Language plea by Sacred Heart Primary School: Have they undervalued the concept of context?

Child 1: Gizit ere Child 2: What? Child 1: Yer know what. Ma shert! Gizit ere or am gonna be late fer school. Mother: Whats all the shoutin about down there? Child 1 & 2: Nowt.

The transcript above represents two children having a minor argument before school. We can immediately see that the children have used their local Teeside accent and dialect. Of course, we can all understand the language used by the children in this context. But do we judge them and assume they are receiving a poor education simply because their pronunciation is different to the version that the Queen, politicians and national newsreaders use? Can we assume they are receiving a poor education from the fact that both children responded to their mother with nowt as opposed to nothing? I have used Teeside pronunciation and language choices here as an example but I could have chosen any local accent and their variety of language (dialect). Language choices vary from area to area, as do the accents and that is what makes language beautiful. It would be boring if everybody spoke in exactly the same way and the fact that ones identity can be revealed simply by the way they speak is a good thing in the eyes of many. Maybe not according to Mrs Walker who is the Headteacher of Sacred Heart Primary School in Middlesbrough. As some may or may not be aware, it emerged recently that Mrs Walker had sent a letter home to the parents of the children in her school, which encouraged parents to enforce a standardized version of pronunciation and grammar on their children. She included a list of some incorrect phrases and pronunciation forms that she wanted the children to avoid using in future and appealed to the parents to help her correct their language to ensure they are not disadvantaged later on in life. In other words, Mrs Walker believes that the children will have better career and social prospects if they avoid using the following Teeside phrases:

I done that. (I have done that or I did that.) I seen that. (I have seen that or I saw that.) Yous (Intended as a plural form of you.) Gizit ere. (Please give me it.) I dunno. (I don't know.) It's nowt. (It's nothing.) He was sat there. (He was sitting there.)

She also included some pronunciation problems:

Letta & butta (Letter & butter.) Werk & shert (I will wear my shirt for work.) "School finishes at free fifteen" ("School finishes at three fifteen")

She included a grammatical problem which commonly appears in the childrens writing too:

Your late. (You're late.)

However, Mrs Walker pointed out that she wanted to teach the children Standard English, not remove their Teeside accents; I am not asking children to deny where they come from. I am saying to them there are certain situations where they need to be able to use Standard English. Mrs Walker: Headteacher of Sacred Heart Primary School, Middlesbrough. The truth in Mrs Walkers statement is somewhat distorted in two ways though; Firstly, she states that she is not asking the children to deny their Teeside roots. If this were the case she would not have sent the letter to the parents in the first place. Encouraging the children to change their language uses in the classroom is fine. But she is requesting that parents enforce these rules on the children at home and therefore in a context where the use of Standard English is not particularly necessary. If Mrs Walkers aim is to teach the children of the different situations in which Standard English would be necessary, the childrens own homes would not qualify because it is a relaxing informal environment and one where they would not be at risk of being judged in a negative manner. Secondly, she states that she wanted to teach the children to use Standard English. If this was entirely the case then she would not have mentioned any pronunciation issues because the term Standard English refers to grammar, vocabulary and spelling. It doesnt refer to accents and pronunciation. In her letter, Mrs Walker described her list of spelling, grammar and pronunciation usages as incorrect. This is a clear act of linguistic prescriptivism because she is openly stating her opinion that Standard English and perhaps more subtly, accents closer to Received Pronunciation (RP) are correct and anything different is wrong. We have to remember that this attitude is simply that; an opinion. I appreciate what Mrs Walker is trying to achieve, as do the parents of these children and the majority of people who have cared to comment on the issue thus far. Standard English is needed in certain contexts and a classroom is definitely one of these contexts. It would be understandable if Mrs Walker demanded the use of Standard English in class, particularly in written exercises. Her inclusion of the possessive determiner your being used in place of you are or youre is acceptable because this error is confined to written exercises and can therefore affect the childrens academic progress. Standard English is the dialect of power after all and without a substantial grasp of such, children could fail to succeed academically and they could struggle to gain employment later on in life. I do not doubt the importance of Standard English by any means. Nor do I doubt the need for children to be taught to alter their speech to accommodate formal situations, such as job interviews. What I do doubt is Mrs Walkers consideration of context. There is nothing wrong with the children using their own local accent and dialect in some situations and I dont feel she has clarified this

