DOCUMENT RESUME ED 178 859 CS 005 062 AUTHOR Zimet, Sara Gccdman TITLE Dispelling Myths and Examining Strategies in Teaching Non-Standard Dialect 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 Dialects; 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-standard English 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- vernaculars 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 style 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 Vernacular, 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