Bi-dialectulism, a theory Trudgill explains, takes the stance that all dialects are equal and they should be taught as so in schools. With a range of dialects Trudgill states that children will become stronger language users.
Berstein (Trudgill 1975), a linguist from the early sixties, developed ideas that he called restricted and elaborated codes of speech. He said that working class families spoke with restricted codes and educated people spoke with a more formal elaborated codes. This suggests that children form working class backgrounds are at a language disadvantage, which many linguistics reject. Some popular misconceptions of his ideas are that regional dialects are restricted codes but this is not the case. Berstein is clear that regional and Standard English dialect users can switch codes without changing dialect. Although Berstein implied that children with restricted codes were at a disadvantage and we should consider this when teaching, they were not related to dialect. So teaching children to speak Standard English over regional dialect was no advantage. This needs elaboration in the following essay.
We are talking about teaching children to use language effectively and by teaching them Standard English we do this best. However there are certain linguistic features and rules to be followed when using Standard English. As competent language users we constantly break these rules of language and play around with it for effect (Crystal 1990 p.105) do we teach children not to do this? This is very difficult to do if we have previous kept to the prescriptive wrongs and rights of language.
Another issue to be discussed is Language change. The English Language has developed and changed throughout history. First we used a variety of languages from different invaders and now have eventually settled with Modern English. This is a huge topic, which I cannot possibly cover in this essay, but the key point is that our language has constantly changed and will continue to change. This occurs much faster through speech and is difficult to plot out, as it is so varied and rapid. With dialects such as Estuary English: ‘a variety of modified regional speech’ (Rosewarne1994 p.3) becoming common place what do we teach children. Do we teach them a traditional English which was Standard when our generation went to school? Or do we try to look at the bigger ever-changing picture?
The changes in language are often created through social environments and situations as regional dialects are getting closer together all the time. Advanced users of spoken English will modify their speech for different situations and with whom they are speaking to. This accommodation is almost an unconscious act which, participants do in a conversation. Some people converge (move together) and others diverge (move apart) to make a conversation work.
‘People unconsciously vary their speech as they go through the day, depending on whom they are addressing, the formality of the occasion, and so on. There is a strong tendency for people to express their identity by emphasising features of their accent or dialect which convey where they are from’ (Crystal 1990 p.255)
In order to do this, children need to have access to Standard English as well as regional dialects.
People are aware of the way they speak and therefore make mistakes with the choice of language they use. When a person speaks they have a choice of register to make. They change their language according to: their audience (the tenor), the conventions of speech (mode), and the context they are in (the field). Sometimes people over emphasise their dialect or accent to compensate in order to raise their status. This process is called overt prestige. A simpler process occurs when someone uses a more regional form of dialect to fit in. This process is called covert prestige. Children also have an innate desire to conform with the speakers around them. They feel they need to conform to the ‘family rules’; this concerns language in a social and developmental sense. As a child gets older their role models change and so does their use of language. They learn to code-switch very early on. The choice of register is very important for this skill and in communication generally.
Modern society has a major influential impact on a child, world-wide media being a large part of this. English is now a world used language and although today we are looking at English Standard English there is a popular world standard English which in many people use:
‘In the sixteenth century, there were under 5 million English speakers in the world – in the late twentieth century, there are 300 – 400 million first-language speakers and probably 1.5 million English speakers world wide. English is spoken in all five continents and is the recognised language of trade and international affairs.’ (Thorne 1997)
So children with English as a first language already have a tool for international communication. With such a wide usage it is not surprising that there are prejudices about it. People have many different perceptions of people gained through the way in which they speak. Children can pick this up very quickly.
‘The continuing prejudices against non- standard accents operate more forcefully against certain accents than against others’ (Honey 1989 p.37)
When researching for this essay there was constant reference to ‘educated’ speakers using Standard English. This reference in itself implies that Standard English is seen as above regional dialects.
Accents are not only regional but they can also be: social, popular culture, generational or occupational. Received Pronunciation is a social accent, which doesn’t originate from any particular region and has a very high prestige and social standing (Honey 1989). It is now only used by a handful of English speakers.
‘That prestige is associated with certain groups which thereby become the subject of imitation by others.’ (Honey 1989 p.16)
Prejudice is a common occurrence, and as teachers we hold the power and responsibility to influence children in the future. For example, in a job interview people are at an advantage if they can use the correct register and speak in an educated manner. We cannot do this by refusing to teach Standard English this would just put our pupils at a disadvantage. However to give them power from ‘the inside out’ so they are aware of the false prejudices, how they came about and not to hold them in the future once they are competent users of language. Although things won’t change over night ‘school is a good place to start’ (Trudgill 1975 p.70) this is the case with accent RP is now ridiculed rather than respected.
‘If they did make radical changes in the way they spoke, their friends and family would feel that this was disloyal, unnatural and probably ridiculous’ (Trudgill 1975 p.66)
This links back to the family issues I described earlier and how children need to fit in.
I feel that it is important here to explain through personal experience. When I went home after being in university I forgot to change my register and used the word genre, I forgot who I was talking with and got teased for days about using ‘posh’ words which would be totally accepted at Uni. It was important for me to fit in with the particular social group. We all have the need to fit in, as teachers we have the responsibility of ensuring that children have the tools to fit in as they go through life however we do not want to crush their regional identity:
‘We want our language both to express our identity and to allow us to communicate intelligibly.’(Crystal 2000 p.6)
We have looked at how linguists see the given statement and we have looked at the social issues involved. In order to discuss how children are taught at school it is necessary to look at the educational issues surrounding speaking ‘properly’.
