Understanding Language Use in the Classroom: Including Teaching Materials for College Educators 9781783099801

Citation preview

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom This expanded edition, with lessons included, is accompanied by resources for teachers, comprising PowerPoint slides and a fl ashcard glossary. To access this material please go to: http://www.multilingual-matters.com/textbooks.asp. Choose the title from the list and input: Username: guest-download Password: Downloads!

Full details of all our publications can be found on http://www.multilingualmatters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom Including Teaching Materials for College Educators

Susan J. Behrens

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/BEHREN9795 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Library of Congress Control Number: 2017054915

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-178309-979-5 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-178309-978-8 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2018 Susan J. Behrens. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Author Biography Acknowledgments

ix xi

Introduction Overview and Structure of the Book College Students Failing to Learn The Role of Language A Linguistic Approach to Pedagogy Structure of the Book Introduction to this Expanded Edition Ways to Read this Book

1

xiii xiii xiv xv xvii xvii xxi xxviii

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

1

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning An Urgent Problem in Higher Education Language at the Core of Education Obstacles to Mastering Academic English Invisible criteria First-year college students and relationship to language English language learners and non-standard English users Computer-mediated communication/texting Lack of smooth transition to college Teachers’ perceptions and expectations about academic English

3 3 4 5 5 7 9 11 12

v

14

vi

Contents

2

Examining Academic English: Form and Function Definitions Secondary vs. Post-secondary Language Demands Reading and note-taking The five-paragraph essay Approaches to smoothing the transition to college Role of Language in College Readiness Writing and reading Awareness of expectations Role of Language in College by Modalities Academic English by Discipline A Caveat: Academic English and Standard English

17 17 20 21 22 24 24 25 27 29 30 32

3

Linguistics and Pedagogy Linguistics in Primary, Middle and Secondary Education Brief Review of the Grammar Wars Grammar Controversy Remains From Grammar to Metaknowledge of Language

37 38 42 45 47

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

51

4

Introducing the Conversations: Linguistic Principles Standard and Non-standard/Linguistic Markedness Formality and style Units of language

53 53 54 55

5

Word Formation/Morphology

57

6

Word Meaning/Semantics Instructor Guidance Material Lesson 1: ‘The First Lesson, Literally’: Words Change Meaning Lesson 2: ‘Slang Should Know its Place’

65

Grammatical Markers/Morphosyntax

82

7

73 79

Contents

8

9

Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax Instructor Guidance Material Lesson 3: ‘Texting and Literacy Don’t Mix’ Narrative Structure/Discourse Instructor Guidance Material Lesson 4: ‘Such Rude Talkers!’: Conversational Style Clashes Lesson 5: ‘Do You Speak “Woman”?’

10 Pronunciation/Phonology Instructor Guidance Material Lesson 6: Light or Right? Three or Tree? Sheep or Ship? Native language-influenced English Lesson 7: ‘New Yawk Tawk’: The New York City ‘R’ 11 Voice Quality and Speech Melody/Prosody Instructor Guidance Material Lesson 8: ‘That Vocal Fry Says It All’: The Voices of Young Women Lesson 9: ‘Do They Sound Gay?’ Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations A: Backformations B: Common Derivational Morphemes C: Common Word Conversions D: Jargon/Words with Special Meanings E: Idiomatic Use of Prepositions F: Pronouns and the Case System G: Ambiguous, Vague and Inconsistent Pronouns H: Punctuation/Apostrophes and Commas I: Subject-Verb Agreement Issues J: Modifier Problems K: Tense vs. Voice L: Texting Features

vii

90 100 107 113 121 127

136 142 149

155 161 167 168 169 170 171 172 174 176 177 179 180 182 184

viii

Contents

M: Formality Continuum/Style N: Transitional Expressions O: Phonological Patterns and Processes P: Acoustic Characteristics of Speech/Word Stress

185 187 188 189

Appendix

191

Glossary

197

References

207

Index

221

Author Biography

Susan J. Behrens holds a PhD in linguistics from Brown University in the USA. She is Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Marymount Manhattan College, a director of the Marymount Center for Teaching Innovation and Excellence (with Katie LeBesco) and an associate at the Institute for Writing and Thinking at Bard College. Her books include Language in the Real World: An Introduction to Linguistics (edited with Judith A. Parker) and Grammar: A Pocket Guide. She is the director and producer of the documentary ‘The Three Rs: Representation of Language in College, Reality of Language, and Realignment of Expectations’. She lives in Brooklyn, New York, with her husband, the writer Tony Sarowitz.

ix

Acknowledgments

This book is for Cindy Mercer and Ann Jablon: my sisters in teaching, linguistics and friendship. Love and thanks to my husband Tony Sarowitz; supportive friends and colleagues Rebecca Sperling, Katie LeBesco, Peter Naccarato, Magda Maczynska, Giovanna Chesler, Teresa Signorelli, Meg Kamowski-Shakibai, Phil Meyers, Tahneer Oksman, Jonathan Zimmerman, Miriam Eisenstein Ebsworth, Judith Parker, Mary Boldt, Ann Marie Tevlin Peterson, Ray Peterson, Michael Kandel, Ada Brunstein, Christiane Siebert, Don Kortlander, Peter Baker for lively grammar-talk and Lionel Shriver for US/UK comparisons; linguistics gurus Sandra Wilde and Bill Katz; the librarians at the Shanahan Library (Marymount); language in the schools friends: Kristin Denham, Anne Lobeck, Anne Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson; Round House mathematicians Edith Starr and Mark Feighn; David Ment and Leonora Gidlund at the Municipal Archives of the City of New York/ Board of Education Collection; the fine people at Multilingual Matters, including Anna Roderick, Tommi Grover, Elinor Robertson, Sarah Williams, Laura Longworth, Anandhi Bashyam (of Deanta Global Publishing Services) and thoughtful anonymous reviewers for making this a better book; everyone associated with the Three Rs film project, including my interviewees, and crew Blair Doroshwalther, Josh Broaden and Carly Schneider; research assistants Ashley Wareham, Joséphine Ancelle, Anna Crofts, Brittney Alvarez, Megan Allard, Alexandra Caroli and Alexa Johnson; participants in the focus groups; the rest of my family (Behrenses, Hills and Botts): Richard, Anna, Frank, Kate, Shirley, Ed and Jenna et al.; the Marymount Manhattan College Distinguished Chair Selection Committee; and the people who made it happen and kept it going: Richard Sheldon, David Podell and Judson Shaver.

