Outcomes of learning the Language of Power

It is important to teach children the language of power in a country because how else will they be able to move up in the country. In my own experience I have had friends that were not native English speakers and it was easy to see some of their personal struggles. One friend was working a fast food job that she hated, with a man who would harass her in her own language, but because she lacked English skills she had trouble reporting it to management. Even after living in Oregon for 8 years she is unable to get a different job because of her communication skills. On the other hand I have another friend who was rigorously training in English after her immigration and she has gone to college, held several jobs in many fields and is becoming a successful young women. Both of these women are kind and intelligent people. The difference between them is their grasp of the language of power.

The Difficulties of Teaching Acceptance Only

Almost all members (and future members) of the "culture of power" have been raised during a time when the problems addressed in Delpit's article run rampant. This means that they have experienced this way of thinking in the home as well as in school. In order for the universal teaching of acceptance to work, that attitude must be held by those the students live with as well as those the students study with. Unfortunately, this means it's hard for me to believe that the simple process of teaching everyone acceptance will work. The opinions and attitudes of everyone need to change together, not separately. It's possible that some students, being "typical" rebellious teenagers, would embrace this new way of thinking wholeheartedly. However, there's no guarantee that it would work for every student. Only a combination of teaching the language of power and acceptance of those who "make mistakes" or, if attitudes are positive, simply speak differently, will work, and even then it must be implemented properly (a discussion many others have admirably addressed).

Implementing Explicit Instruction

While I think "The Silenced Dialogue" is a very interesting article, I find the lack of implementation strategies problematic. I agree with Delpit that there is a language of power and that everyone should have access to it, but I'm not sure how we can achieve this goal. Diversity is something that we value in this country, which I think is a good thing, but unfortunately the very things that make us unique also make it difficult to standardize teaching methods. How can teachers effectively instruct their students when there are so many different racial, ethnic, economic, and educational backgrounds in one classroom? It would be quite difficult for a teacher to be authoritarian enough for some students while simultaneously avoiding being characterized as "mean" by others. One possible way to teach all students the language of power is to separate the students into different groups. When I was in elementary school, all of the fifth-graders were divided into four groups based upon their mathematical abilities. There were four fifth-grade teachers, and each teacher took responsibility for one group of students; everyday during class we would get into our groups for a short period of time for our math lessons and then return to our normal classroom when we had finished. Perhaps something similar could be used to teach the language of power to all students. On another note, I wanted to ask what you guys think the language of power is in America. Obviously it is standard English, but is there an accepted dialect or accent? For example, is a Southern drawl outside the language of power? What about the Northeastern accent? I am even told that there is a West Coast accent (there was an article about this in The Oregonian last year) that separates us from the rest of the country. Is there a national language of power or is it simply a regional thing?

Acceptance and the Language of Power

Unfortunately, many people are not open to differences. In an idyllic world, teaching acceptance for everyone, regardless of appearance, culture, language or grammar would work and there would be no need to teach minority children how to speak the language of power or even have a language of power. But this is not an either/or situation. Both acceptance and the language of power need to be taught. The use of many different languages and grammars could hinder communication and understanding between people. As a result, a standard language is beneficial to a society. People can then communicate with those from other backgrounds and be able to understand and work together. The essential key to this is that ALL children must be taught the standard language and that’s where teaching minority children the “language of power” is necessary. But a standard language is not enough. Acceptance is also crucial because it helps people to not judge a person based on “errors” or differences but instead see the positive qualities of other individuals. When schools teach both acceptance and the language of power, children of all backgrounds will have a better ability to survive and thrive in the world.

Critique of Scholarly Theory

This is a combination of my own topic and prompt #3. I have pretty much no beef with the ideas behind the argument. It's convincing and I agree with most of it. My problem is the concept of some uppity academic with a Ph.D. telling the public school system how it needs to fix this problem or that. In the first suggestion she mentions textbooks and curriculum. Yes, the people who create these tools have power to present their point of the world to others. But most schools don't really have a choice in these areas. Or they don't have the money to change them even if they wanted to. Many textbooks are so old that they aren't even relevant anymore and there's no money to replace them. Curriculum can't be changed just because a teacher wants it to. Usually they have to get permission from their principal, who has to consult with the district about it (and then there's some stupid bureaucratic process that you have to go through and most teachers don't have the time to do it and adds even more stress an already high stress job) I realize that she teaches in the university realm and has probably faced money issues, but I've never seen or heard of universities having such issues as basic functionalities of the physical school due to lack of funding (I'm sure there's examples out there, but I doubt it's as bad as other public schools. And when was the last time you heard of people donating hundred of thousands of dollars to an elementary school like some people like to do with universities?). Sure, she has probably been through the public school system and has experienced first hand problems at public schools. And theory can be useful. I just really have a problem with someone who has never taught in a primary or secondary public school telling others how schools should be run (I am assuming that she wants her theory to be implemented as young an age as possible, since logically, in my head, that makes the most sense). Like I said, good ideas, but where the hell does she think the money is going to come from to change this?!? I don't think it's possible to address this complex of a problem with so little money and more pressing issues like building maintenance and having enough chairs for enough students and having rats falling out of ceilings (like at my old high school) and paper budget issues and dysfunctional kids that throw chairs at other students and have two alcoholic parents that are divorced and... I could go on, but need I say more?

