Hartwell:
A good deal of Hartwell (at least, as I interpreted it) dealt with approaching your students as a human being, rather than a pillar of grammar and hatred. I imagine this will be easy for most of us, since we will be instructing people only 5-10 years younger than us. We don’t want students to be afraid to talk to us about their weaknesses, because it’s hard enough to get students to talk at all. Still, I think it’s important to maintain some degree of authority, especially when it comes to issues in class like behavior, students paying attention, etc.
I enjoyed how Hartwell broke apart the notions of proper English, showing how “lame” we teachers can be. Taking my first linguistics class was a real eye-opening experience for me, and since then I love to read articles like these. Some of the shattered notions that Hartwell brings up were steeped in the racism and classism of their day, and if you think about how few people were formally educated (and about their social status) when some of these mind-bending rules were created, the bias behind these grammatical dos and don’ts makes sense. We have to realize that English is a mix of French, English and terror, mutating over 1000 years. Which is why, Hartwell points out, that our spellings do not reflect phonetics, but instead, history. It’s a silly notion, but as speakers of the English language, we don’t think twice about these concepts; but English, as ridiculous and imperfect as it may be, is something that we have to teach.
Shuy:
I really don’t have much to add after reading it again. As we read more and more articles, I see that Shuy’s iceberg approach being used more and more. Just from comments in class, I realize some of you have prescriptivist leanings, and I like that these readings are challenging your beliefs. I hope we can challenge our students’ beliefs as well. Writing is a lot less intimidating when you point out how ridiculous some of the rules can be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
MAIN POINTS
I really enjoyed Hartwell's essay. His opening "examples" were a nice way to introduce his ideas. I really enjoy reading academic articles that aren't afraid to have character, humor, and wit. I agree with him in that we tend to focus on the "veneer" of language and ignore the more important, deeper levels of it. I think it is difficult to focus on those deeper aspects. It is hard to grade, explain, and categorize the creation of ideas in writing. It is easier to help students with sentence structure, grammar, and organization. Grammar is something very tangible. You can see a misplaced comma, but it is hard to determine where exactly someone went right or wrong when making his or her argument. How do you pinpoint problems in thought and conceptualization? It is a difficult problem.
METACOGNITION
I really liked what Hartwell had to say about metacognition. As he writes, "Metacognition is the ability to monitor one's learning" (7). I think that it is true students often really don't know when they are getting something wrong, or they don't understand. A lot of times, students think they know exactly what they are supposed to be getting out of an assignment or idea, and they don’t. Problems with metacognition ultimately lead to problems in learning. We, as teachers, need to help students with the process.
THE WAY WE DETERMINE WHAT IS GOOD
The section of Hartwell's text that I was most struck by was when he wrote of linguists saying; “ . . . these guys assume there's a stable world out there. . . [For them] readability is in the text, literacy is measured by literacy tests, writing is measured by 'full standard deployment of the verb to be. . ." The main goal of language is to relay information. Therefore, a speech given, or an article written, with perfect usage of the verb to be is of no use if no body can understand the message it gives. Writing is a pipeline for ideas, not a way to demonstrate perfect grammar use. Plus, grammar is arbitrary anyway. There is no "real" reason why you have to have a comma before the and in a compound sentence. Therefore, there is no real "correct" way to conjugate the verb to be. While I understand the purpose and necessity of a standardized system of language and grammar, I also understand that its importance is secondary to the "meat" of writing, which is the communication of ideas.
I really enjoyed Shuy’s essay and would say that my philosophy of education is closely aligned with what he outlines in “A Holistic View of Language.” (I can only hope it also aligns with my actual practice.) Perhaps the most telling bit of evidence (for me) that this function over form methodology actually works is in his last paragraph: the Sesame Street anecdote. That’s great. And so simple.
I think he really drives home his claim in the article’s conclusion. I love the “If there is chaos in the classroom we should seek organization, not ritual” section. That should be emblazoned on teachers’ mugs everywhere.
