h. . g) . frr 3...... “Recap-‘8‘, V. (h H. .1 C...” . n u. 3. .. ww. ; $1 . ;‘. 4i . SA. .. . ,3. E. .vv. l v... .. ’38 . ..... . .. .......i;. 1.; It . f». 4.... «A E J a 27.2.7 .5le . flagfisfi .vagvsaafi . .Bficw 5% .§€2 . $3. FE .3 .vnat 2:3: I..- . 0c 55132 .n. ‘ ( 5r. €=R5fifi$fiffifi u.to~ Cc. J .1» u ,2:. 4... 4 1. 23:2... an) ‘ J n . may. ;. , . I K .42 r a". . . 21.. ‘ ”(Jed :3 r 1 .(J .1 C». . - .4. g CV . ‘ a gflmfigfim 4: Fr. ; , c b L I B 1-; A R Y E Michig; n State 5 University If? This is to certify that the -thesis entitled . f , . The Effects of Language Characteristics In Oral Reading presented by Larry D . Ditto has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education 0-7639 I’ve», .\ . fluid. J.) as. 'TML“? ‘. ‘. r -. 3.. . 3 \ . ~ . , \ 9’”: ltw' . " . ‘.-..‘: . ,-,1~ «9,.1»: ‘ t A n ~_ .( - ~ 33‘ [r l ;- {VIN “v"!fr) .\“. > t . ,' , ' ‘ . fifths: crznzlu. s . ~ _ 3A Qaview :.;“ aw ‘ : -;~ .- wk ‘ a .',I ' $1" 'AflfflatuAce' qux-‘pa s ‘ ax-y- " :7 "4-3;, “ w“ 'x r . 9“ ‘~ '- ‘~ ‘ ._ * . 3a-»; ‘7 _ M ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF LANGUAGE CHARACTERISTICS IN ORAL READING BY Larry Dean Ditto The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of a sample of graduate students, the majority of whom were teachers, toward Black English dialect in an oral reading evaluation activity. The study was established to examine the effects of an informative lecture upon the subject's attitudes concerning the acceptability of dialect related oral responses. The information from this study is dually important because of the unfortunate reading failure rate which is experienced by many dialect speakers, and because of the critical need to train prospective teachers to more effectively teach dialect speakers to read. A review of the literature reveals that disagreement exists concerning the nature of dialect differences and their effect on reading development. Among major points of disagreement are those related to the acceptability of linguistic differences. Some researchers posit that certain linguistic differences between standard English and Black v“- ’K O\\B 0) Larry Dean Ditto (5 dialect interfere with Black children learning to read and, thus, should be eradicated or replaced with standard English. Others researchers posit that such a position reflects a distorted cultural view. These researchers posit that a child's linguistic habits are the result of their life experiences and differences which exist should be accepted and used as a base for future linguistic growth. It is stated that teachers' rejection of the linguistic differences, their tendency not to accept these differences coupled with their efforts to correct or change such habits, is a major cause of reading failure rather than dialect interference. Questions concerning the interference of dialect differences in reading comprehension are primarily unre- solved. This study does nothing to resolve such issues. Previous research has indicated that teachers do perceive dialect based reading responses as reading errors. Previous studies, however, have not indicated how exten— sively teachers assume such a position. Research also generally has not examined the affect of attempts to change teachers' behavior. In this experimental study, sixty students enrolled in three graduate classes in reading instruction at Michigan State University were randomly divided into a control and an experimental group. Both groups were asked to assess a Black adult male's reading performance in a .,_ ,-y..,v - _. “m* _.—-—w—-w. Larry Dean Ditto controlled reading activity. The experimental group was presented a lecture concerning language divergency prior to their assessment of the reading. The control group received no such presentation. One major hypothesis was stated relative to the affect of the presentation upon the teachers' acceptance of the dialect related differences which appeared in the recorded reading. A one-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Several related questions were also examined. The findings indicated that teachers who were informed of the nature of linguistic differences perceived fewer dialect related responses as reading errors than those who did not receive such information. Related findings indicated that teachers perceived such responses as errors frequently enough to potentially effect their assessment of the reader's abilities. The findings also indicated that taking additional reading classes in and of itself does not prevent teachers from perceiving such responses as reading errors. Findings also indicated grammatical differences used in this study were more stigmatized than phonological differences. These findings were discussed and recommendations for further research suggested. THE EFFECTS OF LANGUAGE CHARACTERISTICS IN om READING By Larry Dean Ditto A DISSERTAT I“ Submitted to 4 ~ nichigan State University Mia). fulfilIncat of thc requirements for the dcgrcc of noes-o: or “Imam t of max-y Education and Special Education \' a L'|‘a. ‘ I . . 1 "a“. “alumnus .. . .v _. . J . ,~'-. 7 “worthwhile cm: . . .. xv" - 9.. i. '-. . . “I... " . . a lam-tits; Nae. 9343.9“:stumsbildreamfiacud may-muntwdiw. attenuates Museum. my P!M!;°§§;~PQ¥8HM-m us. “3.3.333; m man-3 and his mud-m “u'. . , ,tv raw” . w. Lenald room. And DI. LINK. . *ps Pia‘m been ~—.u':a am: w c- a sum-“W m‘ttev. ‘ - ant-m. “.3 . "lhzq‘ 5-; M MY woc: 1. '.-:.'n‘..':l~ .p . .33 S'Mnflan ”3 .3 4‘3? . 3 L 3 -, _6‘ fl mitten zl‘ ' no ;'3Rr': ’,1.’\.(-- .av: . ~-- a W. i Q mfltlonc and van at. (wig-igr —4' my”, ' New. I qudde thanks to to»: ...nairv.vrsw:u -5 .“'t’.‘-;:~-' “111d JODMW V230 “his“ as was. x-qeu nun ”wax m.“ N W M m "u twain}, —-“ “NC“ .‘h mi“; W than)! t $£g~3§.l.r,‘.'.b_3rn-tr. . , as”, SNR‘GI. who W ~25. -.~,,..g-3,';_ ‘66 '33.”: m 1'. as long-um 3: a. A- 5.33% 3:3 DJ} “wwolluumfim WW 3: 3.‘ \ f I 3:: . . . - ,.\ \ A>H * - .. -- - 3 v‘» . _ 3., 1 _' ~' . 3 "'5‘?" , 3 k. . - Afizl ’4: .. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals helped to make the completion of this study a reality. Dr. James Snoddy, my committee chairman, is deeply appreciated for his support, his under— standing and his guidance. Dr. Louise Sause, Dr. Donald Nickerson, and Dr. Glenn Cooper have been warm and supportive as a guidance committee. Their efforts are also appreciated. My special thanks to Dr. George Sherman who served on my committee at the dissertation level. His creative suggestions and vast knowledge of reading have been most helpful. An added thanks to four individuals is offered. To my friends, Gerald Jennings who helped me perform this study and Will Johnson who let me use his voice and knowledge of the subject, my thanks. My appreciation to my friend Dr. James Shanker who helped me develop the idea for this study. To my long-time friend Dr. Victor Schug who encouraged me to enroll at Michigan State, my added thanks. vwrr' LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES o 0 o o I o o I o I I 0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . Need for the Study. . . . . . Theory and Supportive Research. . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . Introduction. . . . . The Nature of Dialects on Speech Divergence. . . . . . The Nature of Psycholinguistics and Reading Instruction. . . The Nature of Oral Reading and Dialect Interference . . The Nature of the Relationships Between Dialect, Psycholinguistics and Reading The Nature of Teacher Training. . . The Nature of Teachers' Attitudes and Reading Instruction. . . . . . . RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE. . . Sample. . . . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . . The Instrument . . . . . . The Reader and the Text . . . . Data Gathering and Analysis. . . Summary of the Design and Procedure Page Page RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 87 Experimental Results . . . . . . 87 Testing the Research Hypothesis . . . . 87 Results I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 smary I I I I I I I I I I I I 92 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 93 smary I I I I I I I I I I I I 93 Findings . . . . . . . . 95 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . 97 Implications and Conclusions . . . . . 98 Recommendations for Further Research. . . 102 LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Participants at Each Level of Tears of Experience . . . . . . . . 71 W~3verage Years of Experience of Groups. . . 72 lp35$#wcrade Level Experience. . . . . . . . 73 'iJ’JAnalysis of Variance of the Number of Errors Perceived by the Treatment and Non- w‘fid Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . 90 =~analysis of the Covariate of the Number of Reading Courses Taken . . . . . . . 91 V1, CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The fact that a large population of children who use language patterns which are different or divergent from standard English usage are failing in our schools is the concern of many educators. Inner—city Black children comprise a large portion of this diverse speaking popu- lation; speakers whose usage patterns differ from standard English. In the District of Columbia Public Schools, a system which is 96 percent Black, it is estimated that 80 percent of the children are not reading at grade-level (Baratz, 1970a). It is believed that nearly equivalent rates of failure exist in other large city systems. General lack of success can be documented in a variety of forms; drop—out rate, placement in special programs, wide range lower achievement scores, etc., but no documentation is as striking as those figures which display the low reading achievement and reading ability of inner- city Black children. That inner-city Black children are experiencing less reading success than their White counterparts is a controversial situation which has been examined and debated from medical, psychological, political, sociological, and educational positions. Untold numbers of pages aimed at exploring why this unfortunate phenomenon exists have been written. Countless studies have been conceived and directed to discover basic roots of the problem. Highly respected and knowledgeable individuals from various disciplines have designed and supported specific ideas and approaches to rectify the situation. Governmental agencies and private foundations have provided funds to help eradicate the situation. Yet, with all our knowledge and understanding, with all our ingenuity and planning, with vast financial support and with the sincere dedication and concern of so many individuals, many Black children are not succeeding in school. The problem is not new and the prognosis is not encouraging. An ominous appraisal of the situation issued by Stephen and Joan Baratz (1969) must be heeded today, "The failure of urban education to educate Negro ghetto children has reached crisis proportions." A variety of attempts have been made to identify, isolate and change factors which have contributed to the situation. Massive area-wide bussing schemes, the up- grading of physical facilities and staff, the revisions of materials and curriculum and other similar changes are ones which have been instituted with varying degrees of success in an attempt to change factors which might contribute to the situation. Investigators have studied the Black *.wv~‘ population from almost every conceivable position and have hypothesized and postulated causes and cures based on their studies. Divisions of thoughts and polarization of positions seem the status quo. The status quo clearly demands that additional investigation into possible con- tributing factors and remedies continue. Purpose of the Study This study is concerned with one possible factor contributing to the lack of success in reading of inner- city Black children. The purpose is to assess the effective- ness of a specific technique to reduce the effects of the factor. The factor examined in this study is a tendency on the part of teachers to incorporate divergent language characteristics into the assessment of an oral reading activity, identifying those oral language characteristics which are different than the expected norm as reading errors. The technique used to effect a change of this factor was the presentation of a lecture containing specific information concerning a relativistic view of divergent speaking patterns. The charge has been made that teachers' practices are frequently based upon faulty data, misapplication of accepted data, ill-founded assumptions and/or prejudicial, stereotyped beliefs. In terms of reading instruction, the charge is that teachers tend to be hyperselective in what they consider to be correct or acceptable verbal behavior. -—.——_-— ‘M" w—- 4 e“ .O‘ It is suggested that the oral reading process includes viewing the printed sheet, mentally reading the message, translating the message into the readers' learned language forms and orally producing a rendition of the message in accustomed language forms. The accustomed language forms of divergent speakers frequently differ in some respects from the response expected by teachers. It is suggested that teachers tend to view the differences between a divergent oral rendition and their expected response, which is based upon the teacher's accustomed language forms as reading or language errors. Consequently, they frequently correct the responses. It is suggested that similar corrections are reflections of teachers' learned hyper- ‘selectivity and accomplish little in the way of helping children succeed in reading. In fact, it is argued that such teaching practices have a tendency to create negative feelings on the part of the reader and contributes to reading failure. Teachers' classroom practices are influenced by a multitude of factors. It is suggested that the degree of tolerance teachers display for divergency from expected speech norms may well be related to their teacher training programs. If teachers are, in fact, hyperselective in their assessment of oral reading response, perhaps they have been so trained. Or, at least they have not been trained to understand and accept language differences as a legitimate occurrence. ~—_ -1 'i- __—___._ Teachers' attitudes toward divergent language characteristics are the general concerns of this study. Varification that teachers are, in fact, hyperselective in what they consider correct or acceptable was a prerequisite for this study. How such teacher attitudes might have an impact on their establishment of reading expectations for individual students also needed to be answered. The participants were given a transcript of a printed passage and were played a tape recording of the passage being read. The transcript included the original passage plus added notations to indicate which words were pronounced differently than printed. The material was designed so that all the differences in pronunciations could be accounted for as speech characteristics of the reader; a Black adult male, a fact of which the partici- pants wereriot aware. The participants were informed that the additional notations indicated responses which an observer felt were significant indicators of reading difficulty or a need for remediation. They were asked to listen to the tape, con- sider the responses and circle those responses which they felt indicated a reading weakness or a need for remediation; a change in the behavior of the reader. The participants were faced with a choice of accepting a pronunciation difference as a language characteristic or perceiving it as a reading error. A copy of the transcript as well as the directions provided can be found in Appendix A. The participants' responses were examined. The passage used in this study was written by the investigator specifically for the study. It contains a total of 123 words, 72 of which were noted as being pronounced differs ently by the reader. As a group, the participants per— ceived 199 or 9.2 percent of the total response as being reading errors. The number of perceived errors ranged from 0 to 29 with an average of 6.6. An assessment of a child's reading ability is commonly made in part on the basis of information gained from an oral reading activity similar to the one used here. A child's reading level, independent, instructional and frustration can be established on the basis of such an activity. Accurate placement of the child in appropriate materials is assumed essential to reading success. Duffy and Sherman (1973) state, "If he makes.more than‘five pronunciation errors in every 100 words and/or if he comprehends the material at less than 75 percent the material is too difficult for him." In this activity, there was no way for the partici- pants to make valid assessments of the reader's compre— hension. All response differences appear as decoding or pronunication errors. Using the 5 percent margin for error as prescribed by Duffy and Sherman as a basis, 6 or more perceived errors could indicate the child is reading material which is too difficult for him. The number of errors perceived by the participants was sufficient for Vs u, ‘9. teachers to establish lower expectations and perceptions of the reader's abilities and capabilities. Eighteen of the 30 participants (60 percent) perceived six or more reading errors occurred. It is granted that probably few teachers establish a child's reading ability solely on the basis of their performance on an activity of this type. However, it is not known how many teachers do place a primary emphasis on similar activities. Traditionally, decoding or word per- ception accuracy have been an established goal of most reading programs. Instructional activities aimed at developing accuracy in word perception are common in schools. A child's ability to pronounce words frequently has been equated to his ability to read. In this study, 60 percent of the participants perceived pronunciation differences as reading errors rather than accepting them as possible language characteristics at a rate which could effect their judgment concerning the reader's abilities. Information from this study should be of value to educators who are interested in teacher training activities. Need for the Study The need for a study of this type was implied by Granowsky (1972): In the past two decades, linguistics, sociolinguistics and the new discipline of psycholinguistics have made large strides beyond earlier notions of "correct" usage. It seems, however, that the new insight from these disciplines have made only a minimal impact on teacher education institutions and instructional practices in the classroom. The need for studies of this type is to begin to develop an awareness in teachers and teacher training institutions that valuable knowledge concerning teaching reading exists but is not being applied. Teaching practices need to be con- sistent with our knowledge of the subject. J. Baratz (1970c) wrote to this pOint: The White or Black teacher, regardless of her attitude toward the children, goes into the classroom to ply her trade. When she first enters the classroom, she intends to teach these children in the best way she knows how. Herein lies the problem, "the best way she knows how" has no relevance to the children she is teaching. The teacher does as good a job as she knows how to do, she works with curriculum and materials she knows works with other children, and she watches them fail in her classroom. Given this situation, she has several alternatives: (1) to deny they are actually failing; (2) to assume that the children are innately uneducable because the tried and true methods haven't worked; (3) to assume the children can't learn because of their alleged pernicious home environments; (4) to assume this is something wrong with her methods and materials that interfere with the ghetto child's learning to read. The four alternatives offered by Baratz have all received favor in various circumstances. Alternative four begins to remove the focus from the children and directs it toward teachers and the training they have received. Such redirection of focus is consistent with the need for this study. Theory and Supportive Research To fully appreciate the dimension of the problem of teaching reading to Black inner-city children, it is v.— III-- L‘A':. ‘ necessary to understand one of the more significant points of certain investigators' disagreements and the ramifi- cations and implications of their positions. The effect of the oral language on the learning of many speakers of Black English is debated from two poles. One group of investi- gators view the language of these children as being inferior, incomplete and undesirable and before the children can learn to read, their language must be changed, the deficit theory. W. Labov (1969a) assessed the deficit theory as the concept of "verbal deprivation": “Negro children from the ghetto area receive little stimulation, are said to hear very little well formed language and as a result, are impoverished in their means of verbal expression; they cannot speak complete sentences, do not know the names of common objects, cannot form concepts or convey logical thoughts." The language of children has been linked to their cognitive functioning by Ausubel (1966), Bernstein (1966), Hess and Shipman (1965) and Brottman (1965). Brottman concluded that lower class children have neither the experience nor the language to effect the transition from one stage of cognitive growth to the next at the usual age- norm. Other investigators, who apparently support the deficit theory, assume that the oral language of inner-city Black children is so vastly different from the standard 10 English of printed materials that training in standard English is a necessary prerequisite to reading. Deutsch (1966), R. STuckland (1962), Ecroyd (1968), and Allison Davis (1965) support such training. Bereiter and Engelmann (1966) have taken the position that such children come to school with little useful facility with oral language. The viewpoint that the children face school learning from a deficit position because of their language received wide acceptance and has been used as the basis for large scale intervention programs; programs aimed at correcting the childrens' linguistically impoverished environment. The deficit theory is rejected by investigators who view the position as linguistically unsound and a reflection of distorted cultural values. From this position, language systems are viewed as different but equal. Writers who generally support this position include: Labov (1967, 1970b), Stewart (1967, 1968, 1969a, 1969b, 1970, 1971), Shuy (1968b, 1968c, 1969a, 1969b, 1970a), Baratz (1969b, 1969c, 1970a, 1970b, 1970c, 1971), Baratz and Baratz (1969, 1970), Johnson (1971a, 1971b), K. Goodman (1965a, 1969a, 1973), Fasold (1969, 1971) and Torrey (1970). Wolfram (1969) explains the position: . . . the difference model considers each language variety to be a self—contained system which is in- herently neither superior nor deficient. Nonstandard dialects are systems in theirown right, with their own pronunciation and grammatical rules. And, although these rules may differ from standard English, they are no less consistent or logical than the rules of the social prestigious dialect. 