intelligent to counter the speaking socially and they’re much more assumption that speaking intelligent than I am. [laughs] They’re just standardized English capable of different things. Great at math or means that you are more science or just better people skills than me, intelligent than those who so I don’t think it has anything to do with do not their natural ability of intelligence.” Association Participant draws a “Like, it’s just, like, that type of, like, between SE and connection between stereotype that’s present in our classroom work ethic speakers of standardized that would make someone—an outsider English and work ethic, say, “Okay. The person who works—who assuming that standardized speaks standardized English is working English speakers typically harder than the person who’s speaking work hard Ebonics.” Because that’s true in that case. So, in my—I guess in my time teaching and, like, observing, that’s been more so the case than not.” Implication that Participant assumes that if “So I feel like if you’re at a point where speaking SE an individual can speak you can speak standardized English well, resulted from hard standardized English then then that’s because you, like—you’ve put work they have worked hard to in the work on the backend to learn about it do so in school (reading, and you—I mean, you learn that through writing, etc.); ignores fact doing, you learn that through writing, you that many individuals learn that through reading. Yeah, like, I feel grow up in homes that like strong readers are strong speakers and predominantly use you have to put in work to get to that standardized English point.” SE does not Participant states that “No. I mean, there's people who speak determine speaking standardized standardized English on all ends of the personality traits English is not associated spectrum. I wouldn't say language has with any personality traits anything to do with personality traits.” that these speakers might possess, such as being hard worker Association Participant assumes that a “I think we assume that this Latino over between vernacular speaker, such here’s gonna be cocky because we think of vernacular speaker as someone who speaks Latinos as, like, a loud, boisterous culture. and cockiness Latino English, is often So then, therefore, when a Latino male cocky were to, like, say something, he’s just like being really full of himself, then that’s where we get our stereotype from.”

411 Implicit bias in Participant recognizes that “I disagree. I think that comes with a lot of associating dialect associating the way an biases because, you know, anybody who with personality individual speaks with a speaks any kind of dialect can be cocky and traits personality trait is a result sometimes we can, you know, because of of our implicit biases our implicit bias, we can be like, ‘Oh, yeah. regarding the dialect They’re talking in this way so they’re spoken and the individual probably…’ And you have to, like, really herself learn to check that and be like, ‘No. Like, this is what I’m hearing. This is the way that I—this is the first place that my brain steps to, but I need to step back and, you know, think about this in a logical way. And just because they said it in this way doesn’t mean that they’re cocky.” So, yeah. I think that this has a lot to do with inherent bias against—against a dialect.” Expectation of Participant assumes that “I guess the only behavior issues that they frustration from students who speak a may have is frustration because they don’t vernacular- vernacular dialect may understand, maybe, something that’s going speaking students have behavior issues, such on.” as exhibiting frustration, due to their inability to understand the material in the course Speaking a Participant recognizes that “I think there’s—there’s children who have vernacular dialect speaking a vernacular behavioral issues, like, there’s a bigger— does not cause dialect does not cause a it’s not because of how they speak, it’s behavior issues student to have behavior about something else in their life and it’s issues and attributes these another aspect. If they also happen to speak issues to other factors, not a vernacular, then so be it. But I don’t think language use it’s the vernacular that drives the behavior issue.”

Promises/Threats

Code Description Example Speaking SE Participant claims that “So, I guess as a middle school teacher, I opens doors learning to speak would say that yes it--I would say it standardized English definitely does open doors for students. means that doors will open And I think that’s just because, I mean, we for students as speaking live in America--there is no one language, standardized English is an but because it’s what we speak now and expectation for success in that’s what they’re gonna be forced to use situations like interviews when they’re interviewing, at least I hope.” Speaking SE Participant asserts that “But we just have this idea that if we, like, lessens adversity learning to speak all try to, like, speak in the same dialect—

