Romaine makes it clear that our educational system needs vast improvement when it comes to teaching and accepting language. It is sad to read that the racial and ethnic problems that have plagued our country for so long are still far from being resolved. Personally, I was unaware of the extent to which language is used as a means of discrimination around the world. The only positive idea I was able to take away from the reading was that there is hope for change. So I think the most important question is how do we change things? To me, the best solution presented in the article was the “bridge” reader. It seemed to be an ideal middle ground between two of the arguments that were being made. There were two examples of letters in the New York Times in which the writers clamed that being exposed to strictly the foreign-majority language (in this case, Engligh) was ideal. One claimed “I am convinced a bilingual education would have impeded my integration into American society,” while the other wrote “The bilingual method is probably more confusing than helpful to many. Exposure to English throughout the day results in more rapid and more effective progress than dilution in a bilingual process.” These claims would lead us, at first, to believe that the bilingual approach is out of the question. Yet, what about the study on page 222 which indicated that the more non-standard speakers were corrected, the more they used non-standard language? Or the study in the inner city of Chicago that showed students taught entirely in standard English with no reference to their non-standard language resulted in an increase in usage of their non-standard language. Still, perhaps the best evidence for a middle ground is the success of the “bridge” readers. Clearly, a gradual shift from non-standard to standard language is the best approach. It is discouraging however that these readers were eventually eliminated because of negative reactions. How can this negative reaction to something that is so effective be countered? Perhaps requiring a class in the curriculum that teaches young children to understand language differences and to be accepting of those who speak differently would be the best solution. How else can we eliminate some of the negative labels on non-standard language?
Comments (1)
Pete, I agree with the fact that the bridge readers seemed to be one of the most effective ways of teaching standard language to non-standard speakers, as Romaine stated. I think this is the best method because of its gradual shift from one language to the other. I also like your idea about having a class to teach about the differences of languages in order to stop the negativity towards differnt languages. However, I feel that there may be no way to change the negative feelings toward language, and this idea of teaching kids the differences between languages may take too long. This way would have to wait for the kids to grow up, and that's beside the fact that these types of classes would even be effective. I think it is going to take someone that is willing to stick with a program and put up with all of the negativity surrounding non-standard language. If the publishers of these bridge books might have been able to stick with the program and prove that this method was effective then maybe they would have been able to change the negative thinking. They would have been able to show that this type of teaching did in fact help people transition from a non-standard language to a standard language. Isn't that the goal anyway of all of these people with negative feelings toward non-standard languages anyway?
Posted by Andy Fleming | March 7, 2008 1:05 AM
Posted on March 7, 2008 01:05