11 Proponents of the difference theory have devoted their efforts to investigate the language of various groups sociologically, historically, psychologically, geographically and functionally. Hybreds in the field of linguistics have developed; sociolinguists, geolinguists, etc., to study the \ language differences of groups and individuals from their respective viewpoints. The difference position seems to have made less of an impact on educational practice than the deficit theory. It is difficult to find widespread programs which are based on this position. At this point, it is not the intent of this review to defend or refute either the deficit or the difference theories, but to illustrate the source of some of the dis- agreement which exists concerning the teaching of reading to Black inner-city children. The diverse findings and con- clusions of the various investigators and their respective recommendations concerning educational practices seem to add to the confusion and frustration of many teachers and educational planners who must work directly with the children. At least five positions concerning the teaching of reading to divergent speakers have evolved from the deficit-difference argument. Shanker (1973) characterized the approaches as: l l. the use of dialect-specific reading materials for initial reading instruction; 2. training in oral standard English prior to beginning reading instruction; 12 3. dialect neutralization; 4. language experience; 5. dialect rendering of extant materials. Dialect specific reading materials are those written in the dialect of the child. The basis for such materials is the belief that reading failure occurs because of a mis- match between the childrens' language and that used in printed materials. Supporters argue that when using material with fewer language mismatches, the child should experience less confusion and greater success in reading. Shuy (1968a, 1969a, 1969b, 1970a), Baratz (1969a, 1969c, 1970a, 1971), Tatham (1970), Stewart (1970, 1971) and Wolfram (1970) generally support the development of dialect specific material to prevent reading failure. Those who oppose dialect readers suggest this view is simplistic, naive and ill-founded. Rystrom (1972) denounces researchers who confuse correlation with cause and effect. He states: There is virtually no evidence that dialect is causally related to reading failures. . . . Any regional or social dialect is, so far as has been determined, an equally effective vehicle for learning to read as any other regional or social dialect. This view is supported by Torrey (1970), Bailey (1970), and Labov (1966, 1967, 1970b). Another approach to enhance reading success based on the deficit position is to forego reading instruction until the children receive training in oral standard English. This position is related to the idea that oral l3 ability is a prerequisite to reading. This position has apparently received traditional support and wide acceptance as evidenced by the practice that it is a common occurrence for classroom teachers to use oral reading activities to correct or change the pronunciation of the reader. This practice isrxnzused exclusively with any specific dialect group, but is frequently used with any speaker who fails to pronounce words as expected by the teacher. Deutsch (1966), R. Strickland (1962), and Davis (1965) support this approach with Black children. Bereiter and Engelman (1966) suggested that teachers "start from zero" and provide instruction as though the children have no knowledge of English. Venezky (1970) stated, ". . . it is required, but often not stated, that the children learn to speak the standard language before he attempts to read it." Those who opposed this position question the neces- sity for an accurate oral reproduction of the printed word. Hodges and Rudorf (1972), Goodman (1965b, 1970) and other linguists have repeatedly suggested that orgal production of the printed word is only one display of the reading act, perhaps the least important one. It is suggested that the goal of any reading program is to allow children to become the best possible readers. This implies that readers be receptive of the authors' meanings which are related to the deep structure of the language rather than being preoccupied with the production of the surface structure such as pronunciation. The concepts of surface-deep structure and l4 productivity-receptivity will be discussed more completely later. Also, if oral production is a prerequisite to reading, all mute children apparently must be considered incapable of learning to read. Another reaSon for questioning oral training prior to reading instruction suggests that there is little evidence that such skill can be can be developed through formal instruction or soon enough to provide the projected benefits. Rystrom (1968), Rentel and Kennedy (1972), and Fasold (1971) have suggested that such training has been proven to be unproductive and impractical. A third approach for teaching reading to divergent speakers is the development of texts written in language which minimizes the discrepancies between the child's oral language and standard English print. This approach would require massive vocabulary control. Wolfram (1970) and Venezky (1970) have concluded that it is either too artificial or impractical to be considered seriously. The language experience approach is an alternative which frquently receives enthusiastic support on the basis that using this approach the problem of dialect mismatch is avoided. Supporters suggest that since teachers record the experiences of the children in their own language, few language obstacles to reading are present. .This approach is supported by Cramer (1970) and Seymour (1973). Opposition to this approach is frequently directed toward the concept in general rather than its specific use 15 with dialect speakers. The language experience approach to be effective requires specific talents of the teacher. The approach provides little direct skill instruction or skill sequencing and does not allow for vocabulary control. Using this approach with dialect speakers requires the teacher to have knowledge, understanding, and skills concerning the language and dialect, traits many teachers are said to be without. A final approach worthy of consideration is the use of existing materials but allowing the children to read in their own dialect. This position is gaining widespread support from individuals who support the difference rather than the deficit position. It is argued that the lack of linguistic knowledge in teachers is in part the cause of reading failures in divergent speakers. Seymour (1973) suggests that: . . . difference in grammatical construction may not interfere with (Black childrens') comprehension, but it is likely to interfere with the way they say the sentence aloud. . . . While pupils are beginning to learn to read, it may be advisable to let them "translate" the words into their own form of the same meaning—-their own grammar. After all, if they are able to do this, it means they have really learned to read, because they have decoded printed symbols into oral language that is meaningful to them. From this position, it is argued that many dialect speakers do, in fact, read or understand the message of the author, but because their oral renditions are in dialect with characteristic differences in pronunciations and grammar, teachers view their reading ability as being 16 deficient. It is suggested that the lack 0f liDQUiStiC knowledge causes teachers to assess dialect differences as reading errors. This classroom phenomenon, which will be discussed more extensively later in this paper, serves as the basis of the need for this study. Goodman (1965a) made the following observations: 1. In reading instruction, the focus must be on learning to read. No attempt to change the child's language must be permitted to enter into the process or inter- fere with it. No special materials need be constructed, but children must be permitted, actually encouraged, to read the way they speak. (The teacher) must study (the child's language) carefully and become more aware of the key elements of divergence that are likely to cause difficulty. Goodman's statements provide the general focus of this study. Ia. Hypotheses There is a significant difference in the number of errors recognized in an oral reading evaluation activity by teachers who receive a short informative lecture concerning a relativistic view of language divergence with an emphasis on specific character- istics of Black English and teachers who receive no such presentation. There is no significant difference in the number of errors recognized in an oral reading evaluation activity by teachers who receive a short informative lecture concerning a relativistic view of language divergence with an emphasis on specific character— istics of Black English and teachers who receive no such presentation. 17 Definition of Terms In this study, the following terms and their accompanying definitions are used: Acrolect.--A term coined by W. Stewart, is a term for the collection of linguistic features of most prestige among a given community of speakers. It is best understood with reference to its opposite, Basilect. Basilect.--Also coined by Stewart, is the term for the collection of linguistic features which has least prestige in a given community of speakers. In some polyglot situations, the speech variety of least prestige is simply the language of the poorest group. In the American Black community where prestige language still involves adaptation toward White norms, Black children are the principal speakers of basilect. Deep Structure.--The underlying and abstract form of each sentence which represents the basic semantic relationships being expressed (see surface structure). Dialect.--The speech pattern of a number of indi— viduals whose language is similar in some significant way. Dialect Switching.--An individual speaker's shift .from one dialect to another. Idiolect.--The characteristic speech patterns of an individual. 18 Interference.--The influence of one language system on another, usually a subsequently learned system. Language.--A set of arbitrary symbols (words) which are placed in orderly relationship with one another according to conventions accepted and understood by the speaker, for the transmission of messages. Language Competence.--The nonconscious, tacit knowledge for fuller definition underlying behavior. Language Performance.--Actual speech production or comprehension. Lexical Structure.--Related to words or the vocabulary of a language as distinguished from its grammar or construction. Linguistics.--The scientific study of human speech or language, its modifications, nature and structures, including such factors as: accent, general or philosophical grammar, morphology, phonetics, phonlogy, semantics, syntax and relevant relationships between speech and writing. Non-Standard Enqlish.--The use of speech forms or patterns within a particular language that show noticeable variation from the designated standard parlance. Such speech is commonly referred to as "incorrect," "illiterate" or "vulgar." Phonetic Structure.--Related to spoken language or speech sounds patterned within words. 19 Phonology.--The systematic study of the sound patterns of language. Role Switching.--The speaker's shift of a language variety when there is a change in the relationship among the participants and in their definition of the situation. Standard English.--That form of a language which has acquired cultural and literary prestige over other dialects and is thus accepted as the "proper" form of that language. §Eylg.--Refers to variations in terms of formality, not to the literary sense of "excellence in expression" or the like. We can easily identify about four everyday stylistic levels in Standard English: formal, semi-formal, casual, intimate. Style Switching.—-An individual speaker's shift from one mode of expression or style to another. Surface Structure.-—The superficial and perceptible form of a sentence which represents the grammatical relationship such as subject of verb and object of verb in the sentence as spoken. Syntactic Structure.--Re1ated to the way in which words are put together or patterned to form phrases, clauses or sentences in a connected or orderly sytem or arrangement, i.e., grammar. 20 Variety.-—Is a relatively neutral designation for something between a language and an IdioleCt. A Dialect is thus a Variety; but a Variety is not necessarily a Dialect. Variety is sometimes used to refer to social variation. Vernacular.--The current, everyday speech of a group of people in a specific geographic area. Overview of the Remainder of the Thesis The related literature is reviewed in Chapter II. Chapter III contains a description of the procedures used in this study. The results of the study are presented in Chapter IV. In Chapter V, a summary of the study is made and conclusions are drawn. F. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Introduction The importance placed on reading success in schools cannot be minimized. Baratz and Baratz (1969) make the following observation: Reading ability is the most important measure of success in our educational establishments. Both our schools and the children in them are evaluated on the basis of reading scores, or achievement tests that rely heavily upon reading ability. Progress in schools depends on the constant development of reading skills. Yet, the one major fault of our urban educational system is its failure to understand why teaching an urban Negro child to read is so difficult. They continue: "The failure or urban education to educate Negro ghetto children has reached crisis proportions." A review of the literature concerning reading and Black children should be helpful in examining the factors which may be related to the reading failure rate being experienced by this group of children. The review has been organized to include specific facets which must be con- sidered as part of the overall situations. The facets reviewed are: 21 22 1. The Nature of Dialects and Language Diversity; 2. The Nature of Psycholinguistics and Reading Instruction; 3. The Nature of Oral Reading and Dialect Inter- ference; 4. The Nature of the Relationships Between Dialects, Psycholinguistics and Reading; 5. The Nature of Teacher Training; 6. The Nature of Teachers' Attitudes and Reading Instruction. The Nature of Dialects on Speech Divergence McDavid (1971) defines a dialect: It is simply an habitual variety of language, regional or social. It is set off from all other such habitual varieties by a unique combination of language features: words and meanings, grammatical forms, phase structures, pronunciation, patterns of stress and intonation. _No dialect is simply good or bad in itself; its prest1ge comes from the prestige of those who use it. But every dialect is in itself a legitimate form of the language, a valid instrument of human communication and something worthy of serious study. To develop the basis for this study, it is important to expand the concept of dialect. McDavid's definition may be viewed as a basic definition; a dialect is "simply an habitual variety of language, regional or social"; each variety is a "unique combination of language features"; no dialect is "simply good or bad in itself" and "every dialect is in itself a legitimate form of the language." The cOmPOnents of McDavid's definition will be expanded in the following pages. Dillard (1972) states: 23 As used in lingustics, dialect means simply the collective linguistic patterns of a sub-group of speakers of a language. Each individual speaker has an idolect and a collection of idolects is a dialect. (An idolect has been defined as the characteristic speech patterns of an individual.) Linguists generally view language as an identity marker. It is generally agreed that each individual uses language in ways that make him unique. All language varieties reflect different life experiences and past learning and are a vital part of the basic characteristics of an individual. A particular dialect may indicate that a person has learned his language in a specific geographic setting or a specific socio—economic setting. Socially, it may be used to "label" someone as part of an identity group or indicate that he is trying to relate to a particular group. Economically, it may be used to "establish" an individual in an economic hierarchy; to reward or deny a person a lofty posture in society. The dynamics and impli- cations of language differences are vast. A controversy exists concerning language divergence, specifically those considered to be nonstandard such as Black English or Black dialect. Johnson (1968) defines nonstandard dialect as "the collective patterns of a sub- cultural group that does not have the prestige of the collective speech patterns (standard English) of the dominant cultural group (middle class)." This definition can be contrasted with one established in 1968 by a group 24 of educators. They drafted the following definition of standard American English. A socially unmarked variety of American English used as a reference point in school language instruction to increase the individual's repertoire of important and useful ways of communicating. This variety of American English is often heard on network radio and television newscasts (Horn 1970). Both definitions seem to imply that one difference between standard and nonstandard English is related to Social factors. It is suggested that part of the controversy over the merits of standard-nonstandard English is based in a social context rather than a linguistic one. Language varieties are outgrowths of particular cultural environ- ments and, thus, should be viewed as equally legitimate for the users of that variety. Thus, they should not be Subjected to a comparison to standard English in evaluative terms. Viewing standard English as a socially established and perpetuated phenomenon adds credence to this position. Further credence seemingly is added if standard English is viewed as a vague, nebulous entity. Applegate (1970) states ". . . there is not yet a definitive norm of 'etandard American English' by which comparisons with the nonstandard dialect may be made." Language varieties may differ in phonology, syntax or lexicon. The trait most nearly standardized is syntax or sentence structure. There is a degree of universality concerning word meanings, but 25 variances of meanings are common. There appears, however, to be no single standard for pronunciation. Troike (1969) takes a strong position concerning the social connotations of dialects: There is no such thing as a "standard language" as contrasted with "dialects," there are only more or less culturally valued or socially prestigious dialects and more or less formal dialects of a language. Any other view simply reflects the ignorance of the one who holds Its. The idea that teachers are generally linguistically "ignorant" is a fairly common claim among linguistis. The phenomenon is discussed later in this review. The failure of many current efforts to change language behavior in children who use socially and edu- cationally limited dialects may arise out of a kind of ignorance which is deeply embedded in long-held school attitudes toward languages. The failure may arise from ignorance about the nature of language as a phenomenon; ignorance of the true nature and significance of dialect difference; ignornace of human attitudes toward language; and/or ignorance of the ways in which humans easily and naturally learn language and varieties of language. The Possible effect of linguistic "ignorance" on reading instruction will be considered in another section of this chapter. One of the major emphasis of the schools tradition- ally has been to develop users of "good English." It has been an accepted goal that children must learn to speak 26 and write "correctly." For the divergent speaker, such a goal creates a major obstacle to learning. York and Ebert (1970) relate to the situation: By the time children enter school, they have learned to live in their home environment, and they have become identifiable members of a particular culture--a culture sometimes different from, but not inferior to, the culture of the middle class. They use the dialect or language that is used in the home and with it readily communicated their needs and thoughts. Their language is part of their unique pattern of behavior, is repre- sentative of their culture, and is essential to their self-concept; hence, it must be accepted with under- standing and empathy. They continue: If, from the outset, the teacher focuses on his lack of knowledge in the areas related to middle class experi- ences and pointedly rejects his language, the pattern of defeat and alienation is fairly well assured for the child is very likely to develop a poor self-concept. Williams and Whitehead (1973) investigated teachers' attitudes toward childrens' speech. They concluded that teachers tend to judge childrens' speech along two main dimensions: confidence-eagerness and ethnic-nonstandardness. They concluded: This hints of a major shortcoming in what teachers are taught about the langauge of school children, one of where the ends in teaching English overshadow the means. Perhaps too much is stressed about the objective of teaching (and expecting) standard English rather than the careful diagnosis of existing linguistic capabili— ties of children as a starting point. They view this position not as an argument against standard EnSlish as an instructional objective, but an adjunct to it. They continue: If only for defining an instructional starting point, an ability to diagnose what a child can do linguisti- cally in nonstandard English should introduce some Efficiencies into English language instruction. 27 Some of the disagreement which exists concerning dialects revolves around the linguistic principles of productivity and receptivity. Communication skills are seen as those which are related to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Productive competence is required to speak and write (encode); to produce a message. Listening and reading (decoding) are receptive skills needed to receive and process the message of a producer. The primary pre- requisite for receptive comprehension is the ability to understand (receive) a message, not the ability to produce it. A reader's comprehension of printed messages is dependent upon his ability to understand the message not produce another rendition (recode) of the message. Applying these principles to reading, Sims (1972) state, ”dialect, in and of itself, does not interfere with reading." He points out that all individuals have the ability to receive aurally more dialects than they can produce orally. Torrey (1970) points out that Black English speakers understand English quite well and can translate standard forms into Black English easily. "A passive understanding of standard dialect should suffice for Purposes of learning to read, even if a child never learns to use the standard forms in speech." Bailey (1970) adds: ”. . . reading consists in the receiving of a message, not the sending of one, and . . . therefore, reading materials can be written in any code in which the potential reader has receptive competence." 28 Linguists have observed that when divergent speakers are presented messages in standard dialect and asked to repeat them, they will reproduce the message in their own dialect. The person performs an instantaneous translation process from standard dialects into his own native dialect. This translation process seems to be evidence that an adequate receptivity of standard dialect exists. It is a questionable practice to assess a child's linguistic competence solely or even largely on the basis of his ability to produce standard dialect. Troike (1969) suggests: Instead, we should begin by attempting to assess the child's receptive competence, as the basis from which to proceed in determining appropriate instructional procedures. Thus, if the child has an already well developed receptive knowledge of a more formal or "mainstream" dialect of the language, much of the instructional task can be seen as guiding him toward an automatic productive control of the "mainstream" dialect rather than having to teach it to him from scratch. . . . The goal is to make clear to the child that the choice of dialect is a matter of social appropriateness and expedience rather than one of right versus wrong, or good versus bad. Black dialect, Negro nonstandard English, and Black English are terms which have been used to indicate a variety of English which is used by many Black speakers. Fasold and Wolfram (1970) clarify the nature of Negro speech: First, it should be understood that not all Negroes speak Negro dialect. There are many Negores whose speech is indistinguishable from others of the same region and social class, and there are many whose speech can be identified as Negro only by a few slight differences in pronunciation and vocal quality. Second, Negro dialect shares many features with other kinds of English. Its distinctiveness, however, lies in the fact that it has a number of pronunciations and 29 grammatic features which are not shared by other dialects. It is important to realize that Negro dialect is a fully formed linguistic system in its own right, with its own grammar and pronunciation rules; it cannot simply be dismissed as an unworthy approximation of standard English. In fact, there are some grammatical distinctions which can be made more easily in Negro dialect than in standard English. Negro dialect then, as the term is used here, is a cohesive linguistic system which is substantially different from standard American English dialects. It is Spoken by some, though not all Negroes, particularly those of the lower socio-economic classes. Furthermore . . . almost all the features associated with Negro dialect alternate with standard English forms in actual speech. The distinguishing characteristics of this variety of English have been extensively investigated, examined, and categorized. Investigators who have described the charac- teristics of Black speech are numerous and include: Johnson (1971a), Board of Education of the City of New York (1967), Stewart (1967), Labov (1970b, 1972), Shuy (1968c), Melmed (1970), and Hughes (1967). Data concerning usage patterns have been gathered in New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Oakland, and Detroit. There is not complete agreement between all investigators concerning the impor- tance of specific characteristics which occur infrequently, but there is general agreement concerning major character- istics. Remarkable uniformity has been found from city to city. Labov (1969a) suggests, "dialect is largely an ethnic phenomena associated with social class and segregated urban residence." Steward (1969a) wrote, ". . . Negro dialect from South to North, from East to West, from farm to city and from storefront church to playground is all part of a single sociolinguistic complex with a single historical 30 origin." Mitchell-Kerman (1969) concluded, ". . . there exists ethnic patterns of speech which cross and subsume regional and to some extent, social class boundaries." It has been concluded that the majority of working class Negro children use oral language patterns which are generally similar in nature. It has also been concluded that a "universal" nonstandard does not exist. No one is prepared to predict exactly which specific characteristics will be evident in specific geographic areas for differ— ences occur from group to group and locality to locality. However, general norms of potential differences have been established. Labov (1966) suggests that the differences which do exist in Negro dialect and standard English are related to surface structures and transformations. He stated, "the pronunciation differences between Black and standard English provide the Negro child with a set of homonyms that are unlike those in standard spoken English dialect." Johnson (1971a), Stewart (1967), Labov (1970b), Shuy (1968b) and others support this contention. The set of different homonyms that are generated because of language differ- ences is related to reading failure. The homonyms account for pronunciation differences frequently perceived as language or reading errors and sequentially corrected by teachers. Some potential sources of homonyms peculiar to Negro dialect are located in the following phonological variables. 