xi

Introduction

Overview and Structure of the Book Understanding Language Use in the Classroom: A Linguistic Guide for College Educators supplies a pedagogical tool that is new to many instructors in higher education: a route to better teaching that incorporates more overt awareness of language structure and use. The field of linguistics has made great strides in understanding many aspects of the language facility, yet educators, for the most part, shy away from the findings of this discipline. Understanding Language is written for those in higher education – teachers, teachers-in-training and faculty developers – who do not have a background in linguistics but still want to understand more clearly how language works, especially the form called academic English. Language fluency is a key element in our students’ ability to learn deeply and succeed in college. This book offers the pertinent information about language in an accessible and engaging format so that educators are better supplied with the linguistic knowledge necessary to help students do just that: learn and succeed. To articulate the issues students face when it comes to academic English; to understand the linguistic context of common linguistic concerns; to work with a more overt and controlled knowledge of language structure and use, a metaknowledge: all this is essential to more effective teaching that results in deeper learning in the college setting. This is a book for educators, especially those in the composition and humanities fields; those new to teaching and for others training for their first class; it is also for seasoned faculty who are committed to continued development of pedagogical skills. It is for those involved in faculty development and mentoring. Finally, it can be beneficial to curious firstyear college students wrestling with the unfamiliar language demands ahead of them, and to upperclassmen who have gone through the years by instinct alone and want to know the full (linguistic) story of academic

xiii

xiv

Introduction

English. Regardless of what field of study we are engaged in, seeing language from a meta-level raises awareness, allows us to clarify expectations that are often left unstated and gives us more control over our work in the classroom. In this introduction, I give an overview of the issues and concerns covered in this book. What then follow are three parts exploring in detail the nature of academic English, its role in the ability of our students to learn and succeed and an argument for more well-informed educators – informed in the workings of academic English. Note that this expanded version includes additional material: nine lesson plans, each examining a commonly held assumption about how language works, each with instructor guidance material, and a glossary, all designed to bring more language knowledge into the classroom. This new material enhances the book’s conversations about language, assisting teachers who want to extend their work to include language related writing and research assignments, and to work with their students on issues of heightened language awareness.

College Students Failing to Learn This book is timely. A college education matters. In fact, it is more important than ever in today’s world. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U, 2011: 3) reports that the goal of a liberal education is to empower students to learn to ‘deal with complexity, diversity, and change’. Further, the report calls for greater access to this empowerment for all citizens. There is something wrong, however, with how well colleges are achieving both these goals. Recent books such as Academically Adrift: Limited learning on college campuses (Arum & Roksa, 2011) and Higher Education? How colleges are wasting our money and failing our kids—and what we can do about it (Hacker & Dreifus, 2011) have generated many heated discussions in the academic world. These books criticize colleges and universities for the failure of students to learn. Arum and Roksa look specifically at measures of higher-order cognitive skills, such as the ability to think critically and reason out complex and abstract problems. They find that in their surveyed sample, 45% of students showed no improvement in these skills after two years of college. While a student might be learning content-course material, Arum and Roksa point out that these larger cognitive skills are the ones that translate into flexibility and adaptability in all college courses and even after graduation. The researchers have a good reason to focus on these skills: when professors

Introduction

xv

are asked what they hope to achieve in their teaching, most cite critical thinking and abstract, complex thinking and reasoning ability (Hacker & Dreifus, 2011). If a large portion of students cannot gain the crucial skills that professors deem essential, they cannot reap the benefits of a college education. Our society as a whole also loses when college students do not learn. Delbanco (2012), author of another critique of higher education titled College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be, lists what he sees as the reasons for a college education: economic gain, political democracy and an awakening of one’s senses. When students fail to learn, society is deprived of critical thinkers who can contribute as informed citizens.

The Role of Language What role does language play in the ability of colleges to meet their goals and increase students’ rates of learning? This book argues that language plays an essential role. Those crucial skills of critical thinking, reasoning and abstract problem-solving are grounded in language ability. We cannot master these skills without being fluent in the language forms required in academia, usually called academic English. Academic English is defined by Schleppegrell (2012) as the literacy basis of all schooling, and she characterizes it as language with complex syntax and elaborate lexical items. Zwiers (2007, 2008) sees academic English as language best suited to academic thinking, which is a type of cognitive demand challenging students to articulate cause and effect, comparisons and contrasts, as well as to persuade, interpret and take multiple perspectives. And he states that academic English goes beyond vocabulary to include a wide array of linguistic devices to aid in higher-level cognitive processes. Both Schleppegrell and Zwiers consider this form of English one that needs to be learned by students. It is true that many students learn it indirectly, figuring it out on their own. (That is probably how many current educators succeeded.) However, many others fail to learn the forms appropriate to college, or do so with much frustration. This doesn’t need to be the case. The demand for strong language skills starts early in the educational endeavor. When the National Center for Literacy Education (2013: 8) in the USA surveyed teachers from pre-kindergarten to twelfth grade, 77% of the educators, across subject areas and grades, agreed with the statement that ‘[d]eveloping students’ literacy is one of the most important parts of my job’. If we look beyond college, we find that employers identify oral and written communication skills as crucial to success in their workplace (Quible

xvi

Introduction

& Griffin, 2007: 33); however, these potential employers also rate college students’ skills as ‘“deplorable” in every area’. While the AAC&U (2011) challenges colleges to put more emphasis on these crucial skills, educators need a better grasp of the role language plays in achieving that goal, and the forms of English identified as the key to academic success. Put yourself in a new college student’s shoes, suggests Zwiers (2008). The equivalent scenario would be if someone with a college degree found himself or herself in law school and was handed a law text to read: ‘You recognize the words, but they don’t mean what they usually do, and the sentences in the book take up half the page’ (Zwiers, 2008: 6). This new student’s chances of success have just plummeted. First-year college students feel like that: they might have succeeded in secondary school, but college is a new linguistic game. To play that game successfully, students need more advanced linguistic equipment. It is not enough once in college, therefore, to be at ease with standard English, the form of English associated with education (Prinsloo, 2012). The English skills that seemed to work well enough in secondary school do not suffice at college, for college expands the demands on language users. For students to learn, teachers themselves need to be more linguistically informed. Unfortunately, we academics might well be too immersed in academic English ourselves to teach it well, or even be able to articulate its nature (Nathan & Petrosino, 2003). In her book about the learning obstacles that students face at college, Cox (2009: 140) sees the academic culture as embracing specific literary practices, ‘particular habits of thinking, acting, speaking, and writing that are often incomprehensible and alienating to people outside academia’. Educational development scholar Wareing (2004a: 10) says that ‘academic disciplines have their own codes [...] designed to enable communication which deals with abstract concepts, to allow a level of precision in the discussion of shared concepts’. Students need to be let in on the codes. And the stakes are high: beyond demanding mastery, ‘Academic codes also identify speakers and writers, allowing insiders to detect the exact branch of a discipline or school of thought the speaker belongs to, and have a gatekeeper function, intentionally or unintentionally keeping the uninitiated out’ (Wareing, 2004a: 11). Linguistic skills are essential to college survival: ‘Millions of bright and capable students around the world struggle in school and even give up because they lack the abilities to use language in ways that are expected in academic settings’ (Zwiers, 2008: 1). We are all language users, but we do not all come naturally to the language used in the college classroom. That language needs to be taught.

