Language Variation: Should we address it in second language classrooms?
...ble to use or recognize linguistic variants. And for Rickford (1996), raising learners’ awareness of language variation enhances their sensitivity to the diversity and richness of a language, and improves their intercultural relations and understanding. I totally agree with the arguments that are put forward by these scholars, and as an ESL teacher, I do believe language variation plays an important role in teaching language learners. However, when I consider the social, political, economic and historical forces that affect the EFL/ESL teaching and learning contexts, I believe that the notion of “addressing language variation in language classrooms” sounds very ideal, but not practical. As I have mentioned above, language variation plays an important role in teaching language learners. Teachers should teach Standard English, but at the same time, they should expose their learners to phonological, lexical or grammatical variants. Raising students’ awareness of language variation will not only help them improve their communicative competence; especially their listening and speaking skills, but it will also lead to better attitudes towards diversity. However, although exposing students to language variation is the desired objective of many language teachers and administrators to help learners function effectively in real life situations, it is also a contradiction that classroom teaching is not all about real life. Most classroom events and happenings are constrained by the social, historical and political forces that surround the teaching and learning context. As a result of the influences of these factors, school administrators, teachers and students form some prejudices towards linguistic variants that do not conform to the rules of “standard English”. People always tend to compare languages and assign qualities to them. (For example, X language is “better” than Y language, Y language is “more efficient” than Z language or Z language is “non-standard”) As a result of these prejudices or evaluations that are brought to the classroom context, it becomes even harder and harder for teachers to address language variation in their teaching. There is always the risk of encountering resistance either from the students or school administrators. Also in some teaching contexts where the teachers are expected to follow a pre-set curriculum that favors Standard English and dismisses other varieties of English, addressing language variation in class is not nothing but an absolute challenge for language teachers. One of the main agents that is responsible for promoting language ideology and the “myth of Standard English” is the current educational system. In their practices, most schools reinforce the idea that Standard English should be taught in language classrooms. For example, currently I am teaching English 51 ESL College Composition course in First Year Writing Program at Temple University. The main objective of this course, as it is described in the “Instructor Manual”, is as follows: “Objectives: At semester’s end, English 50/51 students should demonstrate both fluency and competence with Standard English in their finished papers, and they should be able to recognize errors and logical contradictions they make in early drafts.” As it is made very clear in this “objectives” statement, as the instructor of English 51 ESL course, I am responsible for exposing my learners to the social conventions and rules of academic writing in Standard English. Considering the fact that written language “actively suppresses and discourages variation of all kinds” (Lippi-Green 1997:20), not addressing language variation in second language writing classes makes a lot of sense to me. However, in other language classes that emphasize language (i.e. grammar & vocabulary) or listening and speaking skills, I believe addressing language variation may help learners become prepared to deal with language that they hear outside the classroom and help them become more flexible and sensitive to diversity. However, as I have mentioned before, classroom reality will always have some limitations. For example, classroom materials or activities might be determined according to the guidelines set by the school administrators that favor the idea of promoting Standard English. Or another limitation might be the learners’ linguistic stereotypes. In these cases, as I have stated before, addressing language variation is idealistic but not practical. One way to overcome this problem might be to...