Journal o f Psycholinguistic Research, VoL 5, No. 4, 1976
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English Linda B. J a m e s I
Received November 19, 19 74
In studying the perception o f differences between Black English and Standard English by 48 first-grade, urban, Black children, BE and SE were partitioned into content, Le., syntax and lexicon, and style, Le., suprasegmentals or prosodic features o f phonology. A discrimination task was designed to test whether the subjects could perceive differences in terms o f style or content or both. Accurate discriminations were related to language variety preference and school and home-street register maintenance. The results indicated BE style to be as significantly related to BE preference and register maintenance as BE content when the two were separated.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to the language development of Black children. The language performance of economically lower-class, urban Black children has typically been seen as deficient (Baratz, 1969; Deutsch, 1965). Urban Black communities have been characterized as displaying a language code, "vernacular," dysfunctional for success in the larger American culture (Loban, 1966; Labov, 1969). Theoretical approaches to Black language patterns have ranged from "no language at all," to "cultural deprivation" prohibiting positive cognitive development (Bereiter and Engelmann, 1966; Engelmann, 1971; Gray and Miller, 1967; Hess and Shipman, 1965; Jensen, 1969; Pavenstadt, 1965). Following this "deficit" approach, the orientation of many educators has been to eradicate what has been called nonstandard Negro English and 1Black Studies Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
377 ~) 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
378
James
replace it with Standard English (SE) (Caselli, 1971). Alternatively, a "difference" approach to Black English (BE), espoused by some, argues for the recognition of BE as a "legitimate" form of expression (Chomsky, 1966; Greenberg, 1963; Labor, 1972). Proponents of the difference model assume "bidialectalism" or the "foreign language" view of BE to be the more plausible orientation (Mellan, 1970; Johnson, 1971). Review of the literature related to BE shows that at present both interand intradisciplinary research related to Black language has taken innumerable perspectives. Each perspective can and does have far-reaching implications for the speaker in the Black language community, who at some point in time will be confronted with the attitudes that speakers of "Standard English" have toward his language. The findings of Chapanis (1971) indicate that dialect can be a crucial variable in one man's assessment of another. For the Black English speaker, that assessment has generally been one of inferiority by a large part of White society. Subsequent to these beliefs, the educator's answer to the question of whether BE-speaking children should be taught SE has generally been affirmative. A number of other reasons for this point of view may be considered. They range from striving for "mainstream" assimilation, which has proved not to be the expected outcome for the majority of Black SE learners, to the traditional educational necessity of developing reading skills in SE for greater "academic success." The emphasis to date becomes how to teach SE to speakers of BE, rather than whether they should be made to learn SE at all. Again, dependent on the approach taken to BE, the implications are great for the BE speech community in terms of cultural identity and self-image. Will BE be treated as "no language at all"; "bad" English, a poor imitation of SE; or a dialect different from SE, with speech varieties more appropriate to some social situations than others? The last conception of BE is that of a series of language registers. According to Halliday e t al. (1964), a register is the name given a variety of a language conditioned by social circumstances of its use. Most linguists will agree that a speaker of any language will make linguistic adjustments to specific social situations. These adjustments in phonology, grammar, and lexicon may range from the changes made between adults and small children to the more complicated sociolinguistic switching between home-street and school talk. De Stefano (1972) discusses the mutual dependence between register and dialect and/or sociolect. Linguistically, BE has been spoken of in terms of a dialect based on geographical distribution and/or of a sociolect based on status distribution. Individuals in a speech community usually learn only one
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English
379
dialect or sociolect, but may control many registers within it. The concept of register seems to be particularly useful in reference to the urban Black child's language and his attendant language learning in public schools. Houston 0969) makes only one distinction between the registers of the Black children that she studied in northern Florida, the "school register" and the "nonschool register." Weeks (1971) concludes from her research on the language registers of young Black children that a great deal of research needs to be done in order to determine the precise linguistic nature of registers themselves, the extent to which they may or may not occur, and the social and linguistic framework in which they may or may not occur. Abrahams (1965), Easold and Wolfram (1970), Labov 0972), Shuy 0969), Stewart (1964), and others have described Black urban speech, characterizing it as different in systematic ways from surrounding middle- and upper-class speech. To date, there appears to be virtually little or no empirical research, however, geared at analyzing BE as compared to SE from the perspective of the BE speaker as he defines and uses it. There is more than nonstandard grammar to the BE dialect; one does not automatically produce BE by breaking the grammatical rules of SE. Suprasegmentals, also known as the prosodic features of phonology, i.e., stress, pitch, and other aspects of voice which affect meaning, also differ for BE. Black dialect is a fully formed linguistic system in its own right, with its own grammar and pronunciation rules comparable to those of SE; it cannot simply be dismissed as an unworthy approximation of SE. The suggestion has been made that BE is best characterized by suprasegmental differences from other varieties of English. Labov (1972) shows that BE has a distinctly different organization of the English sound system from that of the White New York City vernacular. Although many researchers agree that BE as a language variety may be partitioned into grammatical and phonological features, there is disagreement over the significance of each in terms of language learning, use, and middle-class social acceptability (Adler, 1973; Labor, 1972; Moore, 1971). Johnson (1971) outlines some basic steps for eliminating the failure of traditional language programs. Recognizing that Black dialect is a legitimate systematic variety of English, he utilizes the bidialectist or second language approach and addresses the problem of interference. When speakers of Black dialect learn SE, the phonology and grammar of Black dialect may conflict with the phonology and grammar of SE at certain contrasting points. This interference is paramount in the second language teaching approach, because it indicates exactly what features of the target language, the language that must be learned, must be emphasized in the instruction. Two of Johnson's steps were particularly relevant and useful in the
