The “Catch-22” of the Language Debate

By Cynthia L. Carr

 

This article is also accessible as a Word document: The "Catch-22" of the Language Debate.

 

The language debate concerning the inclusion of non-standard English forms in American classrooms has been in progress for decades. Since the 1970’s, one major component of this debate has centered on African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The stature of AAVE as a language form rather than an inferior dialect of Standard English (SE) is now widely recognized among linguists and educators; however, many in the general public still view AAVE as simply ‘bad English’ and a sign that the user is not well educated. Because white Americans who are neither linguists nor educators are in positions of power at every level of society, users of AAVE face tremendous pressure to leave their language behind if they wish to excel in the American educational system. In addition, use of AAVE is often a barrier to upward social mobility and a hindrance to black Americans seeking employment. Until such time as a wider swath of the general public is aware of the true nature of AAVE as a legitimate language form, and until users of AAVE have achieved positions of power and authority throughout American society, there will continue to be a conundrum – a ‘Catch-22’ for educators.

 

The term ‘Catch-22’ was coined by author Joseph Heller in 1961 in his novel by the same name. In the novel, the term was used to refer to a particular military regulation by which anyone requesting to be removed from combat duty on the basis of insanity was considered sane because of the reasonable nature of such a request; consequently, the request would be denied. I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s hearing this term used often to describe any sort of paradoxical or ‘no-win’ situation, especially one characterized by circular reasoning. I see the current language-inclusion debate as presenting this type of paradoxical situation for educators. Should teachers minimize AAVE use by students in their classroom because they know that those students may face discrimination if they do not have full command of SE? Or should they forge ahead with inclusive instruction, knowing that empowering young users of AAVE of today is necessary in order to create leaders of tomorrow who are aware of and open to language diversity among their own students, employees, and co-workers? But will they get to be the leaders of tomorrow if they face language discrimination as they enter the work force? Herein lies the Catch-22.

 

Today, many educators and scholars view the use of code-switching as a way around this Catch-22. The pedagogical principle behind code-switching is that “all language varieties are equally effective in their communities” (Howard 266), but that SE and Edited Academic English (EAE) still prevail in higher education and business; therefore, while teachers should acknowledge students’ non-standard language varieties, they should also encourage students to switch to SE in the classroom. Lisa Delpit acknowledges the “camouflage” (38) offered to black Americans by the code-switching approach. When her own young daughter, Maya, picks up AAVE in a new school, Delpit initially experiences a strong negative reaction. She later questions that reaction, reaching the conclusion that her ambivalence comes from an instinctual desire to protect her daughter from the potential negative assessments that speaking AAVE might bring: assessments of her daughter’s “intelligence, her competence, her potential, […]even her moral fiber” based solely on her use of particular language form (38).

 

Rachel Jones goes further, explaining that her own code-switching approach as a young African American woman is an effort to be seen as “articulate and well-versed” and describing the AAVE she grew up with, in contrast, as nothing more than a “colorful, grammar-to-the-winds patois” (305). Jones expresses resentment that whites are surprised and blacks are offended at her use of SE, but also states that it hurts her “to hear black children use black English” because she knows that it will place them at a disadvantage in the American educational system. (307). Yet she expresses disappointment at being “stripped of [her] own blackness” because she has full command of SE (307). The issue seems to be that Jones no longer considers herself a member of a community in which AAVE has its rightful place. Geneva Smitherman might classify Jones among those black Americans who have succumbed to the prescription that SE is necessary for upward mobility, and have therefore “become unwitting accomplices in their own linguistic and cultural demise” (16). Delpit describes the situation in this way: “those of us who reach for or attempt to maintain middle class acceptability work hard to stamp out the public expression of the language with which we enjoy such a love-hate relationship” (37).

 

Rebecca Moore Howard finds a way to extend the discussion of inclusivity in language pedagogy by advocating for a “pedagogy of pluralism” (267). She explains that code-switching (also known as bidialectalism) is viewed by many educators and scholars as a foil to eradicationism, which has the goal of eliminating students’ non-standard language use and replacing it with SE or edited academic English (EAE). However, an important element in this discussion, introduced by Keith Gilyard and not always considered by advocates of code-switching, is the element of agency. Agency describes students’ capacity to make their own decisions regarding learning – in this case, regarding language use.  In the context of code-switching, agency refers to who decides when the student should switch codes. Gilyard notes that in the typical implementation of code-switching in the classroom, it is the teacher who decides when SE or EAE is to be used. (Howard, 266). Thus code-switching, Howard explains, is nothing more than “covert eradicationism” (267), because the person with power and authority (the teacher) makes the decision about when the student must set aside his/her language, sending the message in the end that the student’s language form in inferior.

