Vernaculars in the Classroom

Paradoxes, Pedagogy, Possibilities

Shondel Nero, Dohra Ahmad

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135073626
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Curricula

This book draws on applied linguistics and literary studies to offer concrete means of engaging with vernacular language and literature in secondary and college classrooms. The authors embrace a language-as-resource orientation, countering the popular narrative of vernaculars as problems in schools. The book is divided into two parts, with the first half of the book providing linguistic and pedagogical background, and the second half offering literary case studies for teaching. Part I examines the historical and continued devaluing of vernaculars in schools, incorporating clear, usable explanations of relevant theories. This section also outlines the central myths and paradoxes surrounding vernacular languages and literatures, includes productive ways for teachers to address those myths and paradoxes, and explores challenges and possibilities for vernacular language pedagogy.

In Part II, the authors provide pedagogical case studies using literary texts written in vernacular Englishes from around the world. Each chapter examines a vernacular-related topic, and concludes with discussion questions and writing assignments; an appendix contains the poems and short stories discussed, and other teaching resources. The book provides a model of interdisciplinary inquiry that can be beneficial to scholars and practitioners in composition, literature, and applied linguistics, as well as students of all linguistic backgrounds.

Part I

Vernacular Englishes

Crossroads of Linguistics and Literature

1 Introduction

Do you speak English?

Old English, middle, a dialect, pure.

Well, do you speak English?

You know, I’m not sure!

(Yellow Submarine [Motion Picture], 1968)

We are a linguist and a scholar of literature, both raised in linguistically mixed households. One of us grew up in Guyana influenced by a mother with the vernacular gift of gab and a father who primarily spoke British colonial English; the other grew up in New York City with two generations of grammar-correcting public school teachers, and an Indian-born father who reveled in the speech patterns of South Asia. We met in 2006 and realized that our shared interest in, and respect for, vernacular expression united our experiences and our academic disciplines. At that linguistic crossroad, this collaborative project was born.

Language is central to the educational experience. It is both the medium of instruction, and the principal means through which ideas are engaged, knowledge is constructed, and learning is evaluated in a classroom. Thus, a critical examination of the ways in which language (both oral and written) operates in the classroom can yield great insight into teaching and learning. For historical and ideological reasons, language in school has been mostly assumed to mean standardized forms of language use, thereby framing vernacular forms of language as outside of the realm of academic knowledge construction, and therefore a “problem” in the learning process—characterized by Ruiz (1988) as a “language-as-problem” orientation. This book attempts to counter that narrative. We begin from the premise that vernacular language and literature are worthy of critical engagement in the classroom. We believe that vernacular language and literature can tell us much about the dynamic and variable nature of language; about its diversity, its richness, its representative and performative powers; about the inextricable link between language and identity; and ultimately about alternative ways of seeing and knowing. In this book, we therefore embrace what Ruiz terms a “language-as-resource” orientation, that is to say, we propose the use and study of vernacular Englishes in knowledge construction within school settings.

Historically, the question of where vernacular language fits in education has been primarily addressed in the field of applied linguistics, and several studies have focused on this issue (Adger, Wolfram, & Christian, 2007; Canagarajah, 2006; Craig, 2006a; Farr, Seloni, & Song, 2010; Gilyard, 2011; Horner, Lu, & Matsuda, 2010; Hudley & Mallinson, 2011; Kells, 1999; Kleifgen & Bond, 2009; Labov, 1995; Leung, Harris, & Rampton, 1997; Nero, 2006; Ramanathan, 2005a; Rickford, 2002; Sharifian, 2009; Smitherman, 2000; Wheeler & Swords, 2006). Vernacular literature, on the other hand, is a topic typically addressed by literary studies (Ahmad, 2007; Ch’ien, 2004; Jones, 1999; Taavitsainen, Melchers, & Pahta, 1999). Yet, though seldom explored in depth, the linkages between the two topics are obvious and compelling, providing fertile ground for research and informed pedagogy. Composition, literature, and education instructors can all benefit enormously from understanding how dialects operate, and from incorporating vernacular literature into their curricula. Therefore, our aim in this book—informed by the basic sociolinguistic principle of respect for all varieties of human languages—is to investigate the productive uses to which vernacular language and literature can be put in secondary and university classrooms. In so doing, we also hope to provide a model for an interdisciplinary inquiry that bridges the fields of applied linguistics and literary studies which can be beneficial to scholars, classroom practitioners, and most of all, students of all linguistic backgrounds.

DEFINING THE TERMS: VERNACULAR ENGLISHES AND VERNACULAR LITERATURE

In this book, we use The Oxford English Dictionary (1993) definition of vernacular, which states, “using the native language or dialect of a country or district” or “spoken as a mother tongue by the people of a particular country or district” (p. 1066). This book is centrally concerned with engaging vernacular Englishes, by which we mean the varieties of English spoken as a mother tongue or a second language in the U.S. and around the world that are typically not sanctioned by the academy. By validating and deepening understanding of these language varieties themselves within and beyond the educational arena, and exploring their use in literature, we believe that students, teachers, and scholars of language and literature can begin to constructively draw on the universality of vernaculars as a guide to understanding more about the nature of language, identity, and human experience, and as a resource for knowledge construction.