380
James
experiment that I shall now report on. One step is for the student to hear the SE sound or grammatical pattern. A second is for the student to be able to discriminate between his language and the target language at those points where interference is evident. This provides a test of whether he is able to hear the contrasting features in the target language. An objective of my study was to determine whether Black children could hear differences between BE and SE in terms of syntax, phonology, or both. An attempt was made to test the importance of both syntax and phonology in language variety preference and language variety usage. The primary focus of this study is on Black urban school children's perceptions of BE and SE and how they are related to their usage of either or both. Given the various perceptions of BE previously discussed and t h e controversy over phonology and syntax in language learning and usage, such an investigation would definitely seem in order. Do Black children perceive a difference between BE and SE? If so, is that difference identified in terms of style, referring to how something is said (i.e., intonation and other prosodic features), or is the difference identified as one of content, referring to what is said (i.e., syntax and lexicon), or both? Are preferences for these perceived differences related to the particular English language register selected for a school or nonschool setting? In the United States, where SE is generally seen as the more "appropriate" language for the public school setting, the answers to these questions have particular relevance. With rare exception, success of the BE-speaking child in the formal educational setting is dependent on his perception and control "of SE, as well as BE. The study tests for main hypotheses: 1. Ss will be able more frequently to perceive a difference between BE and SE style than between BE and SE content. 2. Ss will show more frequently a preference for BE style over SE style than for BE content over SE content. 3. More Ss will sdect BE style as the preferred register for the public school setting than BE content when style and content are presented separately. 4. There will be a higher correlation between preference for BE style and register maintenance than between preference for BE content and register maintenance.
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English
381
METHOD Subjects and Instrument The subjects were 48 Black first-grade children of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The median family income for Black families in the school that these children attended was approximately $4500 a year. The children listened to a tape of combinations of four speech excerpts, paired two at a time, each approximately 20 sec in length. The first taped excerpt was of a dialogue written in BE content and read by a speaker with a BE style of intonation and other prosodic features. The second excerpt had the same dialogue written in SE content, with the speaker reading it in BE style. The third excerpt was of the speaker reading the dialogue written in SE content and delivering it in SE style. The fourth was of the speaker reading the dialogue written in BE content but speaking in SE style. Prior to data collection, the entire tape was heard by a panel of four linguists who were asked to identify the content and style exhibited in each of the four excerpts. All of the panelists were able to identify the excerpts accurately. Procedure In order to test the perceived differences between BE and SE content, holding BE and SE style constant, the S was asked whether he could differentiate between excerpts 1 and 2, and excerpts 3 and 4, respectively. The tests for perceived differences between BE and SE style, holding ,,onstant BE and SE content, required the S to state whether he could differentiate between excerpts 1 and 4 and excerpts 2 and 3, respectively. Comparisons of excerpts 1 and 3 were elicited to test for perceived differences between BE content and style vs. SE content and style. Exceprts 2 and 4 were compared for the purpose of isolating discriminations of SE content with BE style and BE content with SE style. The four speech excerpts were paired and ordered so as to cover all possible combinations, and thus to control for order effects. Each S was asked to make discriminations of two sets o f paired excerpts. If the subject was able to perceive a difference between a pair, he was subsequently asked a set of three questions. Which way of talking did he prefer, the first or the second? If he were going to tell something to his teacher at school, which way would he want to talk? If he were going to tell something to his friend at home, which way would he want to talk?
James
382
Table I. Summary of X2 Analyses for Black Children's Perceptions of BE i
Perception of style differences vs. content differences Perceived differences Component of register to be discriminated
Difference
No difference
Style
[
31
1
32
Content
]
12 43
20 21
32
x 2 = 25.58,p < 0.001 Preferences for style over content Preference for component varied Prefer
Not prefer
r
Component of registe~ varied
Style
[
24
7
31
Content
[
7 31
6 13
13
• = 1.44, p > 0.25 School register preference: style variety vs. content variety Style Preference for BE style or content
I
• = 12.34,p < 0.001
Content
I
'
RESULTS To analyze the results, X2 values and ~b coefficients were obtained; Yates' correction for continuity was applied when there was an expected frequency o f less than ten in one or more o f the ceils in the tables. Table I shows the contingency tables of observed frequencies for the first three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 predicted that Black children would be able to perceive a difference between BE and SE style more frequently than between BE and SE content. This hypothesis is supported (X~ = 25.58, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . Although Black children did tend to prefer BE over SE style more often than BE over
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English
383
SE content, • was not statistically significant (X2 = 1.44, p > 0 . 2 5 ) ; hypothesis 2 is not supported. More Black children selected BE style than content as a preferred register for the public school setting, when style and content were presented separately. The third hypothesis was supported (X2 = 12.34, p < 0.001). The strength of the relationship was measured by calculating the r coefficient (Bruning and Kintz, 1968, p. 207) and was found to be 0.71. The fourth hypothesis was that there would be a higher correlation between BE style preference and register maintenance than between BE content preference and register maintenance. Statistical testing of the hypothesis was not possible because of extremely small theoretical frequencies. A larger proportion of Ss who tended to prefer BE style maintained the same register than changed register. The proportion maintaining registers was 73%; alternately, the proportion changing registers was 27%.