31 Delection of r or r-lessness in certain situations (before vowels, consonants or pauses in medial or final word positions) Examples: Standard--guard Black Dialect-~guad court cout door doo car ca sore saw Deletion of l in certain situations (especially after vowels Examples: Standard—-help Black Dialect-~hep cold cod school schoo bowl bow Simplification of consonant clusters at word finals (especially those which end in E, g, p, p, and k) Examples: Standard--past Black Dialect--pass mist miss mask mas ask ass gasp gas A set of replacements for certain consonant clusters (especially Eh_in certain situations) a. Voiceless ng-final position--replaced with E Examples: Standard--with Black Dialect--wif both bof mouth mouf b. Voiced ER replaced with g.in beginning position Examples: Standard--this Black Dialect--dis the de that da c. Voiced £2 replaced with y_in medial position Examples: Standard--breathe Black Dialect--breav bathe bav Delection of g_in words ending with suffic ing Examples: Standard--running glack Dialect--runnin jumping jumpin 32 6. Delection of 2Q as past tense marker Examples: Standard--walked Black Dialect--walk talked talk 7. A set of vowels which lack distinction before nasals (especially m, p, and ing) Examples: Standard--pin Black Dialect-—pen since sense think thank dawn don done don run ron home hom The above list of sources of potential homonyms differences is not claimed to be complete and all inclusive of homonyms differences of all speakers of Black dialect. It is also not intended to imply that these characteristics are shared only by Black speakers, some are shared or over- lap into other regional or societial environments; dropping 5's for example has been associated with certain areas in the Eastern United States. This list is presented only as a representative list to illustrate the possible occurrence rate and abundance of words with potential for homonym differences--differences in the sound systems of two distinct dialects; standard and Black English. None of the rules are adhered to by any speaker at all times; none are inviolable; all have the potential for generating words which may be perceived by teachers as language errors or indicators of lower social status. A phenomenon that occurs in the speech of most speakers regardless of the dialect should be noted; dialect 33 switching. Labov (1970b) suggests: "There are no single- style speakers . . . every speaker will show some variations in phonological and syntactic rules according to the immediate context in which he is speaking." He continues: ”It should be clear that the various sociolinguistic vari- ables found in American English are rarely confined to one or the other dialect, but usually wanders from one end of the stylistic range to the other." Dialect switching relates to the changing of language systems according to perceived demands of the occasion or situation. Language adaptability and flexibility seems to be a major goal of language development activities. Shuy (1967) notes: Our task is not to erradicate the social dialects which are inappropriate in the classroom. On one hand, it is uneconomical of our time to approach our job as a classroom manifestation of the Al Capone syndrome; on the other hand, it is dangerous to deprive our students of a channel (perhaps the only channel) of communication with people with whom they live. It has seldom occurred to English teachers that their customers may want or need to switch from schoolroom English to playground English as well as from playground to schoolroom. The switching devices may be more appropriate identifiers of the substance of our teaching. The ultimate choice of when totise these switching devices and when not to use them will have to me made by the speaker. We can't legislate virtue, no matter how we define it. But, we can, and must, provide the linguistic alternatives. Shuy's statement reflects a relativistic position concerning language usage differences. His position is consistent with the belief that individuals need to develop alternative usage patterns and be allowed to use them when they perceive the need. 34 Linguists have provided ample data to make sound judgments concerning educational programs for speakers of nonstandard English, especially speakers of Black dialect. No one is yet able to perfectly predict how the sound system of a particular speaker will be displayed. This is partially true because language usage is a very personalized trait which reflects past experiences and learning. Obviously, all individuals differ in past learning. It is suggested that when teachers correct a child's dialect in oral activities, particularly reading, they are in fact trying to change dialect. Goodman (1969a) suggests that the goal of reading instruction is comprehension of the author's deep structure and correction of surface structure may well interfere with the comprehension of the child and does not help with reading instruction. If such corrections are aimed at changing the dialect of the child, this too is questioned. Lefevre (1966) condemned attempts to change a person's dialect: It is worse than idle . . . it can be traumatic . . . to attempt "corrections" of the child's developing speech when he is merely passing through phases of imitation and creation. He should be allowed to make his mistakes himself, without prompting from teachers, workbooks and handbooks of possible errors; he should be allowed to work out his mistakes for himself, with assistance but without too much purification from on high. In his own time, the child will discover and make his own the language and the way of life suitable for him . . . if we do not interfere in unwitting, harmful ways. 35 Fasold (1971) expressed a similar idea: Speakers who start out speaking nonstandard English but find that they need to learn standard English will learn it, those who do not will not, almost independently of what their English teachers do. Johnson (1971a) suggests: If as our analysis would indicate, group reference plays an important part in the choice of a language, it would follow that the readiness of a person to learn and to use a second language may depend in part on the measure of his willingness to identify with the group with which the language is associated or, at any rate, on his desire to reduce the social distance between himself and that group. Dillard (1972) adds to this position: One of the clear facts which emerges from a great deal of research in dialectology is that people are often exposed to dialects over long periods of time without learning them. One simple factor . . . is that a child may or may not want to imitate the behavior of another person whose speech is held up to him as a model. He states that often the dialect held up to Black children is "one to which he has an emotional aversion, since he may have good reason to hate some people who talk that way.” There seems to be ample evidence which suggests that attempts to change the language patterns of speakers by correcting what they say is educationally unwise or at least unproductive. It is questionable that such activities produce any positive effect on the verbal behavior of the speakers. The traditional emphasis on developing standard English at the sake of all other dialects is challenged. Psycholinguists are among those who generally challenge-- 36 such an emphasis. A psycholinguistic view of reading is presented in another section of this review. The Natuge of Ps cholinguistics and Reading nstruction '— One of the alternatives for teaching divergent dialect speakers to read is to have children read existing materials which are written in standard English and allow them to orally produce a rendition in their native dialect. Much of the theoretical support for this postion has been provided by Kenneth Goodman and his associates who have conducted investigations with Black children in the Detroit area. Goodman (1970) views the reading process as a "psycholinguistic guessing game" or a selective process. He (1969b) states that whenever readers face a printed sheet, they are presented with three basic kinds of infor- mation which they can use to make "guesses" or predications about the meaning of the printed words. Basic information includes: 1. Grapho-phonic information. This is the information obtained fromIknowledge of the graphic and phono- logical systems of oral language. Additional information comes to the reader from the inter- relationships between the systems. Phonics is a name for those relationships. 2. S ntactic information. This is the information impIIcit In {He grammatical structures of the language. The language user knows these and therefore, is able to use this information before he learns to read his native language. Reading like all language processes, involves a syntactic content. 37 3. Semantic information. As a reader strives to recreate the message, he utilizes his experiential conceptual background to create a meaning context. If the reader lacks relevant knowledge, he cannot supply his semantic component and he cannot read. Reading is seen as involving an interaction between thought and language. It is viewed as a process which involves the partial use of available language cues selected from perceptual input on the basis of the readers' expecta- tions. The available information is then processed and the reader makes decisions concerning which information is most important to his aims. Three basic kinds of information are available to be processed; thus, a redundancy of information exists. The reader must instantly assess the information and make choices or predictions as to what information is most useful. Goodman (1970) describes his model as follows: 1. The reader scans a line of print from left to right and down the page, line by line. 2. He fixes at a point to permit focus. Some of the print will be centrally located and some peripheral. 3. He selects by using graphic information cued by prior choices, his language knowledge, his cognitive style and learned strategies. 4. He forms a perceptual image using these ones and anticipated cues. 5. The memory is searched for related syntactic, semantic and phonological cues, which may cause selection of further graphic cues and a reforming of the perceptual image. 6. He makes a tentative choice consistent with graphic cues. Semantic analysis leads to partial decoding. This meaning is stored in short-term memory as he proceeds. - 38 7. If no tentative guess (choice) is possible, he checks the recalled perceptual input and tries again. If a guess is still not possible, he gathers more graphic cues from the text. 8. If a decodable choice is possible, he tests it for semantic and grammatical acceptability. 9. If the tentative choice is not acceptable syn- tactically or semantically, he regresses, scanning from right to left along the line and up the page to locate a point of semantic or syntactic incon- sistency. If no inconsistency is identified, he reads on, seeking some cue which will make recon- ciliation possible. 10. If the choice is acceptable, decoding is extended, meaning if assimilated with prior meaning and prior meaning is accommodated if necessary. He forms expectations concerning input and meaning that are to come. 11. The cycle continues. The ultimate goal of the reading process is to have the reader understand the message of the writer. Processes 3, S, 6, 8, 9, and 10 above involve this comprehension. The reader must process the inforamtion through thinking processes and make appropriate decisions. These specific processes involve some aspect of understanding language in general or the specific language represented by the graphic symbols of the printed material. If the syntactic or semantic language systems of the reader and author differ sufficiently, comprehension will not occur and the reading process will be disrupted. The psycholinguistic explanation of reading seems to imply a hierarchy of reading skills and decision making. The decisions a reader makes range from relatively non- complex processes involving initial recognition of 39 letters-words-sounds to SOphisticated processes concerning intricacies of language structure and meaning. A proficient reader is one who has learned to productively use a minimum of cues to move quickly to the deep meaning of the printed material with the least number of "guesses." Goodman (1972) offers another explanation of the reading process: Meaning cannot be derived from the printed page. The graphic displays on the paper can, however, be con- sidered a written surface representation of language. A writer starts with meaning. He then assigns a deep underlying grammatical structure. Finally, he utilizes the rules of English orthography (spelling, punctuation) to produce the graphic display. The reader must infer from the graphic display the rules that have produced it and its underlying deep structure. Only then can he reconstruct the writer's message, that is, comprehend the meaning. If he is reading orally, the reader must then encode the message as oral output producing an oral surface structure. There is no direct connection in this representation between the graphic display and the oral reader's output. In fact, to achieve comprehension, there is no necessary reason to involve oral language in the reading process at all. The position is stated ". . . to achieve comprehension, there is no necessary reason to involve oral language in the reading process at all" (Goodman, 1972). The task of a reader is seen as moving from surface structure to deep structure and meaning, not to get from written to oral language. Viewing reading as a "psycholinguistic guessing game," it is understandable that reading is not considered to be a precise activity. The printed page contains more cues or information than an effective reader needs for 40 gathering meaning. An effective reader makes the most proficient use of the cues available without being overly dependent or preoccupied with information gained from any process in the hierarchy. There is a hazard in becoming preoccupied with one of the lower hierarchical processes such as concentrating solely on grapho-phonic information. Goodman (1972) contends that a reader who is preoccupied with word perception accuracy is an inefficient reader because he is using too much information which consequently interferes with getting at meaning and clutters up the short-term memory function. It is believed that pre- occupation with identifying words may tend to focus the reader's energies on letters and sounds, not meaning. Going from print to sound does not necessarily lead to meaning. Accuracy in word analysis may encourage word calling and interrupt the reading process. It should be pointed out that a psycholinguistic view of reading does not imply that decoding or word accuracy are not important processes. Such processes are only a part of the total reading process and too much emphasis on decoding can encourage unproductive habits and interfere with comprehension. On the other hand, an over- emphasis on comprehension with no concern for decoding could leave readers without any skills for advancing their reading ability. Before comprehension can be achieved, the reader must recognize sufficient words to provide a basis 41 from which to progress. Readers must be able to recognize enough words to give some degree of initial meaning to the material. If the reader is unable to establish initial meaning, he can go no further. A balance between decoding and comprehension is important. In a defense of the use of extant materials and in a sense a rationale for a psycholinguistic view of reading, Goodman (1965b) summarizes the reasons for such an approach: 1. Literacy is built on the basis of the child's existing language. 2. Children must be helped to develop a pride in their language and confidence in their ability to use their language to communicate their ideas and express themselves. 3. The focus in reading instruction must be on learning to read. No attempts to change the child's language must be permitted to enter into this process or interfere with it. 4. Special materials need not be constructed, but children must be permitted, even encouraged, to read the way they speak. 5. Any skill instruction must be based on a careful analysis of their language. 6. Reading materials and reading instruction should draw as much as possible on experiences and settings appropriate to the children. 7. The teacher will speak in his own natural manner and present, by example, the general language community, but the teacher must learn to understand and accept the childrens' language. He must study it carefully and become aware of the key elements of divergence that are likely to cause difficulty. Various concepts which are consistent with Goodman's rationale are discussed throughout this review. 42 The Nature of Oral Reading and DiaIect Interference Reading specialists generally agree that it is not to a reader's advantage to become overly dependent or preoccupied with any one technique of decoding printed material. Yet, common classroom practices seemingly encourage the development of a tendency to become pre- occupied with the grapho-phonic information. In a survey of 800 teachers, Artley (1972) found that 37 percent of those who responded indicated the major justification for oral reading instruction is to stress precision in word perception. Further, it was found that 44 percent indi-. cated that the most acceptable way to determine effective- ness of oral reading was to "take note of the number of word recognition errors made." Fourty-seven percent stated they had children take turns reading portions sequentially, ". . . it gives all children the opportunity to practice word recognition skills." The author concludes that there are legitimate reasons for orally reading activities such as being used to communicate writer's ideas, thoughts and feelings but states: Oral reading as an exercise in word pronunciation is one of the most useless instructional practices that a teacher can carry out. It is the perseverance of a practice from the past that has no justification in a modern classroom. That oral reading activities are frequently used to attempt to develop precision in word perception can be further verified by visiting many classrooms where reading is 43 taught. An earlier statement by J. Baratz (1970c) indi- cates that teachers teach the way they have been trained to teach. Within the general field of reading, controversy and confusion has perpetually existed which have effected the way teachers are trained to teach reading. Weber (1968) after a survey of literature at that time, con- eluded: . . . confusion over the function of oral reading introduced a bias which caused researchers to be distorted by extraneous phenomena (poor enunciation, hesitation, inadequate phrasing, posture) and a number of studies viewed reading errors as simple misperceptions of words and letters. Another recurrent shortcoming was the lack of concern for the linguistic function of errors. Often errors were lumped together which were by no means of equal significance. Lastly, legitimate language differences due to the dialect of the reader were treated frequently as mispronunciations. Teachers are normally trained in accordance with the prevailing practices and accepted philosophies within the field. If confusion and disagreement exist within the ranks of reading researchers and trainers of teachers con- cerning the use of oral reading, it is understandable that confusion exists within classrooms concerning teaching practice. The confusion over the function of oral reading seems related to a statement by Goodman and Fleming (1968): One of the fundamental reasons not much has been added to the stock of knowledge about the reading process is that it has been unclear from the start as to the sort of performance one is really after and what evidence will satisfactorily indicate that one has achieved what he sets out to do. The result is that frequently one continues to offer the child the same option to fail. 44 One of the alternatives for teaching dialect speakers to read is to teach them to speak standard English before reading intruction begins. Such a belief seems related to teaching practices which strive to develop preciseness in decoding activities. It is a part of conventional wisdom of reading instruction that an unspecified minimum of competency in producing and understanding the spoken language is basic to learning to read. Conventional wisdom of this type is being challenged. Gunderson (1969) suggests: Perhaps what is needed, because it not only involves materials and methodology, but also goes beyond both, is a new approach to the problem. The educational establishment, including the schools and the univer- sities, needs to take a broader view of the entire process of teaching children to read than it has done in the past. Psycholinguists such as Goodman (1970), Moffett (1968), and Hunt (1970) have attempted to develop a broader view of reading as suggested above. The importance of the structure of language is stressed. Spiegel (1974) stated, "Reading is hypothesized as a holistic process, an entity in itself and not just the sum of various decoding and comprehension skills." Such a view of reading demands less perfection in word recognition than a traditional view of reading instruction. When a reader is reading orally only deviation from the text which results in a change in the meaning of the passage are counted as errors. Supporters of this position, however, seemingly would agree with the caution 45 suggested in a summary of the holistic view offered by Spiegel: For too long, teachers of reading have stresed accurate word analysis with the result that reading has been seen by many children as simply word calling. A change in this approach is definitely needed and perhaps viewing reading as a holistic process is an answer. However, just as teachers became overconcerned with accuracy, they might also be wary of ignoring decoding in favor of comprehension. It would seem that what is needed is a healthy balance between the two approaches. Tpe Nature of the Relationships Between Dialect, Psycholinguistics andReading The question concerning how much emphasis should be placed upon word accuracy is important in oral reading situations. The question is especially relevant when the effects of dialect interference and reading success are considered. Baratz (1969c) suggests that teachers' practices may well be very much a consequential factor concerning reading success particularly if the child is a divergent speaker; a speaker of Black dialect: The Negro ghetto child is speaking a significantly different language from that of his middle-class teachers. Most of his middle-class teachers have wrongly viewed his language as pathological disordered, "lazy speech." The failure to recognize the inter- ference from the child's different linguistic system and consequence negative teacher attitudes toward the child and his language, lead directly to reading diffi- culties and subsequent school failure. Understanding that the inner-city child speaks a language that is well ordered, but different in many respects from standard English is crucial to understanding how to educate him. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for educators to think of the Black child with his non- standard speech as a "verbal cripple" whose restricted language leads to, or is caused by, cognitive deficits. 46 Baratz's statement is a refutation of those who support a deficit position concerning the language of divergent speakers. Her concern that Black children might be considered to be cognitively deficient is shared by many for such a conclusion seems to be a logical outgrowth of the deficit position. The failure of teachers to recognize where dialect interference is, in fact, a factor in reading instruction seems to encourage and perpetuate the deficit position. Shuy (1970a) reflects on the problems of the dialect speaker in reading instruction. He states when a child decodes (pronounces a word) in his own dialect: . . . he is doing what any good reader ought to be doing . . . taking printed symbols and translating them into his own meaningful oral symbols. It might be said, in fact, that learning to read has little or nothing to do with a child's ability to handle standard English phonology. But, it is tremendously important for the teacher to understand the child's phonological system in order to distinguish between reading diffi- culties and systematic features of the child's dialect. The concept of dialect differences has caused dis- comfort for some individuals because of negative connota- tions which are often ascribed to dialect speakers. This matter is reviewed in another section of this chapter, but it should be established that the most neutral way to define dialect is that it simply means variety of speech. All dialects have identifiable characteristics which they alone may possess or perhaps share with other dialects. It is through the identification and examination of character- istics that dialect differences and similarities are 47 studied. Differences in dialects may occur in matters of sounds, grammatical structure or word meanings. Goodman (1970) views the reading process as a "psycholinguistic guessing game" involving the processing of grapho-phonic information, syntactic information and semantic infor- mation. It is suggested that the divergence between non- standard English is the cause of some reading difficulty. A dialect speaker processes information (reads) on the basis of the sounds, structure and meaning of his language as do all readers. It is the diversity between the dialect of the reader and the dialect of the reading material which results in dialect interferences. The effects of dialect interference is a controversy which is far from being resolved. Labov (1970b) states: Dialects differ of course in their sound patterns; such differences can produce a great deal of misunderstanding but they do not register differences in the underlying semantic structure of the language. J. Baratz (1969c) and Stewart (1969a) have stated that the major cause of dialect interference may well be in matters concerning syntacts. Disagreement is widespread concerning the extent that dialect interfers with reading. D. Strickland (1973) apparently does not view interference to be an unsolable problem. In a study which assessed the effects of using oral follow-up activities in literature classes as opposed to no oral follow-up (language expansion as opposed to language substitution), she con- cluded: 48 The study offers evidence that common differences between standard English and nonstandard Negro dialect --differences which may cause interference for the non- standard speaker--may be successfully identified and modified consequently lessening the degree of inter- ference. From the previous discussion concerning the use of dialect specific reading materials, it can be concluded that not all investigators agree with Strickland's assessment. Baratz (Laffey & Shuy, 1973) suggest that as informative as Goodman's studies have been, they generally leave un- answered questions concerning the effect of dialect inter- ference on reading comprehension. Her review of research concerning dialect interference in reading concludes that "there are still no real tests of the alternatives (dis- cussed earlier) and the extant data are ambiguous at least and do not deal with using dialect as a process in reading instructions." Venezky and Chapman (1973) analyzed the skills needed for reading success. They analyzed skills which are needed for visual information gathering, auditory infor- mation gathering and comprehension skills. They concluded: . . . there is little direct interference of dialect with reading—-but an enormous potential for indirect interference. Indirect interference can arise either through failure of the teacher to recognize what is regular and what is aberrant for a particular dialect and to act accordingly, or through the failure of text- book developers to restrict vocabulary, syntax and semantics to a common core that is either known already to the majority of the standard and nonstandard speakers or can be taught orally within a reasonable time period before reading instruction begins. 