Before considering which dialect to teach children we must consider how children learn to speak, for this is an amazing and unique type of learning. Firstly to look at behaviourists view of gaining language. They see language as a verbal behaviour and all behaviour is learnt. Therefore through imitation and reinforcement of behaviour children learn language. This non-direct teaching which avoids the need for lessons in speaking:
‘Imitation of parental speech is an important component of learning language’ (Garton 1989 p.15)
Children also work out language for themselves. The statement given suggests that children learn to speak ‘properly’ in school but they have extensive language knowledge before they come to school:
‘Children produce novel linguistic constructions, never heard or used by adults, and still receive approval or reinforcement for their speech from their parents’ (Garton 1989 p.15)
Another view of children’s learning is from nativists (Chomsky) who are interested in the acquisition of language. Nativists argue that there is a difference in children having the rules of grammar (competence) and which rules they chose to use (performance):
‘Competence was equated with knowledge of the rules of grammar, while performance was the output actually produced.’(Garton 1989 p.19)
They say that children do not have competence first then performance but quite the opposite:
‘Traditionally competence is derived from performance’ (Garton 1989 p.19)
So with these methods of learning we, as teachers, need to see what is required to teach the children. Standard English is mentioned from the very beginning of the National Curriculum. Regional dialects are not mentioned until Ks2:
‘how language varies …between standard and dialect forms’(NC 2000)
Even then the emphasis is on difference, which leads to the prejudice mentioned earlier. In KS1 pupils are required to ‘speak clearly, fluently and confidently to different people’ (NC 2000) for most children in fact this is easier in their original accent and dialect. Therefore the emphasis on Standard English seems unreasonable, in KS2 this is extended. The National Curriculum also requires teachers to introduce children ‘to some of the main features of spoken Standard English and taught to use them’ (NC 2000) as I mentioned earlier ‘taught’ is never defined.
Although the NLS is not a legal requirement the government and Ofstead recommend it. Children will enter into school with their own dialect and accent established from their families. As teachers we are expected to respect the children including the language they use. The NLS recognises that children have their own variety of language and that we must teach children standard English along side this.
‘Standard English: to communicate effectively in a large range of situations – written and oral – language users need access to standard English as well as their own dialect, and other varieties, so they can select the most appropriate register’. (NLS p.88 Glossary of terms used in the framework).
In the NLS it actually states ‘ avoidance of non-standard dialect words’ (NLS p.44) why should we avoid non-standard forms when such emphasis is put on the teaching of Standard English? It could be argued that in school it would not be possible to cover all non-standard dialect words so some classification is necessary. But do we ‘correct’ children when they use these words in speech?
Earlier I discussed Berstein’s idea of working class families speaking in restricted codes and middle class teaching staff use elaborated codes. This then gives middle class children an advantage in learning language. This leads to teachers trying to over compensate for the children’s lack of language without respecting and appreciating their own language. It also assumes that ‘the reasons for educational disadvantage were rooted at home’ (Wells 1985 p.16) More resent research shows that children’s language develops the same regardless of their home background. So when discussing whether children should be taught to speech properly we must not assume that children from certain backgrounds are any weaker users of language.
NLS is aimed at helping children with English as an additional language because the whole class sessions give helpful adult models of spoken English.(NLS P.106) – what are helpful models? When children are faced with people from with other accents are they not going to be confused?
‘It is important that home language of bilingual children is seen by them to be valued and respected’ (Wells, 1985 p.16)
In discussion of my statement, ‘children should be taught didactically to speak spoken Standard English when they come to school’. I have looked at different theories but in relation to teaching my own opinion has to be valid. Personally I don’t think children should be didactically taught Standard English. I believe that they do need to know how to use a the English language to their advantage and learn to manipulate it by creating a comfortable learning environment. I believe children should be able to pick up the use of spoken Standard English through adult examples and through the use of role-play and drama.
I agree with many theorists who say that every child should have the tool of powerful Standard English. However I feel regional and family identities should be respected and cherished. Under no circumstances should a child be corrected when using a dialect form, such as using the double negative, but should be gently introduced to an alternative.
This discussion has made me realise that previously when teaching I have been very aware of speaking ’properly’. I think that I have probably used overt prestige in order to set a good example for the children in my class, however Trudgill (1975) suggests that this could cause a social gap between the children and myself. He says that a good relationship with the child would limit this feeling of isolation often caused by power based relationships. I am all to aware of how I use language and tone of voice in the class, it is a very powerful tool and simply by using a particular tone teachers can have a huge impact on children.
The bi-dialectulism approach suggested by Trudgill (1975) which acknowledges both standard and non-standard dialects and teaches children when to use both seems to be the ideal compromise. As there is no linguistic or educational reason to teach Standard English above regional dialects there are social disadvantages (Trudgill 1975). Therefore, as Crystal states:
‘we do our students a disservice if they leave our care unprepared for the brave new linguistic world which awaits them’ (Crystal 2000 p.6)
Bibliography
Dfee (2000) National Curriculum. London: Dfee
Crystal, D (1990) The English language. London: Penguin
Crystal, D (1996) The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Crystal, D (2000) Emerging Englishes. English teaching professional. Issue 14 p.3-6.
Garton, A and Pratt, C (1989) Learning to be literate. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Honey, J (1989) Does accent matter. London: Faber and Faber.
Palmer, JA (2001) 50 major educational thinkers. London: Routledge
Rosewarne, D (1994) Estuary English: tomorrows RP? English today 37, vol 10, no 1 (Jan 1994) Cambridge university press.
Thorne, S (1997) Mastering English language A’level: Macmillan
Trudgill, P (1975) Accent, dialect and the school. London: Edward Arnold
Wells (1985) Language and social context in O’Hagan, M & Smith, M (1998) Special issues in child care. London: Bailliere Tindall.