DISCUSSION The fact that the Ss were able to perceive differences between style more frequently than content lends credence to the position that phonology is more important than syntax, at least in the discrimination of language varieties (Adler, 1973). The child may be attending more to differences in the prosodic features of BE and SE than to their lexical and syntactic features. There may be a tendency for the child to try to produce an acceptable "school register" of SE by striving to "sound white" in voice aspects rather than attending to dictionary meaning of words and to grammar. This phenomenon could compound reading problems (Labor, 1969). If the child has grown more dependent on listening and imitation skills rather than the sight skills necessary for word recognition, he will be at a disadvantage. Vocabulary learning will also be more difficult for the child who does not attend to the different meanings of SE. The situation is complicated further as the child is taught SE grammar in the academic setting; again he is forced to juxtapose in a meaningful order the two style and two content components of at least these two language registers so as to control them with skill (Johnson, 197 I). Other factors, such as peer affiliation, cultural identity, and disillusionment with White society and school, may influence the accomplishment of the task of using SE (Abrahams, 1965; Mellan, 1970; Smith, 1973). Further test of the second hypothesis is indicated, since preference could be determined only when differences were stated; the children were not able to perceive differences in content as frequently as differences in style.
384
James
The trend established supports implications of the first hypothesis. The children can discriminate differences in style more readily than content; and style tends to be a more important determiner than content of preference for BE over SE. The ratio of children able to discriminate and show preference for BE style over SE style was over 3: l; the ratio of children able to discriminate and show preference for BE content over SE content was not quite l : l . It is possible that even first-graders have already learned that BE grammar is "bad" and that this has influenced preference. Even more plausibly, in light of the fact that the Ss as a whole preferred BE over SE, BE may be conceived by the children more in terms of its prosodic than its lexical and syntactic features. Black children preferred the speech variety most familiar to them; yet the "nonstandard" grammar, which has typically been used to characterize that speech variety, seems to have been but secondary in their perception. More Ss selected :~he BE style than content as the preferred register for the public school setting when style and content were presented separately. The data indicate not only that BE style is the preferred register for the public school setting but also that BE content, when used without BE style, is much less preferred. Again, in terms of the BE register choice for the public school setting, the children may be attending to the BE "way of talking," rather than the "poor grammar" so often characterized as being "BE.'" The question again arises of whether the SE first-grade children have already learned that BE content is "bad grammar" and made their selections on that basis. If it were so, the children would have also learned that the BE style would not be accepted as the more appropriate public school register. One may speculate that the social stigma of using BE phonology is not as great as for exhibiting its syntactic and lexical features (Wolfram, 1970). The results could also reflect the children's adherence to a cultural identity: "sounding Black" to them just may not entail "nonstandard" grammar without the requisite prosodic features. The hypothesis that there would be a higher correlation between preference for BE style and register maintenance than between preference for content and register maintenance warrants further investigation. Only one child preferred BE content and maintained that register, and none preferred BE content and changed registers. A larger sample of Ss may be necessary. From the proportion of children maintaining registers who showed a preference for BE style, the importance of the prosody of BE is once again implied. Several explanations may be given for the prominence of BE style in the language behavior of Black children as reflected in the results of this investigation. It may be that the BE-speaking child intuitively emphasizes the prosodic features of BE, perceiving it as a "way of talking." When speaking in
Black Ch]dren's Perceptions of Black English
385
the formal educational setting, the child may adhere to BE style for cultural identity. Content may be seen as secondary, and SE as "talking White" with emphasis on style rather than content. Another explanation is that the child has learned that BE content is considered inappropriate in the formal education setting. Thus when presented with a partitioned BE he selects BE style, which he may see as carrying less social stigma than content. The first conclusion seems the most plausible: Since first-grade children were sampled, there was less likelihood that they had learned much about the "appropriateness" of a register. This would help to account for the infrequent selections of SE style over BE style. The child has not yet learned that both BE style and content are seen as inappropriate for public school usage. Knowledge of BE speakers' perceptions of BE can facilitate the intercultural communication process. Such information is of particular relevance to "helping" professionals working in the Black community. The professional must look inward to analyze his reactions to the client's language variety. However, it is beneficial to learn how the client perceives his own language variety, as well as how he perceives the professional's language variety. A next step in research could be to identify factors influencing register selection. This information may help both the professional and the client to make the adjustments necessary for better communication. Communication requires skill on the part of the listener as well as the speaker; both need to be aware of their feelings about how something is said and what is said. These are all ideas for investigation in further communications research. Two empirical questions are of particular relevance: How much social stigma is attached to BE style as compared to BE content? What factors are contributing to BE register maintenance? This study does support the utility of register in seeking to understand the BE language variety. Limitations of such a study include the geographical location, the school setting for the test situation, and the sample size. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Dr. Harold B. Pepinsky, Dr. Theodore J. Kaul, and Dr. Andrew I. Schwebel for their help in completing this study. REFERENCES
Abrahams, R. (1965). Deep Down in the Jungle, Aldine, New York. Adler, S. (1973). Social class bases of language: A reexamination of socioeconomic, sociopsychologieal,and soeiolinguistiefactors ASHA 15(1):7. Baratz, J. C. (1968). A bi-dialectical task for determining language proficiency in economically disadvantagedNegro childrem Child Dew. 40:899-901.
