DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 178 859 CS 005 062

AUTHOR Zimet, Sara Gccdman TITLE Dispelling Myths and Examining Strategies in Teaching Non-Standard Speakers to Bead. PUB DATE Jul 78 NOTE 22p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the United Kingdom Reading Association (Northampton, England, July 1978)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Rlus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Black Achievement; *Black ; Culturally Disadvantaged; Elementary Education; *Language Attitudes; Language Experience Apprcach; Language Research; Language Usage; *Nonstandard Cialects; *Reading Instructicn; Social Dialects; Sociolinguistics; *Standard Spoken Usage; Teaching Methods

ABSTRACT To dispel the myths of linguistic deficiency among nonstandard English dialect speakers, evidence that repudiatesthese myths should be examined. These myths include suggestions that nonstandard dialects are ungrammatical and cannot be used to form concepts, and that speakers of such dialects receive little verbal stimulation as children. The result of this language impoverishment is thought to be poor performance in academic, social, andeconomic life. Research evidence repudiates these myths by indicatingthat in less formal testing situations and in natural surroundings, the monosyllabic speakers of formal test situations are actually verbally product.lve people. Linguists have noted that nonstandard English dialects are highly coherent, logical, and structured. Poor aCademic performance cannot be caused by the nonstandard dialect alone. Positive instructional techniques include recognizing cl.ialect renditions of oral reading as high level acts of comprehension, utilizing the language experience approach as a bridge between the two dialects, and overcoming negative attitudes towardnonstandard dialects. (MKM)

***********************v*********************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDPS are the best tnat can be made from the original document *************************************4********************************* U.S. DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH. EDUCATION a WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO. DUCED EXACILY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN. ATING IT POINTS OF ViEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE. SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF Dispelling Myths and Examining Strategies in EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS * Teaching Non-Standard Dialect Speakers to Read MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED 9Y Sara Goodman Zimet Sara Goodman Zimet

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

It is the purpose of this paper to dispel the myths

of linguistic deficiency among non- dialect

speakers, and to examine the strstegies that have proven to be effectivein teaching them to read.

The recognition of the communication problems that

exist bctween speakers of different English dialects was

astutely summed up by Winston Churchill when he stated that

Americans and Britains are separated by a common language.

What Churchill did not go on to say is perhaps even more important, that many Britains and Americars believe that

American Standard English (ASE)is a sloppy, sub-standard

form of English Standard English (ESE). rding to the

evidence of linguists, however, both English dialects are rule governed, predictable, with regularities and exceptions,

and with the capability of expressing any experience common

within the two countries. In fact, both represent an effective basis for communication and conceptualzation and both are

equally liable to poor, good, better, and best use. What is true for ASE and ESE also holds true for all

other dialects. Nevertheless, within the U.S. there is also ni a dialect heirarchy (Shuy and Williams, 1973). Among the 9

Paper presented at the United Kingdon Reading Assoeiatimi ri)nferellee. in1y, 1978, NCH(' Cmllege, Nrthamptml, England. -2- spokenby white educated, ESE is atthe top, the at the bottomand many other and non-whitepoverty groups are in-between. non-standard dialectsfall somewhere of standardforms of This belief inthe superiority from the theoryof racial English is possiblya carry-over through thefirst few decades inferiority whichprevailed up reemergenceof a of the presentcentury. With the recent explanation for thehigh incidenceof racial inferiority groups, a counter academic failure amongeconomically depressed of psychologistsand educators. movement wasbegun by a group deprivation in its They advancedthe theory ofenvironmental disadvantaged andexperi- place, and suchterms asculturally However, thisview of environ- entially deprived, werecoined. be almost asharmful in its mental immutabilityhas proven to determined unModifia- effects as thetheory ofbiologically of the environmentaldeprivation theory bility. For it was out linguistic deficiencygrew. that the mythsof verbal and their components In an effortto dispelthese myths, evidence repudiatingthem will be will bedescribed and the these myths aremaintained in presented. The various ways particular willbe society at largeand in theschoolroom in literature whichexamines various identified, andfinally, the to non-standarddialect speakers approaches toteaching reading

will bereviewed.