412 standardized English will the same type of language—then there’s lessen the adversity that no—like, it lessens adversity or it lessens students face differences.” Discrimination Participant acknowledges “Also, watching the documentary that Dr. exists outside of that there are other facets Ringer made, you know, it was talking a lot linguistic prejudice to discrimination beyond about how you could speak with language that students standardized English on the phone, but if, might face in the future you know—and that was helpful, but once people saw you there was still the implicit discrimination because of, you know, because of your race anyway. So, like, yes, it helps if you don’t talk black, but you’re still African American should somebody be racist.” Speaking SE does Participant recognizes that “I don’t think it ensures it but I think it not guarantee speaking standardized gives them more of an advantage.” opportunities English does not guarantee that students will be granted opportunities in the future solely based on their ability to speak standardized English Speaking SE Participant claims that “I think standardized English—since guarantees learning to speak everybody basically knows standardized acceptance standardized English English, even if they don’t always use it, I guarantees that students think that’s definitely a key to being will be accepted by those accepted. You’re definitely guaranteed, I outside of their own believe, to be accepted. If you know that or community if you speak it.” Speaking SE does Participant recognizes that “No. I mean, there’s plenty of people that not guarantee learning to speak speak standardized English who aren’t acceptance standardized English does accepted by people who speak standardized not guarantee that students English, so I don’t think—correlation, no will be accepted by those causation, I think.” outside of their own community Success on job Participant claims that the “I don’t think speaking a vernacular dialect market depends on ability to code-switch means that students will have trouble on the ability to code- increases students’ job market if—not saying, like, I totally switch chances of succeeding on support the idea, but, like, if you can code the job market by adhering switch. Because I think, like, playing off to what those in authority what we—what I’ve been saying earlier is want to hear that people like hearing speech the way they say it. And I feel like that sounds kind of, like, bad, but also, like, it’s true. So, I think if students don’t have, maybe, like,

413 the knowledge that this is just something people like, this is something people look for, then they’d have trouble seeking out a job.” Success on job Participant identifies “My uncle has done a lot of construction market when certain professions in stuff and I don’t think dialects really affect speaking a which she believes for that job market. I feel like that’s a really vernacular dialect which speaking a hard job. Like, a lot of the heavy labor jobs, depends on vernacular dialect would I don’t think dialects really matter because profession not be a problem, such as there’s so few people that are willing to put construction and mining, in that, like, extreme hard work that it and professions in which takes, like construction and mining. But, she believes require the like, I don’t know. Most hard labor jobs I use of standardized feel like dialects—and I feel bad, but, like, English, such as those that janitorial jobs. That’s not a bad job but it’s require a higher degree also kind of hard, gross work. And I don’t feel like dialects affect that job market either. So, kind of the ones that don’t necessarily need, like, a higher degree. To get a job there aren’t necessarily influenced by dialects.” Dialect more Participant identifies “I mean, people with vernacular dialects, likely to impede certain subjects in which like, it doesn’t matter what they speak as success in certain the use of a vernacular long as they can do the math problem on subjects dialect is less likely to the board. I mean, in English, that’s impede academic success, probably—English and social studies it’ll such as math and science, be more apparent that they speak a and subjects in which the vernacular dialect than something like math use of a vernacular dialect or science where it’s so concrete. Then is more likely to impede speaking the way that you speak doesn't academic success, English matter; it’s the way that you’re thinking and social studies about the concept. So, I guess, in math and science, this [points at statement] doesn’t have any weight. But in English and social studies, you at least need to—to know that standard that’s being taught.” Laments reality of Participant shares that “So, you know, unfortunately, I think it linguistic prejudice linguistic prejudice in [speaking a vernacular dialect]—it does in schools schools is a reality and make you have difficulties succeeding in leads to inevitable trouble school. I wish it didn’t.” for students who speak vernacular dialects, yet wishes the situation was not that way

Experiences

414 Code Description Example Linguistics Participant shares an “Some of the memorable things that I’ve Course: Positive experience within a experienced. Dr. Ringer, for one. I’ve never linguistics course in which thought about language at all really, you she was positively know? Except learning Spanish and I—it’s impacted by an activity, an not something that I really wanted to do. assignment, the professor, But, you know, it’s something that I did. or the content of the class, But being in Dr. Ringer’s class—that such that the experience experience just really overall made me shifted her away from the change the way I think. It changed a lot of SLI my teaching perspectives. Before I went into his class I was probably one of those teachers like, ‘No, you will speak correctly.’ And now it’s like, ‘But why?’ You know? Why would I force someone to not celebrate their own dialect? Part of their culture.” Linguistics Participant shares an “It was probably just your general Course: Neutral experience within a linguistics course. It was just basically—I linguistics course in which don’t remember, it was my freshman year. she was not consciously But it was just introducing you to the idea impacted by any activities, of language and that things could—just the any assignments, the way that language had evolved and how professor, or the content of things had changed and moved around. I the class, such that the remember doing the accent marks and experience did not affect having to learn those. I couldn’t tell you alignment with the SLI what they were now. But I just remember, like, language broken down in that way kind of turned me off of linguistics completely. But—but it was just very interesting. I think that’s the only first time that I was actually, like, learning about the language itself instead of using it to learn math or science or something.” Foreign Language: Participant shares an “I think it definitely impacts it ‘cause I can Positive experience with a foreign see that there’s different dialects of Spanish language in which she was too. It’s not just English, you know? If you positively impacted by the listen to someone like Enrique Iglesias interaction, such that the speak and then you listen to Shakira speak, experience shifted her it’s so different. So it makes it a wide open away from the SLI topic of it’s not just us, you know? It’s not just the U.S. It’s them. It’s everyone. It just made it kind of an international thing.” Foreign Language: Participant shares an “Spanish and French. And that’s just Neutral experience with a foreign because of high school. And remembering language in which she was Spanish and French from high school. And

