Pedagogical Directions on Language Difference in the Classroom

In reading Lisa Delpit's chapter "What Should Teachers Do? Ebonics and Culturally Responsive Instruction," I returned to a topic that was one of my introductory exposures to linguistics, and the notion of affirming students' language seemed like a rather simple idea that only had the complexity of convincing others about the existence of prejudices that are widely accepted norms in pedagogy. After teaching composition for two years, which is not in my area, I find myself struggling in finding appropriate ways to talk to my students about linguistic performance without stereotyping groups of people typically associated with a language variety.

Delpit refers to Heath asking her students to observe language varieties through interviews and the media, which  appears to be a useful technique in introducing students to observing languages as they exist rather than simply prescribed. However, the result of this kind of analysis can fall under the expected problems in contrastive rhetoric, so with students receiving introductory knowledge regarding language varieties, this may not be the best method. The puppet show as an example of how some variations are more appropriate for certain genres is a better technique to bring linguistic differences to light, but can still carry prejudices. One of the issues regarding attributing varieties to genres is that the standard will mostly appear in genres that are interpreted as "important," "formal," and "serious" while some varieties may be associated with genres that are either dismissed or disliked because of the variety employed in them. The study of genres can reveal a lot about linguistic differences but can also reinforce many of the same misconceptions that linguists try to correct.

Seeing texts in school written in varieties from early grades seems to me like a necessary approach. It is difficult to suddenly convince students that the form in which education has delivered information to them has been extremely one sided. This is unlike questioning the approach to a specific topic that primary and secondary education takes, and asking students to consider an alternative view. Language is a tool through which the material itself is communicated, so to question the apparatus and to learn to be actively aware of its shortcomings is a wholly different process and goal. When Delpit points out that student competence is often misinterpreted because teachers sometimes do not distinguish between learning to read and learning a new language form, it brings to mind that school space or the general space of education are locations where speakers of other varieties are always catching up. Perhaps the necessary approach here is not always in teaching about varieties but presenting them, allowing them to exist in educational contexts.