'Given the limita- tions commonly placed on primary school reading materials and the small area in which dialects deviate, compared to where they overlap, we cannot find any New 49 justification for the enormous expense involved in developing speCial materials for each group of non- standard speakers. Labov (1970b) has done extensive investigation into language habits and problems of inner—city children in York City. As a result of his studies, he concludes: These findings lead us to conclude that the principal problem in reading failure is not dialect or gram- matical differences but rather a cultural conflict between the vernacular culture and the classroom . . . some of this conflict proceeds from the pluralistic ignorance which prevails in the classroom; the teacher does not know the student's dialect and the students do not know how the teacher‘s system differs from their own. In another script, Labov (1970a) explains the hazards of this ignorance: If the teacher has no understanding of the child's grammar and set of homonyms, she may be arguing with him at cross purposes. Over and over again, the teacher may insist that cold and coal are different, without realizing that the child perceives this as only a difference in meaning not in sound. She will not be able to understand why he makes so many added mistakes in reading, and he will experience a vague confusion, somehow connected with the ends of the words. Eventu- ally, he may stop trying to analyze the shapes of letter that follow the vowel and guess wildly at each word after he deciphers the first few letters. Or, he may completely lose confidence in the alphabetic principle and try to recognize each word as a whole. This loss of confidence seems to occur frequently in the third and fourth grades, and it is characteristic of many children who are effectively nonreaders. Teachers' lack of knowledge concerning the dialect characteristics of divergent speakers may be a factor in their lack of reading success. In Labov's statement above, he suggests that such "correction" is at "cross purposes." Goodman (1965b) suggests that such correction is a hinderance to the linguistic growth of the child. He 50 states, "All his past and present language experience contradicts what the teacher tells him. School becomes a place where people talk funny and teachers tell you things about your language that are not true." Psycholinguists generally feel that when teachers correct children for dialect characteristics in reading as well as the authentic types of errors that occur in learning to read, the teaching of standard English is usually done in a haphazard and unsystematic way. Legitimate dialect interference and reading problems arising from the incomplete mastery of the reading process are often not distinguished from each other. The irony of the situation is brought out in a statement by Steward (1965a): Once, while observing a reading class in operation in the District, I noticed one of the pupils read "he brother" for "his brother." The teacher seemed to consider this as a reading mistake (i.e., a failure to perceive grapheme-phoneme-meaning correspondences). However, I strongly suspect that it was essentially a case of grammatical interference, since the basilect equivalent of "his brother" is, in fact, "he brother." Ironically, this would indicate more success than failure on the teacher's part, the child having under- stood the meaning of the printed material so well that he began to supply his own linguistic expression for the situation described. The irony of teachers correcting oral responses which have a base in the dialect of the reader is that as was sug- gested by Shuy's (1970) statement, ". . . he is doing what any good reader ought to be doing . . . taking printed symbols and translating them into his own meaningful oral symbols." Seemingly Goodman (1970) would argue that the 51 reader is performing a sophisticated process which is relatively high in the reading hierarchy. Wardhaugh (1969) commented on the problem: It is extremely important that children who are learning to read be given credit for what they already know intuitively about their language, even though they may not be able to verbalize this knowledge. Children develop linguistic abilities long before they are faced with learning to read and are constantly improving and expanding their linguistic abilities through- out their lives. Correction of "errors" such as those previously described by Stewart apparently is not uncommon. Studies by Hughes (1967) and Rystrom (1972) indicate that teachers do perceive oral language characteristics as "errors" when they are different from the teacher's expected response. Such corrections can inhibit linguistic growth. It is argued that when teachers confuse a child's oral language with reading errors, the effect is detrimental to the linguistic growth of the child. Troike (1969), Rystrom (1969), Kochman (1969), Lefevre (1966), McDavid (1965, 1971) as well as most of those psycholinguists already noted variously support the view that such practices are confusing, detrimental, frustrating and tend to leave little lasting positive effect. Abrahams (1969) observed: He brings a verbal skill, which if recognized by the teacher, can be of considerable value in the develop- ment of an understanding of language. But to capital- ize upon this fund, the child must be allowed to speak, even if this violates the usual sense of decorum the teacher carries into class. The teacher must further learn to understand the communicative system with which 52 she is dealing, both as it relates to adult-child communications and those between peers. It is apparent that many linguists do not feel that teachers give children credit for what they know linguisti- cally. It is argued that when teachers incorporate the correction of language characteristics into oral reading activities they may well be reflecting personal bias and discrimination which have developed because of a multitude of reasons. Teacher discrimination and its effect on reading success will be reviewed in a later section of this chapter, however, a statement by Venezky, Calfee, and Chapman (1970) should be considered: To teach reading is not to teach language. By the time the normal child comes to the reading task, he already speaks a language . . . he has mastered a system of signals for communicating in a meaningful fashion with other peOple. The child can make himself understood and can understand others. . . . Once a child learns to read, he can employ this new skill to enlarge his vocabulary or to increase his usage of certain syntac- tic forms. However, the use of reading to improve competence in language should not be confused with learning to read. In a statement concerning principles which have emerged from his studies, Labov (1972) includes the following: 1. teachers of reading should distinguish each deviation from standard English in oral reading as either a mistake in reading or a difference in pronunciation. 2. teachers in the early grades should be ready to accept the existance of a different set of homonyms in the speech of Black children, at least in speech production. Such acceptance may preserve the child's confidence in the phonic code and, there- fore, facilitate their learning to read. 53 3. a certain amount of attention given to perception training in the first few years of school may be extremely helpful in teaching children to hear and make standard English distinctions. But, perception training is not to be completed in order to teach children to read. Labov's conclusions seem consistent with those of Goodman previously stated. They also seem consistent with Gunder- son's (1969) plea to develop ". . . a broader view of the entire process of teaching children to read than it (edu- cational establishment) has done in the past." It has been repeatedly suggested that if a psycholinguistic approach to reading instruction such as that posed by Goodman and others were adopted in inner-city schools, much of the reading failure faced by Black children could be reduced. It is acknowledged by its opponents that such an approach could be established more immediately than other approaches plus it could be more easily adapted from region to region. They do suggest that acceptance of the extant approach must be based upon assumptions which have yet to be verified. One such assumption is that Black children really do compre- hend the standard English used in printed materials. Baratz (Laffey & Shuy, 1973) concluded that this is not yet substantiated. Other investigators feel that empirical evidence strongly supports that a high degree of compre- hension does exist. The fact that Black children usually can perform specific tasks when directed in print indicates that they have understood the message and seems to verify their comprehension. 54 A second assumption has to do with teachers. When it is stated that children should be encouraged to read the way they speak, it is assumed that teachers know how the children really speak. There is no evidence to suggest that teachers do, in fact, know how Black children speak. In fact, there seems to be evidence which suggests the opposite is true; teachers do not know lingustic character- istics of their children, particularly in the inner-city. D. Strickland (1972) summarizes four guidelines which have been compiled by "experts" for designing language programs for linguistically different learners. Their suggestions and some of their implications include: 1. The school and particularly the teachers of language arts must accept the language which the learner brings to school. It is doubtful that these children will accept the language of the school if the school does not accept their language. Teachers must refrain from referring to the student's speech as "careless" or wrong. 2. Language programs must be based on the language the child brings to school. Programs should not be aimed toward the replacement of one dialect for another. 3. Any skill instruction must be based on careful analysis of the child's dialect and should emphasize the use of techniques proven effective in teaching English as a second language. The points of interference between the child's dialect and standard English must be dealt with systematically. This would imply that teacher training institutions must give more attention to the problem. Teachers must be trained in the phonology and structure of the nonstandard dialect prevalent in their area and in basic techniques in teaching English as a second language. 55 4. The experts disagree as to whether or not special reading materials are absolutely necessary. They do agree, however, that reading material and reading instruction must draw as much as possible on experi- ences and settings appropriate to the children. . . . Teachers should avoid the interruption of a child's oral reading to correct errors which reflect a point of interference between the child's dialect and the reading materials, as long as the intended meaning has been maintained. Programs such as these are consistent with a psycholinguis- tic view. The Nature of Teacher Trainigg If the diversity between the dialect of the reader and the dialect of the printed materials is going to be neutralized for inner-city Black children without completely altering the material, then two options are open; the child must be taught standard English prior to the teaching of reading, or some accommodation to the reader's dialect must be made. Many of the psycholinguists noted thus far have implied or stated that the dialect rendering of extant materials is a productive approach to reading instruction. A rationale for this approach is developed in another section of this chapter. It was also suggested in the way of a rebutal to the position that to accept this approach means that we must assume that teachers know how children really talk. This assumption apparently cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Traditionally, it has been rather common to place the burden of change on the children. Programs have been instituted to increase the child's knowledge of the 56 teachers' language patterns but little has been done to reverse the training; increase the teacher's knowledge of the child's language characteristic. It is true that in recent years a number of linguistic oriented classes have been offered in university catalogues, but it appears that teachers have not been able to generalize the knowledge gained to the classroom and reading instruction. Labov (1970b) suggested that a "pluralistic ignorance prevails in the classroom" which implies a need for specific teacher training. This position is generally supported by Baratz and Baratz (1969), Baratz (1969a, 1970b, 1970c), Gunderson (1969), Stewart (1969a), Troike (1969), Rystrom (1969), Kochman (1969), Hughes (1967), Goodman (1969a, 1973), Johnson (1971b, 1971c), and Shuy (1970b). Supporters of this contention generally suggest that teachers' practices help create and perpetuate reading failure of dialect speakers. The situation is perpetuated because of teachers' misperception and unrealistic expecta- tion for dialect speakers which are supposedly caused in part by a lack of linguistic knowledge. Shuy (Laffey & Shuy, 1973) state that from the evidence available we might legitimately ask, "Who has the problem anyway?" Shuy (DeStefano, 1973) also states that if linguistically different children are going to acquire language facility then special attention must be given the children. This special attention requires of teachers: 57 1. an ability to recognize and react adequately to. contrastive language patterns. 2. an ability to do something about them when appropriate. 3. an ability to keep from doing something about them when appropriate. There is no evidence to date which indicates that we are training teachers adequately to handle (1) There is relatively little in the way of materials geared to accommodate (2) There is practically no understanding of (3) among teachers or, for that matter, among text- book writers. He continues: In short, what universities need to provide for teachers in order to fulfill their educational obligations to the ghetto child (or, in fact, to any child) is infor- mation on how to deal with the child's language, how to listen and respond to it, how to diagnose what is needed, how to best teach alternate linguistic systems and how to treat it as a positive and healthy entity. Universities have come far short of assuming this responsibility. The present need for change is directed toward teachers and the kind of training they receive to become teachers. The plea for such training is not new but the need has become ever more apparent. Those who generally support the need for the specific kind of training suggested by Shuy above include: Goodman (1965b, 1969a, 1973), Emans (1969), K. Johnson (1969, 1971a, 1971b), Labov (1970b), Baratz (1969a), Stewart (1969b), Galvan (1969), and Hughes (1967) . Higgenbotham (1972) considered the same point: The greatest challenge in the new theory of language instruction may be that posed for teacher education. Psycholinguistic theory can have an appreciable impact on the classroom only if teachers have the knowledge and training which will enable them to: describe and 58 assess the child's language capabilities; make humane and rational judgements about his most salient needs; and provide communication experiences which will develop new patterns and functions while still maintaining those already established in the home environment. The fact that teachers need to be able to adequately understand language difference is especially important in reading instruction. Teachers who emphasize orally reading activities as a way to evaluate a child's reading ability or "correct" language errors must be able to make a distinction between an explainable language difference and a reading error. It has been suggested in this review that language development and reading instruction are not the same. Fasold (1969) reinforces the point: Teachers must be brought to the realization of two important facts. First, the teaching of reading and the teaching of spoken standard English are two com- pletely different jobs. Second, the correct way to pronounce certain spellings in Black English is not the same as the correct way to pronounce them in standard English. . . . The practice of condemning Black English speaking children when they correctly read words in their dialect can do considerable harm. The systems of all language can be viewed as being equally effective as a means of communication for its speakers. Labov (1970b) points out that: It is most important for the teacher to understand the relationships between standard and nonstandard English and to recognize that nonstandard English is a system of rules, different from standard, but not necessarily inferior as a means of communication. In another section of the review, the nature of dialects is examined. Statements such as Labov's seem basically valid but it must also be acknowledged that not all dialect forms are equally acceptable within society. 59 Steward (1969b), Shuy (1968a), Shuy, Davis, and Hogan (1964), and Labov (1970b) have been among those who have indicated that hierarchies of social acceptability develop concerning various language varieties. Negative connota— tions are often ascribed to various language varieties and the users of those varieties are also frequently viewed negatively. The concept that some language forms are more acceptable than others certainly should not be of surprise of anyone who has gone through our school systems. Shuy (1967) suggests: Perhaps no other profession has spent as much time on negatives (spelling demons, jargon, triteness and seven deadly grammatical sins) and as little time on positives (alternative styles, alternate appropriate social dialects) than the profession of English. Perhaps a similar case can be made concerning teachers of reading. It is suggested that acceptable verbal behavior is judged with standards which have been arbitrarily established by tradition rather than being based on lingustically accurate and relevant information concerning the language actually used by native speakers. Linguistic acceptability seemingly is socially determined. Reading programs must be based on sound linguistic knowledge not on socially acceptable standards. Wardhough (1968) states: . . . programs must differentiate clearly between the teaching of reading and the teaching of some artificial dialect probably of little value to children who already speak a fully functioning dialect of their own. 60 Wardhough implies what many linguists seem to believe, that teachers use classroom time to correct and change the dialect of children rather that teaching them to think and read. Kochman (1969) takes an emphatic position: We utilize valuable time to set up drill exercises which are designed to get the individual to replace socially stigmatized forms with socially preferred ones. I cannot endorse as valid a program that sacrifices individual language growth in exchange for some nebulous and highly problematic "social security." Kochman bases his comments on the belief that language programs which attempt to teach standard English to nonstandard speakers, (1) do not develop language ability in the person, (2) are not efficient in teaching standard forms, and (3) are based on an "exaggerated importance" given to standard forms by teachers. Venezky and Chapman (Laffey & Shuy, 1973) state that "reading is the translation from writing to a form of language from which the reader already is able to derive meaning." They further state: When a teacher tries to directly change a child's language, he is inadvertently trying to change the child's thinking processes--which is to deny the validity of the child's self-concept and usually causes withdrawal and apathy symptoms. The idea that attempting to change the language of an individual can generally be detrimental to the development of children has many supporters including: Goodman (1965b), Wolfram and Fasold (1969), and Fasold and Wolfram (DeSte- fano, 1973). 61 It is argued that when teachers perceive a language difference as an oral reading error and focus attention upon changing the response, they are inhibiting the development of the child. The potential psychological impact upon children of continually being corrected for what to them seem to be appropriate responses must be considered. Fasold (1971) considered the situation: By continually correcting the children in her class, the teacher is capable of having an effect. She can succeed in giving the children a profound sense of linguistic insecurity and doubt about their language and even their personal worth. The teacher can easily have a negative effect and have only a slight chance of actually teaching spoken standard English. It has long been accepted that reading is an ego involving activity and reading failure can be detrimental to one's self-image. M. Johnson and Kress (1968) view reading failure as frustrating and emotionally disturbing. They state: There probably has never been a youngster who has been subjected to constant reading failure who has not begun to questions his basic intellectual adequacy . . . such failure may instill a tremendous fear of failure and some children will simply withdraw from any learning situation because of the terrible fear of failure. It is suggested that many Black inner-city children are failing at reading because of the teacher's inability to understand the differences which exist in language varieties. Through specific training aimed at providing teachers with the knowledge and ability to adequately help rather than hinder children, it is believed that some of 62 the reading failure being experienced by divergent speakers can be overcome in time. Tremonti (1972) set up a series of training sessions which extended over a year in duration. It was concluded that the participants achieved new insight and experienced a change of attitude toward the disadvantage. "The attitude of not understanding the problems and isolation from the problems changed to one of understanding, a desire to help and the ability to provide needed remedi- ation.“ Throughout this section, various investigators stressed the need for specific training. Tremonti's con- clusions seem to indicate teachers behavior and attitudes could and would change as the result of such training. The Nature of Teachers‘ Attitudes and Reading_Instruction There seems to be ample evidence which suggest that attempts to change language patterns by correcting pro- nunciation in oral reading activities is linguistically unwise, or at least unproductive. It is suggested that such practices produce negative feelings and defensive behavior in readers. It is further suggested that such practices are discriminatory on the part of teachers and are based upon misconceptions concerning the capabilities of divergent speakers. Goodman (1973) in a reexamination of the issue of dialect interference and reading states: The only special disadvantage which speakers of low- status dialect suffer in learning to read is one imposed by teachers and schools. Rejection of their 63 dialects and educators' confusion of linguistic differ- ences With linguistic deficiency interferes with the natural process by which reading is acquired and under- mines the linguistic self-confidence of divergent speakers. The implication of Goodman's statement seems related to the claim that teachers are not adequately trained to teacher reading to divergent speakers. He further states: Instruction based on rejection of linguistics differ- ences is the core of the problem. . . . Rejection, then, and not dialect differences is the problem educators must overcome to remove the school imposed disadvan- tages. ‘Weaver (1957) states that, "Many of the most vital impressions others make upon us and we, in turn, make upon them spring from pronunciation." All individuals who speak a language variety which is different from an established norm face situations whereby value judgments may be ascribed by others on the basis of their language habits. S. Baratz and J. Baratz (1969) comparing the problem of Spanish speakers to Black speakers contend that Black children are faced with special problems: The low income Negro child who is speaking Negro non- standard dialect is hindered by a linguistic problem more elusive in character than that confronting the Spanish speaking Mexican American. The Spanish speaker possesses a recognized, certified and legitimate language system. Everyone knows he speaks a different language. Negro nonstandard dialect, on the other hand, has not been accepted by the educational establish- ment as an orderly, formally structured linguistic system. Johnson (1969) makes a similar point: The greatest problem involves the attitudes of teachers toward the nonstandard Negro dialect. . . . Language is an identity 1abel--it tells who you are and what you are 64 and it identifies you with all those who speak the same variety of English you speak (in other words, your primary cultural group). When teachers label the dis- advantaged Black children's language as "bad and sloppy" and imply that the children too are "bad and sloppy," they are also applying the same labels and implications to the children's primary cultural group (their families, friends, etc.). . . . The speakers of foreign language don't experience this kind of treat- ment. Usually, teachers working with foreign speakers don't make the negative value judgment of the speakers' languages: the foreign languages are fully accepted and recognized as legitimate, desireable communication systems that imply no derogatory qualities about the speakers. Labov (1970b) and Stewart (1965a) make similar assessments. Wayne (1968) states, ". . . we should be working to eradicate the language prejudices, the language mythology, that people grew into holding and believing." Prejudicial teacher attitudes cannot be overlooked as a factor in the reading failure of many children. It should be understood that not all failure is related to prejudices and that not all prejudicial attitudes relate to racial or ethnic matters. Allport (1958) defines prejudice as: An overtive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group and it is, therefore, presumed they have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group. Simpson and Yinger (1972) add to the definition: "A prejudice is an emotional, rigid attitude (a predis- position to respond to a certain simulus in a certain way) toward a group of people." Practices directed toward developing accuracy in word perception may well reflect prejudices in the sense 65 that they may represent overtive, hostile, rigid, emotion- ally hardened attitudes. Predisposition may imply that teachers are in a sense "programmed" or trained to be discriminatory toward certain stimulus; words perceived to be mispronounced. Prejudice from this sense does not necessarily imply racial discrimination unless the original disposition was based on racial biases. Evidence seems to suggest that teachers' discrimination is in part based upon expectations and goals which are engrained during teacher training experiences. It is suggested that before schools are to be more successful at helping dialect speakers to read, there must be a realization of the impact of teachers' attitudes on learning outcome and a reassessment of attitudes and practices. Shuy (Wolfram, 1969) states, "The real worth of language knowledge in terms of curriculum development and revision depends greatly on the teachers' concept of the problem." Davis (1965) reported two significant findings regarding the relationship between particular attitudes held by teachers toward students: 1. All school learning is stimulated or hindered by the teachers' feelings toward the students. 