3 The Myths Exactly what are the mythsof verbal and linguistic deficiency? Myth Number 1. People of the lowerclasses, both non- white and white, have nolegitimate language at all. What little speech they use isfilled with grammatical errors and incomplete sentences. Myth Nmber 2. People of the lowerclasses, both non- white and white, do notknow the names of'commonobjects, cannot form conceptsand do not use language to conveylogical

thoughts. In fact, their speechis primarily a form of emotional expression. It is primitive, simple,and child- like, not merely a sub-standardversion of ASE but rather the expression of theprimitive mentality of the savagemind.

Myth Number 3. People o the lower classes, both non-

white and white, receivelittle verbal stimulation aschildren

and hear very littlewell-formed language throughoutp.heir

daily lives within theirghettocommunikes. In effect, lanauage

as a means ofcommunication and interactionis not used or valued.

Myth Number 4. The end result of thislanguage impoverish-

ment is poor p.arformancein all academic areas inthe school

and social an ,E..conomic failure in thecommunity at large. What is the scientificevidence that repudiates these

myths? These myths are based onlimited observations and interviews between an adultand child in formal andthreatening situations occurring in theclassroom or while the childis -4- being tested. The children are in asituation whete anything they say can literally beheld against them. The primary response to thisevaluative and judgmental situationis the inhibition of verbalization sometimesreferred to as disfluence.

However, when the interview or testsituation is changed -- made more like a party by includingthe child's best friend,

providing snack food, reducing theheight difference between

the adult interviewer andchild, and introducing topics of conversation that are of genuineinterest to the child, the monosyllabic speakers of Myth NumberI are transformed into

verbally productive people withincreased volume and

who have so much to say thatthey keep interrupting one

another (Labov, 1972a). Thus, a warning signal issounded

for all educators. They must recognize that whatthe child

says may reflect howhe or she thinks, but whatthe child does not say does not reflectthat she or he is not thinking,

or is thinking poorly oris not able to think at all(Anas-

tasiow, 1971) ,all components of Myth Number2. From the above discussionit would appear that thesocial

situation is the most powerfuldeterminant of verbal behavior

for these children. If adults wish to find out whatchildren

can do with language,then they must enter into theright kind of social relationship withthem (Labov, 1972a). People who conclude that the grammarof non-standard

dialect spakers is filledwith errors, as stated inMyth

Number 1, do not themselvesunderstand the rules of grammar -5. and are not familiar with thelinguistic structure of dia- lects. For example, in the case ofthe expression, "theymine", in Black American , theabsence of the present copula and the conjoining of subjectand predicate complementwithout a verb, is notevidence of a child-like,primitive grammar and the absence of logic. Rather, it is a legitimate gram- matical structure, and one which occursin the standara form of languages such as Russian,Hungarian and Arabic (Labov,1972a). The fact of the matteris all linguists are in agreement that non-standard Englishdialects are highly coherent,logical, and sturctured language systemswhich vary to some extent from each other and from ASEin grammar and vocabulary. These differences are not deficiencies. All dialects are equal to one another. The differences between them maybe great enough to iwpede communicationbut not prevent it (Goodman,1973). Dialect differences emerge amongpeople separated byhistory, geography, social class, age,and interests. For example, in England one findsdialects from the West Country,Scotland,

London, Birmingham,Liverpool and from the WestIndian and

Asia communities. In the U.S. there aredistinct urban and rural speech communities made upof Hispanos, Native American

Indians, Blacks, Appalachians,Pennsyivania Dutch, and Texans,

to name just a few. No communication problemsexist within

these dialect communitiesin either England or America. In

effect, these dialectvariations are perfectlyvalid alter- natives to ESE and ASE andshould not be demeaned,dismissed

or destroyed. -6-

William Labov, a well-known linguist in the U.S. and field investigator of Non- use, debunks

Myths Numbers 2 and 3. He reports that black poverty children in ghetto areas are "bathed in verbal stimulation from morning to night...(with) many speech events which depend upon the competitive exhibition of verbal skills...(events) in which the individual gains status through his use of language"

(1972a, p. 62). An example of such an activity may be found in different black communities throughout the U.S. under the various names of 'Sounding', 'Signifying', or 'Playing the

Dozens'. This activity requires strict adherence to rules of ritual insults and includes a whole of rhyming couplets. It is essentially a contest of verbal skill and quickness of thought, and is subject to active audience ap- proval for replies which are fast, colorful and appropriate, and disapproval for those that are not (Labov, 1972b). The play-party game, a folk song-dance combination, is part of the rich oral language tradition of the Appalachian whites.

