Code Switching and Grammar Rants--Oh My!

Response to Readings

Travis Dalsis

English 530

Eastern Michigan University

Dr. Baker

A Blog Response to “Code-switching: Tools of Language and Culture Transform the Dialectally Diverse Classroom” and “Analyzing Grammar Rants: An Alternative to Traditional Grammar Instruction”

            What is correct and acceptable is subject to change.  This main point stands out among both works and the ideas shared on grammar, language discourse, and other socio-cultural complexities.  The two works are arguing against a value-based method of judging English and instead proposing a new perspective on English as a fluid language with many dialects.

            I will confess that I’m often conflicted on whether or not to respectfully view a form of non-standard English when it’s being used.  “Where did they stuff go?”  “What is you talkin’ bout?”  These two generalized examples of non-standard English were often spoken in the hallways and classrooms of two schools I’ve taught at over the past four years.  Both classrooms were full of bright minds and enthusiastic attitudes.  But I’m disappointed to say that, as a part realist, I felt that if I didn’t evaluate those kinds of statements, and attempt to remedy them, that I was doing a disservice to my students.  My actions were linked, not to a feeling of superiority over my students, but a deep desire to see them successfully master the right way to speak and write English.  Both articles relate how bias and prejudice towards other dialects dramatically impacts our acceptance of others’ speech and written communication.

            One statement made in the “Code-switching…” article was that English language arts classrooms should move from a “mono-dialectical/cultural” classroom to a “multi-dialectal/cultural” classroom.  I have reservations on whether or not we should embrace any and all dialects and call them Standard.  The challenge is to hold a cultural dialect up as a way to help students appreciate their own identities and backgrounds, but what about the ever pressing need to actually teach what our society expects?  This is still a struggle for me.  I cannot in good faith believe that anything goes and yet KNOW that one day will come when a young person will be demeaned because she or he never fully embraced a form of Standard English to the point where he or she can compose “properly.”  Overall, this idea of focusing on dialect appreciation should be a separate issue from actually teaching what is normatively called Standard English.

Doug's Response to Code-Switching and Grammar Rants

One of the dilemmas for teachers is to field questions on how to guide students to begin (if they haven't already done so) to speak or write in "standard" English. Most people claim to know what that is, what it sounds like, and what it looks like. (Some schools--I talked to teachers in one in California--teach students about social registers.) Of course, teachers presumably know how to create curriculum that will lead students to learn to speak and write well and correctly. What I like about Wheeler and Swords' approach is that they suggest helping students to contrast different diction for different situations. As Mitra says, teachers do not always show students the complexities of "standard" English, especially when a writer elects not to use "it." So Mitra is suggesting that teachers should contextualize the approach.

The contrastive analysis approach links well with Lindblom and Dunn's grammar rants. Think about rants that you have when you hear particular constructions or words and let's talk about those. As Holly points out, Lindblom and Dunn's approach also encourages students to contrastively analyze grammar, etc.

Holly's response for Codeswitching and Grammar Rants

I really enjoyed both the Codeswitching article and the Grammar Rants article.  When I was working as a peer tutor in a writing center during my undergrad career, I worked with several Deaf students and many ESL students.  One of the strategies that I used with them was to try to make correlations between languages (something I obviously did better with the Deaf students than the ESL students).  It was interesting to watch the students begin to understand a concept.  In Deaf education there is a model called Bi-Bi (Bi-lingual -- Bi-cultural).  The Bi-Bi method works towards using the Deaf culture and language to teach English. This is essentially the same concept as presented in the codeswitching except with language variations instead of two different languages.

As I was reading the article one of the questions I had before I had even finished the article was if there is a way to start with the culture that the linguistic choices come from and then move toward what is considered standard English.  I think Rachel did a wonderful job translating culture into classroom and working with her students and the language cultures they come from. I also thought it was interesting how Rachel had the students do the work of comparing the two language variations.  The students observations were thought provoking.  I thought it was interesting that for such young children they really did seem to have a frame of reference to understand the language variations.

I thought the premise for "Grammar Rants" was interesting.  I know that I have a few grammar rants of my own and I thought it was interesting how the students were taught to analyze the rants and infer from them what a person's impression of them might be.  The way the students were also taught to analyze the speech of the people around them was interesting.  I think that this could perhaps be a good way to increase the students' observation skills and I wonder if this has happen because the students are being asked to be more observant.

Overall, I enjoyed the thought of having the students do the research and making the connections between the common language variations and what some of the common grammar/usage misuses are. I think getting the students involved could be very beneficial to the students and I would be possibly interested in seeing what other benefits the students might receive from being involved in the process of learning.

Mitra's Response to "Codeswitching: Tools of Language and Culture..."

"Codeswitching" and "contrastive analysis" were big buzz words when I was first studying English education. They seem to be widely accepted approaches to English language instruction today. Rachel's approach is consistent with the way I was taught to instruct speakers of AAEV and other nonstandard varieties of English. I also used these tools to teach students using what we called "instant messenger" language ( LOL, U, R, etc...) in inappropriate contexts.

However, Rachel linked formal language/Standard English to writing and informal language/AAEV and other varieties of English to speaking. The exception was when she encouraged her students to codeswitch when writing in the voice of a character speaking in a story.

It seems to me that Rachel was sending the message to her students that all writing (except dialogue) must be formal and follow the patterns of standard English. I believe that this would impede student writing in the same way that some researchers believe it "hampers language-minority children in reading standard English" (p. 472). The distinction between writing and reading as formal and informal should not be taught as rule. Variety choice should be determined by the purpose and audience of the language, written or spoken.

It is frustrating to me that the discussion of lower test scores for students who speak a variety other than standard English, in this article and in the conversation in general, fails to comment on the inherent problems of the test, rather than problems with the language. Teachers are accused of having "dialect prejudice" but very little mention is made of test bias. If we are to use "even-handedness" between varieties of English, shouldn't a test reflect that instruction.

Lastly, this article quoted an article written in 1996 stating that "the longer African American inner city kids stay in school, the worse they do" (p. 472). I wonder if this is still true today.