The definition of vernacular mentioned previously seems to foreground a spoken medium, yet in this book we also address the use and study of vernacular literature, the latter word in the phrase presuming a written medium, an apparent paradox that will be taken up later. While we recognize the slipperiness of both the component terms “vernacular” and “literature,” for the purposes of this book, “vernacular literature” refers to works in a recognized literary genre (poetry, fiction, drama, creative non-fiction) that are composed primarily in a non-Standard English variety. This may include works fully in vernacular, as well as some in which a Standard English narrator introduces characters who speak in non-standard varieties; it comprises literature from the U.S., the U.K., Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, and other places. Indeed, using the lens of vernacular language allows us to bring issues of globalization, migration, and power into the classroom in ways that are intuitively familiar to our students.

EVOLUTION AND SPREAD OF VERNACULAR ENGLISHES

While we acknowledge that issues surrounding the use of vernacular in school are just as compelling among speakers of other languages such as French, Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese, to name a few, we have chosen vernacular Englishes as the focus of this book. The primary reason is that English has witnessed an unprecedented growth in its form, functions, and global reach, owing to a combination of historical, political, cultural, socioeconomic, and technological factors, coupled with the diversity, agency, and mobility of its users (Crystal, 2003; Graddol, 2006; Jenkins, 2012; Kachru, 1992; Kirkpatrick, 2007; McArthur, 1998). The result is the emergence of numerous varieties of English and related language systems, spoken by over 400 million mother-tongue speakers, and at least an additional 500 million people who use English as a second, additional, or foreign language, according to conservative estimates (Crystal, 2003). As English has spread, its users have taken ownership of the language in both its spoken and written forms (Widdowson, 1994), giving the language its varied structures, sounds, meanings, and discourse norms for local contexts—in a sense, vernacularizing the language in the process. It is tempting to think of this remarkable variation within English in presentist terms, as if to suggest that it is a relatively recent phenomenon in history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Vernacularization in English has a long history in the public sphere, as well as in literature (its progenitors include Chaucer, Shakespeare, Twain, and Hurston, among others). At the same time, an equally powerful, socially constructed force, which we call an ideology of language standardization, has paralleled vernacular language use, and the chief institutional custodian of this ideology has been formal schooling. In the following section we discuss the historical tension between vernacularization and language standardization in English; then later we examine five interrelated theories that inform the spread of Englishes, including literature written in vernacular Englishes, and finally the implications for schooling and pedagogy.

Vernacularization vs. Standardization: Early History

Graddol, Leith, Swann, Rhys, and Gillen (2007) chart the early evolution of English in England from Old English through Middle English in the beginning of the fifteenth century, in which the language showed multiple influences from the Anglo-Saxons, Celtic, French, and Latin, as well as a diversity of largely regional dialects spoken across the British Isles. For the most part, these vernaculars and internal variations in English were accepted as normal, as they reflected the identities of the various groups that had migrated to, or invaded, England. In fact, in this period, vernacular literatures flourished, the most notable author being Geoffrey Chaucer, whose work was considered by the famous English printer, William Caxton, as making English “ornate and fayr” (cited in Graddol et al., p. 71).

But the European Renaissance and the subsequent period of early modernity starting in the late fifteenth century, which included the growth of the market economy, witnessed a major restructuring of English society along class lines, marked by an attendant social stratification of language. This meant that the language variety selected by those with the most power and influence increasingly became the automatic and preferred choice for written documents. Conventional wisdom holds that the London-East Midland variety of English became the prestige variety because London was the political and economic center of England. Elbow (2012), citing linguistic historian Jonathan Hope and historical linguist Jim Milroy, disputes this claim. Hope (2000) contends that what came to be selected as Standard English was a hybrid of linguistic features, least likely to be spoken by the masses, from a range of British dialects, including the London variety. Milroy (2000), for his part, points out that standard varieties are idealizations that do not match the usage of any particular speaker. We learn from Hope and Milroy that the standard variety is an abstraction, removed from the language of ordinary people, finding a home in the writing system. So, it essentially serves a gatekeeping function for both speech and writing. The elevation of this socially constructed, prestige variety by those in power was accompanied by a demeaning of other varieties of English, and the framing of vernaculars as problematic—a change from the earlier tolerance of language variation and celebration of vernacular use and vernacular literatures. At the same time, as part of the process of modernity, Europe was developing what Graddol et al. (2007) call “a radically new political and economic form, that of autonomous nation states, each with a ‘national’ language” (p. 79). A key linguistic process associated with these fundamental changes in the structure of society was standardization. This meant that English not only became linked to England as its national language, but that an aggressive campaign to “standardize” or “fix” the language was afoot.

Language Standardization

Graddol et al. delineate four main processes of language standardization:

(1) Selection—choosing the most powerful and influential language variety.

(2) Elaboration—ensuring that the language can be used for a wide variety of purposes by extending linguistic resources, and/or adding new vocabulary and grammatical structures.