Introduction

xvii

A Linguistic Approach to Pedagogy This book argues that those in higher education who want to facilitate student learning – teachers, teacher-trainers and students themselves – should take a page from linguistics and better understand the nature of academic English and how it works. Few educators have a linguistics background, and the intersection of linguistics and pedagogy has not yet been fully explored, especially in higher education. Linguist Jackendoff (2007: 260) sees a problem in that ‘schools of education, for the most part, teach little about the contemporary understanding of language: the structure of Mainstream English, the systematicity of dialects, the cognitive challenges faced by beginning readers and English language learners, and the sociology of language prejudice. Most classroom teachers therefore are typically left to deal with language problems in classrooms in terms of what they take to be “common sense”, which in many respects proves counterproductive to the educational enterprise’ (see also Behrens, 2010). One essential resource for teachers is acquisition of a more overt knowledge about language, a meta-awareness and metavocabulary of academic English. With this knowledge, teachers then have ‘the ability to think about, reflect upon, and manipulate the forms and functions of language apart from its meaning’ (Lems et al., 2010: 31). With such metaknowledge, we can plan, monitor, evaluate and self-correct; we can teach and learn more effectively. The message of this book is that we benefit from more overt understanding of language, and of ourselves and our students as language users. Furthermore, at the college level, we need to better understand the demands of academic English. This book is a step in that direction.

Structure of the Book This book is organized into three sections. Section I builds the case that educators at the college and university level need to be more knowledgeable about language. Section II shows how such linguistic knowledge works to improve our teaching by providing real questions that professors and college students ask about academic English and language in general, paired with succinct coverage of language structure and linguistic principles. Section III supplies sample study sheets to model work with students. An appendix containing linguistic and pedagogical resources, organized by themes, is for those who want to read more deeply about language. A companion website supplies lesson plans and guidance material so instructors can devise writing

xviii

Introduction

and research lessons and assignments for their own students on a variety of language issues. Part 1, ‘The Role of Academic English in Higher Education’, comprises three chapters that examine the problems raised regarding student learning in college and argues that a controlled command of language rests at the center of better teaching and learning. Part 1 defines relevant concepts; introduces various pedagogical movements that work to infuse language sensitivity into the curriculum in primary, middle and secondary schools; and lays out the argument for more linguistically informed educators at the college and university level. Chapter 1, ‘Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning’, gives an overview of the issues covered. It explains the arguments of current books that paint a bleak picture of college students failing to learn, and focuses specifically on the role of academic English, the linguistic skills that today’s students bring to college and the various challenges they face when confronted with the language demands of college-level work. Chapter 2, ‘Examining Academic English: Form and Function’, introduces readers to a detailed exploration of the English forms that academia demands, including the (often) subjective criteria associated with this discourse. It then examines how the high school-to-college transition can be a rough one for students in terms of language demands. Chapter 3, ‘Linguistics and Pedagogy’, starts with a review of a new movement happening in primary, middle and high schools, a linguistics-infused pedagogy, and supports the argument that overt knowledge about language, engaging both teachers and students, enhances learning. It also gives readers a brief overview of the so-called grammar wars – the pro and con arguments over whether grammar should be directly taught in schools – and argues that overt knowledge about language, metaknowledge, is essential to both teachers and students. Part 2, ‘The Linguistic Conversations’, starts with a review of pertinent language terms and linguistic tenets in Chapter 4, ‘Introducing the Conversations: Linguistic Principles’, to help readers prepare for the conversations that follow. It then supplies seven chapters organized as a series of conversations: questions and concerns commonly posed about academic English by both professors and students, answered with a linguistic explanation of each phenomenon in question. Part 2 is organized by separate levels of language, so readers encounter issues of word formation/morphology in Chapter 5; word usage and meaning/semantics in Chapter 6; grammatical markers/morphosyntax in Chapter 7; grammar and punctuation/syntax in Chapter 8; narrative organizational skills/discourse in Chapter 9; pronunciation/phonology in Chapter 10; and voice quality and speech melody/

Introduction

xix

prosody in Chapter 11. Each chapter addresses the top five to seven concerns of those in higher education, data drawn from interviews and focus groups I have led with professors and college students about academic English, as well as my 25 years in higher education. Each chapter ends with a discussion of how the four language modalities (writing, reading, speaking and listening skills) are related to each linguistic area and guides readers to related study sheets in Part 3. In the new electronic version of this book, a companion website supplies teaching material that takes the learning further, and into the classroom. A set of nine lessons takes as its starting point some aspect of language that is stereotyped in the media (social and popular press), as well as in popular culture. Unexamined assumptions about language can be perpetuated by repetition in the media, often coloring how we perceive language. Stereotypes are important to examine, for they reflect general trends in thinking (Evans, 2013; Zuidema, 2005). Especially with a subject like language, with linguistics both a relatively young field and in need of more integration with education (Jackendoff, 2007), misinformation can easily spread, creating so-called “facts” about how language is structured and used, and about language users themselves. Enregisterment is the name linguists give to the phenomenon of a language variant taking on a social reality through “a variety of discursive and metadiscursive activities” (Johnstone, 2009: 160). In other words, if a stereotype is repeated often enough, it becomes socially real, and it is then “maintained across time via practices that reiterate and reinforce the [variant]…and its link to the social identity associated with a particular type of persona” (Johnstone, 2009: 160). To break this cycle, we need to be more aware and “reflexive than we have been about where our own ideas […] come from and how they function” (Johnstone, 2009: 172). Hence the addition of the lessons in the new website for the electronic version of this book. Each lesson consists of classroom material in a PowerPoint slideshow and related instructor guidance material. The lessons aim to be accessible and adaptable, highlighting one language issue, the general popular view on that issue, and relevant linguistic scholarship in order to more closely examine the assumption. These lessons can be used in undergraduate programs in linguistics, but also communication arts and media, education, and cultural studies. The instructor does not need a degree in linguistics. Instead, the material invites both instructor and students to explore together the language issue at hand. Activities and resources in each lesson also supply ways to extend that lesson, and to customize it for a particular discipline and instructor’s expertise level. With the presented materials, instructors can design assignments that incorporate writing, research, and small

xx

Introduction

group work. The questions posed can also be used for oral communication assignments. Teaching Material: The PowerPoint material comprises accessible teaching material that can be used as is or adapted for a particular class’s interests. Each lesson starts with learning objectives and an introduction to the stereotype under discussion. A quick assessment of students’ prior knowledge and attitudes about the stereotype allows for a snapshot view of the range of beliefs in the room. A post-lesson assessment allows instructors to gauge the degree to which the lesson may have shifted students’ views. These and other embedded short exercises are designed to allow the instructor to assess the lesson’s learning goals; they also engage students by allowing them to be reflective about their own learning. Each lesson incorporates sound clips, images, and short in-class activities. The lessons can be used in any order, for each has been designed to stand alone. Instructors should also feel free to skip over any slides not pertinent to their purposes and take liberties with the slides as they see fit, e.g. consider the material presented as one approach to covering the issues. Instructor Guidance Material: Each lesson has an associated guide that offers instructors both linguistic and pedagogical guidance in using the PowerPoint lessons, by supplying background material but also by expanding on and supplementing the material. Each instructor guide includes a discussion of the stereotype being examined, a list of learning objectives, some linguistic basics (essential, yet accessible, information), a short review of relevant research, a look at the potential evolution of this issue over time, references of sources quoted in both documents of a lesson, and a list of further exercises to extend the learning with student research, writing, discussion, and collaborative work. The material is designed to be flexible, in that it can be presented to highlight language in different contexts (gender, media, cultural, etc.). Vocabulary words in bold in the instructor material appear in a separate glossary lesson for students to quiz themselves. Crossreferring notation allows users to see the connections between lessons and plan larger units of instruction relevant to their coursework. Part 3, ‘Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations’, supplies sample teaching materials corresponding to the chapters in Part 2. It offers both teachers and students information and exercises that can aid mastery of each ‘problem’ language area. With the referencing system that ends each chapter in Part 2, readers can pair up a particular language issue with a series of related study sheets. The appendix supplies more pedagogical resources, such as websites connected to each chapter, reading lists by themes, and linguistic organizations. Words in boldface throughout Parts 2 and 3 appear in the glossary.