386
James
Bereiter, C., and Engelmarm, S. (1966). Teaching Disadvantaged Children in Preschool, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Bernstein, B. (1971). A sodolinguistie approach to socialization: With some reference to edueabllity. In Williams, F. (ed.), Language and Poverty, Markham, Chicago, pp. 25-61. Bernstein, B. (1973). Class Codes and Control, Vol. 2 of Applied Studies Toward a Sociology o f Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston. Bruning, J., and Kintz, B. (1968). Computational Handbook o f Statistics, Scott, Foresman, Atlanta. Burling, R. (1970). Man's Many Voices: Language in lts Cultural Context, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Caselli, R. (1971). Keys to standard English. Educ. Digest 3e:30-31. Cazden, J., and Hymes, D. (eds.) (1972). Functions o f Language in the Clas~oom, Teachers College Press, New York. Chapanis, A. (1971). Prelude to 2001: Explorations in communication. Am. Psychologist 23:949-961. Chomsky, A. (1966). Cartesian Linguistics, Harper and Row, New York. Cole, M., and Bruner, J. (1971). Cultural differences and inferences about psychological processes. Am. Psychologist 26:867-876. De Stefano, J. (1972). Some parameters of register in adult and child speech. ] TL, Rev. AppL Ling. 18:31-45. De Stefano, J. (ed.) (1973). Language, Society, and Education: A Profile o f Black English, Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., Worthington, O. Deutsch, M. (1965). The role of social class in language development and cognition. Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 35:78-88. Deutseh, M, (ed.) (1967). The Disadvantaged Chffd, Basic Books, New York. Dillard, J. (1972). Black English, Random House, New York. Engelmann, S. (1971). How to construct effective language programs for the poverty child. In Williams, F. (ed.), Language and Poverty, Markham, Chicago, pp. 102-121. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). Social dialects in developmental sociolinguistic~ In Sociolinguistics, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Fasold, R., and Wolfram, W. (1970). Some linguistic features in Negro dialect. In Fasold, R., and Shuy, R. (eds.), Teaching Standard English in the Inner C~ty, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Giglioli, P. (ed.) (197-2). Language and Social Context, Penguin Books, Baltimore. Gray, S., and Miller, J. (1967). Early experience in relation to cognitive development. Rev. Educ. Res. 37:375-493. Greenb~rg, J. (1963). Universals o f Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Gumperz, J. (1971). Language in Social Groups, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. HaUiday, M., McIntosh, A., and Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, Longmans, Green, London. Hallman, C. (1967). Linguistics and the disadvantaged. In Fogan, E. (ed.), English and the Disadvantaged, International Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa. Hardy, W. (ed.) (1970). Communication and the Disadvantaged Child, Williams and Wflkins, Baltimore. Henle, P. (1958). Language, Thought, and Culture, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich. Hess, R., and Shipman, V. (1965). Early experiences and the socialization of cognitive modes in children. Child Dev. 36:869-886. Holmes, L. (1971). The true story of Chicken Licken. In Bambara, T. (ed.), Tales and Stories for Black Folk, Doubleday, New York. Houston, S. (1969). A soeiolinguistic consideration of the Black English of children in northern Florida. Language 45(3):599--607.
Black C-'h~dren's Perceptions of Black English
387
Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educ. Rev. 39:1-123. Johnson, K. (1971). Should Black children learn standard English2 Viewpoints 47(2):82-101. Labov, W. (1969). Some sources of reading problems for Negro speakers of nonstandard English. In Baratz, 1., and Shuy, R. (eds.), Teaching Black Children t O Read, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Labor, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robin, C., and Lewis, J. (1968). A Study o f Nonstandard English o f Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City, Vols. I and II, ERIC (1968) ED028 423 and ED028 424. Lavatelli, C. (ed.) (1971). Language Training in Early ~nildhood Education, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Ill. Leon, P., Faure, G., and Rigault, A. (1970). Prosodic Feature Analysis, Libraine Didier, Montreai. Loban, W. (1966). Language Ability: Grades Seven, Eight, and Nine, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. Maraseuilo, L. (1971). Statistical Methods for Behavioral Science Research, McGraw-Hill, New York. McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological Statistics, Wiley, New York. Mellan, O- (1970). Black English: Why try to eradicate it. New Republic 163:15-17. Menyuk, P. (1963). A preliminary evaluation of grammatical capacity in children. Z Verb. Learn_ Verb. Behav. 2(56):429-440. Mitchell-Kerman, C. (1969). Language behavior in a Black urban community. Unpublished dissertation. Moore, D. (1971). Language research and preschool language training. In Lavatelli, C. (ed.), Language Training in Early Childhood Edi~cation, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, I11. Pavenstadt, E. (1965). A comparison of the child-rearing environment of upper-lower and very low-lower class families. Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 35:89-98. Shuy, R. (1969). A linguistic background for developing beginning reading materials for Black children. In Baxatz, J., and Shuy, R. (eds.), Teaching Black Children to Read, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Shuy, R. (1971). Sociolinguistics: A Crossdisciplinary Perspective, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Smith, A. (1973). Transraeial Communication, Prentice-Hail, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Stewart, W. (1964). Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic factors affecting English teaching, tn Shuy, R. (ed.), Social Dialects and Language Learning, National Counc'fl of Teachers of English, Champaign, IU. Stewart, W. (1968). Continuity and change in American Negro dialects. Florida FL Reporter 2(1): 3-18. Ward, M. (1971). Them Children: A Study in Language Learning, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Weeks, T. (1971). Speech registers in young children. Child Dev. 42:1119-1130. Whiteman, M., and Deutseh, M. (1968). Social disadvantage as related to intelleetive and language development. In Deutsch, M., Katz, J., and Jensen, A. (eds.), Social Class, Race, and Psychological Development, Holt, New York. Whorf, B. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Williams, F. (1970). Language and Poverty, Markham, Chicago. Wolfram, W. (1970). Implications for educational sequencing. In Fasold, R., and Slluy, R. (eds.), Teaching Standard English in the lnner City, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Wolfram, W. (1971). Black-White speech differences revisited. Viewpoints 24:26.