(3) Codification—reducing internal variability, and establishing norms of grammatical usage, vocabulary, and spelling (the creation of dictionaries is an example of this).

(4) Implementation—making texts available in the language, encouraging users to develop pride and loyalty in it, and discouraging alternative varieties in official domains such as school. (pp. 83–84)

The latter two processes were key in the movement to standardize English, which began in the late fifteenth century with the invention of the printing press in England, and gained momentum in the seventeenth, and especially eighteenth, centuries. John Dryden, for example, had very fixed ideas about the “proper form of English,” but it was the quintessential language purist Jonathan Swift, and his obsession with “ascertaining and fixing” the English language¹, who led a failed attempt to create an academy to regulate English (Svartvik and Leech, 2006). However, his efforts did spur public debate for an authoritative source on the language, which ultimately led to the creation of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), and later in the U.S., the publication of Noah Webster’s American English Dictionary in 1828 (Svartvik and Leech, 2006).

Standard English and Linguistic Prescriptivism

The creation of dictionaries did not “fix” English but rather helped to codify it, that is to say, it provided a space for explaining the language in terms of rules and exceptions. The eighteenth century also saw the rise of the notion of Standard English (SE), a socially constructed variety associated with power, prestige, and education. More importantly, the culture of linguistic prescriptivism that emanated from eighteenth-century language standardization debates found an institutional custodian in schools and colleges in England, the U.S., and elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Linguistic correctness became a marker of an educated ethos, while a strong, socially constructed linking of language and social acceptability began to emerge. It manifests itself in the ongoing tension between efforts to prescribe language use, largely through schooling, in order to save SE from its putative decline, and the reality of dynamic language use and change. A caveat is in order here. Standard English is not a monolithic language variety. There are many standards across the English-speaking world, so it might be more appropriate to speak of Standard Englishes.

Vernacular Renaissance

An equally powerful counterforce paralleled the standardization movement. Many held opposing attitudes that viewed dialects or vernaculars as authentic sources of culture, untainted by the language of modernization. Writers looked back and drew on the popular verse of medieval times, which stimulated interest in literature of and for the common people, culminating in Wordsworth’s famous Preface to his Lyrical Ballads in 1800 (Graddol et al., 2007). From the mid-nineteenth century onwards, vernacular literature emerged and flourished in northern England, a large portion of which was printed and sold by local publishers (Joyce, 1991). In fact, vernaculars began to be valued in their own right, and seen as making a significant contribution to the language, even as they were, paradoxically, associated with rural life, provincialism, and/or lack of education. The paradoxes surrounding vernacular language and literatures will be taken up in Chapter 2, but in the following section, we examine how various scholars have theorized the spread of English(es), and the staying power of vernacular Englishes, despite standardizing forces.

THE SPREAD OF ENGLISH(ES): FIVE INTERRELATED THEORIES

Linguistic Imperialism

The period of early modernity, from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries, witnessed the historic spread of English, as the language was taken overseas, thus becoming at once national and international. As noted earlier, the spread of English has been due to several factors, which played out differently in various contexts, but ultimately led to the emergence of the variety of Englishes we see, read, and hear today. Two historically key phenomena are to be noted in this process: (1) the large-scale migration of English-speaking peoples from the U.K. to the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, referred to by Brutt-Griffler (2002) as speaker migration; and (2) the invasive encounter of English-speaking Europeans with ethnic populations who spoke non-European languages in the U.S., the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia through slavery, indentureship, and colonization. Both of these phenomena are marked by an uneven distribution of power between the groups in what Pratt (1991) characterizes as the “contact zone,” the greater power almost always attributed to those of European ancestry. Phillipson (1992) notes that such a large-scale asymmetrical power relationship is the essence of imperialism, and that one of the most effective ways to sustain this type of relationship is through what he theorizes as linguistic imperialism. Specifically, Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as “the dominance of English … asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (p. 47). He explains further that structural refers to concrete properties such as financial resources or institutions (e.g., school), and cultural refers to intangible factors such as language attitudes or pedagogical principles. In practice, for example, this might mean that continued power of English is ensured by the institutionalization of systems that privilege English over local vernaculars in school and the wider culture by giving material rewards to those who develop proficiency in a standardized variety of English, and punishing those who do not.² Nero (2006) has noted that the success of this practice is premised on two basic tenets:

(1) Enforcing the superiority of the English spoken by the group who has power, and by extension, the superiority of the speakers themselves.

(2) Denigrating the mass vernacular, or worse, not recognizing it as a language at all (and therefore devaluing its speakers). (p. 3)

But Phillipson’s theory, while advancing a plausible case for the proliferation of English, has not been without its critics. Scholars like Brutt-Griffler (2002) and Canagarajah (1999), among others, argue that Phillipson presents the spread of English as a unidirectional phenomenon—a language from a European center imposed upon non-European peoples in the periphery, with little or no attention paid to the agen...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Permissions Granted
• PART I Vernacular Englishes: Crossroads of Linguistics and Literature
• PART II Texts and Topics: Case Studies for Teaching
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Notes
• References
• Index