415 not consciously impacted then having to utilize Spanish and French in by the interaction, such my job. But I haven’t taken any past senior that the experience did not year, so.” affect alignment with the SLI Diverse Participant shares an “I think as I got away from my hometown I Populations: experience with ethnically appreciated it [dialect diversity] more Positive and/or linguistically because I grew up in a very small mountain diverse populations in town. Like, youins was all anyone said and which she was positively there really—it was, like, white mountain impacted by the people. Like, there was really, like, no interaction, such that the Hispanic population. I think there were like experience shifted her two black people I knew my entire life away from the SLI growing up, so it was—like, all I heard was just, like, the same thing. And I think once I was able to move away from that, like, I just really do—I just think it’s so cool to get to interact with people who sound different, who speak different, who, therefore, like, think differently. And so I think the more I’ve gotten to experience it, the more I appreciate it.” Diverse Participant shares an “I guess anywhere in the South now, you Populations: experience with ethnically have a huge Hispanic population and that’s Negative and/or linguistically only because that’s the only, like, I guess diverse populations in dialect that I—I’m in contact with on a which she was negatively typical basis. If I lived in the city, it would impacted by the be different. But a lot of them do tend to be interaction, such that the cocky. They know what they want. And experience confirmed a they’re almost entitled when they talk—at SLI least in the setting that I’m in and the money business, I guess. And maybe it’s because we’re a company and I’m working with money and they’re—that’s just their way of, you know, communicating and doing business. But to me it’s very arrogant, very cocky, very superior. And I’m very quick to put that down. Really fast. [laughs] So it just depends, I guess.” Foreign Travel: Participant shares an “My family traveled to Spain probably, Positive experience traveling like, four or five years ago. And I think it’s abroad in which she was the most beautiful culture, the most positively impacted by the beautiful people, the most—I’m obsessed experience, such that the with it. And I think having the opportunity experience shifted her to go abroad—and I’ve also been to France away from the SLI and to Panama and to a couple other places.

416 I feel like it’s important and it’s also—I think it just makes you appreciate people more and it even more eradicates the idea that there should be, like, a standardized English because, like, yes, English is a growing language. Like, it’s prominent in many areas, but it’s not, like, the end-all- be-all. And I feel like people’s worth or people’s intelligence should not solely be based on this one language which, like, honestly doesn’t even sound that pretty compared to like, you know, multiple other languages. So, yeah.” Foreign Travel: Participant shares an “The last time I went—I’ve gone to Britain, Neutral experience traveling Romania. We stopped in Italy for a little abroad in which she was while and I’ve been to Panama and Mexico. not consciously impacted I don’t think I necessarily do it—I think by the experience, such most of the times I’ve done it is mission that the experience did not trips with my church, so every couple of affect alignment with the years I’ll kind of go out of the country SLI when I can save up money to go on one, so.” Foreign Travel: Participant shares an “But when I was six, we went to adopt my Negative experience traveling baby sister in China and that’s when I was abroad in which she was like, ‘I don’t like this. Like, it’s different. negatively impacted by the It’s unusual.’ I was in a foreign country. I experience, such that the was young. I had people talking at me. I experience confirmed a was with white parents, so they would SLI always, like, come and inquire. And I’m sure they were just asking about where you’re from, but it freaked me out because it was culture shock. ‘Cause they would get so close to me and I hate when people get close to me. And I would just—I would just be like, ‘Get away from me.’ And, like, just how their—the language and the culture and just the way they interacted with me turned me off of that culture for a while. Just as a child, like, not being exposed to that. So I guess that would be the first and only time I’ve ever experienced culture shock.” Education Participant shares an “I think that it’s pretty much come into my Courses: Positive experience within an head since coming to the College of education course in which Education. You know, I didn’t really think she was positively about these things a lot ‘cause I wanted to

417 impacted by an activity, an be a food science major in high school. assignment, the professor, [laughs] So, here I am. [laughs] We see or the content of the class, how that turned out. But, yeah. So, I think such that the experience since coming to the College of Education. I shifted her away from the mean, even as early as Charlie and Aaron SLI and then going from them to Professor Brown who’s just the best. Just, you know, the constant reinforcement of like, ‘Just because they speak or look or act in any way doesn’t mean any of them are above the other. They’re all just kids and what is on the outside…does not change the kid.’”