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English Linda B. J a m e s I
Received November 19, 19 74
In studying the perception o f differences between Black English and Standard English by 48 first-grade, urban, Black children, BE and SE were partitioned into content, Le., syntax and lexicon, and style, Le., suprasegmentals or prosodic features o f phonology. A discrimination task was designed to test whether the subjects could perceive differences in terms o f style or content or both. Accurate discriminations were related to language variety preference and school and home-street register maintenance. The results indicated BE style to be as significantly related to BE preference and register maintenance as BE content when the two were separated.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to the language development of Black children. The language performance of economically lower-class, urban Black children has typically been seen as deficient (Baratz, 1969; Deutsch, 1965). Urban Black communities have been characterized as displaying a language code, "vernacular," dysfunctional for success in the larger American culture (Loban, 1966; Labov, 1969). Theoretical approaches to Black language patterns have ranged from "no language at all," to "cultural deprivation" prohibiting positive cognitive development (Bereiter and Engelmann, 1966; Engelmann, 1971; Gray and Miller, 1967; Hess and Shipman, 1965; Jensen, 1969; Pavenstadt, 1965). Following this "deficit" approach, the orientation of many educators has been to eradicate what has been called nonstandard Negro English and 1Black Studies Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
377 ~) 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
378
James
replace it with Standard English (SE) (Caselli, 1971). Alternatively, a "difference" approach to Black English (BE), espoused by some, argues for the recognition of BE as a "legitimate" form of expression (Chomsky, 1966; Greenberg, 1963; Labor, 1972). Proponents of the difference model assume "bidialectalism" or the "foreign language" view of BE to be the more plausible orientation (Mellan, 1970; Johnson, 1971). Review of the literature related to BE shows that at present both interand intradisciplinary research related to Black language has taken innumerable perspectives. Each perspective can and does have far-reaching implications for the speaker in the Black language community, who at some point in time will be confronted with the attitudes that speakers of "Standard English" have toward his language. The findings of Chapanis (1971) indicate that dialect can be a crucial variable in one man's assessment of another. For the Black English speaker, that assessment has generally been one of inferiority by a large part of White society. Subsequent to these beliefs, the educator's answer to the question of whether BE-speaking children should be taught SE has generally been affirmative. A number of other reasons for this point of view may be considered. They range from striving for "mainstream" assimilation, which has proved not to be the expected outcome for the majority of Black SE learners, to the traditional educational necessity of developing reading skills in SE for greater "academic success." The emphasis to date becomes how to teach SE to speakers of BE, rather than whether they should be made to learn SE at all. Again, dependent on the approach taken to BE, the implications are great for the BE speech community in terms of cultural identity and self-image. Will BE be treated as "no language at all"; "bad" English, a poor imitation of SE; or a dialect different from SE, with speech varieties more appropriate to some social situations than others? The last conception of BE is that of a series of language registers. According to Halliday e t al. (1964), a register is the name given a variety of a language conditioned by social circumstances of its use. Most linguists will agree that a speaker of any language will make linguistic adjustments to specific social situations. These adjustments in phonology, grammar, and lexicon may range from the changes made between adults and small children to the more complicated sociolinguistic switching between home-street and school talk. De Stefano (1972) discusses the mutual dependence between register and dialect and/or sociolect. Linguistically, BE has been spoken of in terms of a dialect based on geographical distribution and/or of a sociolect based on status distribution. Individuals in a speech community usually learn only one
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English
379
dialect or sociolect, but may control many registers within it. The concept of register seems to be particularly useful in reference to the urban Black child's language and his attendant language learning in public schools. Houston 0969) makes only one distinction between the registers of the Black children that she studied in northern Florida, the "school register" and the "nonschool register." Weeks (1971) concludes from her research on the language registers of young Black children that a great deal of research needs to be done in order to determine the precise linguistic nature of registers themselves, the extent to which they may or may not occur, and the social and linguistic framework in which they may or may not occur. Abrahams (1965), Easold and Wolfram (1970), Labov 0972), Shuy 0969), Stewart (1964), and others have described Black urban speech, characterizing it as different in systematic ways from surrounding middle- and upper-class speech. To date, there appears to be virtually little or no empirical research, however, geared at analyzing BE as compared to SE from the perspective of the BE speaker as he defines and uses it. There is more than nonstandard grammar to the BE dialect; one does not automatically produce BE by breaking the grammatical rules of SE. Suprasegmentals, also known as the prosodic features of phonology, i.e., stress, pitch, and other aspects of voice which affect meaning, also differ for BE. Black dialect is a fully formed linguistic system in its own right, with its own grammar and pronunciation rules comparable to those of SE; it cannot simply be dismissed as an unworthy approximation of SE. The suggestion has been made that BE is best characterized by suprasegmental differences from other varieties of English. Labov (1972) shows that BE has a distinctly different organization of the English sound system from that of the White New York City vernacular. Although many researchers agree that BE as a language variety may be partitioned into grammatical and phonological features, there is disagreement over the significance of each in terms of language learning, use, and middle-class social acceptability (Adler, 1973; Labor, 1972; Moore, 1971). Johnson (1971) outlines some basic steps for eliminating the failure of traditional language programs. Recognizing that Black dialect is a legitimate systematic variety of English, he utilizes the bidialectist or second language approach and addresses the problem of interference. When speakers of Black dialect learn SE, the phonology and grammar of Black dialect may conflict with the phonology and grammar of SE at certain contrasting points. This interference is paramount in the second language teaching approach, because it indicates exactly what features of the target language, the language that must be learned, must be emphasized in the instruction. Two of Johnson's steps were particularly relevant and useful in the
380
James
experiment that I shall now report on. One step is for the student to hear the SE sound or grammatical pattern. A second is for the student to be able to discriminate between his language and the target language at those points where interference is evident. This provides a test of whether he is able to hear the contrasting features in the target language. An objective of my study was to determine whether Black children could hear differences between BE and SE in terms of syntax, phonology, or both. An attempt was made to test the importance of both syntax and phonology in language variety preference and language variety usage. The primary focus of this study is on Black urban school children's perceptions of BE and SE and how they are related to their usage of either or both. Given the various perceptions of BE previously discussed and t h e controversy over phonology and syntax in language learning and usage, such an investigation would definitely seem in order. Do Black children perceive a difference between BE and SE? If so, is that difference identified in terms of style, referring to how something is said (i.e., intonation and other prosodic features), or is the difference identified as one of content, referring to what is said (i.e., syntax and lexicon), or both? Are preferences for these perceived differences related to the particular English language register selected for a school or nonschool setting? In the United States, where SE is generally seen as the more "appropriate" language for the public school setting, the answers to these questions have particular relevance. With rare exception, success of the BE-speaking child in the formal educational setting is dependent on his perception and control "of SE, as well as BE. The study tests for main hypotheses: 1. Ss will be able more frequently to perceive a difference between BE and SE style than between BE and SE content. 2. Ss will show more frequently a preference for BE style over SE style than for BE content over SE content. 3. More Ss will sdect BE style as the preferred register for the public school setting than BE content when style and content are presented separately. 4. There will be a higher correlation between preference for BE style and register maintenance than between preference for BE content and register maintenance.