message to the children. For instance, local accents and dialect can be used on the playground when the children are socialising with friends. Similarly, they can be used at home when interacting with family and friends. The ultimate purpose of language is communication and therefore mutual understanding. As long as the person(s) being spoken or written to can fully comprehend the speaker/writers message then there should not be a problem because the tool of language has been used to successfully accomplish the mission. In informal contexts such as playground interaction between friends or parent/child interaction at home, all participants in the conversation will have a mutual understanding of the local dialect and pronunciation. For example, if a child says to their friend or their mother Its nowt in response to a question, both will understand that Its nowt means Its nothing. Neither the friend nor the mother would be judging the child in a negative way and neither career nor social status would be attached to the non-standard response in this context, therefore, such uses cannot be completely discouraged or labelled as incorrect because they ultimately serve the same purpose as Standard English forms in some contexts. Dr Simon Gibbons who is the Chair of the National Association for the Teaching of English (NATE) gave his opinion on the case of Mrs Walker during a BBC Radio 4 programme. He highlighted the importance and benefits of Standard English on an academic, social and economic scale and commended Mrs Walkers wish to teach Standard English in the classroom so that the children can be prepared to use it in contexts where it is required. However, he also made a brilliant point in highlighting the potential perils of Mrs Walkers plan. He suggested that Mrs Walkers rule enforcement in the home environment and the labelling of certain language uses as incorrect could damage a childs self-esteem. He also pointed out that regional accents and dialect are equally as important as the standardised forms and their uses should not be discouraged completely. Sociolinguistics expert Professor Paul Kerswill of the University of York joined Dr Gibbons in highlighting the perils. He suggested that Mrs Walkers plan could backfire and alienate the children. He also suggested that Mrs Walker should perhaps focus on teaching the children the importance of context and code switching. The points made by Dr Gibbons and Professor Kerswill are valid and should not be dismissed by Mrs Walker and the supporters of her plan. The act of labelling a childs language as incorrect in unnecessary circumstances can be very damaging and could lead to anger and rebellion in the classroom. It could also destroy the teacher/pupil relationship and indeed, slow down or even destroy the childs academic progress. Kerswills point on code switching was one worth considering too. He pointed out that children are usually intelligent enough to distinguish between different contexts and alter their language accordingly to suit each particular context. In other words, children know when it is appropriate to say something and they also know when it is not. For example, children talk differently to their friends than they would talk to their mother because where their friends may find certain uses funny like swearing for example, their mother would react angrily and discourage it. Children learn explore language and its rules more or less from the day they are born and some even argue that it begins in the womb but that is a completely different debate. As a pre-school child grows, they are constantly learning about language and society. They learn from their environment

and input from their parents and other people around them. They imitate what they hear and learn from the feedback they receive. So by the time the child is ready to begin school, they already have a very good knowledge of what language and behaviour is acceptable and what isnt. With this in mind, Mrs Walker could help strengthen their understanding of context and perhaps use role play which places the child in different social situations and encourages them to vary their language from one context to the next. By doing so children would learn to appreciate language as a whole and realise that all forms of language are special and serve their own unique purposes. They would realise that no variety of language is of a greater value than another and this is an important message which could keep more children on side than if she told them that the language they have grown to be familiar with is wrong. No language is wrong as long as it fulfils its purpose. Describing a work shirt as a werk shert isnt wrong. Informing the children that they will be unable to get a job if they continue using language in this way is wrong though, as once again, the attitude and expectations of employers varies and depends on numerous factors, such as the trade, the area, the nature of the individual role and the people the employee would be expected to deal with. For example, if somebody is looking to work away from Teeside then the werk shert pronunciation may not be appropriate. But, if somebody was working locally in a role that demanded they only deal with local customers, the werk shert pronunciation would not be a problem because both, fellow employers and customers would be able to understand. Once again, the emphasis shifts on to the sheer importance of context; a concept which should never be underestimated but may well have been undervalued by Mrs Walker in this case. References Language plea by Sacred Heart School, Middlesbrough. BBC News. (Published 05/02/2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-21340029 (Accessed online 07/02/2013) Gibbons, S. & Kerswill, P. (2013). Radio 4 Live. (Published 07/02/2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qf081 (Accessed online 07/02/2013)