During a consulting session last semester, I made an exciting
connection. I was reading through a first-year student's personal
essay for a composition course, and I noticed that he was using plural
verbs for singular subjects and that his possessives were often
incomplete. But after pointing out a few missing s's, I recognized
it was a pattern.
The week before I had learned in my linguistics class that
"dropped s's" are a dialect feature of African American
English. I realized that I was not helping the student correct his
mistakes--I was helping him translate his paper into Standard Written
English. Although I was excited about applying this information, it
created another problem: How was I going to address this issue with the
student?
Many of us who work in composition studies might agree with Walt
Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes that "there are no
'good' or 'bad' dialects; dialect is simply how we
refer to any language variety that typifies a group of speakers within a
language" (3). However, I could not immediately see how I could
reconcile this ideological position with my practice in the writing
center. Because tutors are tasked with helping students learn how to
write papers that will be successful in an academic environment, we
often need to help students learn how to write in Standard Written
English.
Sitting there with that student, eager to share this knowledge, I
said that he was consistently not using s's to show possession and
in subject-verb agreement, and that such forms are a dialect feature of
African American English. He didn't know how to respond. He seemed
interested, but he wanted me to get through his whole paper during the
session. So I showed him how to make a change and suggested that he look
for those s's during his revising and proofreading process. Then we
moved on.
Afterwards, when I had time to contemplate the experience, I
realized that the approach I had taken was risky. It may not have been
prudent for me to make a judgment about the student's dialect, as I
may have sounded patronizing despite my enthusiasm and good intentions.
Since that session, I have researched scholarship on this issue, and
this article explores how this dilemma can be handled in the writing
center.
What I learned is that my first instinct was right--it is important
to validate dialect differences as grammatical patterns rather than as
grammatical mistakes. As Rebecca Wheeler points out, "Longstanding
student performance and research show that the traditional correction
methods fail to teach African American students skills of standard
English usage" (239). If writing tutors label dialect differences
as errors, not only will they probably fail to help students write in
Standard Written English, but they may also make students feel
inadequate and frustrated. Therefore, as consultants we have the
precarious job of validating students' own language while helping
them learn strategies for translating their thoughts and words into
Standard Written English. Beth Bir and Carmen Christopher acknowledge
the importance of identifying dialects in the writing center when they
advocate that tutors study dialect features in order to recognize
dialects in consulting sessions. The vital next step is to outline
strategies for helping students understand that they are writing in a
legitimate dialect that has systematic features that are different from
Standard Written English.
Most tutors I have talked to about this challenge recommend using a
variation of, "You're writing informally; how can you make
this more formal?" Many professors and consultants also value this
approach, as I found out during my presentation on dialects in the
writing center at the East Central Writing Centers Association last
April. Certainly this technique is useful to provide students with an
entry-level introduction to discourse communities because the students
learn that it is beneficial to use different languages for different
audiences. However, I do not think this is the solution to discussing
dialect differences. This approach assumes that students understand the
grammatical forms of Standard Written English, so all that students have
to do is adjust their writing to the audience. Consultants may still
continue to label certain dialect features as errors and fail to show
students that they speak a valid dialect with systematic features.
An improved variation of the approach described above could be,
"There are certain grammatical forms evident in your papers that
you may use when you talk to your family and friends; can I show you
what forms are required for an audience of your teacher and
classmates?" This sentence links the student's writing to the
student's speech and thus is closer to acknowledging a dialect.
This approach is a solid compromise for tutors who are worried about
sounding judgmental when discussing students' language. Tutors can
then point out the systematic choices that students make and encourage
them to look for these choices in all of their writing. Tutors often
point out patterns of error in student writing. The difference here,
then, is to point out that those differences are not errors but
systematic choices that stem from a dialect other than Standard Written
English.
I recommend taking the last approach one step further and
incorporating the idea of a dialect into discussions with students so
that we validate and educate students about their language in addition
to discussing audience awareness. Using the general term
"dialect" rather than naming a specific dialect is a way to
avoid labeling a student's dialect based on race, ethnicity, or
region. This term is also useful because a student's writing might
have features of a dialect that are unfamiliar to tutors. A student
might use multiple dialects or use only some characteristics of a given
dialect. Although consultants would ideally have training in the
dialects most prominent in their writing centers, this training may not
always be possible. But by engaging in discussions such as the one
described in this article, tutors can become more linguistically
sensitive and better prepared to help students negotiate dialects in
their writing.
If I could rewind and re-do that consulting session last semester,
this is how I would revise my response: "I have noticed that there
are a number of places in your paper where you do not use s's that
are required in Standard Written English. This may mean that you speak a
dialect with your family and friends that does not require these forms.
Would you like to make a list of what is required in Standard Written
English, like these s's, so that you can look for these things when
you write and revise academic papers?" Of course it is possible
that the student I encountered last semester still would not have wanted
to spend time having that discussion. But maybe, just maybe, he would
have been open to a discussion about his language. And maybe he would
have been empowered by my validation of his dialect and enthused about
learning how to maneuver in Standard Written English. As tutors all we
can do is try to help each student. By sharing my investigation of these
issues, I encourage other tutors to become more aware of the distinction
between dialect features and errors and use that knowledge to empower
student writers.
Works Cited
Bir, Beth and Carmen Christopher. "Training Writing Tutors to
Recognize Dialectical Difference." Writing Lab Newsletter 27.9
(2003): 4-6. Writing Lab Newsletter Archives. Web. 1 Aug. 2009.
Wheeler, Rebecca S. "Code-Switching: Teaching Standard English
in African American Classrooms." Grammar to Enrich and Enhance
Writing. Ed. Constance Weaver, with Jonathan Bush. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann, 2008. 235-257. Print.
Wolfram, Walt, and Nicole Schilling-Estes. American English:
Dialects and Variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Print.
* Kristi McDuffie
Eastern Illinois University
Charleston, IL