In 1974, the Conference on College Composition and Communication created their Students right to their own language (STROL) resolution, which stated that students have the right to” their own patterns and varieties of language — the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style.” (“Students Right To Their Own Language” 4). This resolution aims to allow students to practice their own familiar dialects in the classroom to curb the prejudice that comes with the teaching of Edited American English (EAE) as the solely acceptable English in the classroom. This would not allow students to be viewed differently for using a dialect that is not EAE in the classroom. In contrast to this resolution, some teachers and professors, such as Florida International University Professor Stanley Fish, who in his 2009 article “What Should Colleges Teach, part 3” outlines why he does not believe in the guidelines set by this conference. Fish argues that for students to be properly prepared to enter the world as it is today, they need to master the language that is preferred today (Fish, Para. 11). While Fish tries to escape the moral and ethical implications of his assertions by stating that the politics of teaching and the actual craft of teaching need to be considered separately, Fish still holds that, as a craft, English should be taught with tight sentence structure and strict rules (Fish, Para. 11). While Fish tries to cover up the political turmoil behind English education as a sort of background noise, in reality, the implications of not allowing students to learn in a dialect that suits them are quite harsh. As will be shown, there are strong political and social consequences that arise from English being taught this way. English should be taught with the cultural and regional backgrounds of students in mind because the idea of one standard English does not exist and the choice of using standard English is arbitrary. Secondly, teaching one standardized English gives an unfair advantage to those students whose primary dialect is standard English, and unnecessarily punishes students who do not speak that dialect. Finally, teaching EAE to students undermines the already powerful communication skills they possess.
English should be taught with the cultural and regional backgrounds of students in mind because EAE is an arbitrary measuring tool for students to be graded on and its history of relevance is based on unequal opportunity. Unlike other discourses, which their style, diction, and structure relate to their goal of communication; standard English does not follow this same idea. EAE is not standard in The United States because it has some inherent advantage over other dialects of English; instead, it has been deemed the standard after centuries of power struggle and enforcement by those who have the power to decide. STROL supports this claim, stating, “In a specific setting, because of historical and other factors, certain dialects may be endowed with more prestige than others. Such dialects are sometimes called “standard” or “consensus” dialects. These designations of prestige are not inherent in the dialect itself, but, are externally imposed, and the prestige of a dialect shifts as the power relationships of the speakers shift.” (Students Right to Their Own Language” 7) Fish argues that standard English should be taught because it is the language that currently grants power in The United States. He argues that we should not be teaching students a language that will not help them succeed in the world as it is today (Fish, Para. 11) Admittedly, Fish understands the origins of standard English, as he states “It may be true that the standard language is an instrument of power and a device for protecting the status quo”; however, Fish still holds that students should be taught it (Fish, Para. 12). Due to standard English’s already arbitrary beginnings, and the fact that it has no inherent advantages over any other dialect of English at communicating messages, it’s fair to assume that standard English itself does not have to be so rigid and can be inclusive of dialects that allow it to equally deliver messages.
Fish describes English as an instrument of power, however, who is making these decisions of its status? Often these decisions are based on the political history of a country. For example, in The United States, SRTOL states that our EAE originated from powerful New Englanders who set up some of the first schools in the country; due to this area remaining economically and politically powerful through the History of the United States, it is the language that has been turned into the “standard language” (“Students Right to Their Own Language” 7). While the origins of EAE come from the politics of powerful white settlers, the political motives of language can be seen in the history of other regions of the world, such as Puerto Rico. The history of how English is perceived in Puerto Rico shows how language is used as a tool. When Puerto Rico was first colonized by the United States, public schools set up by the United States taught English as the primary language of education. Political changes later in its history brought the change of Spanish being taught in schools as the language of education. As Mirta Maldonado-Valentin describes in her article, “An Exploration of the Effects of Language Policy in Education in a Contemporary Puerto Rican Society”, This was done as a way to keep a sense of “self” for Puerto Rico and a sense of pride (Maldonado-Valentin 7). To this day, the reasons why English is taught in certain schools and not others is purely political over ease of learning. Many schools, typically wealthier, are considered bilingual schools that teach both English and Spanish. Maldonado-Valentin describes in her article that these schools teach English for one of two reasons, to either give their students a leg up in a global market where English is a very valuable language or because their district is led by politicians whose goal is trying to join the United States as a state (Maldonado-Valentin 8). Both of these reasons for the teaching of English show its language capitol and how it is used because of its political importance. This idea is not so different from American Schools wanting to teach EAE because of its social capital, without understanding the cultural backgrounds of their students. Puerto Rico is a prime example of showing that history and politics has a real impact on how English is taught and valued.
