Week 5: AAVE and Grammar

Ah the precarious topic of grammar...it was about time we began talking about it. I don't particularly recall many classes where I was taught grammar. In my education, spelling, mechanics, and language use came with personal experience and observation from third parties. I think I am part of a very small number of people with my situation, and I wouldn't trade it for any number of formal grammar classes. Respectfully, this gives me a unique point of view to differing American vernaculars.

With each English teacher, one needs some amount of time to situate their own pedagogy in how to treat issues of different vernaculars. When reading the Godley article on "Dialectically Diverse Classrooms", I got a chance to think about some of these things. Having a less than formal education on grammar, I subscribe fully to the idea that African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is not only as valid/ equally relevant to "standard English", but also gives us a lot (in a pedagogical sense) in analyzing structures of power in race and language.

Godley pointed out quite a few things that stand in the way of AAVE being more widely accepted by teachers, but two really stood out for me: 1) pushing through superficial understandings of AAVE as a vernacular and 2) the definitions of corrected and incorrect use of language. Of the two, the former seems to be the one that is fix by time and teacher training (in fact, Godley gave me the impression that not much can be done about older generations of teachers and that the future holds the key to the shifting paradigm; I don't completely agree with this sentiment but neither does Godley). However, the definition of "correct language" is something I still wrestle with. For example, Godley laid out this example: "I play on Derrick team." I know this is grammatically incorrect and Godley argues that this constitutes more as "data" to one's own use of language. From here, one can use the data to help them move more towards standard English. The approach is nice, but I fear that this kind of correction (along with cultural stereotypes) only serves to strengthen the power of standard English. At this point, my own self doubt about my pedagogy kicks in and I question how much students do need to know about the "Standard English" protocols.

The best answer I can come up with right now is viewing standard English similarly to the "white race". The comparison I draw is partially based on the power of the white race giving the illusion of standard English as optimal. Additionally, just as the white race is invisible, standard English is invisible in a different way. English teachers tote it as "practical" and a necessary skill for students to navigate the professional world. For my money, the invisible operation of standard English  yields power to those already empowered. Gaining this kind of meta cognition for our students feels more necessary than standard English.

Links for the week:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mdover/website/Social%20Welfare%20Policy%20Main%20Folder/Professional%20Writing%20for%20Policy%20Practice/checklistPDF-Urban_AAE.pdf

This link leads to an academic PDF dealing with AAVE. There is something really satisfying about seeing real research behind the syntactic, morphological, and grammatical legitimacy behind non standard English forms. I just wonder how this might fit into a high school English environment. Is there room for this?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

While perhaps predictable, I find using this website quite helpful in establishing a student centered environment. Not only does it provide fun and casual humor, it also supports non standard English words, in great detail. For example, one might find that "shawty" has origins from the dirty south. Even more so, students use this a resource in class. I think finding a way validate this resource, as a teacher, means to give more power to the disempowered.

Simple, but something I had to "lol" out loud to. "Y" is so confused! Poor "Y"!