by Morgan Kelly
The ability to read and write in a clear, compelling, and concise manner is currently, as you know, considered a necessary skill by almost every kind of profession. Although this concept seems straightforwardly agreeable at first, many scholars argue as to what constitutes professional academic writing. Stanley Fish, being a prominent proponent of teaching Standard American English, disparages the idea of code-switching and code-meshing. Fish argues that Standard American English should be required curriculum in primary education settings, but he also insists that it must be taught without deviations from Standard American English grammar. In other words, in Fish’s mind, any dialects other than standard written English are unacceptable in academic writing. At the beginning of his article, Fish mentions that Catholic schools, also called parochial schools, have been the most successful at teaching standard academic English. So, why does Fish believe that Catholic schools do it better, and what is involved in the curriculum that prepares students for academic writing in secondary school, more so than in public schools? Is this curriculum and ideology of a dominant language problematic? Catholic schools incorporate specific instruction on grammar and traditional writing through the curriculum, which eliminates code-switching and code-meshing, thereby stripping students of their individuality.
Catholic school writing curriculum involves a vigorous focus on teaching grammar and sentence structure. Students are enrolled in separate classes for English subjects and grammar subjects. English classes focus on developing reading comprehension, whereas grammar classes focus on learning grammatical rules and understanding sentence structure. One common activity students are required to practice in Catholic elementary schools is sentence diagramming. Some high school professors also teach sentence diagramming as a one or two-day lesson, depending on the writing expectations of the class. Sentence diagramming is intended to visually break down a sentence in order to distinguish its verbs, nouns, adjectives, pronouns, adverbs, etc. This helps the student learn the functions of each kind of word by observing the sequence in which they are ordered and the overall part each word plays in the sentence. Kathleen Sokolowski describes her experience with learning grammar in a Catholic school: “I went to a Catholic school and we did grammar workbooks and circled the subject and the predicate…” (qtd in Goldstein). As Sokolowski mentioned, sentence diagramming is not the only method of teaching grammar. Students are also required to complete various workbook activities examining the parts of a sentence. Fish is particularly invested in the idea of teaching students sentence structure, and he believes it is a necessary foundation for learning Standard American English: “You have to start with a simple but deep understanding of the game, which for my purposes is the game of writing sentences” (Fish). Fish then explains how understanding sentence structure and organization is vital in order to know how to write sentences. With Catholic school grammar curriculum often teaching just that, it is understandable that Fish would praise them for their teaching techniques in grammar. In addition to grammar, parochial schools often teach an English class that focuses on writing sentences.
English classes in Catholic elementary schools often begin essay writing as early as first grade. Students begin by learning to write keyword outlines for essays and practice writing throughout the rest of elementary and middle school, often with implemented rules against using words such as “like,” “said,” “go,” “good,” and “great.” In my personal experience, we participated in a program called the Excellence in Writing program, which required students to add certain elements to every paragraph of their essay. For example, students would be required to include a “who/which” statement, an -ly adverb, a prepositional opening, a clausal opening, and a few other elements into each paragraph of their essay. This practice broadens the vocabulary and writing strategy of students, but it also makes for quite similar essays and writing styles. Essentially, Catholic school writing curriculum embraces tradition and uniformity, while shunning any and all dialects other than their own.
Fish’s ideal method of teaching students what he considers to be proper English is problematic in many ways, but it is most obviously harmful toward people who use different dialects which are still part of the English language. Parochial schools intend to repress the validity of others’ dialects by teaching what has traditionally been accepted. However, as the nation moves forward, we recognize that how a person speaks does not determine one’s intelligence. Vershawn Ashanti Young expresses the importance of code-meshing, especially in written assignments, in his essay “Should Writers Speak They Own English.” Young describes standard language ideology, a term which explains the implications of Fish’s idea of standard American English on those who speak in a different dialect:
Standard language ideology is the belief that there is one set of dominant language rules that stem from a single dominant discourse (like standard English) that all writers and speakers of English must conform to in order to communicate effectively. Dominant language ideology also say peeps can speak whateva the heck way they want to—BUT AT HOME! (111).
According to Young, dominant language ideology, an idea which Fish subscribes to, is rooted in white supremacy and classism; because the Standard American English taught in parochial schools is the same language that was used to determine the intelligence of people early on, and even now, assuming that Standard American English is the dominant language is itself a proclamation of prejudice. This prejudice is being perpetuated by Fish to push his ideals upon the general population.