Introduction

xxi

Introduction to this Expanded Edition Linguistic Stereotypes and Nine Lessons to Explore Assumptions about Language

Introduction Everyone seems to have an opinion about language: Texting has ruined teenagers’ grammar; slang is infiltrating good writing; people’s accents are funny; women and men will never understand each other’s language; et cetera. These statements would make a great true/false quiz on the first day of a Linguistics 101 class. In fact, that is exactly how I start every semester. These sentiments are examples of folk linguistics in action (cf. Preston, 1998; Thurlow, 2006): what everyday ‘folk’ think about how language and language variation work (Evans, 2013). We all use language in some capacity, and we all have our own assumptions about what it is and how it behaves – and should behave. Working along a different track from folk beliefs about language is the field of linguistics, the science of language structure and use. Why are these two views of language separate? Many people never study linguistics; further, many linguists are not public intellectuals, instead writing for other scholars about their research. But this state of affairs is changing. The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) has started a campaign to heighten linguistic knowledge in the public sphere. Linguists such as John McWhorter, Geoff Nunberg, Anne Curzan and David Crystal act as spokespeople, supplying accessible linguistic research through popular books, TED Talks and op-ed pieces in the media. More and more, the folk and academic linguist points of view are informing each other. In the original version of Understanding Language Use in the Classroom, the questions that teachers and students have about language are answered with findings from the field of linguistics. With this expanded edition, instructors who use this book can further engage with their students via a series of lesson plans aimed at challenging assumptions about how language works and is used. Now included are nine lesson plans that readers of Understanding Language Use in the Classroom can incorporate into their classrooms. While the text supplies the motivation for overt language knowledge in higher education and basic facts about all levels of language, the new lessons supply material to move such metalinguistic knowledge into our teaching and our students’ learning. Each lesson’s starting point is an examination of some linguistic stereotype commonly found in the media (social and mass), as well as in popular culture. From there, the lesson widens out to cover relevant linguistic research and data. How do our assumptions about language, beliefs that are usually not closely examined, impede our work in

xxii

Introduction

higher education? Exercises encourage students to research language issues and to compose short and longer essays about linguistic issues. Supplying both linguistic information for educators and teaching material expands the text in useful ways, working to heighten overt knowledge about language in our work.

Why Study Media Stereotypes? Stereotypes are not to be ignored. Public perception functions as crucial data for linguistic teaching and research (Curzan, 2014). Popular impressions of language – whether accurate or not – can (and do) evolve into a type of psychological reality. The media work to reflect sociolinguistic realities, albeit sometimes in a ‘highly edited version of social and cultural life’, which, nonetheless, still constitute a kind of reality since media ‘give (and reflect) the linguistic values of a given cultural moment’ (Queen, 2015: 21). Linguists have labeled this phenomenon enregisterment: folk impressions gather enough momentum to create a critical mass, and a type of psychological reality takes hold (Agha, 2003; Wagner, 2014). Linguistic short hands and memes can then perpetuate these stereotypes. Search Pinterest or Instagram for descriptions of ‘New York City English’, for example, and you get a lot of cawfee images. Even if a small percentage of NYC residents pronounce the name of the beverage that way, the reality of the impression is magnified by the media (cf. Behrens, Catalano, Perez, Clark & Chisholm, 2016). The US/ UK divide can be summed up for some people in the ‘loo’ vs. ‘restroom’ contrast (Tagliamonte & Brooke, 2014). The southern US states are all ‘y’all’ to many non-southerners. The fact that Washington State residents generally do not think that there are regional accent differences in their part of the United States might be traced back to a lack of media depictions of that area painting it as linguistically distinct. In other words, no ‘linguistic caricature’ exists at the moment (Evan, 2013: 71), no ‘social discourse’ about this geographic area (Evans, 2013: 77), thus no stereotype. Mass media thus figures prominently in the work of enregisterment as a platform to link ‘a media product to a pre-existing set of recognizable types … [and as] … one of the most critical means for setting audience expectations’ (Queen, 2015: 231). Nuances and complexities are not often part of a stereotyped impression (anecdotes are not scientific findings [Queen, 2015]). Does it matter that many people have a superficial (and most likely incomplete or inaccurate) view of language behavior and variation? Yes. Untested assumptions about language can both guide people’s communicative interactions and create and reinforce hierarchies, e.g. the belief that some linguistic behaviors are better than others (Thurlow, 2006). These hierarchies have a real impact on how

Introduction

xxiii

we interact with one another, in and out of the classroom (Evans, 2013; Zuidema, 2005). An unfortunate consequence of overly simplistic depictions of language is the stigmatizing effect on groups of people. Zuidema (2005: 666) warns us that ‘prejudice becomes active discrimination’: Detrimental portrayals of language variation on the radio, on television, in films, and on the Internet all provide opportunities to cultivate negative attitudes, which can emerge as prejudicial judgments and behaviors when people encounter language variation in real life (whether on the telephone, in writing, or face to face). Individuals’ private prejudices might move them to take public action so that their condemning opinions are transformed into corporate policies; educational paradigms; and local, state, and federal laws—prejudice in practice, one might say. (Zuidema, 2005: 667) As an example, consider an investigation of the British media’s depiction of a ‘chav’: a stereotype in dress, lifestyle and language of a white working-class citizen (Tyler, 2008). Media exploit language variation to establish character, often relying on obvious deviations from the standard (Queen, 2015). The researcher warns that these depictions in the media create an ‘excessive, distorted, and caricatured’ image of social types (Queen, 2015: 18), some of which elicit feelings of disgust toward those who seem to fit the description. The film Fargo heightened the visibility of the Minnesotan accent (Queen, 2015). It is pointed out, though, that the more familiar one is with an accent or dialect group, the more superficial those media portrayals come across. Minnesotans were not thrilled with Fargo’s depiction of their accent group (Queen, 2015). Similarly in journalism, language images can be heightened and perpetuated. Sclafani (2008: 509) examines The New York Times reporting on Ebonics in the late 1990s and finds that even ‘neutral’ reporting is an ‘illusion of the news as the objective reporting of concrete facts and events’, determining which voices are heard and seen as the normal. Reaser (2010) also focuses on media depictions, in his case to teach language awareness in his classroom, believing that stereotypes are worth listening to, not ignoring or hiding from his students. Another benefit to investigating popular perceptions of language is that they offer a view into the workings of a language ideology (Evans, 2013). Linguists need to know what folks are thinking, what is ‘real’ to many. Stereotypes are ‘cognitive schemata’ (Baider, 2013: 1166), the most salient