 

Howard notes that a third option is available – the pedagogy of pluralism. In a pluralistic approach, the learner has the agency to make decisions about when and how language forms are used. Others (Lovejoy, Young) have called this approach ‘code-meshing.’ Reaching beyond code-switching to pluralism means not only recognizing AAVE as a language form equivalent to SE or EAE, but also studying AAVE as an integral part of African American culture. Furthermore, it means challenging the “long-standing tradition in which European American culture is not only superior to but independent of African American culture” (Howard, 267). In the classroom it means teaching with what Geneva Smitherman calls “soul ‘n style [,..] recognizing that we don’t impart knowledge in a vacuum” (16).

 

In the context of pluralistic pedagogy, Howard gives a concise and fascinating account of how the AAVE we know today is not a dialect of SE nor a throwback to earlier British English - both explanations had previously been thought to be the case - but is in fact a language descended from a plantation creole, and as such retains many features of the African languages spoken by slaves (268-9). Such an intimate mix of languages and cultures from the birth of our nation might be uncomfortable for many to consider, but true pluralism requires it.

 

Howard experienced a different kind of discomfort about AAVE in her own classroom, when she and her students decided to designate one class period during which they would all speak AAVE. Although the idea was originally proposed by an African American student along with a Caucasian student and was initially regarded favorably by most of the students, when the designated day drew near, most of the student backed away from the idea, citing discomfort of various origins. Some of the Caucasian students were concerned that they would sound racist or prejudiced if they spoke AAVE. They realized that, “[i]n their experience, a white person speaks AAVE only to parody African Americans” (Howard, 270). The African American students found that “they did not want to be publicly associated with the language” (270) in the presence of their white classmates. They realized they had a fear of appearing ignorant to their classmates, and that they had a “collective desire to keep AAVE a private code […] never spoken out of its context” (270). Howard’s conclusion was that AAVE “emerged neither as a dialect nor a language, but as a discourse position” through her class’s experiment (270).

 

If AAVE is truly a discourse position, then it seems difficult to envision ever fully breaking free of the Catch-22 of language inclusion/language exclusivity in the American classroom and American academia and commerce. However, it will be interesting to see how the increase in non-native speakers of English as well as speakers of World Englishes (WE, first languages that are a form of English other than Standard American English) in the U.S. over the next few decades might affect this. Since 1970, native speakers of English have not been the majority of English users worldwide. By 2050, those who speak English as an additional/second language are predicted to outpace those who speak English as a sole or first language (worldwide) by at least thirty million, even according to conservative estimates (Canagarajah 588).  The 2011 U.S. census found that sixty million people in the U.S. speak a language other than English at home (Census.gov). Thus Americans are becoming ever more likely to interact closely and in a school or business setting with someone who is not a native speaker of Standard American English.

 

The increasing globalization of business and the media may affect the public’s perception of language inclusivity in the coming decades as well. In the U.S., the BBC and its ‘received pronunciation’ is available for listening to anyone with an internet connection. On “World Have Your Say,” a call-in show carried by National Public Radio stations, you can hear guests and listener-callers from around the globe discussing issues in English. Regular programming on CNN and major networks features correspondents who are non-native speakers of English, such as Christiane Amanpour. Canagarajah echoes this when he notes: “[o]ften it is CNN that carries the diverse Englishes of reporters, politicians, and informants […] into the houses of the most reclusive middle class families in the West” (590).

 

The language debate continues and the Catch-22 of inclusivity for empowerment versus exclusivity for mainstream success will likely continue to be an issue facing educators and linguists for many years to come. However, many factors are working to break down the “long-standing tradition of elitism in American life and language matters” (Smitherman 16). Tireless advocacy by language scholars; hard work by classroom teachers; open-mindedness by those in academia; increasing numbers of African Americans in positions of power in American society; the globalization of the media; and the influx of immigrants, international students, and business leaders bringing their versions of English to America: all these factors are working to create chinks in the armor of standard-American-English exclusiveness.

 

 

Works Cited

Canagarajah, Suresh. “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued.” College Composition and Communication  57:4 (2006): 586-617.

 

 

Delpit, Lisa. “No Kinda Sense.” The Skin That We Speak: Thoughts on Language and Culture in the Classroom. Ed. Lisa Delpit and Joanne Kilgour Dowdy. NY: The New Press, 2002. 31-48.

 

 

Howard, Rebecca Moore. “The Great Wall of African American Vernacular English in the American College Classroom.” JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 16:2 (1996): 265-283.

 

 

Jones, Rachel L. “What’s Wrong with Black English.” Language Awareness: Essays for College Writers. Ed. Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. 5th ed. NY: St. Martin's P, 1995. 349-51. Print.

 

 

Ryan, Camille. “Language Use in the United States: 2011.” http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf American Community Survey Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2011. Web. 23 Sepember 2013.

 

 

Smitherman, Geneva. “Soul ‘n Style.”  Talkin That Talk: Language, Culture, and Education in African America. NY: Routledge, 200. 343-346.