The rhyming verse described in Borstal Boy by Brenden Beham, may be an equivalent example of the skillful useof language by a non-standard dialect speaking group in England. Not only is there evidence of high verbal production and valuing of verbal behavior, but there is also evidence of the high level cognitive skills required in these activities but completely ignored by Myth Number 2. .7-

In summing up what has been said so far in Labov's words, it appears that,

The 'concept of verbal (and linguistic)

deprivation has no basis in social reality;

in fact, black children in urban ghettos

receive a great deal of verbal stimulation,

hear more well-formed sentences than middle- class children, and participate fully in a

highly verbal culture; they have the same

basic vocabulary, possess the same capacity for conceptual learning, and use the same

logic as anyone else who learns to speak and

understand English (Labov, 1972a, pp. 59-60)

What appears to be true of urban blacks is also said to hold true for other non-white and white non-standard dialect spea- kers (Goodman, 1973). How, then, can the conclusion stated in Myth Number 4 be justified: that educational, economic and social failure is due to the so-called language impoverishment of the lower- class, different dialect-speaking child? It has been established that in the U.S., segregated ethnic groups perform more poorly in school than any other group (Johnson, 1975) . The equivalent may also be true in

England as well. By tracing the educational failure of the child to his or her personal characteristics--specifically to the language he or she uses--the focus of responsibility -8- for this failure is taken awayfrom the schoni and placed on the 'deficient'child, the 'deficient'family, and the

'deficient' community. Since, according to thelinguists, there is no reason tobelieve that the languageis deficient then there is no reason tobelieve that 'any non-standard vernacular is in itself anobstacle to learning. Using this

line of logic, it is notfeasible to hold to theposition

that the standard languageis the only medium inwhich teaching

and learning can takeplace. This is nct to say that everyone should not have the rightto learn the standardlanguage and

culture in reading andwriting and speaking. What is being said

is that this acquisitionshould be the end resultof the educa- tional process, not thebeginning of it.

The Powers that Perpetuate

In attempting toidentify those issues in oursociety

and in the schoolcurriculum which help toperpetuate the

myths of verbal andlinguistic inferiority, it mayhelp to review the role of astandard language. A standard language

serves severalimportant purposes: (1)It helps to unite

a diverse goupunder one flag; (2) It helps to facilitate cohesive the socialization process; (3) It helps to create a community of people byincreasing the opportunityfor communi-

cation between them;and (4) It helps tofacilitate commerce. Since all languagessuch as English, are, infact, a deter- family of related dialects(Goodman, 1973), who, then, prevail in commerce, mines which languageand/or dialect shall .9- education, and the mass media?It is a decision made by the most powerful andprestigeous in a country. In effect, it

is a political decision. For example, during thereign of Phillip XII of Spain, everyone wasexpected to speak with a

lisp as the King did. This same pronuciationprevails today. In Great Britain, ESEis still sometimes referred to

as the King's orQueen's English. In colonized African coun-

tries, it was the victor, notthe majority who determined which language would be the'norm'. In the new, emerging

African nations, dialect decisions arestill being made by

the most powerful. The powerful and therich of society determinewhat is acceptable and standard in allaspects of social behavior.

The enforcement of thatdecision may be by direct or more

subtle means of pressure,involving political, economic and

social consequences asrewards or punishment. What inevitably appears tohappen in competitive,class- oriented societies, is a processof social stratificationwith

the powerful and rich atthe top--the 'good'people who speak

the 'best' language--andthe poor and powerless atthe bottom--

the 'bad' people whospeak the 'worst' languageand who are

culturally disadvantaged,deprived and deficient. The degree

that a person's speechdiffers from the standard onewill determine his or her placein the dominant society'sheirarchy.