xxiv

Introduction

and relevant features tend to rise to the surface. Evans (2013: 64) calls the linguistic traits that are most salient the ‘affective dimension’ of variation. Our linguistic world and experiences are now also virtual. Key to the phenomenon of enregisterment is the repetition of a ‘figure’ across various types of media such that emotional reactions are heightened. Repetition is easy to achieve when many news sources use what Tyler (2008: 22) calls a ‘cut and paste’ method of reporting, so that multiple images are simply reproduced from other sources, adding up to a kind of unquestioned authority. Even though we might be ultimately discussing a fictional (television) character, the fictitious element can be lost, creating a persona of a real type. Of course, linguistic stereotyping did not start with the internet. Agha (2003) notes that, centuries ago, popular books helped accelerate the rise of the prestigious Received Pronunciation (RP) in Britain and stereotypes of non-standard usage. Tropes in non-scholarly sources connected ‘an image of social personhood neatly to a single word, one that is repeatable, humorous, memorable, and hence capable of widespread circulation’ (Agha, 2003: 256), creating the precursor to the internet meme!

Aim of the Lesson Plans This new material enhancing Understanding Language Use in the Classroom continues the goal of heightening linguistic knowledge and allows the text to be used in classroom lessons, as well as research, essays and other homework assignments. The expanded edition also helps to merge the two views of language: those folk concepts spread by the media and those of linguistic researchers. We all – educators and students – are susceptible to the linguistic ‘facts’ we encounter around us. These lessons do not argue against popular stereotypes so much as that they supply crucial information for readers to reconsider these folk impressions. Both sides can learn: the language experts have research findings to share; the ‘folk’ side has real-world encounters and psychologically potent impressions. And our work in higher education benefits as well. Curzan (2014) urges language scientists to gather data from prescriptive sources. Prescriptivism, usually seen as judgmental views and thus antithetical to the descriptive linguistic point of view, is, after all, a ‘sociolinguistic phenomenon’ (Curzan, 2014: 172) and a source of data for researchers and educators. Godley et al. (2015) urge more critical language awareness in teachers. Those in education, for example, must go beyond such statements as ‘all dialects are valid’ (true, but superficial) to a more informed level of awareness that they can then apply to their pedagogy more critically.

Introduction

xxv

The aim is not to indoctrinate but to encourage more exploration, more challenging of assumed linguistic facts. The lessons here try to bridge the folk/language science divide by presenting both the ways that various depictions of language use have been embraced by the media (popular and social), and the science behind these phenomena. In fact, information and communication technologies (ICT) and pedagogy have already formed partnerships. Wagner (2014), for example, assigned Instagram in college classes as a research tool. Grieve et al. (2013) search newspaper databases for regional vocabulary (tennis shoes, sneakers) since many of our appliances allow for geotagging (Jones, 2015). Linguists are looking at media more and more as a source of critical information (Deumert, 2014). Language awareness teaching is a movement in mid-gear that is about to accelerate. I am grateful to and inspired by others who are teaching teachers about language: Anne H. Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson; Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck; Carolyn Temple Adger, Walt Wolfram and Donna Christian; Jeffrey Reaser; and others. We should heed Zuidema (2005: 674), who says, ‘The ubiquitous problem of linguistic prejudice deserves significant attention in all schools’. With this material, I hope to put these language stereotypes in a new light for reconsideration. In this expanded edition, you will find nine lessons, pedagogical material that can be adapted to various audiences and class schedules. Each lesson is meant to be accessible, highlighting one language issue, the various points of view on that issue and some relevant linguistic scholarship. The material is relevant to undergraduate programs in communication arts and media, linguistics, education and cultural studies. The instructor does not need a degree in linguistics. Instead, the material invites both instructor and student to explore together the language issue at hand with the resources provided, and to adapt the material to their own pedagogical aims. Activities and resources supply ways to extend each lesson, as well as to customize for a particular discipline or interest level. Consider these lessons as one approach to teaching the language issues at hand, and feel free to adapt the material to your own comfort zone, the interests of your discipline and the level of your students.

Organization Each lesson comprises a PowerPoint slideshow (see http://www.multilingual-matters.com/textbooks.asp)* and associated instructor guidance material. *

To access this book’s additional material please choose the title from the list and input the username: guest-download and password: Downloads!

xxvi

Introduction

Lesson Plans: The PowerPoint slides contain material that can be used in the classroom. Each lesson starts with learning objectives and an introduction to the stereotype at hand. A short assessment of students’ prior knowledge and attitudes about the stereotype allows for a snapshot view of the range of beliefs in the room. A post-lesson assessment lets instructors gauge the degree to which the lesson may have shifted students’ views and assess the learning goals. These and other embedded short exercises are designed to evaluate the lesson’s learning goals; they also engage students by allowing them to be reflective about their own learning. Each lesson incorporates sound clips, images and short in-class activities. These activities are suggestions for how to incorporate writing and research, as well as small- and large-group discussion into the lesson. Instructors should feel free to skip over any slides not pertinent to their purposes, substitute material and generally customize the lessons to their teaching aims. The lessons can be used in any order because each has been designed to stand alone. Notes at the end of the chapters in Part 2 of Understanding Language Use in the Classroom help instructors to link up thematically related lessons and chapters. Instructor Guidance Material: This expanded edition also offers instructors both linguistic and pedagogical guidance in using the PowerPoint lessons by expanding on and supplementing the material in the lessons, as well as suggesting exercises to customize work to a course’s particular goals. Each instructor guide includes a discussion of the stereotype under discussion; a list of learning objectives; some linguistic basics (essential, yet accessible, information); a short review of relevant research; often a short (optional) detour into more advanced linguistic information; references of sources quoted in both documents in a lesson (useful for writing and research assignments); and a list of further exercises to extend the lesson with student research and writing and to customize the lesson for related goals. Vocabulary words in bold in the instructor material have been merged into the glossary at the end of this expanded edition. Cross-referring notation between lessons and with the main chapters in Part 2 of the book allows readers to see the connections between the chapters and plan larger units of instruction relevant to their coursework. The lessons progress through the following language themes: Words (Lessons 1 and 2), Grammar (Lesson 3), Conversations (Lessons 4 and 5), Accents (Lessons 6 and 7) and Voice (Lessons 8 and 9). Words discusses the area of linguistics called semantics. It includes in Lesson 1 a discussion of the ways (and whys) of changes in word meaning. We start with criticism of the current use of literally and move from there to review meaning change processes. In Lesson 2, we look at slang and the preconception that it has no place in writing. Grammar offers Lesson 3, in which we tackle the belief that texting is detrimental to literacy skills. The lessons then move to larger

