Deivis D. Pothin

First week back to school and I’m still going through that phase of getting to know the children in my class. Looking at some information about St Luke’s, I learned that about 33% of the children in the school speak English as an additional language, with 72% on the first three stages of fluency (according to Westminster’s guidelines). Not to mention those children who have already acquired oral fluency and native-like pronunciation / intonation but who give their linguistic background away when it comes down to writing.

These numbers reminded me of what Peter Trudgill wrote in one of his books. According to him, there are three different approaches to deal with children like the ones mentioned above or those who do not speak Standard English.

The first approach is the ‘elimination of nonstandard speech’. In this approach every attempt is made in the schools to prevent children from speaking their native nonstandard varieties. Standard English, on the other hand, is presented as ‘correct’ and ‘good’ – the model to be aimed at. Linguists believe this approach to be wrong for several reasons:
1. Firstly, it is wrong psychologically. Language is not simple a means of communicating messages but it is also very important as a symbol of identity and group membership. By infering that their language or nonstandard variety is inferior, we are saying that they are inferior.
2. Secondly, it is socially wrong. It may appear to imply that particular social groups are less valuable than others. This is particularly dangerous when the group stigmatized is that of lower-class black children and the one which is the model is that of white middle-class adult teachers.
3. Finally, this approach is practically wrong because it just does not work. The pressures of group identification and peer-group are very strong. Children do not grow up speaking like their parents, and they certainly will not grow up speaking like their teachers – their speech patterns are those of their friends.

The second approach is called ‘bidialectalism’ and has received intense support of linguists. This approach teaches that the individual has the right to continue using a nonstandard dialect at home, with friends and in certain circumstances at school. But it also advocates that children should be taught standard English as a school language, and as the language of reading and writing. By considering both varieties as different and distinct, children would hopefully develop the ability to switch from one variety to another when the situation demands.

The third and final approach suggested by Trudgill is called ‘appreciation of dialect differences’. This view states that if children suffer because of their nonstandard language, this is due to the attitudes that society, and perhaps teachers in particular, have towards language of this type. In this case, it is attitudes that should change and not the language. Children should be taught standard English but an effort should be made to change the society’s attitude, which in many cases, is utopian and unrealistic.

I personally believe that the bidialectalism approach is the most realistic and humane. Children not only need to have the structural knowledge of their language(s), but also the sociopragmatic skills necessary to use it (them) appropriately.