In the Difference vs. Deficit heading, Romaine states that it was argued that children of low-income families did not have a language becuase they didn't speak the same as middle-class children. How is it possible to not have a language? She presented an example of the elaborative way to speak (used by middle class) and the restricted way(used by low class). But neither ways that are presented are how anyone really speaks. We don't explain every single detail when talking, but we also use enough to in order to ensure that our listeners understand. So why is one way necessarily better than the other? Especially enough for some to say that the low class lacks a language altogether?
Comments (1)
Of course the children from lower income families had a language. If a person uses words to convey meaning according to a set of rules (though what those rules actually are matters not), then the he/she has a language. If the child didn't have a language, his/her parents would probably be alarmed long before their child entered school, as most children begin speaking by the age of 3 (according to Altmann). The issue is that the rules and vocabularies between the teacher and student differ. Since since the teacher is assuming there is only one way to correctly speak English, then he/she can't detect that the child's way of speaking has any rules at all and is therefor not a language. Simply put, if only one language is logical, then everything else by definition is illogical.
Posted by Tamara Belden | March 7, 2008 5:56 PM
Posted on March 7, 2008 17:56