Introduction

xxvii

aspects of language: Conversations, and the pragmatic rules we follow in guiding our use of language in social settings. Lesson 4 explores what might make a conversationalist seem rude; Lesson 5 looks at language behaviors that have been stereotyped as ‘woman-speak’. Accents considers the issue of accent in terms of both learning a new language in Lesson 6, and as a trait of one’s native language in Lesson 7. Voice is the final theme, with two lessons on phonation and melody. Lesson 8 tackles the phenomenon of vocal fry (a raspy, deep voice said to be a trait of young women) and Lesson 9 looks at what is called ‘gay voice’. Each lesson ends with an invitation to revisit the stereotype at hand. A note about presenting stereotypes in a curriculum: some images or video clips might be upsetting to students who, themselves, have felt the negative impact of the societal acceptance of a linguistic impression. If an example illustrates racism or sexism via language bias, should it be given the consideration of class time? I believe – with the right framing – it can be educational, for it is this leaning in and careful examination that is more powerful, and more likely to move us forward than would avoidance. But educators might want to offer trigger warnings about the content of certain lessons before they embark on them. For this expanded edition: My heartfelt thanks to all the great people at Multilingual Matters, Anna Roderick, Elinor Robertson, Sarah Williams, Laura Longworth, Flo McClelland and Tommi Grover, and for the thoughtful (over the summer!) comments of the anonymous reviewer. Thanks also to David Podell and Kerry Walk at Marymount Manhattan Collect for approving my senior fellowship leave in the spring of 2017. I continue to be grateful to my dear CSD colleagues for keeping me sane and being the great ‘911 Team’ that we are (Ann Jablon, Meg Kamowski Shakibai, Denise Cruz: I am talking about you). My Marymount Manhattan students get a big shout-out, especially Rachel Nevins, Petya Georgiev, Marisa Spencer, Katie Sheffrin, Latoya Chisholm and Erica Schwarz; and Daniel Hahn, from my Columbia University course. For reference help, thanks to Yoshivel Chirinos. Thanks to the fall 2016 sections at MMC of Introduction to Linguistics and Language and Culture for feedback on pilot versions of these lessons. The MMC librarians went that extra interlibrary loan mile for me time and again. Linguist-friend Bill Katz in Dallas is always there for me. Love to my family, especially my father Frank and brother Richard, neither of whom got to see the expanded book realized; to linguistics sister Cindy Mercer; to my husband Tony Sarowitz, who is my muse, voice of reason and sous vide expert. Finally, my ‘oldest friend’ Michael Kandel inspired me to propose this book after his guest lecture in one of my classes. His professional development courses on ‘race, place, class and gender’ and his commitment

xxviii

Introduction

to social justice in the education world are the best that education has to offer. Little did we know when we met as four-year-olds that we would be teachers together. This new, enhanced version of Understanding Language Use in the Classroom is dedicated to you, Michael.

Ways to Read this Book Readers can approach the three parts of this book in various ways. Educators might want to read the parts in the order presented. This way, they first become familiar with the conceptual framework as laid out in Part 1. They then move on to succinct answers to common questions teachers and students have about language use in Part 2, followed by the pedagogical resources of Part 3. Study sheets supply sample test questions and review material for classroom work, so that educators can adapt materials to their own classrooms and purposes. Students might want to start with Part 2, engaging with the questions their peers ask about academic English, as well as the questions teachers often pose. Part 3 then supplies useful follow-up material for review and study groups. They can finish by turning to Part 1 to read about the theoretical underpinnings of this work. I am excited to share this conversation with my readers.

Part 1 The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

Part 1 takes as its starting point the concerns recent books have raised about the failure of college students to learn. It examines the role language plays in learning at higher education levels and lays out an argument that educators (and students) need a more overt understanding of how language is structured, used and valued in academia. This part introduces and defines the language form called academic English and the obstacles students face as they try to master this form (Chapter 1). It then investigates the form and function of academic English in college readiness and success (Chapter 2). The part then moves to a review of pedagogical movements currently at work in the primary to secondary schools that infuse language sensitivity into the curriculum (Chapter 3). It ends with an argument for linguisticallyinformed educators at the college and university level – for teachers who possess a metaknowledge about language in general and who can also articulate the expectations and demands of academic English. Teachers must offer better feedback to students, and work from a more informed place without having to rely on an intuitive sense of what is academic writing and speaking, know how to tackle academic reading assignments, and how to listen to (and process) academic discourse. Chapter 1, ‘Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning’, gives an overview of the issues covered in the book. It reviews the data showing college students failing to learn, and it then homes in on the role of academic English in academic success. What are the linguistic skills and expectations of today’s students? What are the many challenges they face in that first year (and beyond) when confronted with college-level work?

1

1 Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning An Urgent Problem in Higher Education Authors such as Hacker and Dreifus (2011) and Arum and Roksa (2011) have reported that college students do not show significant learning in several essential skills. As outlined in this book’s introduction, various studies report that the crucial skills necessary for academic success – and that also appeal to employers – are exactly those skills that college students are not mastering: studies show no demonstrable gains in critical thinking and abstract reasoning skills, or in writing competency, either in the sophomore year or at graduation. Why might students not be learning? Who and/or what is to blame? A review of the literature finds blame placed everywhere: professors value research over teaching (Hacker & Dreifus, 2011); colleges put too much emphasis on social life and sports (Nathan, 2005); secondary schools are falling down on their job of preparing college-ready students (Greene & Winters, 2005); and so on. Arum and Roksa (2011) call for changes to the academy that challenge educators and institutions of higher learning to monitor learning as closely as do schools at the lower grades. Yet, it seems that college professors are better scholars than teachers. Pedagogy is rarely part of a PhD student’s education, yet today’s professors do want to be reflective teachers (Behrens & Kandel, 2006; Fink, 2003; Nilson, 2010; Weimer, 2010). Hacker and Dreifus (2011) argue that colleges and universities need to place teaching above all else. Delbanco (2012) agrees: PhD programs should infuse pedagogy into the curriculum so that scholars are also trained as teachers. One asset to any educator looking to develop pedagogically is a better understanding of how language works and the role language plays in student learning in colleges and universities.

3

4

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

Language at the Core of Education It is not trivial that reading and writing are two of ‘the three Rs’ of education. Students need to learn not just to read and write but also to do so at the level that their teachers expect. Leamnson (1999: 39) says that ‘[l]anguage is a particularly pressing problem in the education of freshmen’. The task, then, is more complicated than being literate, and it begins (or should begin) early. Cummins (2008: n.p.), talking about primary to secondary schooling, believes that ‘a major goal of schooling for all students is to expand students’ registers and repertoires of language into these academic domains’. Others agree that gaining mastery in language use at the academic level is a long-term endeavor. Shatz and Wilkinson (2013: 115), speaking about English language learners (ELLs), say, ‘Students’ school achievement depends on their being proficient in the language of classroom instruction and textbooks’. I argue that this is true of all students. ‘Participating fully in all classroom activities requires thinking and talking in ways that incorporate literate language and precise vocabulary. From elementary to high school, such skills are the sine qua non of success. For all students, developing full academic language proficiency takes at least a decade of schooling’ (italics added) (Shatz & Wilkinson, 2013: 115). There are reasons to guide students to better mastery of the English expected at school. Learning, demonstrating that learning, becoming a member of the academy: all take linguistic skills. Lankshear and Knobel (2011: 108) say, ‘Within “prestige” subjects like English and science, exam success is largely a function of the ability and disposition to reason and argue in particular ways and to extrapolate from and interpret what is given in texts, as well as (to some extent) to absorb, recall and reproduce information, including that provided by teachers in class’. Taking the argument one step further, we see that many researchers make the connection between language skills and cognitive skills: mastering academic English allows students to think more critically. To illustrate, Arum and Roksa (2011) report that college students fail to gain specifically in three areas: critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills. The authors identify language as being foundational to all three skills. Language mastery also manifests itself in all modalities: not just writing but reading, speaking and listening. A report from the US National Center for Literacy Education (2013: 3) supports this connection by calling literacy ‘the center of all learning’ and a necessary component of college readiness. A report by the Carnegie Corporation (Graham & Perin, 2007) finds poor writing skills, even at the basic level, among those graduating from college. These graduates cannot write at a sufficient level of competency to