In effect, dialects varyin the social prestigewhich

they carry and thisvariation is a reflectionof the social

I -10- status of the people who usethem. Low status people speak low status language andhigh status people speakhigh status language because that is thestatus the general societyassigns upward to all aspects oftheir culture. Those who struggle for social mobility must ridthemselves of the stigmatizinglower- class dialect as a basicfirst step in that climb. This, then, is the prevailingattitude which pervades ad- our society. Many of oureducators--school teachers and ministrators--just like the restof the population--havein- ternalized this social-classvalue system. It should be of no surprise,therefore, to learn thatresearch in the U.S. has indicated that teachers'attitudes toward minority group members and towardnon-standard dialects aregenerally nega- tive (Guskin, 1968; Labov,1965; Coates, 1972; Blodgettand

Cooper, 1973; Ford,1974; Crowl and MacGinitie,1974). For example, in astudy of teachers'perception of domi-

nant and minority groupmembers (Coates, 1972;Zimet and Zimet, 1978) teachers did notattribute any attractive per-

sonality characteristics tominority group members incontrast

to the manyattractive characteristicsthey had applied to of to members of thedominant culture. In further support

the negative viewsheld by society, theteachers reported expectations very lowachievement expectationsand very high Teachers also have been for hostile andrebellious behaviors. reported to reactnegatively toward studentswho speak a dif-

ferent dialect than thestandard one, even thoseteachers -11- In fact oneresear- who had beendialect speakersthemselves. used formswhich they cher foundthat teachersunconsciously speech of others(Labov, 1965). themselvesstigmatized in the speaking students wererated as For example,Black English delinquent, lessintelligent and lower-class,belligerent, than StandardEnglish speaking less able to dowell academically identical in content students, when thework evaluated was Crowl andMacGinitie, (Blodgett and Cooper,1973; Ford, 1974;

1974). in curriculum This samenegative attitudeis reflected non-standardEnglish in the decisions whichforbid the use of to be seenin classroom.. It isnot to bespoken; it is not it (13es notand should print; for allintents and purposes, U.S ma-±or effort ofeducation in the not exist. In fact, the English usage andto force has been toeliminate non-standard linguistic systemother than children intoperforming in a development ofbilingual pro- their primary one. (The recent The absence grams is aneffort to changethat convention.) however, alsoreinforces of multiethniccurriculum materials and rejecting thechild's language the schools'attitude of culture (Zimet,1976). this all-pervasive The educationalramifications of it influenceseducator' negative atcitudeis twofold: (1) and (2) it forms expectations, assessmentsand interventions; thir indiviudals viewthemselves and the basis ofhow these

culture. -12- justified becauseit This policy ofexclusion has been intervention in thesocio-cultural is believed thatsuch an ready for the development of the poorwill make them more economic advantagesof the middle majority cultureand all the desired effects,these efforts class. Instead ofproducing the between thesechildren and the have incraasedthe distance distrust and adislike for schoolexperi- school. There is a ignored theirculture. There is enceswhich havedemeaned and takes note ofthe low self- little to wonderabout when one these children. esteem and thehigh drop-outrate among why the goalof economic oppor- One doeswonder, however, of a multicultural tunity for all mustcarry withit the price should be designedto serve amulticultural society. The school full participationin society and to preparechildren for

that society. is a form ofsocial Linguists tell usthat language with a people's behavior and wehave nobusiness interfering community (McDavid,1969). social relationshipto their own helps to preserveone's life, "One uses thelanguage which in the worldFAnd which which helps tomake one feel at peace chaos" (Creswell,1965, screens outthe greatestamount of of a people'slife--their language p. 71). Rejecting that part possessions--hasserious psycho- and one oftheir mostintimate should not bedealt withlightly. logicalramifications that people to breakout of tnecycle Any programaimed at helping lingAstically andhumanly sound. of povertyshould be both s..

-13-

Teaching Strategies As far back as1953, the UnitedNations Educational, made the following Social and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO)

recommendations: medium for teach- It is axiomaticthat the best ; ing a child ishis mother tongue. Psycho-

logically, itIs the system ofmeaningful signs * for ex- that in his mindworks automatically

pression andunderstanding. Sociologically the it is a means ofidentification among members of thecommunity to whichhe belongs. Educationally, he learnsmore quicklythrough

it than through anunfamiliar medium.

patterns of .language The way to teachnew forms or to build uponthem is not to eliminatethe old forms but school's goal shouldbe (Creswell, 1965). In effect, the however, has been bidialectalism. Becoming bedialectal, The recognized as moredifficult thanbecoming btlingual. related dialectssuch as interference betweentwo closely completely non-standard and ASEis far greaterthan between two human beings donot hear different languages. We know that Their senses are or see everysound or sight inthe world. only what theyhave highly selectiveand they hear and see primary language. learned in theprotess ofacquiring their do not existin theirdialect, If certaingrammatical concepts of the soundsegments that it is likelythat they are unaware -14-

signify these concepts. People, therefore, must be trained

intensively to hear the significant sound segments in a word, particularly those representing grammatical concepts so that

they might penetrate their consciousness (Lin, 1965). This might be done by an inductive technique in which pupils compare

their own speech patterns with the patterns of the standard

language then isolate the differences, and practice the use of these patterns as a part of 'role playiDg' in a second

language--not as a replacement of their first language.