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English
381
METHOD Subjects and Instrument The subjects were 48 Black first-grade children of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The median family income for Black families in the school that these children attended was approximately $4500 a year. The children listened to a tape of combinations of four speech excerpts, paired two at a time, each approximately 20 sec in length. The first taped excerpt was of a dialogue written in BE content and read by a speaker with a BE style of intonation and other prosodic features. The second excerpt had the same dialogue written in SE content, with the speaker reading it in BE style. The third excerpt was of the speaker reading the dialogue written in SE content and delivering it in SE style. The fourth was of the speaker reading the dialogue written in BE content but speaking in SE style. Prior to data collection, the entire tape was heard by a panel of four linguists who were asked to identify the content and style exhibited in each of the four excerpts. All of the panelists were able to identify the excerpts accurately. Procedure In order to test the perceived differences between BE and SE content, holding BE and SE style constant, the S was asked whether he could differentiate between excerpts 1 and 2, and excerpts 3 and 4, respectively. The tests for perceived differences between BE and SE style, holding ,,onstant BE and SE content, required the S to state whether he could differentiate between excerpts 1 and 4 and excerpts 2 and 3, respectively. Comparisons of excerpts 1 and 3 were elicited to test for perceived differences between BE content and style vs. SE content and style. Exceprts 2 and 4 were compared for the purpose of isolating discriminations of SE content with BE style and BE content with SE style. The four speech excerpts were paired and ordered so as to cover all possible combinations, and thus to control for order effects. Each S was asked to make discriminations of two sets o f paired excerpts. If the subject was able to perceive a difference between a pair, he was subsequently asked a set of three questions. Which way of talking did he prefer, the first or the second? If he were going to tell something to his teacher at school, which way would he want to talk? If he were going to tell something to his friend at home, which way would he want to talk?
James
382
Table I. Summary of X2 Analyses for Black Children's Perceptions of BE i
Perception of style differences vs. content differences Perceived differences Component of register to be discriminated
Difference
No difference
Style
[
31
1
32
Content
]
12 43
20 21
32
x 2 = 25.58,p < 0.001 Preferences for style over content Preference for component varied Prefer
Not prefer
r
Component of registe~ varied
Style
[
24
7
31
Content
[
7 31
6 13
13
• = 1.44, p > 0.25 School register preference: style variety vs. content variety Style Preference for BE style or content
I
• = 12.34,p < 0.001
Content
I
'
RESULTS To analyze the results, X2 values and ~b coefficients were obtained; Yates' correction for continuity was applied when there was an expected frequency o f less than ten in one or more o f the ceils in the tables. Table I shows the contingency tables of observed frequencies for the first three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 predicted that Black children would be able to perceive a difference between BE and SE style more frequently than between BE and SE content. This hypothesis is supported (X~ = 25.58, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . Although Black children did tend to prefer BE over SE style more often than BE over
Black Children's Perceptions of Black English
383
SE content, • was not statistically significant (X2 = 1.44, p > 0 . 2 5 ) ; hypothesis 2 is not supported. More Black children selected BE style than content as a preferred register for the public school setting, when style and content were presented separately. The third hypothesis was supported (X2 = 12.34, p < 0.001). The strength of the relationship was measured by calculating the r coefficient (Bruning and Kintz, 1968, p. 207) and was found to be 0.71. The fourth hypothesis was that there would be a higher correlation between BE style preference and register maintenance than between BE content preference and register maintenance. Statistical testing of the hypothesis was not possible because of extremely small theoretical frequencies. A larger proportion of Ss who tended to prefer BE style maintained the same register than changed register. The proportion maintaining registers was 73%; alternately, the proportion changing registers was 27%.