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning

5

be successful in college or in most workplaces. Some statistics in this report are staggering: 50% of entering students are unprepared for the work; 70% can’t write at an academic level; and 25% of students entering community colleges must take remedial writing courses. How much opportunity, though, do first year college students have to acclimate to the language demanded by professors through reading and writing assignments? According to Arum and Roksa (2011), quoting data from a recent student satisfaction survey, 83% of first year college students report that they are not assigned essays that are 20 or more pages long; and that the same is true for 51% of seniors. Without this linguistic demand, say the authors, students have little chance to practice and polish crucial skills. If faculty demand more reading and writing, giving a benchmark of 40 pages a week of reading and 20-page essays in each course, each semester, we would see students improving in their abilities to write better, think critically, and infuse their work with complex reasoning. Other obstacles to such mastery of academic English, however, present themselves. There is agreement that being a skilled user of academic English is necessary for success in college. Further – and unfortunately – most agree that academic English is not a language form that is naturally acquired; instead, educators need to teach it (e.g. Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Kutz (2004) believes that academic language is not, but should be, ‘opened up and translated by the professor into the informal language that will make it accessible’ (2004: 87). This is not an easy task. Impediments include how new college students deal with an unfamiliar way of using language, one different from their daily encounters with social media and even high school English; issues related to those whose home dialects are not standard English, such as ELLs and non-native speakers; lack of communication between high school and college teachers; and obstacles that reside in the linguistic assumptions of professors, who often cannot fully convey the demands of academic language to students.

Obstacles to Mastering Academic English Invisible criteria The obstacles to student mastery of academic English go beyond a lack of opportunities to use the language form. Students also need to understand what it is linguistically. What is academic English? Although it goes by different labels (a brief review of the literature finds the terms academic language, school English, school language, academic genre, academic register and academic discourse), educators and scholars agree that academic

6

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

English is a dialect of the English language that is considered appropriate, even necessary, to tackle the demands of college work. Lee (2011: 105) gives a typical definition of academic English as ‘clear, concise, unambiguous, and accurate; it is factual and backed up by evidence’. While there is general agreement that our students need academic English, definitions such as the one Lee reports can be vague and subjective. In fact, what constitutes college-level rigor in general has been called ambiguous (Perin, 2006). Further, calling academic English clear and concise might even strike some as ironic. A stereotype of academic English is that it is stuffy ‘academese’: prose that is ‘difficult to read, complicated, or pompous’ (Lee, 2011: 104). (To illustrate: in my email inbox yesterday was a notice of a conference featuring psychologist Steven Pinker giving a talk with the title, ‘The Sense of Style: Why Academic Writing is so Bad, and How to Make it Better’; and a website being passed around my college is one for a jargon generator that allows the user to easily ‘speak education’ through randomized strings of verbs, adjectives and nouns, such as to prioritize multi-dimensional functionality; http://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html.) Cox (2009) calls academic English obtuse, contorted and dense, while Graff (2003: 1) criticizes academics for making ‘ideas, problems, and ways of thinking look more opaque, narrowly specialized, and beyond normal learning capacities’. Hacker and Dreifus (2011: 135) likewise find fault in professors’ use of language: ‘The bulk of academic research is so arcanely expressed that it is beyond the grasp of outside audiences, even if they are college graduates. Most academics write and speak solely for their faculty peers, in a style and syntax akin to foreign languages’. The result is that many examples of academic writing fail to function as helpful models for students. Many scholars obscure, not clarify, with language, says Graff (2003). Academics might be excused for obfuscating with one another, but as educators of undergraduates we need to do better, have a firmer grip on the nature of academic English and help students move toward fluency in those forms. Many academic authors want to sound smart, says Green (2009: 34), who sees academics struggling to find the balance between being understood by their readers and not seeming too simplistic by experts in their own fields. ‘If we [scholars] use everyday language, we run the risk that other academics will view our work as substandard due to an often-unchallenged belief that the simple is necessarily simplistic. Conversely, by using the academic language we are developing, we increase the odds that other academics may interpret our writing as alienating and […] gibberish’. Students are less part of the equation since many non-textbooks are written for those already in the field, making students who encounter the professional literature feel out of their league. Some scholars would prefer more down-to-earth language themselves.

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning

7

Wareing (2004b) asks teachers to read a text written by education developers and reflect on what she labels irritants in the writing. She finds that readers dislike specialist terms that are not thoroughly explained; abstraction, especially that caused by passive sentences; personal pronouns; figurative language; abstract nouns; and non-standard mechanics and punctuation, especially words in italics. As a solution to better, clearer academic writing, Green (2009: 42) says that ‘it makes sense to expose new academics to a wider range of academic writing to overcome some of the linguistic barriers’. We should not see complex thought as having to be conveyed by complex language. In other words, ‘it is possible to demystify […] writing conventions while maintaining intellectual rigour’ Green (2009: 44).

First-year college students and relationship to language The average first-year student experiences difficulties transitioning from the language demands of high school work and the language used in social media to the academic discourse demanded at college, nor can it be easily mastered without overt guidance. College students bring to campus a variety of English dialects that do not always align with standard English, i.e. a range of ‘Englishes’ (Behrens & Sperling, 2010; Clark, 2013; Trimbur, 2008). The typical entering college student has also logged in many hours on social media sites and is already fluent in a genre that can, and often does, vary considerably from the one demanded at college (Lenhart et al., 2008). Further, those first-year students who are of traditional age, i.e. 18 years old, are still developing their linguistic systems, adding to a repertoire of dialects and registers being acquired (Andrews, 2006). And the odds are good that their English will display some generational differences from their older teachers. A useful parallel to the aim of acquiring academic English can be seen in the pedagogy of second language teaching. ELLs need help in lowering their level of anxiety so that they are comfortable learning English as a new language (Krashen, 1981). The same can be said of native speakers, who experience anxiety as they move from social uses of English to more academic uses (although the two student populations differ in a number of other ways). Such transitions can be rocky. All teachers seem to have stories of receiving student papers in which the writer tries to sound academic but instead winds up producing ill-formed, convoluted syntax that neither sounds fluent nor conveys a clear message. Some beginning students can at best produce a bad imitation of academic writing, which might not be surprising when one considers the poor ‘academese’ (as discussed above) that students encounter in numerous texts:

