African-American English

One common theme of the papers by Smitherman (1992 & 1994), Cooks and Ball (2008), and Godley, Carpenter, and Werner (2007) is the need to find some way to use the bidialectalism of African American students as a tool in the acquisition of Standard American English rather than think of it as a negative that needs to be overcome. Learning a second dialect could be considered like learning a second language. Learning a second language does not need to harm the knowledge or use of the first language; rather, knowledge gained regarding one language can actually contribute to achievement in both. Both languages, however, need to be seen as “correct,” just different ways of expression, perhaps suitable for attaining different goals or for use in different contexts. In the same way, the dialect of African American students could contribute to their understanding of Standard American English without either dialect being seen as “correct.”

Godley, Carpenter, and Werner, however, clearly identify the language ideologies reflected in current school standards, tests, curriculum, and classroom discourse positing Standard English as “correct,” more grammatical and educated, and more legitimate. Cooks and Ball also address the undertones of racism in assessment, curriculum, and instructional methods which assume that achievement and privilege are associated with Standard English as opposed to African American Vernacular English. Awareness of these existing language ideologies is an important first step in challenging them.

Smitherman’s findings indicate that African American students used less Black English Vernacular when using a familiar form of writing such as the imaginative narrative. This suggests that if the writing form is familiar, more effort can be focused instead on using a less familiar dialect. Similarly, when African American students wrote using familiar African American discourse styles (field dependency), they received higher scores on assessments. Using what these students know and are familiar with (personal narrative form) in order to take them to a higher level of ability at using what they are not familiar with makes sense as a teaching strategy.

In addition, Godley, Carpenter, and Werner’s findings support a more dialogic approach to teaching grammar. Communication and explanation are emphasized, as well as collaboration among students and the opportunity for students to position themselves as knowledgeable contributors to the learning process. This reminds me of a suggestion Paolo Freire (1998) to have students and teacher alike observe the behaviors and language of each other in order to analyze, understand, and respect differences. Giving the students the space to be experts demonstrates a respect for the literacy that they practice outside of school, it helps them to see how they can build upon their familiar literacy practices in order to reach greater understanding and ability of the unfamiliar, and it dispels the suggestion that somehow they are inferior because of their primary dialect.

The readings for this week fit in so well with the Freire reading I had to do for another class last week that I can’t help but tie them all together with a quote by Freire: “only as learners recognize themselves democratically and see that their right to say ‘I be’ is respected will they become able to learn the dominant grammatical reasons why they should say ‘I am’” (1998, p. 49).