For Tuesday July 12
1. In Ovuh Dyuh, Dowdy writes, “The central concern is about having the freedom to go back and forth from the home language to the public language without feeling a sense of inferiority. The issue is about letting colonized people communicate in their many spheres of communication, and not limiting them to jazz, reggae, samba, calypso, and zouk”
- The focus in Dowdy and Baker’s work remains on young people having to make use of two separate languages in different social settings. Common words and phrases now deemed to be a part of Standard English were in fact inspired by and derived from other cultural forms and languages that are framed to be “inferior”. Should educators incorporate how language has transformed over time as a means to empower young people to reclaim the “public language” as theirs? Would this knowledge make learning the “public language” more acceptable?
2. As an English teacher, Baker makes a great effort to legitimize her students’ “home language” in the classroom. Baker seems to have success amongst her students, but are there any pushbacks or possible detriments that could occur with this type of legitimization or interaction? Should a teacher have to be responsible for understanding her students’ various language forms?
3. How might Kaplan’s analysis of language writing forms help a teacher work with immigrant children? If teachers desire for students to maintain a cultural identity that is not imposed upon, how might having to teach Standard English writing forms be a hindrance to that process? Is there a way to incorporate various styles of writing into the English format or is that even an important thought to consider?
No comments:
Post a Comment