Although correctly speaking and writinc, in another dia- lect is very difficult, it would appear that most urban dwellers are 7.1,1e to understand the speech of a person who does not speak their particular dialect. In fact, several studies have dem ,nstrated that when children who speak non-standard

English read ASE and vice versa, they code shift (AMes, Rosen, and Olson, 1971; Rosen and Ames, 1972; Weber, 1973; Hall and

Turner, 1974; Kachuck, 1975; Lamberg and McCaleb, 1977). In other words, they translate the material into its equivalent in their own dialect. Children who change the sentence to conform to their language are demonstrating an active intel- ligence (Anastasiow, 1971). It would appear, then, that the so-called errors in oral reading comprehension tests are not errors at all but instead a dialect-shift, demonstrating in

fact, a high level of comprehension. Thus, teachers are a- lerted to modify their scoring procecures when using formal and informal oral reading measures. In order for toachers -15- to make these judgments,it has been recommended that they know their pupil's dialect (Barberand Beatty, 1978).

A '..fery strong case has beenmade for using the Language Experence Approach in teachingdialect speaking children to read (Hildreth, 1965; Hall,1965; Serwer, 1969; Stockler,

1911). This method builds upon the useof reading materials created by writing down children'sspoken language. It ac- cepts and recognizes thatwhat children have to say and how they say it is important. Not only is this approachconsistent with the UNESCO recommendations, butit fits in with what we know about th =.process of learning toread. Before children can read, they need tolearn that their speech sounds canbe represented by print and the printthey are asked to read is meaningful to them (Anastasiow,1971). It should also be kept in mind that words children usein their own speech are easier for them to read in print than wordsthey do not use (Hi1dreth,

1965). Since the myths of linguisticdeficiency and inferiority have been debunked, it is apparentthat the elements for success in learning to read are present. These children possess a rich oral languagetradit.ion and are linguistically active within their own communities.

In keeping with thisapproach, Baratz (1969) found very strong evidence for the useof curriculum materialswritten in Black English. Some attempts have beenmade to study the effectiveness of readingtexts produced by themajor publishing companies that werewritten in the dialect of the -16- children using them. But these books met with a great deal of community resistaace and had to be withdrawn (Harber and

Beatty, 1978). In recognizing the negative attitudes toward dialects, it is predictable that such a reaction would occur without appropriate communication with parents and other sig- nificant members of the communities in which they were intro- duced. The alternative, that uf preparing dialect renderings of conventionalmaterigls, might also meet with resistance unless efforts were made beforehand to educate and prepare the community. Then it might be possible to involve community members as well as the children in preparing these materials.

Not only is it necessar,' to educate everyone abOut the validity of dialects, but is is also important to capitalize on the strengths that exist in these children. Educatois need to start them at their current level of ability, respect them and their language, apply teaching strategies that are appropriate to the situation, and make realistic expectations of the children. Changes in the children will not be immediate however should educators be disposed to make these major curriculum adjustments. Time may be needed for the child's and parent's distrust of school experiences to be overcome before any appreciable changes will come about. Conclusion The myths of racial inferiority and linguistic defi- ciency have been dispelled. There are some useful guidelines to follow in teaching child_en whose language is different -17- from the standard. What is needed is the will to overcome our own negative attitudes towards non-standard English dia- lects and apply what is already knownso that children will no longer be the victims of our biases. References

Ames, W.S., Rosen, C.L., and Olson,A.V. The effects of non-standard dialect in the oralreading behavior of

fourth grade Black children. In C. Braun (Ed.), Language,

reading, and the communication process. Newark, Delaware:

International Reading Association,1971.

Anastasiow, N. Oral language: Expression ofthought. Newark,

Delaware: International Reading Association,1971.

