assessment and revision needs to take more than language rules into account

Lindblom argues that he uses “the term ‘standardized English,’ instead of the more common (and less precise) ‘Standard English,’ as a reminder that the version of English that counts as correct in most English classes does so as a result of tradition and compliance, not as a result of any linguistic superiority of one version of English over another” (p. 94). This is very much so (as is noted in the text) a view that weighs one’s worth as a person based on his or her version of the English language. 

As a student, I always felt worse about myself when I received a poor grade in English or Language Arts than if the grade had been in a math class. I’m guessing this is due to many things, but mostly because of the implicit (explicit?) connection between my language and my identity as a person. If I was judged as a poor student of English, then I took that as a judgement of my identity (because of the strong ties we as humans have with our respective languages).

This makes me think of examples of people from postcolonial nations who try to revert back to their precolonial language and discard the language of their oppressors in order to establish their identity as a sovereign and worthy people. Ngugi argues that “language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture” (p. 13). In addition, he posits that “language is thus inseparable from ourselves as a community of human beings with a specific form and character, a specific history, a specific relationship to the world” (p. 16). This conception of language goes beyond a set of rules for proper communication; rather, it is a view of language as a way to form identity, both as an individual and as a community. When a student is told that his or her writing is “wrong”, that is a statement towards the student’s identity as a user of the language at hand. While English teachers (or any other teacher assessing writing and language use) may not assess a piece of writing with the student’s identity in mind, the effects of such actions can still be quite debilitating.

Therefore, teacher who focuses on “Standard English” is the one who views English, “not as a tool of communication” but, as Lindblom argues, as “a standard of worth to be achieved” (p. 95). Rather, we should be the kinds of teachers whose “goal should be to produce students who can effectively communicate in varieties of contexts” (Lindblom, p. 96).

I can only hope to be sensitive enough to the ways in which my students employ and value their language(s), and thus guide my teaching methods to embrace the different identities that erupt through language use, not stifle them.

Ngugi. (2006). Decolonizing the mind. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.