2. All school learning is influenced by the cultural attitudes which the teacher has toward the students and which the students experience toward the teacher. In rejection of the students' cultural background, the teacher often appears to reject the student as a human being. In return, and as early as the first grade, the student may reject the culture of the school and of the teachers. Both teacher and pupil must learn to respect the abilities and position of the other. 66 It seems indisputable that teachers' expectations based on attitudes have an effect upon the success of the learner. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1969) seem to confirm the phenomenon in their experiments. They conclude: To summarize our speculating, we may say that by what she said (teachers) by how and when she said it, by her facial expressions, postures and perhaps by her touch, the teacher may have communicated to the children of the experimental group that she eXpected improved intellectual performance. Such communication together with possible changes in teaching techniques may have helped the children learn by changing his self-concept, his expeCtation of his own behavior and his motivation, as well as his cognitive style and skills. The question of how to handle language divergence in the classroom is a major issue. It is unfortunate that within educational establishments, issues tend to be dis- cussed from extremems. The remedy is not one of "cor- recting" or "ignoring" all language differences. A more reasonable view may be one which is linguistically sound and less extreme. It seems important to gear teaching practice toward an ultimate goal of producing effective readers and communicators. Ponder (1965) suggests the following: It seems of paramount importance that we accept the language of the disadvantaged child. To be "accepting," however, does not indicate a reluctance to "build on" or improve the language habits and skills of the dis- advantaged child for fear of alienating him from his family and/or peers in the socially impoverished environment. The following resolution passed by the International Reading Association at the Seventeenth Delegates Assembly seems to add emphasis to the issue: WHEREAS , WHEREAS , RESOLVED 67 Racism has caused minority groups to be classified as inferior people, and education itself sometimes reflect the racism of the society by treating cultural differences as cultural deficiencies; and It is both undesirable and impossible to obliterate either a culture or a language, therefore, be it (1) That the IRA oppose any reading instruction which reflects the idea that minority groups are culturally and linguistically deficient and that their culture and language must be obliterated before they can achieve in reading. (a) That the IRA support reading programs, instructional procedures and materials which recognize the validity and legitimacy of the cultural and language of minority groups. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE This chapter contains a description of the sample of population used in the study, a description of the procedure and design used, and a description of the instrument which was designed and used in the study. A description of the reader and the dialect related responses is also included. A summary of the procedure follows. Although not stated specifically as hypotheses, the following questions were raised and investigated: 1. Do teachers, in fact, consider dialect based response to be reading errors? If so, is it done frequently enough to effect their assessment of a child's reading ability? 2. Is the number of reading courses taken related to behavior in the activity? 3. Are grammatical differences more stigmatized than phonological differences (Wolfram, 1969)? Sagple The total number of 60 individuals was used in this study, all of whom were students enrolled in one of three graduate classes at Michigan State University. Of three 68 69 classes selected for the study, one was a class in basic reading instruction and two were classes in reading diagnosis. The basic class is a prerequisite for the one in diagnosis. These reading classes were selected with a belief that they would contain individuals with a wide range of experience and diverse backgrounds. All the students were assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. At the conclusion of both group's participation, they were asked to provide demographic information on a short questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A. The total group included 40 who were or are classroom teachers. Of the total, 55 were individuals who have been responsible for reading instruction. Twenty-five had experienced teaching Black students to read. The number which had taken linguistically oriented classes was 20. The racial balance of the group was disproportionately White; 56 White, 3 Black, and 1 Spanish surname. Four questions were asked on the questionnaire which were answered with a "yes-no" response. These questions are rather general and somewhat relative in that no attempt is made to delineate the exact nature of the responses. The questions were asked to develop a broad view of the participants. The responses to the general questions follow. 70 see». Are you now or have you been a full-time classroom teacher? Experimental group 26 4 Control group 23' 7 Total 49 11 Have you had either sole or shared responsibility for reading with a group of children? Experimental group 26 4 Control group 29 1 Total 55 5 Have you ever taught a Black student to read? Experimental group ll 19 Control group l4 16 Total 25 35 Have you had any courses which were linguistically oriented? Experimental group 9 21 Control group ll 19 Total 20 40 Questions which asked more specific information were also presented. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 are related to the teaching experience of the participants. Table 3.1 indi- cates the total number of participants at each level of years of experience. Table 3.2 also indicates similar data, but also indicates the average number of years of experience for each group. Table 3.3 is related to the grade level of teaching experience for the subjects. The grade level experience composition of the groups is indicated as well as the total number of participants with experience at each grade level. 71 Table 3.l.-—Number of Participants at Each Level of Years of Experience. Number of Participants Total 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 E C 7 l E C 7 o 2 C E 12 2 .33 C E 9 u a4 c E 9 :5 E o C 4 536 E o C 2 >4 n: 7 E O C O H “:38 E c 1 m A 9 or more E C 9 E = Experimental group C = Control group 72 Table 3.2.--Average Years of Experience of Groups. F Number of Participants Average 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9or more 8 gs 1494521004 3.600 -H H 0 .‘i‘ no 6335421015 3.603 '44 0 g Total 7 7 12 9 9 4 2 0 1 9 0' >1 E = Experimental group C = Control group Procedure The total group of sixty students was divided into two groups to establish a control and an experimental group. Assignment to the groups were done according to a table of random numbers. The control group, once established, was directed to leave the room with a graduate student who assisted in the study. The experimental group remained together with this investigator. Both groups had thirty participants. The experi- mental group was asked to listen to a presentation which lasted about 45 minutes. The presentation consisted of a lecture which was aimed at describing a relativistic view of language differences and dialects. The information is similar to any which might be presented in a linguistics 73 Table 3.3.--Grade Level Experience. Number of Participants Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 K E C 2 l C E 7 2 C E 8 3 E C 10 4 E C 9 5 C E 3 6 C E 2 El. Em. Sp. Ed. C E 3 8 E C 0 9-12 E C 2 Second Sp. Ed. E C 1 No Stated Level C E 6 E = Experimental Group C = Control group 74 course or textbook. Part of the presentation consisted of emphasizing the nature of specific characteristic differ- ences which might be noted in the speech of many Black speakers. The fact that such characteristics often carry over into the oral reading of many Black readers was also noted. In general, the lecture could be described as a basic socio-psycholinguistic view of language differences with an emphasis on specific Black English characteristics. The possible relationship of these characteristics and teachers' verbal expectations in oral reading activities were also part of the focus of the presentation. At the end of the presentation, the subjects were asked to perform a diagnostic task with the objective of assessing their perceptions concerning the acceptability of language differences. A copy of the presentation is presented in Appendix B. The procedure is one which is similar to ones which are frequently used in informal reading inventories and is also similar to the oral paragraph reading activities used in more formal inventories such as the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulgy Test. It involves the use of a graded paragraph and a set of comprehension questions concerning the paragraph. The reader is given a copy of the text from which to read. The reader does not see the questions which are to be asked after the reading. The observer retains the questions as well as a copy of the paragraph and notes any 75 errors in pronunciation as the person reads. When the reading is completed, the comprehension questions are then asked and the errors are noted. The reader's performance is examined and judgments are made concerning the person's ability to read. The assessment of errors is subject to the biases of the observers. The effectiveness of such an activity is directly dependent upon the observer's ability to make valid judgments concerning errors. A copy of the text used in this study appears in Appendix A and is explained more completely later in this chapter. The control group was presented with no information other than that contained in the printed directions. The directions were read orally to the group. They were then asked to perform the task described above with no dis- cussion. A general discussion of the activity and the task followed-up their participation. All participants were also asked to complete a questionnaire to secure demographic data. The information from the questionnaires was used in the analysis of data in Chapter IV. The Instrument A primary concern of this study was to record a sampling of teachers' behavior toward Black English related characteristics in an oral reading situation. It has been said that teachers tend to listen to a dialect speaker read and mistake dialect related pronunciations and/or structural 76 differences as reading errors. This phenomenon was net tested as an hypothesis in this study. However, for this experiment to be productive, an instrument was needed which indicates that such teacher behavior is a reality. A study was conducted during the summer term, 1973 with two graduate reading classes at Michigan State Uni- versity. The purpose of the study was to test one possible method of assessing the teachers' behavior. A situation was simulated wherein the subjects listened to a tape recording of a Black female adult reading from specially prepared text. The text consisted of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade oral reading paragraphs which are part of the Qurrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty Test. The paragraphs were adapted and tape recorded to include reading responses which represent decoding errors and others which represent pronunciation differences which are consistent with the characteristics of Black English. The subjects were presented a copy of the text with no additional markings and asked to listen to the tape and indicate on the copy where they perceived the occurrence of reading errors. The intent of this activty was to determine if they perceived the language differences to be reading errors. The results of the study were somewhat conclusive concerning how the subjects perceived the dialect differ- ences. There seemed to be a definite indication that the subjects did Show a tendency to perceive the dialect 77 related differences as reading errors, but because of the design of the procedure, there was no valid way to quantize and analyze their behavior. Enough of an indication that such a tendency did exist, however, to reinforce the idea that documentation could be established with a revised instrument. The study also seemed to show that the subjects in this group were not very skillful at performing this specific task. They did not seem adept at listening to the tape and recording the errors as they occurred which is somewhat explainable since performing the task effectively requires practice and training. The subjects had received only a few short instructions on how to use a marking system before the reading. For many, this probably represented one of their first opportunities to attempt such a task. A revised instrument and procedure were developed. A text was written which includes a multitude of words which have the potential for eliciting a dialect related rendering. The specific dialect rendition included in the text are ones which are generally consistent with charac- terizations of Black dialect which has been documented by various investigators cited in Chapter II. A listing of the dialect related response and a characterization to which they generally relate is included in a later section of this chapter. The sound and the grammatical structure of a dialect may vary from speaker to speaker. The determination of precisely which pronunciation and structure differences 78 should be used in this study was a difficult decision. The linguistic habits of all individuals are related to their past learning and life experiences. The habits of one individual may differe from that of his closest associates, neighbors and even family members. It seems literally impossible to comprise a list of dialect related character- istics which would be acceptable to all speakers of the dialect as an accurate account of their usage habits. Variations in usage habits commonly exiSt within any identifiable speech community. This is true he the speech community White or Black. It was decided that the most appropriate way to determine the dialect renditions was to use those which were actually produced by the reader rather than "staging" the differences. The dialect renderings used in this study are those which were familiar to the reader. Some represent habits which are still part of his verbal repertory. Others represent habits he remembers using as a child. The Reader and the Text The reader in the study is a Black, adult male. He was born and raised in Louisiana and attended college in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He has had experience teaching in an inner-city school in an industrial city in Michigan and is currently a doctoral student at Michigan State Uni- versity. After considering other alternatives, it was decided that the reader had to be someone who is 79 sufficiently conscious of his own speaking habits to be able to discuss them and control them in an experimental setting. It was necessary to record a sufficient number of dialect related differences to assess the subject's behavior, but it was feared that too many would frustrate the listeners and not yield accurate data. It was necessary to impose control over the number of dialect differences to be included as well as control the nature of the difference to accommodate the dialect familiar to the reader. Only persons with an understanding and control of their language could produce the desired results. The final decisions as to which differences to include were made jointly by the reader and the investigator. The text was read, recorded, listened to, revised and re- read until it was felt the recording sounded sufficiently authentic to be used in the experiment. In the recording and on the text, 72 dialect related differences were noted. A greater number of differences could be noted depending upon how carefully one listens to the pronunciation of the reader and how critically they are assessed. Only 72 of the most significant and most obvious differences were noted on the transcript provided to the subjects. The majority of the responses represented differences in phonology. Some represented differences in grammatical structure. All of the differences are consistent with the usage habits of the reader except the substitution of 22 80 for gig which was included because such a substitution has been documented by others and it seemed to add to the authenticity. The differences which occurred in this study between the reader's dialect and standard dialect are listed below. The markings represent an attempt to record what he pronounced during the reading. The reSponses are cate- gorized according to generalized characterizations which are vague and rather non-specific. It should be remembered that the dialect responses used in this study are presented only as those of one individual. His responses are cate- gorized under characterizations primarily to illustrate that the characteristics of his dialect are consistent with characteristics which have been documented in other studies. For a detailed description of specific documented charac- teristics, see Labov and Cohen (1973) and Fasold and Wolfram (1970). Below is a list of the 72 Black English dialect related responses which were marked on the transcript. The standard and nonstandard forms are presented. Each of the responses are grouped under broad characterizations con- cerning the occurrence of such differences. Dialect related differences which generally seem to effect the phonological structure include: da (the), winnah (winter), 1as (last), cause (because), day (days), col (cold), groun (ground), lack (likes), throwin (throwing), snowbaul (snowball), an (and), makin (making), for (forts), wauk (walked), schul (school), woe (wore), mas (mask), hep (help), waum 81 (warm), wood (would), mouf (mouth), dis (this), waumah (warmer), din (than), 1as (last), yea (year's), fore (before), git (get), bilt (built), on (out), are (or), mutha (mother), in (him), ca (car), nex (next), colda (colder) and moe (more). Dialect related differences which generally seem to effect the grammatical structure include: think (thinks), be (was), was (were), be (is), pile (piles), he (his), sometime (sometimes), fiel (feels), melt (melts). don't (does not), take (takes) and hope (hopes), wauk (walked), for (forts), day (days), snowflake (snowflakes). It is difficult to accurately assess each response and relate it to a precise characterization without a detailed examination of the environment of the response and complete explanation of the characterization. However, in general terms, responses which relate phonological charac- terizations included: 1. words in which the final consonant cluster is reduced (usually t, d, s and sometimes n, k, g, and ): cold (coe), and— (an), walk (wau), ground grown), mask (mas), walked (wauk), forts (foe), next (nex), last (1as), out (ou), and built (bilt). (Melmed, 1970) (Labov, 1970a, 1972) words in which 9 is substituted for the voiced pa in word beginnings: the (da), this (dis), than (dan). (Johnson, 1971b) (Stewart, 1965b) words in which f is substituted for the voiced th in word endings: mouth (mouf). (Johnson, 1971b) (Labov, 1970a) words in which the E is reduced to a schwa (uh) like sound frequently when the E follows a vowel: mother (mutha), colder (colda), warmer (waumah), year's (yea), warm (waum), winter (winnah). (Fasold and Wolfram, 1970) (Melmed, 1970) words in which the Eiis absent. This usually occurs when E follows the vowels g and 2; when E’is followed by another word beginning with a vowel; and/or when 10. 82 r occurs between two vowels within a word: wore Twoe), car (ca), more (moe), before (foe). (Wolfram, 1970) (Labov & Cohen, 1973) words in which the E is reduced to a schwa (uh) like sound, frequently when the E follows a vowel: snowballs (snowbaul). (Labov, 1970b) (Fasold & Wolfram, 1970) words in which the E is absent. This usually occurs when E follows the vowels o and u; when l is followed by another word beginning with 3 vowel; and/or when r occurs between two vowels within a word: help Thep). (Melmed, 1970) (Labov, 1970a, 1972) words in which in is substituted for the suffix i g: throwing (throwin), making (makin). words in which the first syllable is absent when the first syllable is unstressed: before (foe), because (cause), him (im). (Fasold and Wolfram, 1970) (Labov & Cohen, 1973) words in which vowel sounds merge and are frequently undistinguishable: get (git), feels (fiel). (Johnson, 1971a) (Melmed, 1970). Responses which relate generally to grammatical characterizations include: 1. words in which the E (or es) is absent as a marker of present tense: thinks-Ithink), likes (like), hopes (hope), takes (take), piles (pile), feels (fiel), sometimes (sbmetime), melts (melt). (Bailey, 1968) (Baratz, 1969c) words in which the 's or s' to indicate possession are absent: year's—TyearTT (Bailey, 1968) (Baratz, 1969c) when the word don't is substituted for does not or doesn't: does not (don't). when the verb be is used as the main verb and time carrier in a sentence regardless of the subject: be (is). (Bailey, 1968) (Fasold & Wolfram, 1970) 83 5. when the verb pg'expresses habitual action: be (was), be (is). (Bailey, 1968) (Labov, 1972) 6. when the standard English nominative or accusative forms of personal pronouns are used for possessions: his (he). (Stewart, 1965a) (Baratz, 1969c) 7. when the verb form was is substituted for were regardless of the sEEject: were (was). (Johnson, 1971b) (Baratz, 1969c) 8. words in which 5 appears as plural mark and is reduced: days Iday): snowflakes (snowflake), forts (fort). (Labov 5 Cohen, 1973). 9. words in which the ed tense marker is absent (difficult to tell afiether a pronunciation or grammatical difference without testing in context). (Fasold & Wolfram, 1970) (Labov & Cohen, 1973) Data Gathering‘and AnaEysis The task the subjects were asked to perform is similar to one frequently used as a diagnostic instrument. Teachers who use this activity generally incorporate the oral reading of the material and the asking of comprehension questions into an assessment activity of this type. In this study, no comprehension questions were asked of the reader. The subjects were presented a copy of the text upon which appears diagnostic markings. The markings appear above words which were considered to have been pronounced in an other than standard form. Each marking represented a potential pronunciation or decoding error if so perceived by the subjects. The subjects were asked to View the copy of the text, listen to a taped recording of the text being read 84 and consider the markings. The instructions asked that the subjects circle all markings (responses) which they felt ”indicated a reading weakness or a need for remediation; a change in the behavior of the reader" (see Appendix A). Each subject's copy with their personal assessments of the reader's behavior was collected and analyzed. The subjects' responses were initially treated by computing a raw score for the number of reader responses each circled. The raw scores were viewed as the number of reading errors each subject had perceived. Although the term "reading error" was not used in the directions, the phrase "indicated a reading weakness or a need for remediation; a change in the behavior of the reader" has a negative connotation and implies the concept of error. The raw score for each subject and other information gained from the questionnaire was coded and punched onto computer cards for further analysis. The total number of responses circled by the experimental and the control group was computed and average numbers of errors indicated by each group was also computed. A computational analysis of the coded data was needed which would compute the statistical difference between the total number errors indicated by the groups. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to compute such a comparison. The Jeremy D. Finn (Univariate Analysis of Variance) computer program was used to provide 85 computational analysis of the groups' responses. The analysis of the data appears in Chapter IV. Summary of the Design and Procedure In summary, 60 graduate students in reading classes were randomly assigned to one of two groups; an experimental or control group. Both groups were asked to perform the same task. The control group did the task without the benefit of discussion; the experimental group did the same. task, however, first received a lecture which revolved around information which related to the task. The task each group performed was one related to the assessment of oral reading behavior. A tape recording of a male reading was played and the participants were given a transcript of the text being read to view while listening. The participants were told that the transcript contained 72 dialect related pronunciations or structural differences which had been assessed as reading errors by an observer. They were asked to circle the responses which seemed to indicate a reading error or reading weakness. The participants' responses were totaled to obtain an individual raw score for the number of errors perceived. The raw scores along with other pertinent information were coded onto computer cards for further analysis. The average number of errors indicated by the control group was computed. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using 86 the Jeremy D. Finn (Univariate Analysis of Variance) computer program was employed to provide computational analysis of the data. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Experimental Results In this chapter, the results of statistical analysis of the experimental group's responses are presented. Data are presented according to one research hypothesis and an alternative form. One related research question which was not stated in the form of a hypothesis is also examined. Data concerning the control group were discussed in Chapter I and are not related to the hypothe- sized question. Testing the Research Hypothesis The research hypothesis was that teachers' behavior toward Black English based responses in oral reading could be affected by presenting teachers with an informative lecture (treatment) concerning the legitimacy of language differences. The hypothesis states that a difference will exist in the groups after the treatment. Thus, it could be expected that after the treatment, the experimental group would perceive fewer dialect related responses as oral reading errors. 87 88 The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences in the number of Black English based responses which are perceived as oral reading errors by teachers who receive the treatment and teachers with no treatment. The hypothesis stated that there will be no differences in the group after the treatment. Thus, it could be expected that those who receive the treatment will perceive oral responses no differently than those who receive no treatment. Sixty subjects were randomly assigned to either the experimental group or to the control group. The primary distinction (described in Chapter III) between the groups' activities was that the experimental group received the treatment before they performed the designated task. The control group received no such treatment before the task. Each subject in both groups was asked to perform the following task: 1. Listen to a tape recording of a person reading. 2. Simultaneously view a copy of the text being read which includes notations which represent the occurrence of reading errors. 3. Circle those responses which they accept as being reading errors. The design used compared a group which has experi- enced a treatment with one which has not for the purpose of establishing the effect of the treatment. Random assignment to the experimental and control groups was employed to equate the groups. Campbell and Stanley (1963) refer to 89 this design as "The Post-Test-Only Conrol Group Design." Random assignment is1sed to equate group composition. If differences exist in the two groups after the treatment, the differences cannot be related to differences in the composition of the groups. It was desirable to know if the differences which exist after a treatment are larger than could have been expected on the basis of chance alone. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to analyze the statistical difference between the groups' mean scores. The Jeremy D. Finn (Univariate Analysis of Variance) computer program was used to provide computational analysis of the groups' responses. The dependent variable was the total number of errors each subject perceived to occur (responses which they accepted as being reading errors). Although random assignment had been employed to equate the groups, there was concern that the number of reading courses each subject had taken could affect their perception of errors. The concern was based on a position of logic; the more courses one has taken in reading, the more accurately one should recognize reading errors. If the number of reading courses taken could produce differ- ences in the groups' responses, then the effects of the treatment would be in doubt. Statistical procedures were applied to test as a covariate (ANCOVA) the effects of the number of reading classes the subjects had taken. The 90 Jeremy D. Finn computer program was also used to provide computational analysis of the covariate. Covariate analysis can be employed either to equate groups or add- precision to the analysis and reduce the unexplained error variance. In this study, the groups were assumed to be equated as the result of random assignment, thus, the covariate analysis is employed to gain precision and reduce any unexplained error variance. Results The null hypothesis stated that there would be no difference in the number of errors perceived by teachers who received a lecture concerning the legitimacy of language divergences and those who received no such lecture. The results of the analysis of variance are presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1.--Analysis of Variance of the Number of Errors Perceived by the Treatment and Non-Treatment Groups. Sources of Mean Degrees F P Value Variation Square of Freedom Ratio Less Than Between Groups 205.35 1 5.6396 .0209 Within Group 36.41 58 An alpha level of .05 was established a priori as an acceptable level of significance. The results of the 91 statistical analysis of the data indicate that the per- formance of the experimental group was significantly different from the control groups. The probability value of less than .0209 indicates that such differences would occur by chance in approximately two of every 100 occurrences. Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected. Because of the concern that the number of reading courses taken could have an effect on the number of Black English based responses perceived to be oral reading errors, covariate analysis was employed to examine the effect of this factor. Table 4.2 represents the analysis of the covariate. Table 4.2.--Analysis of the Covariate of the Number of Reading Courses Taken. Sources of Mean Degrees F P Variation Square of Freedom Ratio Value Between Groups 221.70 1 6.42 .0141 Within Group 34.51 57 The results of the statistical analysis of the data indicate that the differences which exist between the group do so regardless of the number of reading courses taken by the groups' members. The probability value of .0141 indicates this would be true in all but approximately one of every 100 occurrences. 92 Summary The research and the null hypothesis were restated: Research hypothesis: There is a difference in the number of errors perceived in an oral reading evaluation activity by teachers who receive an infor- mative lecture concerning a relativistic view of language divergence with an emphasis on specific characteristics of Black English and teachers who receive no such presentation. Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of errors recognized in an oral reading evaluation activity by teachers who receive a short informative lecture concerning a relativistic view of language divergence with an emphasis on specific characteristics of Black English and teachers who receive no such presentation. The findings of this study related to the null hypothesis were that the experimental group's subjects perceived a statistically significant smaller number of Black English based responses as oral reading errors than the control group. The null hypothesis was rejected. A related question concerning the effects of the number of reading courses taken upon the number of reading errors perceived was examined. The findings of this study related to this question were that the number of reading courses taken did not account for the difference in per- formance of the groups. Analysis of the data indicate that the treatment had a definite effect on the subject's perception of what is or is not a reading error. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary An investigation was conducted to examine the question, "Can teachers' attitudes and resulting behavior toward specific usage differences between standard English and Black English dialect be changed by a Short training period concerning the legitimacy of language differences?" Data from sixty students enrolled in three graduate reading classes were collected and analyzed concerning this question, "Did those subjects who received specific infor- mation perceive fewer dialect related responses as errors than those who did not receive such information?" A related question was examined and answered concerning a related variable and its effect upon the subjects' behavior; the number of reading courses taken. Two related questions were considered: (1) Do teachers discriminate toward dialect difference and to what degree? and (2) Are gram- matical differences in oral responses more stigmatized than phonological differences? 93 94 A review of the literature related to factors which may encourage the establishment and perpetuation of such attitudes was conducted and reported. Data were gathered and analyzed. The data gathering procedure used in the study is one which is similar to many used in informal and/or formal reading inventories, either to diagnose specific reading behavior or to establish reading grade levels for individual children. The procedure requires that teachers secure a graded paragraph which the child reads orally. A set of comprehension questions normally is asked the child after the reading is completed. In practice, two copies of the paragraph are used. One is the copy from which the child reads. The other is used by the teacher to follow along while the child is reading. On their copy, the teachers record pronunciation differences and/or other reading behavior which may indicate reading deficiencies. The teachers' record of the readers' responses are examined and analyzed and judgments con— cerning the readers' reading habits and abilities are formed. In this study, the subjects were given a copy of a text which was written specifically for the study. The copy included notations which the subjects were told represented an observer's attempt to record reading errors made by the reader. A tape recording of an adult Black male was played and the subjects were asked to circle the reader's responses which they considered to be incorrect. 95 Put another way, the subjects were to circle where they accepted the assessment of the response as a reading error. The text the subjects viewed and heard was written to contain responses which are different either in pronunci- ation or structure from standard English. All the differ- ences can be accounted for as having a base in a Black English dialect. All the dialect based responses are consistent with usage habits which are now or were at one time part of the reader's dialect. Seventy-two dialect related responses were noted on the subject's copy of the text. Control was placed upon the number of differences recorded as well as the nature of differences. The control was necessary to provide an ample, but not overwhelming, number of opportunities for the subjects to make judgments. The nature of differences was controlled to provide con- sistency with the reader's dialect. Findings ' The findings of this study may have application to any individual who is faced with teaching a child to read who has different language habits than those expected by the teacher. However, these findings, by necessity, must be applied specifically to this sample of subjects and the test environment of this study. It is possible, however, that the general characteristics of this sample, experi- ences and training, may be somewhat representative of a general population of teachers. 96 Relative to the research related questions posed in this study concerning teachers' reactions to dialect-based oral reading responses, the following findings may be summarized: l. Concerning teachers' tendency to perceive dialect- based oral reading responses as errors: The subjects in the control group perceived 9.2 percent of the noted responses as reading errors. The experimental group perceived 3.8 percent as errors. Assuming all the perceived errors were viewed as pronunciation errors, the quantity of errors per- ceived by the control group was sufficient to justify judgment formations concerning the readers' abilities which are lower than actuality. Teachers' misperceptions of the nature of dialect-related oral reading responses can effect their judgment of a child's reading ability. 2. With respect to the major question of the study? The difference in the number of errors perceived between the experimental group and the control group was significant at the <.02 level. The subjects' behavior toward Black dialect-related responses was different after receiving specific information concerning the legitimacy of the existance of language differences. 97 3. In reference to whether grammatical differences are more stigmatized than grammatical differences: Even though 27.8 percent (20 of the total 72) are related to phonological differences seventy-two and seven tenths (72.7%) of the total responses per- ceived as reading errors were related to grammatical differences. The grammatical differences which were included in this study were more stigmatized than the phonological ones. 4. Concerning the effect of the number of courses in reading instruction the subjects had taken: The probability of the quantity of courses a teacher has taken being solely accountable for differences in their perception of dialect-based responses as reading errors was significant at the .01 level. The differences between the two groups' behavior were not related to the number of reading courses they had taken. Limitations of the Study Limitations of time prevented analysis of the subjects' behavior toward dialect-based oral reading responses in classroom settings. The dialect characteristics used in this study were those which the reader felt accurately represented language as it was learned and used. It is an impossibility to 98 to generalize that teachers would behave similarly to all dialect characteristics. The findings of this study are limited to the nature of the task performed and are not related to questions con- cerning dialect interference. Implications and Conclusions The findings of this study were generally consistent with other studies noted in Chapter II which have detected that teachers can be discriminatory toward Black dialect- based usage differences in oral reading. Goodman (1965a, 1956b), Shuy (1968c), Labov (1966), McDavid (1965), and Steward (1965a, 1965b) have, for years, attempted to develop a view of reading instruction which supports the acceptance of dialect characteristics as the foundation of language growth, as opposed to a view which requires the destruction of linguistic habits. Investi- gators such as those noted above and others including J. Baratz (1969b), J. Baratz and S. Baratz (1969), Fasold and Wolfram (1970), and Johnson (1968) have consistently supported a position which respects the learned language of children. They have opposed views which attempt to replace the childrens' language with a socially acceptable dialect. Among linguists, disageement exists as to the most effective and appropriate method to teach reading to a Black English dialect speaker. However, more agreement exists 99 concerning the position that whatever methods are selected, they must be developed in an environment which is based on teachers' understanding of each child's linguistic differ- ences. Questions concerning methods and materials have been secondary in importance when compared to questions con- cerning teachers' attitudes toward language divergences. Goodman (1973) states that the primary disadvantage which speakers of low-status dialect suffers in learning to read is "one imposed by teachers and schools." He states that the rejection of dialect differences, not dialect differences, is the problem. Other investigators have made similar statements which are based on a relativistic, psycholinguistic position. This position views, (1) the major goal of reading as being comprehension of the author's deep structure; (2) reception of standard English rather than production of standard English as the crucial factor in comprehension, and (3) all language varieties as being equally effective as tools for communication for the speakers of that language form. Although articulated some- what differently, Goodman's position seems to reflect a view which is rapidly gaining acceptance. Teachers gener- ally do not seem to reflect an acceptance of dialect-based differences on this basis. However, findings from this study suggest that when informed of the legitimacy of the existance of language differences and how such differences may effect a teacher's judgment of a child's reading ability, they displayed more acceptance of the divergences. 100 There is little doubt that technical knowledge concerning dialect characteristics and dialect interference is of value to the field of reading instruction. There is also little doubt that for available knowledge to have an impact upon the reading development of children, it must be translated to teachers in ways that they can understand and apply the implications of the knowledge. Teachers generally seem to look toward "experts" for answers concerning how to teach children. Perhaps reading and language experts need to consider a broader view of the reading process. If, as this study indicates, teachers have a tendency to be dis- criminatory toward dialect-based responses and the degree of discrimination can be affected by an understanding of the dynamics of language differences and how they might relate to learning to read, then such information should be a part of every teacher's academic training. Perhaps one of the causes of reading failure is related to the lack of a language oriented view of the reading process. Perhaps the fact that teachers are generally trained to "teach" readers to develop word perception accuracy needs to be examined in respect to its effect upon the development of unnecessary and unrealistic teacher expectations. Similar teaching objectives, perhaps, should also be examined in the same vein. Future teachers should be more aware of the interrelationship of language habits and reading. Teacher training institutions need to develop ways and means to include the development of such an awareness into 101 their programs. Language and reading instruction should not be separated and isolated. Teachers must be schooled in linguistical understandings as well as social character- istics of speech behavior. The implications of the study are not that acceptance of a child's dialect will, in and by itself, guarantee reading success. Acceptance must be viewed as a beginning. As tenderness alone will probably not heal a wound, acceptance alone probably will not produce a reader. How- ever, in both cases, the more positive attitude and behavior seems more conducive to the development of a patient or reader who might return for more of the same eagerly and with fewer reservations. Certainly, for an activity which is as complex as learning to read, we cannot afford to create unnecessary barriers to reading success. If such barriers are built upon false assumptions, then such a creation is inexcusable and inhumane. Reading and language specialists need to examine the effects and affects of present day instructional practices to determine if teachers are doing and believing just exactly what they have been taught. In general, it would appear that subjects in this study did not have available knowledge to accurately assess the dialect-based differences in the reading activity. It also seems true, at least in part, as a result of being provided knowledge concerning such occurrence, they were less critical and more accepting of the dialect-based responses. The implications of this study seem to be that 102 the subjects were discriminatory in part because of "linguistic ignorance" implied by Labov (1970b). Their behavior may have been related to discrimination based on ignorance rather than race. Ignorance is a state which can be eradicated by education and training. Recommendations for Further Research This study accentuates the need for detailed research relative to possible causes of teacher's dis- criminatory practices toward language divergence in oral reading activities. Throughout the chapters, the need for sociolinguistic and education studies has been implied or suggested. The following is a list of projects which could provide answers to the many unanswered questions in this area. 1. This study of teacher attitudes should be replicated with teachers who are teaching children in inner- city predominately Black elementary schoOl. This would help to determine the extent to which constant exposure to Black English dialect has on the per- ception of dialect characteristics as reading - errors. This could also help to determine to some degree what role the race of the teacher has on such behavior. 2. A survey should be conducted with teachers to attempt to discover the sources of teachers' attitudes toward language divergence. This could 103 be helpful information to planners of teacher training programs for making decisions concerning the strengths and weaknesses of their present programs and for the establishment of specific alterations in course goals and objectives. Further studies of the effect of language differ- ences on teachers' attitudes and expectations as well as on teaching techniques and methodologies should be carried out. This should help determine if teachers are inadvertently establishing un- necessary barriers for divergent speakers to success in areas other than oral reading. A long-term research project is necessary to deter- mine if the subject's degree of acceptance of dialect-based differences is maintained in the classroom over a period of time. This could help provide the true test of effectiveness of such training. Training programs should be designed to inform and educate teachers about recent sociolinguistic and ethnomethodological advances in understanding the linguistically different student. Research should be conducted to determine the degree of preciseness in word perception and related production activities which is actually needed to develop reading comprehension. This could be helpful in determining the precise nature 104 of response divergences which must be attended by the teacher and be useful in answering questions concerning dialect interference in reading. 7. Further verification and expansion of the concept that grammatical differences are more stigmatized than phonological differences is needed. This could help planers of teacher training programs and text- book writers to focus their direction toward those characteristics of Black English dialect which might create the most societal problems for the speaker. 8. A study should be established to determine the long- term effect teachers' acceptance of language differences upon reading success. This is needed to substantiate existing theories and positions. This list is a summary of possible research questions which were implied in the present paper. It is by no means an exhaustive list of potential studies necessary to understanding the dynamics of teachers' attitudes toward dialect speakers and reading instruction. Investigators and studies have generally neglected to examine the impact of teachers' instructional behavior in reading on reading failure. Much remains to be done to improve teacher training programs in relationship to the nature of instructional strategies they are trained to employ with children and expectations that are consequently formed. If ways and means are not developed for informing teachers of the relative value of specific instructional 105 strategies, specific assumptions and expectations, and current available knowledge concerning the nature of language divergence, there is little reason to believe that the reading failure ratio among inner-city Black English dialect speakers will improve. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A This activity in which you have been asked to participate is similar to the kind of activity which is frequently used to assess or diagnose a child's ability to read orally. The usual procedure is for a teacher or another observer to ask a child to orally read a selected passage. The teacher follows along on a copy of the material and notes the child's responses which are con- sidered to be significant. Significant in the sense that they indicate weaknesses in the child's reading skills or indicate a need for remediation. Using this technique, the teacher's task is to interpret the child's behavior and decide upon teaching strategies to change the behavior. You are asked to perform a similar task. A tape recording of a person reading a selected passage will be played. In Section I, is a copy of the material being read. The words underlined in Section I are words where the observer felt that the responses were significant indicators of reading difficulty or a need for remediation. The printing above each underline word is an attempt to record exactly what the student said. You are asked to 106 107 listen carefully to the tape and consider the person's responses. Your task is to circle those responses which you feel indicate a reading weakness or a need for remediation; a change in the behavior of the reader. PLEASE CIRCLE THOSE RESPONSES WHICH YOU BELIEVE TO BE SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS. Please turn the page to Section I. 108 SECTION I thank My friend thinks Michigan is a good place to live da winnah Las winnah be cause in the winter. Last winter he was happy because day was col be col many days were very cold. When it i2 cold snow pile da groun lack throwin piles up on the ground. My friend likes throwigg snowbaul an makin foe wauk snowballs and making snow forts. When he walked to schul woe mas he hep school he wore a mask over his face to help keep waum Sometime wood he mas ketch warm. Sometimes he would pull up his mask to catch snowflake he mouf snowflakes in his mouth. Dis winnah fiel Da winnah be waumah din This winter he feels sad. The winter ig warmer than 1as yea Da melt foe git last year's. The snow always melts before he gets he foe bilt don't lack on are his fort built. He does not like to go out to play 25 wau schul He mutha take im da ca walk to school. His mother takes him in the car. hope nex winnah be colda an moe He hopes next winter is colder and more fun 109 SECTION II Please answer the following questions. 