Home » 2020 Fall

2020 Fall

Session 1: 10/1/20

Reading: Introduction Chapter and Chapter 1 (pg. 1-23)

Topics: Are you part of the conversation? –  Language Ideology – Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Grammar

Report: We had a general discussion of Standard Language Ideology, Language Myths and The Language Subordination process (based on Lippi-Green (2012) English with an Accent. Topics of discussion included examining some examples of language variation, whether to correct language, how to approach students who have negative views about their own languages, how language can be used as a gate to keep people out, and how best to incorporate discussion of language variation in the classroom. We agreed that overt discussion of dialects, particularly how they developed and the power dynamics involved in acceptance of dialects, could empower students to have better feelings about their own language use. Finally, we shared a few personal examples of when work language and neighborhood languages collided, causing awkward moments (when usually separate language codes were used in unexpected contexts).

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Session 2: 10/22/20

Reading: Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 (pg.24-52)

Topics: Language Variation, Identity and Education – Should we keep “Undervalued English” out of the classroom?

Report: We began by discussing the ideology of monolingualism in the US. As noted in the text, this is a cultural feature of the US, not a universal feature of cultures. We also discussed different types of bilingual education (additive, transitional, etc.) and noted the different goals for each of these – some are additive, others subtractive. We noted that transitional pedagogies are often subtractive, but that in NYC schools have moved away from subtractive pedagogies. We also reviewed the terminology used by linguists and by educators when discussing code-switching, and noted that educators & linguists don’t always use the same terms for the same thing.

The topic of “Translanguaging” was brought up, and we discussed how it might relate to code-switching and code-meshing. There was some interest in hearing more about translanguaging, and so we plan to look more closely into this as the semester goes on. There seems to be overlap, so it will be interesting to look at any similarities and differences. We also discussed some of the methods of teaching “Standard English” that were summarized in the text, spending a bit more time discussing the interruption method (not so good) and Dialect Awareness programs (more promising). This spurred a discussion of correction in speech and in written work, and the feeling of many that we need to teach the standard dialect to protect our students (this is a common tension that we will return to). With some background gained in learning about language inequities in the classroom, there was a general desire to see how we can apply some ideas in the classroom. Looking forward, Chapters 4 & 5 will give more motivation in favor of a code-meshing approach over a code-switching approach.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Session 3: 11/12/20

Reading: Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 (pg.55-75)

Topics: Code-Switching vs. Code-Meshing – Linguistic Double Consciousness

Report: We began by discussing how the readings thus far have made us think not only about how the power dynamics of language are at play between instructors and students, but also in language choices made by faculty members who speak varieties of undervalued English. Some faculty members may be wary of using features of their undervalued varieties when dealing with colleagues for fear of negative reactions. The tentacles of Standard Language Ideology reach far outside of the classroom (both faculty and students burdened with issues of Linguistic Double Consciousness). However, we also discussed how using these same undervalued varieties in the classroom can help to make connections with students. We also discussed President Obama’s deftness as a code-mesher, making connections with different audiences by using different language forms.

We also grappled with the questions of teaching “Standard English” to students. Many feel a responsibility to prepare their students for “the real world” by teaching this variety. There is a tension between preparing students to be successful within what can be seen as a racist system (separate but unequal acceptance of undervalued varieties), as opposed to preparing students for what seems to be an expanding concept of English, both in the US and globally. Young et al. make some strong arguments in favor of the latter, but the tension is still there. We did seem to come to a consensus that bringing discussions of race and racism into the classroom, raising awareness of language and power dynamics, would serve our students well.

Finally, we discussed how teaching of different genres of writing are important, and a suggestion was made that giving students writing assignments in different genres can be a useful strategy. Along the same lines, we discussed the importance of learning the writing styles of different academic fields, and wondered how we could apply ideas of code-meshing while still teaching these styles. We also acknowledged that these specific writing styles may also be gate keeping some students out.

We had some excellent discussions surrounding Chapter 4 so we didn’t have a chance to go too far in Chapter 5. We may return to this next time.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Session 4: 12/3/20

Reading: Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 (pg.76-93)

Topics: Code-Meshing in Politics, in The Media, and in the Classroom

Report: In our final session of the semester we discussed examples of code-meshing outside of the classroom by politicians, people in the media, academics and members of the general public. We spent a little time talking about “slang,” which often doesn’t last vs. structural differences between dialects. We also talked about how code-meshing can be brought into the classroom through discussion of real world examples of code-meshing with students, as well as the importance of dialect awareness. The view from the chapters we went over is of English as a more welcoming, expansive language as opposed to a narrow view that only allows for one English to be acceptable. We also noted examples from the book showing that use of “nonstandard” language is often seen as fine when used by speakers of the powered class, while at the same time seen as unacceptable for native speakers of the dialect.

We also discussed looking at practical ways to implement code-meshing in the classroom, including asking the question of what grading of papers might look like, and how big an issue it might be if the dialects of the students are unfamiliar to the instructor. This semester we’ve mostly covered the motivation for code-meshing. In future meetings we hope to discuss the issue of implementation more. Finally, we reviewed the argument from the book that despite the difficulty of convincing people that all languages are equal, the alternative is acquiescence to an existing segregationist system.

Overall it was a productive and enjoyable semester, and we hope to continue the conversation in the spring semester!

___________________________________________________________________________________