DISCUSSION The fact that the Ss were able to perceive differences between style more frequently than content lends credence to the position that phonology is more important than syntax, at least in the discrimination of language varieties (Adler, 1973). The child may be attending more to differences in the prosodic features of BE and SE than to their lexical and syntactic features. There may be a tendency for the child to try to produce an acceptable "school register" of SE by striving to "sound white" in voice aspects rather than attending to dictionary meaning of words and to grammar. This phenomenon could compound reading problems (Labor, 1969). If the child has grown more dependent on listening and imitation skills rather than the sight skills necessary for word recognition, he will be at a disadvantage. Vocabulary learning will also be more difficult for the child who does not attend to the different meanings of SE. The situation is complicated further as the child is taught SE grammar in the academic setting; again he is forced to juxtapose in a meaningful order the two style and two content components of at least these two language registers so as to control them with skill (Johnson, 197 I). Other factors, such as peer affiliation, cultural identity, and disillusionment with White society and school, may influence the accomplishment of the task of using SE (Abrahams, 1965; Mellan, 1970; Smith, 1973). Further test of the second hypothesis is indicated, since preference could be determined only when differences were stated; the children were not able to perceive differences in content as frequently as differences in style.
384
James
The trend established supports implications of the first hypothesis. The children can discriminate differences in style more readily than content; and style tends to be a more important determiner than content of preference for BE over SE. The ratio of children able to discriminate and show preference for BE style over SE style was over 3: l; the ratio of children able to discriminate and show preference for BE content over SE content was not quite l : l . It is possible that even first-graders have already learned that BE grammar is "bad" and that this has influenced preference. Even more plausibly, in light of the fact that the Ss as a whole preferred BE over SE, BE may be conceived by the children more in terms of its prosodic than its lexical and syntactic features. Black children preferred the speech variety most familiar to them; yet the "nonstandard" grammar, which has typically been used to characterize that speech variety, seems to have been but secondary in their perception. More Ss selected :~he BE style than content as the preferred register for the public school setting when style and content were presented separately. The data indicate not only that BE style is the preferred register for the public school setting but also that BE content, when used without BE style, is much less preferred. Again, in terms of the BE register choice for the public school setting, the children may be attending to the BE "way of talking," rather than the "poor grammar" so often characterized as being "BE.'" The question again arises of whether the SE first-grade children have already learned that BE content is "bad grammar" and made their selections on that basis. If it were so, the children would have also learned that the BE style would not be accepted as the more appropriate public school register. One may speculate that the social stigma of using BE phonology is not as great as for exhibiting its syntactic and lexical features (Wolfram, 1970). The results could also reflect the children's adherence to a cultural identity: "sounding Black" to them just may not entail "nonstandard" grammar without the requisite prosodic features. The hypothesis that there would be a higher correlation between preference for BE style and register maintenance than between preference for content and register maintenance warrants further investigation. Only one child preferred BE content and maintained that register, and none preferred BE content and changed registers. A larger sample of Ss may be necessary. From the proportion of children maintaining registers who showed a preference for BE style, the importance of the prosody of BE is once again implied. Several explanations may be given for the prominence of BE style in the language behavior of Black children as reflected in the results of this investigation. It may be that the BE-speaking child intuitively emphasizes the prosodic features of BE, perceiving it as a "way of talking." When speaking in
Black Ch]dren's Perceptions of Black English
385
the formal educational setting, the child may adhere to BE style for cultural identity. Content may be seen as secondary, and SE as "talking White" with emphasis on style rather than content. Another explanation is that the child has learned that BE content is considered inappropriate in the formal education setting. Thus when presented with a partitioned BE he selects BE style, which he may see as carrying less social stigma than content. The first conclusion seems the most plausible: Since first-grade children were sampled, there was less likelihood that they had learned much about the "appropriateness" of a register. This would help to account for the infrequent selections of SE style over BE style. The child has not yet learned that both BE style and content are seen as inappropriate for public school usage. Knowledge of BE speakers' perceptions of BE can facilitate the intercultural communication process. Such information is of particular relevance to "helping" professionals working in the Black community. The professional must look inward to analyze his reactions to the client's language variety. However, it is beneficial to learn how the client perceives his own language variety, as well as how he perceives the professional's language variety. A next step in research could be to identify factors influencing register selection. This information may help both the professional and the client to make the adjustments necessary for better communication. Communication requires skill on the part of the listener as well as the speaker; both need to be aware of their feelings about how something is said and what is said. These are all ideas for investigation in further communications research. Two empirical questions are of particular relevance: How much social stigma is attached to BE style as compared to BE content? What factors are contributing to BE register maintenance? This study does support the utility of register in seeking to understand the BE language variety. Limitations of such a study include the geographical location, the school setting for the test situation, and the sample size. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Dr. Harold B. Pepinsky, Dr. Theodore J. Kaul, and Dr. Andrew I. Schwebel for their help in completing this study. REFERENCES
Abrahams, R. (1965). Deep Down in the Jungle, Aldine, New York. Adler, S. (1973). Social class bases of language: A reexamination of socioeconomic, sociopsychologieal,and soeiolinguistiefactors ASHA 15(1):7. Baratz, J. C. (1968). A bi-dialectical task for determining language proficiency in economically disadvantagedNegro childrem Child Dew. 40:899-901.