The English and grammar curriculum taught in Catholic schools is problematic not because it is taught based on Catholicism. It is problematic because it insinuates that Standard American English is the only way one is able to speak in order to be perceived as intelligent. However, aside from the obvious issues of race and socioeconomic class embedded in Standard American English, there are some other negative factors that should be considered as well. Standard American English requires that every person uses the same grammar and same English to convey a point on paper. This often leads to a very similar writing style; writers who imbue their works with many different elements from their cultures, through dialect or through sharing experiences, expose audiences to a wider variety of knowledge in the ways which people speak. Dennis Baron notes that he noticed some patterns in a study where students were asked to rate the emotional effectiveness of a sentence: “Furthermore, many passages that were rated by the students as standard in terms of conventional categories (clarity, grammaticality) were downrated when it came to emotional response” (“Reactions to Written”). Baron addresses students’ reactions to different sentence structures and dialects, emphasizing their preference for casual language in regard to passage efficacy. At the very least, this is a sign that the younger generation’s perception of language and dialect is changing. In succession, as the younger generation grows older, the country’s view on code-switching in Standard American English will change as well.
In Fish’s essay “What Should Colleges Teach?” he suggests that Standard American English should be taught and used by students who speak casually in another dialect (2). Fish refers to Standard American English in this case as a “second language.” However, the idea of teaching a second language could also apply to teaching students about African American Vernacular English (AAVE) or other dialects. Brandie Bohney is a high school English teacher who incorporated another form of English into her class through the novel To Kill a Mockingbird. She argues that if Standard American English is to be taught in schools, then students should at least be exposed to other forms of English such as AAVE: “By providing students in primarily mainstream-English-speaking schools exposure to and understanding of the differences among several varieties of English, teachers can help lead off linguicism and prejudice before they take a stronger hold as students get older” (Bohney 68). Similar to Fish’s ideology, Bohney argues that teaching a new language can be beneficial to young people. However, Bohney argues that by teaching AAVE students can address prejudice based on language early on and learn how to recognize it. If most people can agree that teaching two Englishes is beneficial to students, then there is no reason schools cannot teach Standard American English and its grammar as well as AAVE and its grammar.
Fish supports parochial schools’ method of teaching grammar and English because it used to be the only form of English which was considered proper. However, there are some limitations in solely learning Standard American English. Since I had begun Catholic school in preschool and attended until I graduated from middle school, the method of writing in Standard American English has been ingrained in my brain for many years now. During my time at that school, I had not even considered that there was another way to write academically in addition to the Standard American English we were learning. Now that I’m in college and am being asked to write various personal pieces, I sometimes find that my writing lacks character. While this cannot be attributed to the Catholic school’s curriculum alone, the uniformity of Standard American English definitely contributes to the similar format of writing across collegiate papers. Despite how it may appear that I despise the parochial school curriculum, one thing that I have found to be especially valuable that I was taught in Catholic school is grammar. Almost every professor I have encountered since middle school has expected students to know at least the basics of Standard American English grammar. Although learning grammar and Standard American English in school was beneficial, teaching AAVE and grammar in schools as described by Brandie Bohney would assist students by diversifying writing and teaching them to recognize prejudice.
Although Catholic schools have successfully taught Standard American English and grammar, students should also be exposed to curriculum involving African American Vernacular English and grammar so they can learn to recognize prejudice based on language moving forward. Even though Standard American English is the dominant form of professional writing at this time, society will continue to move forward by accepting other dialects and varieties of English as professional works. The easiest way to begin that transition is by informing students that there are rules in other dialects and that intelligence is not defined by the way someone speaks. I found the grammatical lessons in Catholic school beneficial because that grammar is considered by many professionals to be the dominant language, so I have predominantly been writing in Standard American English. Even so, I wish I had learned about different dialects in school, and I especially wish we had been taught that different dialects display one’s culture, rather than their intelligence. If schools were to combine the teachings of Standard American English and grammar with an exploration of the culture and grammar within different dialects and variations of English, I believe prejudice against racial minority groups who use those dialects would be significantly reduced.
Works Cited
Baron, Dennis. “Non-Standard English, Composition, and the Academic Establishment.” National Council of Teachers of English, vol. 37, no. 2, Oct. 1975, pp. 176-183. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/375063.
Bohney, Brandie. “Moving Students toward Acceptance of “Other” Englishes.” The English Journal, vol. 105, no. 6, July 2016, pp. 66-71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26359257.
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3.” New York Times, 7 Sept. 2009, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-teach-part-3/.
Goldstein, Dana. ‘Why Kids Can’t Write.” New York Times, 2 Aug. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/education/edlife/writing-education-grammar-students-children.html.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Speak They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 109-118, https://lms.cofc.edu/d2l/le/content/268138/viewContent/3465819/View. Accessed 27 October 2021.