I was also struck by something he said on page 105: “My briefly noted monot or awk screamed an authority and logic, which, if the students had only challenged, would have crumbled with only the vaguest definitions and explanations.” When I read this, I realized for the first time that I often hide behind the authority of my red pen. Sometimes that red pen, that power, is what I cling to in order to distinguish myself from my students. And why do I need to distinguish myself from my students, you ask? Because I pretty much am a student. Despite some teaching experience here and there, I have always been a student; it’s my identity. Even in front of a class of high school students, I feel so young, so empty—like I know so little.
I’m just now realizing how unhealthy that all is—how Gradgrindesque (to borrow from Dickens). In order to effectively teach writing, I need to eliminate the power/grammar games ASAP. But how? I like what Hartwell cites: “True discourse exists only between equals” (15).
Hartwell is an interesting writer. His wit and repetition were intentional stylistic choices, and ones that I didn’t fully appreciate. Something about calling people and philosophies “dumb” irritated me, and thus obscured his entire message.
I did enjoy seeing his nods to Shuy and Chomsky (a personal hero), but was generally overwhelmed by the number of his citations. For a shorter article, surely a five-page works cited is unnecessary?! By the end, I was left wondering what thoughts were truly his, if any.
Still, there were some diamonds in the rough. I found his note on page 9 of particular interest: “In the history of our own culture, disenfranchised peoples [. . .] have, at least in small numbers, been able to acquire literacy outside of schooling.” Though this is maybe going in a direction he did not intend, I’m reminded of a conversation I frequently have with myself: Is schooling necessary? Is it always the answer? As an educator, these questions both frighten and fascinate me.
I actually enjoyed reading Hartwell, and i was quite excited about that. I thought he made some great points, and i was thrilled that he referred to some authoritarians in the field as "dumb." But on what points that i agreed with my first agreement was in the fact that we place to must credit on our alphabet sysytem. This system is the English system and it's the system that everyone should know because it is English. The main problem with the alphabet is the fact that it is not phonetic at all, and we are constantly faced with silly spellings of words that make no sense. How we can explain our "superior" language when how we spell and pronounce the words make no sense.
Another point that i loved was the idea of the teacher giving up power. This is not the first time that i have heard this, and it will not be the last i'm sure. I just wonder how many times people have to hear before they actually do it. I know that i learned this concept in undergrad with a lot of my friends and most of my friends decided to not use this idea. Their classrooms are run by their rules and their language. There is no room for a student's social background to come into play because they must use Standard English. The teacher needs to give up some power (at least) to the students and this means language as well. "Teacher talk" does not gain respect from the student but isolates the teacher even more from their student. I believe that an important way to show a student that you are going to truly give them power in the classroom is to allow dialectal languages to be spoken and sometimes written. This will show the students you are "for real" about letting them have some control.
As mentioned in class, a great deal of study has been done regarding African-American Vernacular English. What is often suggested is that AAVE is indeed a complete language, governed by its own system of grammar. It is then debated as to whether this system ought to be permitted for use in the classroom by students. It seems that this could be useful, in an informal setting, so that students feel comfortable expressing themselves, and their ideas. After all, to make the most of the classroom experience, students should be able to express themselves in the manner most familiar to them, so long as that it is familiar enough to others that everyone is able to participate. However, in formal writing, Standard American English should be encouraged.
While AAVE is a complete language, there are variations of it, just as there are variations of SAE. Dialects in black communities differ by region. Black members of a community in rural South Carolina, or Alabama, or Georgia, speak differently, in general, than Black communities in urban Harlem, L.A., Chicago, or other black communities. As a matter of fact, from state to state, a different tongue is often heard. The same is true for white communities. A white man in the coal mines of Appalachia, and a white man on a ski resort in Maine will likely have a different way of communicating the English language.
While the best way of initial communication between classmates may be to utilize the language form most familiar to them, eventually students ought to have a common way of sharing their thoughts. In most American classrooms, while different forms of English may be spoken, these forms are all derived from a common language. In order to maintain strong communication, this common language should be used when final drafts or final presentations or official projects are completed.
I think of my own creative writing in these terms. When I write stories initially, I hand-write them, and their appearance, on page, is often sloppy or unorganized. However, after many stories, I have developed a way of story writing that is very familiar to me, even if it is not to anyone else. I know exactly what I am trying to express with my notes and scribbles on the sides of pages. No one else would understand the characters, plot, climax, and any other part very well. I still write in this way to best build my story. When it comes time to begin final drafts, however, I begin to reorganize, edit, and present the story in a way that others can understand. I write stories, often, to share with others. If I did not adopt the standard, arbitrary ways of reformatting these, then only I could fully appreciate the stories.
