Chaoyang Zhang
In a world where there are thousands of languages; it is impossible for all people to have a standard way of speaking a certain language. In fact, there exist many variations within a specific language. A sociolinguistic approach towards language is fairer than a linguistic approach because it is based on the evidence in the real world (Van, 2018). Developing rules and constraints to describe how the ‘ideal’ language should be spoken or what is regarded as competent is not practical in the real world. Considering that speaking a language in a certain way is what is correct creates a homogenous speech community which is unfair for people like non-native students.
With the increasing number of international students in universities, marking practices are a major concern. According to Hudson; students who use dialects in universities face challenges in learning to read (Hudson, 2001). Other varieties of a language should be regarded correct hence nonnative speakers’ way of communication should be correct even for educational purposes. It is difficult for everyone to learn the standard variety of a language which is considered correct. I agree with the argument that certain language features are not wrong as they would be considered in the standard language variety (Van Herk, 2018). Nonstandard language is just a different way of saying the same thing. Language should not be used to gauge the competence of a student or performance. Accepting the different variations of language used by students is beneficial to them (Cheshire, 2005). If students are allowed to express themselves in essays and other evaluations through the variety that they are used to, they could be more successful than when forcing them to use a certain standard language. We should take into consideration that language policies and language teaching and learning policies should comply with the dynamic nature of language and culture, focusing on the collective shifting from monolingualism and monoculturalism to plurilingualism and pluriculturalism.
Reflection Questions:
1. Should the same marking criteria be used for native students and non-native students?
2. Could there be a possibility that many non-native students have failed to score high grades because of language barrier?
References
Cheshire, J.(2005). Sociolinguistics and mother tongue education. InAmmon,U.,Dittmar,N. andTrudgill,P.(Eds). (2005). Sociolinguistics: An introductory handbook of the science of language and society(2nd) (2341-2350).Berlin: MoutondeGruyter.
Hudson, R.A. (2001). Sociolinguistics (2nded).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Herk, G.(2018). What is sociolinguistics? (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Hello, thank you for the interesting post. I think for marking criteria, we should consider coherency the most. If the message intended is not clear because of a lack of proficiency, then the language needs to be adapted. However, the person doing the reading should also make the effort to understand what is being written if the language is not standard. Being open-minded allows the teacher to learn about the communicative styles of other speakers. Teachers should allow students to be able to express themselves in a non-standard way, as long as it’s comprehensible. Plus, negotiating for meaning could be an interesting exercise to improve the English abilities of both standard and non-standard speakers.
I do think prescriptivism is necessary to keep the integrity of a language, enough that meaning is maintained; but at the same time, if new forms are becoming more and more used then they should be accepted. A good way to see how new grammar is becoming acceptable is by consulting a program like Google Ngram Viewer to see frequency of terms, including new or traditionally wrong grammar, in sources printed in the last few centuries. It’s also possible to see on a graph how terms or grammar use have become increasingly or decreasingly acceptable or unacceptable throughout time.
Kevin Anderson