Baratz, J.C. Teaching reading in an urban Negroschool system. In J.C. Baratz and R.W.Shuy (Eds.), Teaching Blackchil-

dren to read. Newark, Delaware: International Reading

Association, 1969. Blodgett, E.G. and Cooper, E.B. Attitudes of elementary teachers toward Black dialect. Journal of Communication

Disorders, 1969, 6, 121-133.

Coate..T, B. White adult behavior towardBlack and White

children. Child Development, 1972, 43,143-154.

Creswell, T.J. The twenty billion dollarmisunderstanding.

In R.W. Shuy (Ed.),Social dialects and languagelearning. Champaign, Illinois: NationalCouncil of Teachers of

English, 1965. Crowl, T.K. and MacGinitie, W.H. The influence of student's speech characteristics onteacher's evaluations of oral

answers. :Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1974, 66,

304-308.

7 9 -19-

Ford, J.F. Languaae E:ttitudestudies: A review of selected

research. Florida FL Reporter, 1974,Spring/Fall, 53-51,

100.

Goodman, K. Up-tight ain't right. In Issues in Children's Books. New York: R.R. Bowker Co., 1973_

Guskin, J. Negro dialect: Effect on teacher'sperception of ability and personality.Unpublished paper, Univer-

sity of Michigan, Lansing,Michigan, 1968. approach for the cul- Hall, M.A. The language_experience

turalLEdisadiantiaged. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1965.

Hall, V.C. and Turner,R.R. The validity of the'different

language explanation'for poor scholasticperformance

by Black students. Review of EducationalResearch,

1974, 44, 69-81. English Harber, J.R. and Beatty,J.N. Reading and the Black

speaking child: An annotatedbibliography. Newark,

Delaware: International ReadingAssociation, 1978. Hildreth, G. Linguisticfactors in early readinginstruction.

The Reading Teacher,1965, 18, 172-178. Johnson, S.S. Update oneducation. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission ofthe States, 1975. children. Kachuck, B.L. Dialect in the languageof inner-city Elementary School Journal,1975, 76, 105-112. English. Labov, W. Stages in theacquisition of standard In R.W. Shuy (Ed.) Social dialects andlan ua e learning.

Champaign, Illinois: National Council ofTeachers of

English, 1965. -20-

Labov, W. Academic ignorance and Black intelligence. The Atlantic Monthly, 1972a, 228, 59-67.

Labov, W. Rules for ritual insults. In D. Sudnow (Ed.)

Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free

Press, 1972b.

Lamberg, W.J. and McCaleb, J.L. Performance by prospective teachers in distinguishing dialect features and miscues

unrelated to dialect. Journal of Readins, 1977, 20,

581-584.

Lin, S.C. Pattern practice in a freshman English program. In R. W. Shuy (Ed.), Social dialects and language learning. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of

English, 1975.

McDavid, R.I. Social dialects: Cause or symptoms of social

maladjustment. In R.W. Shuy (Ed.), Social dialects and

language learning. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1969.

Rosen, C.L. and Ames, W.S. Influence of non-standard dialect on the oral reading behavior of fourth gradeBlack chil-

dren under two stimuli conditions. In J.A. Figurel

(Ed.). Better reading in urban schools. Newark, Dela-

ware:lInternational Reading Association, 1972.

Serwer, B.L. Linguistic support for a method of teaching beginning reading to Black children. Reading Research

Quarterly, 1969, 4, 449-467.

Shuy, R. and Williams, F.Stereotyped attitudes of selected

English dialect communities. In R.W. Shuy and R.W.

Fasold (Eds.), Languagz attitutdes:Current trends and -21-

prospects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1973.

Stockier, D.S. Responses to the language experience approach

by Black, culturally different, inner-city studentsex- periencing reading disability in grades five and eleven.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Universtiy,

Bloomington, Indiana, 1971.

Weber, R. Dialect differences in oral reading: An analysis

of err.)rs. In J.L. Laffey and R. Shuy (Eds.), Language

differences: Do they interfere?Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1973.

Zimet, C.N. and Zimet, S.G. Educators view people: Ethnic group stereotyping. Journal of Community Psychology,

1978, 6: 189-193.

Zimet, S.G. Print and Prejudice. London: Hodder and Stoughton,

1976.