I think now of language itself. In a classroom, students may be best able to utilize their minds and skills by using their everyday, casual language, just as I use my initial methods for fiction writing. However, students, like me, should eventually, in formal atmospheres, come to understand how to present their ideas in a way that most will be able to understand. Otherwise, only they and a select group will be able to appreciate what they have to offer to the discussion. This is fine if targeting the smaller group is their sole objective. But if the larger group is what they are after, then they will want the tools to communicate to this group.
As I mentioned in class, I am reminded of Malcolm X. In a short essay he wrote about his own education, he noted that he was a wise street hustler, a rhetorician who could speak circles around members of his own community. After being arrested, though, and finding that he had a message he wanted to deliver to the larger American community, Malcolm X decided to learn the craft of Standard American English. He wanted to master the language in a way that would allow him to speak circles around white politicians, and not just black members of the ghetto.
Malcolm X educated himself, while incarcerated, by writing out an entire dictionary he had been given. He read and wrote every word on large tablets, and as a result, was able to speak the language of the larger community. He eventually became one of the most prominent Americans of the 20th century in the process.
Finally, I think of instant messaging communities, and language that has developed solely as a result of these. While many instant message, many do not. In the context of online communication, writing “LOL” or “OMG” makes sense. The meanings behind these are clear for anyone who participates in online chatting. However, in academic research, they mean nothing. In order for a member of an online chatting community to participate in academia or formal writing, they must maintain SAE.
In the end, thoughts and ideas come from inside, and only begin as the result of the individual conceiving them. The individual molds these through himself or herself. It only makes sense then to encourage individuals to fully develop their thoughts through their own language. When it comes time to translate these thoughts to others, though, individuals must, to be most effective, understand how to do so. AAVE is a fine way to communicate with other AAVE-speakers, but SAE is the way to communicate to the majority of Americans, if that is desired.
A few thoughts on being “dumb,” “teacher talk,” and AAVE:
Like Mel and Melanie, I was also a bit irritated with the “dumb” reference in Hartwell’s piece. I understand that the term relates to his initial example of the farmer, and that there are “smart” and “dumb” ways of doing things, but I think I would have preferred the word “bad” over “dumb.” But that’s just a minor detail, I suppose!
When Hartwell implored us to “banish teacher talk” (12), I began to think about the typical—and potentially inhibiting—dynamics of the traditional classroom. To Hartwell, “teacher talk” is the all-too-familiar condescending, trite talk of detached instructors. It may be easy to avoid the silly phrases Hartwell mentions, but I think it is more difficult to overcome the usual, often unconscious authority/subordinate mindset that they reflect. In his later discussion on power in the classroom, Hartwell says that students often perceive the “teacher as examiner” or a “social superior” and therefore adopt a “submissive stance” that actually hinders learning and improvement (15). For students, thinking of their readers as peers will help overcome this intimidation factor when writing. I think this idea of a “submissive stance” also applies to classroom interactions and discussions. If teachers are viewed only as authority figures and experts, it’s easy for students to become passive. Maybe “teacher talk” isn’t always verbal. As we discussed in class Monday (about the computer room seating), there are some teacher-ly habits—like sitting directly at the front of the room—that can be reworked. Resituating ourselves—sometimes literally—and change up the dynamic.
I don’t know much about the particulars of African American Vernacular, so I found the discussion on Monday very thought provoking.
How do you help prepare students for writing and communicating in an academic or business field without detracting from the value and validity of their community’s language? How do we avoid perpetuating and promoting an “elitist” mindset?
I suppose encouraging young or new students in the language in which they are comfortable is the best way to begin writing. Forming ideas and arguments, and, considering Shuy’s iceberg example, organizing and structuring the “deeper” aspects of language comes first.
But, as Jamie pointed out, in order to be effective, versatile, and mobile writers and speakers, these students also need to know how to communicate in standard English. I wonder if we often underestimate people’s ability to recognize and adapt to different audiences, situations, and modes.
Post a Comment