24/7 Customer support here

   Discuss the Idea that all Students Have to Learn how to Speak Correct English at Schools

Language change is a linguistic issue arising in the debate. It has been suggested that: “The chief linguistic characteristic of standardisation is suppression of optional variation at all levels of language. Standardisation is therefore partly aimed at preventing or inhibiting linguistic change.” Milroy & Milroy 1985. P.30.

   Just as standardisation causes problems for linguistics, linguistics cause problems for a standard: “Linguistic change, especially in phonology and grammar, originates in speech rather than in writing: it is thus characteristic of spoken forms to be perpetually in a state of change.” Milroy & Milroy 1985, P.47.

   So, does this linguistic problem hinder the teaching of SSE in schools? This may be the reason why the DFEE are unable to give it a satisfactory definition. In my opinion, the diversity and evolving nature of language should be something that as teachers, we actively embrace. It is very important for children to experience linguistic variety to enrich their own language. My concern is that if children are to come to school and be indoctrinated with the conformity of a spoken standard, are we suppressing their linguistic potential and in the process, hindering their progression?

   Is the government’s quest to ‘straight-jacket’ spoken English not doomed to failure? This is the first time any attempt has been made to enshrine a standard for spoken English in a National Curriculum and insufficient time has elapsed for us to see that the standard and the evolving language itself must inevitably part company. Imagine a National Curriculum standard for spoken English having been established at the start of the nineteenth century, and think how out of step that would now be with twenty-first century spoken English. My point is that any standard is forced to evolve with the language in order to remain relevant.

   It has been suggested that a standard is needed because English is a world language and so to prevent breakdowns in communication and to help foreigners learn the language, a standard is required. I believe that for international communication, a written but not a spoken standard is required. Trudgill, (1975), argues that:“There is no danger of English fragmenting to the point of loss of communication...convergence is much more probable than divergence.” P.84.

   As for people learning English as a second language, he insists:
“Even if (the standard) were to disappear, grammatical differences between English dialects are generally so trivial…foreigners would be unlikely to suffer comprehension difficulties.” P.84.

   So is there an argument for children to be taught SSE because English is a world language, or is that irrelevant ?
Having a standard spoken form of English is not without social implications. Trudgill (1975), believes that: “Judgements which appear to be about language are in fact judgements based on social and cultural values, and have much more to do with the social structure of our community than with language.” P.28.

   Trudgill is putting forward the argument that it is the social status of a dialect, which is judged not the language of it. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that one way of communicating an idea is in some way intrinsically ‘better’ than another. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that ‘ain’t’ is wrong and ‘is not’ is correct, in the same way that 2+2=3 is wrong and 2+2=4 is correct. Yet this is what imposing a standard for spoken English sets out to do. The judgement is a subjective one and based on what we associate with different accents and dialects. Regional accents and dialects spoken by poor, working class communities are regarded as linguistically inferior, whereas the RP of the upper classes, widely spoken in the halls of Westminster, and other more fashionable accents, but still standard English are what those with social aspirations are expected to aspire to. Should we then encourage children in our schools to have this aspiration too, arguing that not to do so would be to disadvantage them in the workplace as well as socially? Or should we challenge these fallacious judgements in an effort to break the cycle? If we are brought up in a society where language is becoming ever more prescriptive, then surely we are encouraging these judgements. To promote a standard dialect is to devalue the rest.

   “The shift from non-standard to standard dialects can become one which implies a devaluation of one dialect in favour of another.” Bex & Watts, (1999), P.163.

   This is the dilemma that children of non-standard spoken forms of English face when they start school. Because language is part of our social and cultural background, having to comply to a ‘standard’ calls into question the validity of any other dialect and with it the worth of an individual’s social identity.

   Bex and Watts (1999) argue that: “Children know that not everyone speaks SE, and an insistance that they should speak it is likely to alienate them from the school or their family or both.” P.163.

   A child’s identity is constantly evolving. The experiences that they have in school will contribute to how they perceive themselves. Kearney (1995) writes:“In both positive and negative ways we gain an identity. It is bound up with how other people perceive and react to us.” P.36.

   If children come to school and find that the dialect they use is ‘non-standard’ than they will feel rejected and confused.
   The need for SSE from a social perspective is far greater than that of a linguistic one. The reality is that we are judged by the way that we speak. Our accents and dialects can open up doors to us; they can also keep them closed. As McGill (1998) states: “For those who grow up in an environment in which Standard English is not the spoken norm, access to the ‘better’ forms of education and employment is more often than not limited or blocked.” P.6. With this in mind, is it then doing children an injustice not to give them access to SSE when they come to school? I certainly think that all children need to come into contact with it, but I do not necessarily agree they should have to speak it. It is argued that: “If pupils do not have access to Standard English then many important opportunities are closed to them….” Cox 1991. P.29.

   This quote comes from a book , written by Robert Cox in response to his controversial report in 1991. There is truth in this but the implication is that children ‘have’ to speak SSE. Should it not be that they have the choice? Code-switching is a way of acquainting children with the need for the ‘standard’ in certain contexts in order to better their opportunities. This doesn’t attempt to replace a person’s native dialect, but simply means standard English becomes available when there is a need for it. Trudgill (1975) raises the idea of bi-dialectalism: “This approach recognises the fact that both the standard English dialect and the child’s native dialect are valid and good linguistic varieties worthy of attention; and both are considered to be ‘correct’.” P.68

   “The important thing about this approach is that it respects the child’s dialect and his feelings about it, and does not try to eradicate or even alter it. It attempts to give the child competence in another dialect – standard English – in addition to the one he already has.” P.69.
   Bi-dialectalism was mentioned in the Cox Reports (1998, 1989), but there were concerns about how it was dealt with. Cox has clearly ignored the central argument for bi-dialectalism, i.e. that standard English is an alternative, not a preferred dialect, and the curriculum should continue to value and embrace the child’s own dialect.

   Had bi-dialectalism been given adequate attention in Cox’s report, Trudgill’s interpretation offers a solution to the dilemma of whether or not to teach SSE. I have put forward that, from a social perspective, there are benefits to be gained from children being able to speak SSE. However, I disagree that it should be imposed upon them as a ‘better’ way of speaking. Bi-dialectalism, or code-switching, offers a sensitive means by which children can learn to speak both.

1  2

BACK TO EDUCATION