386
James
Bereiter, C., and Engelmarm, S. (1966). Teaching Disadvantaged Children in Preschool, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Bernstein, B. (1971). A sodolinguistie approach to socialization: With some reference to edueabllity. In Williams, F. (ed.), Language and Poverty, Markham, Chicago, pp. 25-61. Bernstein, B. (1973). Class Codes and Control, Vol. 2 of Applied Studies Toward a Sociology o f Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston. Bruning, J., and Kintz, B. (1968). Computational Handbook o f Statistics, Scott, Foresman, Atlanta. Burling, R. (1970). Man's Many Voices: Language in lts Cultural Context, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Caselli, R. (1971). Keys to standard English. Educ. Digest 3e:30-31. Cazden, J., and Hymes, D. (eds.) (1972). Functions o f Language in the Clas~oom, Teachers College Press, New York. Chapanis, A. (1971). Prelude to 2001: Explorations in communication. Am. Psychologist 23:949-961. Chomsky, A. (1966). Cartesian Linguistics, Harper and Row, New York. Cole, M., and Bruner, J. (1971). Cultural differences and inferences about psychological processes. Am. Psychologist 26:867-876. De Stefano, J. (1972). Some parameters of register in adult and child speech. ] TL, Rev. AppL Ling. 18:31-45. De Stefano, J. (ed.) (1973). Language, Society, and Education: A Profile o f Black English, Charles A. Jones Publishing Co., Worthington, O. Deutsch, M. (1965). The role of social class in language development and cognition. Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 35:78-88. Deutseh, M, (ed.) (1967). The Disadvantaged Chffd, Basic Books, New York. Dillard, J. (1972). Black English, Random House, New York. Engelmann, S. (1971). How to construct effective language programs for the poverty child. In Williams, F. (ed.), Language and Poverty, Markham, Chicago, pp. 102-121. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). Social dialects in developmental sociolinguistic~ In Sociolinguistics, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Fasold, R., and Wolfram, W. (1970). Some linguistic features in Negro dialect. In Fasold, R., and Shuy, R. (eds.), Teaching Standard English in the Inner C~ty, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Giglioli, P. (ed.) (197-2). Language and Social Context, Penguin Books, Baltimore. Gray, S., and Miller, J. (1967). Early experience in relation to cognitive development. Rev. Educ. Res. 37:375-493. Greenb~rg, J. (1963). Universals o f Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Gumperz, J. (1971). Language in Social Groups, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. HaUiday, M., McIntosh, A., and Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, Longmans, Green, London. Hallman, C. (1967). Linguistics and the disadvantaged. In Fogan, E. (ed.), English and the Disadvantaged, International Textbook Co., Scranton, Pa. Hardy, W. (ed.) (1970). Communication and the Disadvantaged Child, Williams and Wflkins, Baltimore. Henle, P. (1958). Language, Thought, and Culture, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich. Hess, R., and Shipman, V. (1965). Early experiences and the socialization of cognitive modes in children. Child Dev. 36:869-886. Holmes, L. (1971). The true story of Chicken Licken. In Bambara, T. (ed.), Tales and Stories for Black Folk, Doubleday, New York. Houston, S. (1969). A soeiolinguistic consideration of the Black English of children in northern Florida. Language 45(3):599--607.
Black C-'h~dren's Perceptions of Black English
387
Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educ. Rev. 39:1-123. Johnson, K. (1971). Should Black children learn standard English2 Viewpoints 47(2):82-101. Labov, W. (1969). Some sources of reading problems for Negro speakers of nonstandard English. In Baratz, 1., and Shuy, R. (eds.), Teaching Black Children t O Read, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Labor, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robin, C., and Lewis, J. (1968). A Study o f Nonstandard English o f Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City, Vols. I and II, ERIC (1968) ED028 423 and ED028 424. Lavatelli, C. (ed.) (1971). Language Training in Early ~nildhood Education, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Ill. Leon, P., Faure, G., and Rigault, A. (1970). Prosodic Feature Analysis, Libraine Didier, Montreai. Loban, W. (1966). Language Ability: Grades Seven, Eight, and Nine, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. Maraseuilo, L. (1971). Statistical Methods for Behavioral Science Research, McGraw-Hill, New York. McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological Statistics, Wiley, New York. Mellan, O- (1970). Black English: Why try to eradicate it. New Republic 163:15-17. Menyuk, P. (1963). A preliminary evaluation of grammatical capacity in children. Z Verb. Learn_ Verb. Behav. 2(56):429-440. Mitchell-Kerman, C. (1969). Language behavior in a Black urban community. Unpublished dissertation. Moore, D. (1971). Language research and preschool language training. In Lavatelli, C. (ed.), Language Training in Early Childhood Edi~cation, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, I11. Pavenstadt, E. (1965). A comparison of the child-rearing environment of upper-lower and very low-lower class families. Am. J. Orthopsychiat. 35:89-98. Shuy, R. (1969). A linguistic background for developing beginning reading materials for Black children. In Baxatz, J., and Shuy, R. (eds.), Teaching Black Children to Read, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Shuy, R. (1971). Sociolinguistics: A Crossdisciplinary Perspective, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Smith, A. (1973). Transraeial Communication, Prentice-Hail, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Stewart, W. (1964). Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic factors affecting English teaching, tn Shuy, R. (ed.), Social Dialects and Language Learning, National Counc'fl of Teachers of English, Champaign, IU. Stewart, W. (1968). Continuity and change in American Negro dialects. Florida FL Reporter 2(1): 3-18. Ward, M. (1971). Them Children: A Study in Language Learning, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Weeks, T. (1971). Speech registers in young children. Child Dev. 42:1119-1130. Whiteman, M., and Deutseh, M. (1968). Social disadvantage as related to intelleetive and language development. In Deutsch, M., Katz, J., and Jensen, A. (eds.), Social Class, Race, and Psychological Development, Holt, New York. Whorf, B. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Williams, F. (1970). Language and Poverty, Markham, Chicago. Wolfram, W. (1970). Implications for educational sequencing. In Fasold, R., and Slluy, R. (eds.), Teaching Standard English in the lnner City, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Wolfram, W. (1971). Black-White speech differences revisited. Viewpoints 24:26.