Prompts for Delpit

Your assignment is to respond to one of the following questions related to Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” Aim for about 100-150 words, and post it to your team blog. Please follow the following guidelines:
1. Identify your entry with a title that suggests the content.
2. Single space. You may respond to other people’s posts through the comment feature.

You may also read the blogs of the other groups by going to: http://writingcommonsone.blogspot.com/ http://writingcommonstwo.blogspot.com/ etc. through http://writingcommonssix.blogspot.com/ You can add a comment to other blogs by using the comment feature. You can only post to your own blog.

Questions (choose one):
1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit’s article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?
2. One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.
3. For one of Delpit’s specific proposals (refer to the article), discuss the challenges of implementation. How could these challenges be addressed?
4. Your own topic.

The two types of grammar

I thought the discussion of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar was interesting. I knew the view of grammar had slowly been changing, but I'd never had it laid out for me in a text before - especially not one on the subject. It's nice to know that grammar textbook authors exist who are okay with the idea of deviating from the rigid standards set up years ago. And I definitely agree with Marilyn about how language shouldn't confine us. How else could we express ourselves if words couldn't be used to their fullest potential?

And my question: considering the changing perspective on grammar (especially compared to the 1600s), how do you think "school" grammar might evolve from where it stands today?

Correct Grammar

Being correct in grammar has always been a priority in my family, especially my mother. Only her and her younger sister were the ones that graduated from college. So to me, this is important to learn. I’m going to agree with Drew in the fact that being grammatically correct is foreign. For example, "To whom this may concern" I wouldn’t say that, but it is correct. So, for me the issue is in language and what we call "correct" and "incorrect" grammar. My question is, when was it considered "incorrect" grammar when it is clear that language is a never ending cycle of evolution?

Descriptive Grammar

As a student, I have always thought grammar to be a set way of speaking with rules and regulations that dictate the "correct" way to speak and write. I did not think that there could be many ways of speaking/writing, with their own grammar, that would all be correct. The most interesting ideas presented in Chapters 1 and 2 were the approach of descriptive grammar in language education and the issues of correctness. Just like accents from different regions, we all have ways of speaking that seem out of place when not in their relevant situation. Language shouldn't confine us but rather act as a method to be used any way we choose to convey our ideas and feelings to the fullest extent.

Out of curiosity, if you could change or add a rule to traditional or "school" grammar, what would it be?
For example, I would want to be able to say "willn't" instead of "won't" and make other such contractions out of different words.

Correctness of Grammar

I think the issue of correctness in grammar is an interesting one. It seems alien to me that "Henry brung his mother some flowers" could be grammatically correct, but perhaps this only shows my own personal bias. I think that this preferred usage of words has, and probably will continue to be an issue in language. It is also interesting to wonder where else in language this problem manifests itself. What other common "mistakes" are only grammatical snobbery?

Standardization

The impression I got from the beginning of chapter one was that the writers of our textbook seemed to be kind of negative about strict standards for grammar. While they made distinctions between different types of grammar, the language they used to describe the traditional grammar (in what we think of as the "correct" way of writing/speaking) was largely (in my opinion) negative. But I think a flip side to being negative about standardization is that there could be a sense of gratefulness that it does exist. Language was such a mess in the medieval period (at least to read today) because there was no standardization. I think it's good that we have something standard to fall back on (and I am in no way one of those grammar policemen who interrupt people in conversation to correct their grammar) but it's also nice that we have the flexibility for different types of grammar that allows our language to morph as time goes on.

So my question is, do you think it's necessary to have a standard set of rules for language or not?

Welcome to Writing Commons Two

Welcome to Writing Commons Two, your group grammar blog. Your first assignment is to identify something in the first two chapters of Kolln that interests you and share your thoughts with your group. Also, please pose a question related to your post to which other students might respond.

You are also welcome to use the blog to converse with your group members about the course content and assignments, get help, clarify things you don’t understand.

Enjoy!
vtb