1. 10. 11. 12. Are you now or have you been a full-time classroom teacher? Yes No How many years have you taught? years Have you had either sole or shared responsibility for reading with a group of chilren? Yes No What grade level(s)? Have you ever taught a Black student to read? Yes No If number 5 was answered "Yes," what kinds of eXperi- ence have you had teaching reading to Black students. To what identity group do you belong? Indian Oriental Spanish Speaking Black White Other Have you had previous exposure to the contents of this presentation? Yes No If number 8 was answered " es, or how such exposure occurred. please note when, where How many courses in your college training have you had in reading instruction (including this course)? courses Have you have any courses which were linguistically oriented? Yes No If number 11 was answered "Yes,' please explain. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION If you would like a summary of the results of this study, please contact: Larry D. Ditto 301-1 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B PREFACE To maintain experimental control for this presentation, it is necessary that I read the material to you. I apologize for this, for at times I am not the world's smoothest reader. It seems ironical that here I stand, a teacher of reading telling you I am not a proficient oral reader. Perhaps my presentation will help explain why and how a person can be less than proficient as a performer of a task, yet still be able to understand and discuss it. I will do my best. I appreciate this opportunity to talk to you and present some ideas about the education of children which may or may not be new to you. I hope that in the next few minutes I will be able to stimulate thinking, challenge philosophies and practices, or perhaps confirm some of your own suspicions and beliefs concerning the education of children. My general area of discussion is a relatively new field of study which is beginning to make a profound impact upon educational practices and program planning in reading and language arts instruction. It is a field of study which has sometimes been misunderstood in terms of the 110 111 kinds of information it can or cannot provide for educators. It is a field of study whose practitioners feel that they have the knowledge to help answer questions about the most effective ways of teaching reading, writing, spelling and other such skills. They feel they can help make classroom practices more consistent with what we know about the ways children learn and develop. The general area of study I refer to is that of linguistics. Many of my comments will be more specifically related to the specialized areas of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It entails attempts to describe the nature of language and how it functions. It includes the analysis of the systems which comprise languages. Psycholingustics is related to the study of the psychological processes under- lying speech performances. Sociolingusitics is the study of characteristics of language varieties and their relation- ship to speakers, topics, settings, functions, etc., within a speech community. The term linguist can be used in at least two ways. Individuals who are skilled in the speaking of one or more languages may be called linguists. They are skilled performers of language. That group of scholars who use scientific methods to study languages are also called linguists. They possess an understanding of language. The point has been made that individuals do not necessarily need to be skilled performers of many languages to be linguists, but they should be able to analyze and understand 112 at least one language--preferably their own. In a sense, we are all linguists. Our abilities to perform may differ, but this is to be expected. The point has been made that after all, we don't ask a Botanist to become a flower in order to study and understand one. A similar analogy may be used to look at our expectations of children and their language knowledge and use. Many linguists contend that we need to make definite distinctions between what children know about language and the kinds of linguistic behavior they display. All of us know more about language than we can explain or exhibit. Our knowledge is reflected in our ability to understand and use language. Many people have the ability to understand or receive the message of speakers of other languages, yet do not possess the ability to reproduce--say or write-~the language. Most of us have heard speakers using a foreign language and somehow we have gotten some of the content of the message even though we didn't understand the language. Individuals who speak specific dialects--a dialect is simply a variety of a language--understand or receive the message of other dialects, but have a hard time reproducing or sending a message in that dialect. Most of us are good receivers of information. Most of what we know we have received from others. One of our classroom goals should be that of helping children to learn to understand messages produced in other dialects, to make children effective receivers, rather than concentrating on their learning to 113 reproduce a select standard English dialect. We all speak a dialect and all our dialects are somewhat different. If we tried, we could find areas of differences in our vari— eties of speaking. Our dialects happen to be very similar and we should have little difficulty understanding each other. We receive and produce messages with similar dialects. But, what of the children who come to school with very different dialects. Do we normally give them credit for what they have already learned--their language--or do we emphasize that which has not been learned? Do we accept and respect their dialects or do we attempt to force some other dialect upon the children? These are important questions to answers. Going back to the definition of linguistics, let us consider the term systems. This can be a difficult term to understand. All languages are made up of several systems. The major systems include dialectology, lexicography, etymology, phonology, morphology, syntax, grammar, graphology and semantics. The term systems relates to the rules which provide for the orderly arrangement of language components --words, meanings, sounds, etc. Without orderliness, languages would be unusable, meaningless groups of un- definable utterances. All speakers operate according to rules of their language that they have learned through their life experiences. The rules are rarely taught, they are learned by living in a speech community. All languages operate according to rules, but all languages operate with 114 their own unique set of rules and are thus constructed differently. Communication difficulties usually occur when speakers of two different dialects try to communicate if the systems or rules which control their language are not compatible. Their speech may sound different. They may use different structure or word meanings. Each speaker knows he is speaking correctly, but really wonders about the other person. We usually tend to assess the language of others by the rules we have internalized and use to control or organize our own language. Think for a moment about the way the sound systems of various languages differ. The number of sounds humans produce are relatively few. The individual sounds used by all speakers regardless of their particular language are pretty much the same. The reason languages sound different is that the rules of each dictate how the utterances will be put together when spoken and rules differ. All languages share common sounds, but each language sounds character- istically different. Similar statements can be made about other systems that make up languages. The various systems usually share common elements, but they are woven together differently by the speakers of the language. Thus, all languages and dialects are unique and characteristically different. All language forms are said to be rule governed and systematic. It should be remembered that the rules which actually govern each language are those which have been established by tradition, habit and usage by speakers I I I. I l11|l. :3. I ‘l 115 of that language. They are not rules which can be established and forced upon speakers from an outside source, but are rules which have developed or evolved with time and life experiences. The rules that govern a specific language are valid only for that language and cannot be superimposed upon other languages. Language has been defined as a set of arbitrary symbols (called words) which are for the transmission of messages placed in orderly relationship with one another according to practices accepted and understood by the speakers of thelanguage. Let us examine this definition. Language is considered to be arbitrary for at least two reasons. It is considered to be a human phenomenon in the sense that mankind invented it--mankind created the words, the sounds and the rules which we use to communicate. No one is exactly sure when or where mankind first put sounds together to form messages, but we are sure why it was done--to improve communication. Undefined grunts and jestures were no longer adequate. If you can accept the idea that mankind created or invented language to improve communications, consider also that as inventors, we reserve the right to change it whenever we, as speakers of the language, perceive a need to improve communications. Languages constantly change to meet the needs of their speakers. Rules should also change to improve communi- cation as time and society change. Language in this sense is considered to be a changing, growing, dynamic, living 116 thing; not a dead-cut-and-dry subject many of us found it to be in English classes. Many grammatical rules were invented in the 17th and 18th centuries by individuals who had enough social prestige to convince people to accept their dictates. The world has changed, yet some English instruction reflects no change in 300 years. Language is also arbitrary in the sense that originally most objects, thoughts and sensations were given names which probably had nothing to do with any inherent properties of that object. For example, a table is probably called a table because someone, at some unknown place and time who had enough social prestige to be listened to, said such an object shall be called a table. Some words seem more arbitrary than others. Today, many of the words coined or invented are based upon words which are already an accepted part of our language. New words, phrases and concepts are coined daily. To state that language is symbolic implies that words are used as representations for objects and not the objects themselves. Words help to conjure up mental images which may in turn stimulate various responses. If I said to you, "Here, take this nice, crisp one-hundred dollar bill," I would expect all of you to realize I am giving you simply symbols for the object money, but the money itself. (I am really glad no one got up to rush out and spend their money.) You and I can communicate about money because we are products of similar cultures which means we are likely 117 to conjure up similar mental images. The word, money, symbolizes a mental concept of something with which we are all familiar. What happens, though, when the symbols or words chosen to represent an object are related to other objects or concepts in the mind of another speaker? Think of the T.V. commercial one little guy says to another, ”You want a Hawaiin punch?" When definitions do not agree, misunderstanding occurs. What happens if the words fall into a void or an absence of any similar concept to relate the new word to? What if our life experiences have not provided us with the kinds of experiences which are needed to understand the words or concepts and put them into a meaningful context? Communication simply does not occur! Perhaps, as teachers, we have a responsibility to attempt to assess the life experiences of our children--not for the purpose of stating value judgments good or bad--privileged or underprivileged--but to improving our ability to communicate with each child. A failure to recognize that a listener may not be receiving your message because of a lack of mutually understood terms is a frequent occurrence. We all have found that people do not always hear what we think we have said. Half the arguments I have with my wife occur because she doesn't understand the meanings of the words I use--or at least doesn't understand them as I mean them. Or--maybe she does. The fact that languages change as time and life changes can be demonstrated. Think of the ways language 118 has changed in your life time. Your language is different than that of your parents or your children. It may be different today than last year. Think of all the new words and concepts which have developed because of space travel, Watergate, the advent of popular sports, or any other such occurrence. I once heard that 80 percent of the products on grocery shelves today didrot exist five years ago. There were, of course, many similar products, but the names and claims of today's products are new. How would you like to be a manufacturer and try to sell a laundry soap that just gets clothes clean. Why, you would be out of business in a month. Can you imagine trying to explain life today with language from 1900. Obviously, it could not be done effectively. Yet, we continue to judge or control language with rules, many of which are 200-300 years old. Grammar rules, regardless of their validity, are at least established. But, what of the rules which are used to judge the "correct" ways to pronounce or use words. They may change as fre- quently as the winds of society change. There is little doubt that language standards are often related to social factors. There is a story about the great statesman Adali Stevenson speaking before the United Nations using the term "agress" as in agression or agressor. Before this time, the term apparently did not exist. The fact that a noted person said something in front of a noted group, added to the fact that the word became part of printed record, made the use of the word legitimate and 119 acceptable. If someone else, in some other setting had first introduced the word, the chances are that acceptance would have been more difficult to achieve. Speakers change their language as needs occur. They also should determine what is or is not acceptable linguistic behavior when changes occur. Just because someone says that something is or is not correct, does not make it so. Speakers through their language usage determine what is legitimate. The question is asked, "What is more valid--that which people do (language usage) or that which someone says they should do?" —-English rules. Languages change to meet the demands of societies. Should not standards also reflect similar changes. Way back in the early days of jazz, no printed music was used. Each musician would play and try to blend in with the others to create a certain style of music. When this occurred, it was said that they were grovin or in the grove or it was groovy. The term indicated a state of being, never described an object. Today, groovy is used to describe most anything; a dress, a party, etc. It is not unusual for one group to adopt the verbal behavior of another if they so desire! All groups within our society have contributed words and habits to our speech. Exposure to language patterns of others often brings about changes in our own language. Have you ever visited the south and returned home saying, "y'-all." When John Kennedy was president, he frequently dropped r's from words, a 120 characteristic of many Eastern dialects. Apparently, his behavior affected others because ELE were suddenly dropped all across the country. I would like to begin to put these ideas into the context of the classroom. One of the more controversial arguments which has existed in educational circles has been, how do you evaluate or assess language differences. Some groups of educators maintain that some language or dialect characteristics represent inferior, childish, corrupted, undesirable habits. Such habits, character- istics, and dialects are viewed as being deficit in nature. These educators would erradicate, change and replace such dialects with one which they view as more desirable; standard English. Other groups view all varieties of languages as being different but equal in terms of effective- ness of communication for the speakers of each variety. These eudcators would have children retain their langauge and use it as a foundation for further language learning. Language adaptability and flexibility, not merely correct- ness, are goals of this group. These positions obviously are in conflict with one another. This is the deficit- difference argument. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to fully develop both positions. I would like to state, thought, that it has been fairly well documented that how you view thelanguage of another also tends to slant your perception of their abilities. If you view one's language negatively, 121 chances are good you will also view the person negatively. Most of us have stereotypes about languages and users of language. When we hear someone speak, often we form judgments about that person; a southern dialect may be taken by some as an indication of thelack of education; a foreign dialect may be taken as something to mistrust; a Black dialect may be taken as a sign of illiteracy. Some who see misspelled words on papers may make certain judgments about the writer's intelligence. Being a poor speller myself, I'll never forget the first time I discovered that there is no relationship between intelligence and one's ability to spell. I developed renewed faith in myself. I think I even began to spell better. Our language habits developed within the context of the culture in which we deveIOped as a person. We learned the language of our culture: its sounds, meanings and grammar almost automatically, simply by living in a specific speech community. Ofin entire view of the world was shaped and formed by the words and concepts we heard as a child. Can you imagine the view of the world a child might develop living in the home of an Archie Bunker? All cultures and many subcultures develop their own languages or dialects which are neither inherently more superior or more inferior than the language of any other group. Varieties of a language or dialects develop because of various reasons primarily, however to meet thelieeds of the speakers within a group. They can be related to social, geographical, 122 historical or other such factors. Negative connotations should not be placed upon the term dialect. Such connota- tions usually reflect personal biases and little more. Language stereotypes also develop within the con- text of cultures. Many linguists argue that when we make statements about what is good or bad--correct or incorrect-- acceptable or nonacceptable about any characteristic of someone else's language habits, we are usually stating more of a social, cultural or personal bias than a linguistic fact. Language usage and language judgments definitely are related to social perceptions. It is argued that that which is correct or acceptable for individuals is relative to the culture of the speakers and the rules of their language. The statement is often made that teacher training programs help establish or reinforce stereotypes which are unpro- ductive in the classroom. It is said that as teachers wer have been trained to be super—discriminatory in what we consider to be acceptable language behavior. We are said to be programmed to correct and change childrens' language when it does not meet our standards or expectations. Teachers are not blamed for this, but institutions are accused of being somewhat narrow in their perception of the kinds of training provided for teachers. It is suggested that as teachers we need to begin to accept language for what it is; symbolic, arbitrary, systematic, man-made, changing, growing, dynamic, a living thing. Accepting language as these things eliminates the 123 need for value judgments. By accepting and respecting the language of others, we can come closer to convincing others we accept them as individuals. By accepting and respecting the language of others, we are more able to relate to the Black or Brown child or to any other child who displays any characteristic which might relate him to a particular speech community. If you can convince someone you accept them as a person, you have a better chance of guiding their learning. Instead of changing and erradicating the language habits of divergent speakers, we need to develop techniques to help them develop other language alternatives to be used when they perceive the need. It is argued that we have been trained to rid children of their "undesirable" linguistic habits and force them to adopt another dialect. Practices which attempt to force language changes have proven ineffective. There are many who defend such practices on the need for all to be users of a standard dialect. Supposedly, if standard English is used, communication is improved. Many linguists agree that perhaps this seems like an honorable goal, but they argue that if the process of acquiring standard English requires the destruction or erradication of characteristics which are strongly culture-oriented such as language, then perhaps such goals need to be re-examined. Effective language programs are those which build upon that which previously has been learned. They do not attempt to tear apart past learning. It is argued that 124 whenever and however we indicate to a speaker that his language is not acceptable, it is difficult for the speaker to separate the rejection of his language habits from a rejection of himself. Such feelings and attitudes are not conducive to learning, such attitudes are unproductive in the classroom. When children with different speaking habits come to school, they may face some definite handicaps, but research seems to indicate that productive attitudes of respect and faith in other's abilities can help to minimize any such handicaps. Unproductive attitude can magnify such handicaps. A mutual respect for, and sensitivity to, language differences which exist between many teachers and pupils can help ease classroom problems. There are recorded instances where a lack of an understanding of the differ- ences in thelanguage of teachers and students have caused problems, situations where dialect differences have been seen as language errors. One observer noted hearing a Black child read "he brother" for "his brother." The teacher seemed to view this as a reading error. The substitution of "he" for "his" is an example of a language difference which might occur systematically in the speech of many Black speakers. The fact that such characteristics occur systematically, in consistent ways, adds validity to the claim that such differences are language characteristics and not language errors. 125 Another example of a teacher attempting to change the language habits of a child was also recorded. A group of second graders were reading in round- robin fashion. It was Jim's turn. "There 325 a lot of goats," he read. "There 33§_black goats and white goats." His teacher smiled encouragingly. "Would you repeat that please, Jim,‘ she said. Somewhat puzzled, Jim reread, "There was a lot of goats. There was black goats and white goats." r's—“m..