Additionally, English should be taught with the cultural and regional backgrounds of students in mind because teaching one standard English gives an unfair advantage to students whose natural dialect is standard English. Due to EAE being the standard language of choice, any student whose natural dialect is EAE will easily excel past many of their fellow students who are trying to learn it. These other students may be just as intelligent and capable of effective communication as the naturally EAE speaking student; however, because they are being forced to learn and communicate in an unfamiliar dialect, they are less likely to succeed in these classes. A student who naturally communicates in EAE will therefore fexcel in school more than students who do not, which will give them advantages in finding colleges and jobs. SRTOL backs this claim by stating, “The result is that students who come from backgrounds where the prestigious variety of English is the normal medium of communication have built-in advantages that enable them to succeed, often in spite of and not because of, their schoolroom training in “grammar.” They sit at the head of the class, are accepted at “exclusive” schools, and are later rewarded with positions in the business and social world. Students whose nurture and experience give them a different dialect are usually denied these rewards.” (“Student’s Right to Their Own Language” 4). Fish attempts to mitigate the issue of students having to learn this new dialect as it simply being a matter of learning a new language. Fish suggests if a student addresses their right to their own language, teachers should, “reply, “Yes , you do, and I am not here to take that language from you; I’m here to teach you another one.” (Fish, Para. 13). While he plays this off like learning this new dialect is no big deal, the issue arises because the new language they are learning does not bear the same weight as a normal new language. This new language is the basis for how they are judged academically. How their intelligence is perceived is based solely on a dialect that they are not familiar with. It is not a matter of intelligence, it’s a matter of being able to be judged in a manner that is fitting of your background. For example, if you measured those same EAE students on their ability to perform using another language such as Spanish they probably also wouldn’t succeed.
Finally, English should be taught with the cultural and regional backgrounds of students in mind because more emphasis should be put into fostering effective communication rather than tight grammar rules. Fish recommends that English should be taught by focusing on making sure that his students understand the tight structural rules of the sentence. He bases his instruction on making sure that his students understand the structure and purposes of sentences and how they are used. As he notes, students can’t master the rest of writing and language if they never master the basics (Fish, Para. 15). While his style seemingly has good intentions, it once again does not take into account the multicultural backgrounds of his students. In general, the purpose of grammar is to set rules, in language, that help to ease the complexities of communication and make it more understandable. The goal of grammar is not to be an arbitrary rule to torture students, it is to make communication easier and more efficient. By teaching the proper grammar of EAE, you hope to make communication easier for those who use it. In the case of students whose natural dialect is not EAE, it is these same skills that need to be nurtured and developed; however, it does not make sense to teach them these rules in the same way. As STROL states, ” differences among dialects in a given language are always confined to a limited range of surface features that have no effect on what linguists call deep structure” (SRTOL 9). This quote shows that more emphasis should be put into teaching meaning as opposed to tight sentence structure. Instead of trying to make all students proficient in EAE to make them better communicators, it makes more sense to hone the communication skills that are common among all dialects that help all students be effective communicators.
In conclusion, the teaching of English needs to address and understand the importance of student’s cultural backgrounds when it is taught to students. While it is true that EAE is perceived as the current standard of English in America today, it is an injustice to marginalized groups to assume that their dialects are any less sophisticated, precise, or descriptive. It is an injustice to these groups because it unfairly punishes them based on a standard that celebrates coming from powerful beginnings and giving those in power an upper edge. While it may be true, as Fish states, that teaching English in this way is not preparing students to fight the exact power systems they are trying to change; however, raising a generation of students that is confident and proud of their home dialect will give futures generations more power to have the freedom to finally have the right to their own language (Fish, Para. 12)
Works Cited
Committee on CCCC Language Statement. “Students’ Right to Their Own Language.” College English, vol. 36, no. 6, 1975, pp. 709–726. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/374965. Accessed 18 Apr. 2020.
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3.” New York Times, 7 Sept. 2009, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-teach-part-3/.
Maldonado-Valentín, Mirta. “An Exploration of the Effects of Language Policy in Education in a Contemporary Puerto Rican Society.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 24, no. 79–85, Aug. 2016, pp. 1–20. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2453.
Dan's Blog 