Post 2 -- Trilingualism and multiple literacies

This post will discuss the the idea of "trilingualism" and "multiple literacies", specifically as these are defined by Judith Baker and Michael Stubbs. Personally, I like these ideas because they are useful and specific. It is easily defined what we mean by these concepts and they can be applied to everyday teaching.

First, Trilingualism, refers to the idea that there are three forms of the English language that Americans must learn to be fully literate:

"'Home' -- English or dialect, which most students learn at home, and recent immigrants often learn from peers, and which for the first and second generation immigrants may be a combination of English and their mother language." (Baker).

Important to understand with the home dialect, is that it is not the mother language itself, but the way in which recent immigrants, who were speakers of some other language, speak English, usually among their families and neighborhoods. This might be called "Pidgin-English" or "Broken-English", but I would discourage the use of such terms, because they imply that this English is improper, a result of poor English language skills, or poor education. That is not the case.

Such discussions are necessary in this country because we are a multi-ethnic society. English must be understood as a living, vital, and adaptive language. "Home" English represents one way in which recent immigrants have adapted English to their own use, using it in a way that has meaning for them.

"'formal' or academic English, which is learned by many in school, from reading, and from the media, although it may also be learned in well-educated families." (Baker).

Formal English could be understood as trade language, or a common language, in which we can better communicate across cultures. It is universal, but only in the arbitrary sense of it having been imposed by those in power. Understanding this English dialect allows a student to better communicate outside of his family or community.

"'Professional' English, the particular language of one's profession, which is mostly learned in college or on the job." (Baker).

We are mostly concerned with the first two, and the connection between those two is important, because we must avoid the false choice between the two. Students should not give up home English to learn Formal English. Teachers can build on Home English to teach Formal English.

The next point ties with the ideas of Michael Stubbs. Stubbs discusses the attitudes towards language. Stubbs cites studies that a "speaker's language is often a major influence on our impression of his or her personality." (Stubbs, 67). Furthermore, "teachers evaluate pupils academically on the basis of their voices, and also their physical appearance, even when they have available relevant academic work on which to form their judgments." (Stubbs, 67).

Tying this to Baker's trilingualism, Stubbs is stressing that we should not devalue a students home dialect. The home dialect serves the people who speak it. There is no such thing, as Stubbs tells us, of a Primative Language, with undeveloped grammatical rules and minimum vocabulary. Every language serves the people who speak it, or they would not speak it.

I think that the main points to take away from these articles is that we all use multiple dialects, (Trilingualism) and it is natural to code shift between them. All language and dialect is vital, living, and a part of those who speak it, and serves the people who speak it. We cannot ask students to sacrifice their home dialect to learn formal english. It is important to teach them formal english, but the best method is to build on the home dialect, while respecting and honoring the home dialect.

I will end with a quote from a work that I read for another class. It is about slavery, but I think it touches nicely on the dangers of robbing any people of their home language:

"To be forced to employ the words of another is beyond oppression as such. It represents more than a socioeconomic inversion. It goes beyond the physical. It is a violation of my psychic space, an intrusion into the deepest recesses of my being. To completely acquiesce is nearly impossible, for it would mean the total collapse of the personality. I may therefore learn a few words, and may even speak them, but I will speak them in my own way, in my own cadence, and my own meanings. And I will share this attitude with my children and my children's children. I will subvert this language." (Gomez, Exchanging our Country Marks).