- Still smiling, his teacher stepped to the board. In excellent manuscript she wrote two words. "Do you see a difference in these words?" she said. "Yes, they have different endings," said Jim. "Can you read these words?" the teacher asked. "Was, were," Jim read. "Good," said his teacher. "This is was, and this is were. Now read again what you just read from the book." "There 225 a lot of . . ." Jim began. "No, no!" his teacher said with annoyance. "It's were. There were a lot of goats. Now please reread." "There Eggs a lot of goats. There 222 black goats and . . ." It is seriously questioned if teachers gain a thing by attempting to correct or change a child's reading behavior in this manner. It is argued that such practices 126 are ineffective attempts to change language habits, not improve reading. What is really important, that a child reads in a standard form or that he understands what is read? Attempts to change language habits are challenged. Some question the need for individuals to speak standard English. In fact, many question the actual existance of a standard English. Others suggest that such corrections do not change the child's behavior one bit as the example seems to indicate. It is suggested that the only lasting results of these practices are the building of negative attitudes. Obviously, this is something we call ill afford to do. If practices do little except develop negative attitudes, thus making the job of teaching reading more difficult, then they should be discarded or replaced by practices which truly help a child learn to read better. Teachers must learn to tell the difference between language characteristics and reading or language errors. This is no easy task. It is a near impossibility to identify any characteristics which are part of the speaking habits of all Black speakers. All of us have a great deal of intra-speaker or inner—personal language habits. This is true with all speakers regardless of their identity group. Individuals usually adjust or adapt their Speech according to social situations and the demands of the moment. Usually the more formal the situation is perceived to be, the more formal the speech becomes. Language variablility between speakers also occurs and is related to inter-speaker 127 or ippggfgroup differences. Inter-speaker variability or individual differences among speakers within any identity group accounts for the fact that differences in speech occur even among the closest of neighbors, work companions, social groups and even families. Such variability seems related to the fact that all individuals, even though they share commonality with others, have had different life experiences which have uniquely shaped and molded their personal language habits. This reinforces the idea that it is nearly impossible to identify any characteristics which are part of the speech patterns of all individuals within an identity group. Language is a very personalized trait. Although descriptions have not been stated which will accurately predict the exact verbal behavior of an individual, it is possible to identify shared general characteristics of given groups. It must, however, be remembered that such descriptions must be accepted as generalities and not as fixed rules. Such descriptions may be used to help teachers and students become aware of where basic differences between their dialects may exist. Efforts should be made to identify dialect differences and similari- ties to build a better understanding of characteristics with inherent potential for confusion and misunderstanding. Teachers and students may never learn to accurately predict or reproduce all the characteristics of the other's dialect, but an awareness of the similarities and differ- ences within their language habits which actually exist 128 may lead to greater respect and acceptance of the other individual and enhance learning and communication. Please look at Sheet A (copy included). I would like to play a short recording of some differences which occurred between my speaking habits and those of a Black person who helped me in this study. These specific pro- nunications are ones which were rendered by an adult male I who feels that each accurately represents the way he learned to pronounce the words. His background includes being "‘“-— J‘A.‘. _ raised in Louisiana, teaching in an inner-city school in an industrial city in Michigan and being a graduate student at Michigan State University. Each of these experiences have had an effect on his language habits. Such characteristics can occur in the speech of many Black Speakers. No speaker will disPlay any of the charac- teristics at all times and in all circumstances. Some will not display any differences at all. This is important to remember. Other differences frequently occur in word meaning, grammar, etc. Differences which occur in other varieties of languages can also be examined in a similar manner. Please look at Sheet A while I play the tape. In point 7 on Sheet A are some grammatical differ- ences which might occur in the speech of some Black speakers. These examples do not represent a complete listing of the grammatical differences which might exist. For example, these sentences may be considered as perfectly correct 129 grammar for some Black speakers: "I be done ate." instead of "I will have eaten." and "I been done talk to her." instead of "I have talked to her." In the case of "been done," the dialect version may well be more effective in terms of communicating a message. "I have talked to her." indicates the action was done in the past. "Been done" indicates the action took place in the far past. r PLEASE CONSIDER THE EXAMPLES IN #7. It is suggested that, as teachers, we need to examine our classroom practices to make sure that we are teaching that which is truly essential to learn. We need to identify and eliminate practices which, in fact, may be aimed primarily at changing cultural traits, such as some of our practices in reading instruction are said to be. Teachers need to become aware of those practices which are or are not conducive to positive learning climates. In the age of accountability, we all know that tradition in itself is no longer an acceptable justification for any specific practice. We live in a society which is interested in results. It has been demonstrated that cultural traits change if those who possess them perceive a need for such a change. Change cannot be dictated or legislated. People usually change most readily when and if they want to change. Criticism, rejection and harassment are not conducive to the develop- ment of a desire to change any personal characteristics. 130 I would like to conclude the presentation by reading a resolution which was passed at the 17th Delegates Assembly of the International Reading Association. WHERE AS, Racism has caused minority groups to be classified as inferior peOple, and education itself sometimes reflects the racism of the society by treating cultural differences as cultural deficiencies; and WHERE AS, It is both undesirable and impossible to obliterate either a culture or a language, therefore, be it RESOLVED (1) That the IRA opposes any reading instruction which reflects the idea that minority groups are culturally and linguistically deficient, and that their culture and language must be obliterated before they can achieve in reading, RESOLVED (2) That the IRA support reading programs, instructional procedures, and materials which recognize the validity and legitimacy of the culture and language of minority groups. Linguists feel they have gathered together ample knowledge for educators to begin to reasses some of their philosophies, practices and attitudes. It is suggested that such an assessment process must begin with an under- standing of the nature of language. 131 SHEET A Listed below are examples of the kinds of sound differences which can occur in the speech of some Black speakers. SE = Standard English BE Black English 1. ‘g involvement Examples: SE - court BE - coat door door tire tie tar ta horse hoss near neah 2. ‘1 involvements Examples: SE - kill BE - keil ball baul w fool fol " sell sel half haf help hep 3. consonant endings Examples: SE — past BE - pas desk des ask ax act ak field fiel test tes 4. vowel variance Examples: SE - pen BE - pin since sence steal stel source souce meant mint sure sho 5. Eh variance Examples: SE — with BE - wif both bof this dis that dat then din 132 ing suffix Examples: SE - jumping BE - jumpin running runnin going goin The use of different verb forms in specific environments a. Present tense Examples: SE - I am talking BE - I talkin (Dropping gm shows duration; means action is happening now) I am talking I be talkin (When be is added, it means the action is happenIfig habitually) b. Past tense Examples: SE - The dogs were gone BE - The dog was gone (Usually was used instead of were) c. Lack of agreement on third person singular - present tense Examples: SE - He talks BE - He talk (§_usually dropped) B I BL IOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams, Roger D. "Black Talk and Black Education." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 1969. Allport, G. W. The Nature of Pre'udice. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Bock Company, 1958. Applegate, J. R. "Urban Speech Analysis." Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table On Lin uIstics. 37_E. Alatis (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1970. Artley, A. Sterl. "Oral Reading as a Communication Process." Reading Teacher, XXVI (October), 1972. Ausubel, D. P. "The Effects of Cultural Deprivations on Learning Patterns." The Disadvantaged Learner. S. W. Webster (ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler, 1966. Bailey, Beryl L. "Some Arguments Against the Use of Dialect Readers in the Teaching of Initial Reading." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VIII (Spring/Fall), 1970. . "Some Aspects of the Impact of Linguistics on Language Teaching in Disadvantaged Communities." Elementary English, XLV (1968). Baratz, Joan C. "A Review of Research on the Relationship of Black English to Reading." Paper presented at Convention of International Reading Association. Atlantic City, 1971. . "Application of Dialect Research in the Classroom --It Ain't Easy." Acta Symbolica, II, 1970a. . "Beginning Readers for Speakers of Divergent Dialects." Readinngoals for the Disadvanta ed. J. Allen FigurelfiTed.Y} Newark, DeI.: Inter- national Reading Association, 1970c. 133 134 . "Educational Considerations for Teaching Standard English to Negro Children." Teaching Standard English in the Inner City. R. W. Fasold and R} W. Shuy (edST). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970b. . "Linguistic and Cultural Factors in Teaching Reading to Ghetto Children." Elementarnynglish, XLVI (February), 1969b. . "Teaching Reading to an Urban Negro School System." Teaching Black Children to Read. J. Baratz and R. Shuy (eds.). Washington,_D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969c. "Who Should Do What To Whom and Why?" The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 1969a. Baratz, Stephen S. and Baratz, Joan C. "Early Childhood Intervention: The Social Science Base of In- structional Racism." Harvard Educational Review, XL (1970). . "Negro Ghetto Children and Urban Education: A Cultural Solution." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 196977 Baratz, JOan C. and Shuy, Roger W. (eds.). TeachinggBlack Children to Read. Washington, D.C.: Center for AppIied Linguistics, 1969. Bereiter, C. and Engelmann, S. Teaching Disadvanta ed Children in the Preschool. Englewood CIiffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Bernstein, B. "Elaborate and Restricted Codes: Their Social Origins and Reading." American Anthropolo- gist, LXVI, 1966. Brottman, M. A. "Dimensions of the Problem of the Dis- advantaged Pupil." Teaching the Culturall Dis- advantaged Pupil. J. M.’Beck and R. W. Saxe (eds.). Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1965. Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Ex erimental Designs for Research. Chicago, III.: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Cramer, Ronald L. "Dialectology--A Behavior to be Con- sidered in Teaching Children to Read." Paper presented at the International Reading ASsociation Conference. Anaheim, California, 1970. 135 Davis, A. "Changing the Culture of the Disadvantaged Student." Working With Low Income Families. Washington, D.C.: AmerIcan Home Economics Associ- ation, 1965. . "Teaching Language and Reading to Disadvantaged Negro Children." Elementary English, XLII (November), 1965. DeStefano, Johanna S. Language, Society and Education: A Profile of Black English. Belmont, CaI1f.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. r Deutsch, M. "Facilitating DevelOpment in the Pre-School Child: Social and Psychological Perspectives." Pre-School Education Today. Garden City, N.Y.: DoubIeday andICompany, 1966. Dillard, J. L. Black English: Its Histo and Usa e in the United States. New York: Random House, I972. Duffy, Gerald G. and Sherman, George B. How To Teach Reading Systematically. New York: Harper and Row Puinshers, Inc., 1973. O - ‘r Ecroyd, Donald H. "Negro Children and Language Arts." The Reading Teacher, XXI (April), 1968. Emans, Robert. "A Reaction to Summary of the Second-Grade Phase of the Cooperative Research Program in Primary Reading Instruction by Robert Dykstra." Reading Research Quarterly, V (1969/1970). Fasold, Ralph W. "Othography in Reading Materials for Black English Speaking Children." Teaching Black Children to Read. J. C. Baratz and R. W. Shuy (eds.). Wasfiington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969. . "What Can an English Teacher Do About Non- standard Dialect?" The English Record, XXI (April), 1971. and Shuy, Roger W. (eds.). Teaching Standard English in the Inner City, Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Lingfiistics, 1970. and Wolfram, Walt. "Some Linguistic Features of Negro Dialect." Language, Society and Education: A Profile of Black English. J. S. DeStefano (edT). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. 136 . "Some Linguistic Features of Negro Dialect." TeachingStandard English in the Inner City. R. W. Fasold and R. Shuy (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970. Figurel, J. Allen (ed.). Better Reading in Urban Schools. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1970. . Reading Goals for the Disadvantaged. Newark, Del.: InternationaI’Readihg Association, 1972. Galvan, Mary M. and Troike, Rudolph C. "The East Texas Dialect Project: A Pattern for Education." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), I969. Goodman, Kenneth. "A Linguistic Study of Cues and Miscues‘ in Reading." Elementary English. XLII (1965a). . "Analysis of Oral Reading Miscues: Applied Psycholinguistics." Reading Research Quarterly, II (February), 1969b. . "Dialect Barriers to Reading Comprehension." Elementary English, XLII (1965b). . "Dialect Rejection and Reading: A Response." Readinngesearch Quarterly, V (l969/l970a). "Orthography in a Theory of Reading Instruction." Elementary_English, XLIX (December), 1972. . "Reading a Psycholinguistic Guessing Game." Lgnguage and Reading: An Interdisciplinary Approach. CompiIed by D. V. Gunderson. Wa§hington, D. .: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970. Goodman, Kenneth and Buck, Catherine. "Dialect Barriers to Reading Comprehension Revisited." The Reading Teacher, XXVII (October), 1973. and Fleming, James T. Ps cholin uistics and the Teaching of Readipg. NewarE, DeI.: International Reading Association, 1968. Granowsky, Alvin and Granowsky, Seena. "Teachers as Models for Children's Speech." Elementary English, XLIX (May). 1972. Gunderson, Doris V. "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Teaching Reading." The Floria F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), I969. 137 . Compiled by. Language and Reading: An Inter- disciplinary Approach. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Lihguistics, 1970. Hess, R. D. and Shipman, V. C. "Early Experiences and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes in Children." Child Development, 1965. Higgenbotham, Dorothy C. "Pscholinguistic Research and Language Learning." Elementary English, XLIX (October), 1972. Hodges, Richard E. and Rudorf, E. Hugh (eds.). Language and Learnipg to Read: What Teachers Shou ow About Langua e. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-MiIfIIn Company, 19 2. "13' -fi ‘ Horn, Thomas D. (ed.). Reading forrphe Disagyantaged: Problems of LinguistiEallnyifferent Learners. New York: Harcourt Brace and’World, Inc., I970. Hughes, Anne E. "An Investigation of Certain Sociolinguis- tic Phenomena in the Vocabulary, Pronunciation and Grammar of Disadvantaged Pre-school Children, Their Parents and Their Teachers in the Detroit Public Schools." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Hunt, Lyman C. "The Effects of Self-Selection, Interest and Motivation, and Independent, Instructional and Frustrational Levels." The Reading Teacher, XXIV (November), 1970. International Reading Association. The Readinngeacher, XXVI (November), 1972. Johnson, Kenneth J. "Pedagogical Problems of Using Second Language Techniques for Teaching Standard English to Speakers of Nonstandard Negro Dialect." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer),-I969. . "Standard English and Disadvantaged Black Children: Teaching Strategies." Teaching the Language Arts to Culturally DifferepE!Children. W. W. Joyce and J. A. Banks (eds.I: Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley PubliShing Company, 1971b. . "Teacher's Attitudes Toward the Nonstandard Negro Dialect . . . Let's Change It." Elementapy English, XLVII (February), 1971c. 138 . "The Influence of Nonstandard Negro Dialect on Reading Achievement." The Epglish Record, XXI (April), 1971a. . "The Language Barrier--A Crisis in the Education of Black Children." Bulletin-~School of Education. University of Illinois at ChiEago, 1968} Johnson, Marjorie S. and Kress, Roy A. (ed. ). Corrective Reading in the iElementa_y Classroom. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1968. Joyce, William and Banks, James A. (eds. ). Teaching the La_guage Arts to Culturally Different Children. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com mpany, 1971. Kochman, Thomas. "Social Factors in the Consideration of Teaching Standard English." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 1969. Labov, William. "Language Characteristics of Specific Groups--B1acks." Reading for the Disadvantaged: Problems of LinguisticallyJ Different Learners. T. D. Horn (edi). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1970a. . La_guage in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, Penn.: T e Un1versity of Pennsylvania Press, Inc., 1972. . "Some Sources of Reading Problems for Negro Speakers of Non-standard English." New Directions in ElementarygEnglish. A. Frazier (ed.). Champa1gn, 111.: National Council of Tsachers of English, 1967. . "The Logic of Nonstandard English." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 1969a. . The Social Stratification of En lish in New York Cit . Washington, D.C.: Cénter for AppI1ea Linguistics, 1966. . The Stugy of Nonstandard En lish. Champaign, 111.: National Council otheachers of English, 1970b. and Cohen, Paul. "Some Suggestions for Teaching Standard English to Speakers of Nonstandard Urban Dialects." Language Society and Education: A Profile of Black EngliSh. J. S. DeStafano. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. 139 Laffey, James L. and Shuy, Roger (eds.). Language Differ- ences: Do They Interfe£3_ Newark, De .: Inter- national Reading Association, 1973. Lefevre, Carl A. "Language and Self: Fulfillment or Trauma?" Elementary English, XLII (March), 1966. Melmed, Paul J. "Black English Phonology: The Question of Reading Interference." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1970. Mitchell-Kernan, C. "Language Behavior in a Black Urban Community." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1969. McDavid, Raven I. "Sense and Nonsense About American Dialects." Teaching the Language Arts to Culturally Different Children. W. W. Joyce and 5. A. Banks Tedsi). Readihg, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1971. . "Social Dialects: Cause or Symptom of Social Maladjustment." Social Dialects and Language Learning. R. W. Shuy (ed.). Urbana, .: NaEional Council of Teachers of English, 1965. Moffett, James A. Student—Centered Languege Arts Curriculum, Grades K-13: A Handbook for TeaEhers. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1968. New York City Board of Education. Nonstanderd Dialect. Urbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers 5? English, 1967. Ponder, Eddie G. "Understanding the Language of the Culturally Disadvantaged Child." Elementary English, XLII (1965). Rentel, Victor M. and Kennedy, John. "Effects of Pattern Drill on the Phonology, Syntax and Reading Achieve- ment of Rural Appalachian Children." American Educational Research Journal, IX (1972). Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., I969. Rystrom, Richard. "Dialect Training and Reading: A Further Look." Reading Research Quarterly, V (1969). 140 . "The Effects of Standard Dialect Training on Negro First—Graders Learning to Read." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1968. Rystrom, Richard and Cowart, Harry. "Black Reading 'Errors' or White Teacher Biases?" Journal of Reading (January), 1972. Seymour, Dorothy F. "Black English in the Classroom." Todays Education, XLII (February), 1973. Shanker, James L. "The Attitudes of Black Teachers Toward the Use of Dialect Reading Materials for Beginning Reading Instruction." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Shuy, Roger W. "A Linguistic Background for Developing Beginning Reading Materials for Black Children." Teaching Black Children to Read. J. Baratz and R. Shuy (eds.). Washihgton, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969a. . A Study of Social Dialects in Detroit. Washing- ton, D. tC.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1968a. . "Detroit Speech: Careless, Awkward and Incon- sistent, or Systematic, Graceful and Regular?" ElementarylEnglish, XLV (May), 1968b. . "Language Variation and Literacy. Read1n Goals for the Disadvantaged. Newark, DeI.: Inter- national Reading Association, 1970a. . Locating the Switching Devices of Oral Language. Sacremento, Calif.: National Council ofT eachers of English Institute, 1967. . "Some Considerations for Developing Beginning Reading Materials for Ghetto Children." Journal of Reading Behavior, I (Spring), 1969b. . "Some Language and Cultural Differences in a Theory of Reading." Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading. Kenneth'S. Goodman and James T. Fleming (eds. ). Newark, Del.: Inter- national Reading Association, 1968c. . "Teacher Training and Urban Language Problems." Teaching Standard English in the Inner City. R. W. Fasold and R. W. Shuy—Tedsi). Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970b. Cf”? 141 Shuy, Roger W., Davis, Alva L. and Hogan (eds.). Social Dialects and Languagg_Learning. Champaign, 111.: National CounEil of Teachers of English, 1964. Simpson, G. E. and Yinger, J. M. Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of Prejudice and D13- crimination. New York: Harper and Row Company, 1972. Sims, Rudine. "A Psycholinguistic Description of Miscues Generated by Selected Young Readers During the Oral Reading of Text Material in Black Dialect and Standard English." Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Wayne State University, 1972. Singer, Harry and Ruddell, Robert B. (eds.). Theoretical Models and Process of Reading. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1970. Spiegel, Dixie Lee. "Holistic Approach to Diagnosis and Remediation." The Readinngeacher, XXVII (January), 1974. Stewart, William A. "Continuity and Change in American Negro Dialects." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VI (1968). . "Current Issues in the Use of Negro Dialect in Beginning Reading Texts." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VIII (Spring/Fall), I970. . "Facts and Issues Concerning Black Dialect." English Record, XXI (April), 1971. . "Foreign Language Teaching Methods in Quasi- Foreign Language Situations." Nonstandard S eech and the Teaching_of English;_ Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied’Linguistics, 1965b. . "On the Use of Negro Dialect in Teaching of Reading." Teaching Black Children to Read. J. Baratz and R. Shuy (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969a. . "Sociolinguistic Factors in the History of American Negro Dialects." The Florida F. L. Repgrter, V (1967). . "Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic Factors Affecting English Teaching." Socialgialects and Language Learning. R. W. Shuy (ed.). Ufbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1965a. 142 . "Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic Factors Affecting English Teaching." The Florida F. L. —_ Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 1969b. Strickland, Dorothy S. "A Program for Linguistically Different Black Children." Research in the Teaching of English, VII (Spring),v1973. . "Black is Beautiful vs. White is Right." Elementary English, XLIX (February), 1972. Strickland, Ruth. "The Language of Elementary School Children: It's Relationship to the Language of Reading Textbooks and the Quality of Reading of Selected Children." Bulletin of the School of Education. Indiana University, XXVII (July), 1962. Tatham, S. M. "Reading Comprehension of Materials Written With Select Oral Language Patterns." Reading Research Quarterly, V (1970). Torrey, Jane W. "Illiteracy in the Ghetto." Harvard Educational Review, XL (May), 1970. Tremonti, Joseph B. "The Training of Reading Teachers for the Disadvantaged." Better Reading in Urban Schools. J. A. Figurel (ed.). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1972. Troike, Rudolph. "Social Dialect and Language Learning: Implications of TESOL." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 1969. Venezky, Richard L. "Non-Standard Language and Reading." Elementary_English, LVII (March), 1970. and Chapman, Robin S. "Is Learning to Read Dialect Bound?" Language Differences: Do They Interfer. J. L. Laffey and R. Shuy (eds.). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1973. , Calfee, Robert C., and Chapman, Robert S. "Skills Required for Learning to Read: A Pre- lininary Analysis." Languageland Readin : An Interdisciplinary Approach. Compiled by D. V. Gunderson. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970. Wardhaugh, Ronald. "Some Linguistic Insights into Reading Instruction." The Florida F. L. Reporter, VII (Spring/Summer), 19S9. 143 . "The Teaching of Phonics and Comprehension: A Linguistic Evaluation." Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading. K. Goodman, J. T. Fleming (eds.). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1968. Wayne, A. 0. "Paul Robert's Rules of Order: The Miscues of Linguistics in the Classroom." The Urban Review, II (1968). Weaver, A. T. and Ness. O. G. The Fundamentals and Forms of Speech. New York: The Odyssey Press, Inc., 1957} Weber, Rose Marie. "The Study of Oral Reading Errors: A Survey of the Literature." Reading Research Quarterly, IV (1968). Williams, Fredrick and Whitehead, Jack L. "Language in the Classroom: Studies of the Pygmalion Effect." Language, Society and Education. J. S. DeStafano. Belmont, Calif.: WaHSWorth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. Wolfram, Walter A. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit S eech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969. . "Sociolinguistic Implications for Educational Sequencing." Teaching Standard English in the Inner City. R. W. Fasold and R. Shuy TedsT). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1970. and Fasold, Ralph W. "Toward Reading Materials for Speakers of Black English: Three Linguistically Appropriate Passages." Teaching Black Children to Read. J. C. Baratz and R. W. Shuy (eds.). Washing- ton, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969. York, L. Jean and Ebert, Dorothy. "Primary Level Grades 1-3." Reading for the Disadvantaged: Problems of Lipguistically Different Learners. T. D. Horn (ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1970. M'CllTJWWLHflMlfliflilflffliflfiflfllliflffliflmfl