8

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

Students can try to be overly academic at the expense of clarity. We all have seen papers and books whose [academic] authors have overcomplicated the language of a text or speech to the point of sounding pretentious or stilted. They use sentences that are too long, they use too many clauses and ‘SAT words,’ and the message ends up being too concentrated or muddy to make sense to the reader or listener. (Zwiers, 2008: 39) While the traditional first-year college student is still forming an identity as a language user, the good news is that this population understands very well the connection between language and identity, ‘that the adoption of the code words of their respective social networks simultaneously establishes and symbolizes their identity, their group affiliation, their belonging’ (Andrews, 2006: 33). New college students, then, are familiar with adopting the right code for the right end result. Many professors, though, do not acknowledge that the language systems of younger students are still in transition; we might well assume that a recent high school graduate, and now first-year student, is a fully formed college student ready to do scholarly work. While most acknowledge that vocabulary as a body of language knowledge continues to grow, educators should also consider skills in syntax, pragmatics and discourse as part of the learning process. Of course, the college student body also includes many non-traditional-aged students, either returning to their studies or enrolling for the first time. This population also faces language demands that should be – but rarely are – articulated and addressed in the classroom. Faculty, then, should not just be teaching content; we should also be teaching students how to use language. Encounters with their academic texts are not enough. Nathan (2005) reports that many students are not doing the assigned reading, more so as they approach their senior year than as first-year students; and she blames time management problems for this situation. While workload issues are indeed a challenge, it could well be that a lack of reading strategies contributes to the time burden that students feel. Nathan also reports that conversations of an academic nature among students before or after class are limited to such topics as what the assignment was, if anyone did it, will it be on the exam, etc. Most students do not discuss what they are studying, the content of courses. Talk in the dorms about academics, says Nathan, makes up about 5% of the total talk that she measured. Students, then, do not get much practice using the argumentation devices of academic English, either.

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning

9

English language learners and non-standard English users While mastery of academic English is crucial for success in college, it is even more crucial for students who do not have facility with standard English or opportunities to use it in various domains: such students as ELLs and those whose native dialects constitute non-standard forms of English. More and more immigrants are going to college in the USA (Arum & Roksa, 2011). It seems to be more common practice in the ELL classroom than with native-speaking students for teachers to deliver lessons about grammar and discuss more overtly facts about language (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011). ELL students, however, do not always engage in academic discourse the way that native speakers do. Zwiers (2007) reports that the ELL population tends to be ‘linguistically enabled’ by teachers: these students receive less feedback than do native speakers when their language productions (writing and speaking) do not demonstrate academic syntax and vocabulary. In other words, the academic bar is set lower; less is expected of them. Even academic idioms – such as the frequently used ‘Let us now turn to’ – and linguistic communication patterns common to the classroom are culture-specific and potentially alienating to non-native speakers. One very Western discourse pattern in classroom interactions, for example, is the so-called initiationresponse-evaluation (IRE) pattern (also called initiation-response-feedback or IRF), whereby the teacher initiates talk, the student responds, the teacher evaluates the response and the exchange ends. Not understanding such a pattern can create obstacles to active learning for students new to a culture (Zwiers, 2007). (See Appendix for more on ELL resources.) Since ELL students are juggling both conversational language and academic language, an apparently fluent student who engages in class discussions with ease might, then, surprise her or his teachers by showing problems in the academic register on essays and exams (Cummins, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2012). Another obstacle to mastering academic English that students face is the way they are identified as native speakers or ELLs. What exactly is a native speaker? What are the criteria? Horner and Trimbur (2002: 612) question the very dichotomy of native/non-native and say that ‘a speaker’s language competence, for lack of a better term, is in constant flux’ and that ‘what constitutes language competence is itself arbitrary and continually subject to negotiation and redefinition’ (see also Behrens & Mercer, 2011; Kramsch, 2003). Crystal (2004) estimates that there are more English speakers around the world who are non-native or second language users than native speakers, by a three to one ratio. He also states that most English language users do not work with a standard dialect; in other words, standard English speakers are in the minority.

10

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

Besides the distinction between native and non-native speakers, some researchers question the dichotomy of the standard vs. non-standard English speaker. Canagarajah (2006: 589) says that the ‘changing demographic of English has profound implications for language norms’. Those who speak what he calls a world English are gaining a more confident outlook about their home dialects. The author also makes the claim that standard English is more limiting than we realize, good in some genres and situations but not in others. Canagarajah urges educators to teach strategies so that students can master a variety of language forms. Nonetheless, the academic burden of the non-standard speaker is great. Kynard (2004) paints a bleak picture of the typical non-standard English speaker in her university. At the urban, public university where I teach, everyday I walk into a room full of students who are bombarded by speech classes, entry writing exams, proficiency exams, incessant grammar and usage drills, monologues about the importance of good grammar over content, and departmental midterms and final exams. These fortifications blockade students from the academy because their written or spoken speech can be labeled nonstandard, or shown to exhibit ‘incorrect’ usage and grammar, ‘ESL issues,’ or ‘dialect interference’. (Kynard, 2004: 98) Some of Kynard’s students, especially the African American ones, seem to have a meta-awareness of their own ‘accents’ and the range of dialects they need to employ. Not all students value their own language forms, though, and many have no awareness at the metalevel, nor do many teachers. In a survey of teacher attitudes about what makes for a successful college student, Popovic and Green (2012) find that most educators believe that students who earn high grades have English as a home language. Their data say otherwise. This finding raises the possibility that teacher attitudes about non-native speakers (less likely to earn high grades, perhaps) might be more an obstacle to academic success than actual language aptitude. Academic English, ultimately, is no one’s home language form; we all face the burden of learning it and, as teachers, guiding our students to mastery. Snow and Uccelli (2009: 113) say, ‘[L]earning “academic English” is recognized as a challenging task for second-language speakers of English, but the challenges faced by native speakers in learning the rules, structures, and the content of academic English have received much less attention’. All teachers, then, need more knowledge about academic English.

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning

11

Computer-mediated communication/texting Experience tells me that if I ask 100 teachers what contributes most to students’ inability to use college-level English, a majority would blame texting, or at least too many hours with social media. Yet, research into the effects of what is called computer-mediated communication (CMC) on schoolwork finds a more complex picture. Crystal (2008) does not find that the effects of texting carry over much into school performance, and he predicts that as more ‘old’ folks use texting, texting language itself will become more standard. His bottom line about criticism aimed at texting: Why all the fuss? Lotherington and Ronda (2012) go further and encourage us to embrace CMC and expand our definition of literacy to include new media. Literacy is not just about written English anymore: ‘The page is no longer the predominant site of literacy […] prescriptive grammar, canonical spelling and sentence mechanics no longer equate to literacy achievement’ (Lotherington & Ronda, 2012: 106). However, they warn that being fluent in technology does not equate with being critical users of the media. In other words, education still has a role to play; teachers still need to teach and reinforce critical thinking skills. Baron (2008) identifies two main consequences of so much engagement with CMC: users have more control over the choice of people they interact with, and as a culture, we are writing more. One would think these are good outcomes, but Baron (2008: 7) sees the latter as ‘diminishing our sense of written craftsmanship’. She does remind us that we must distinguish between language change and language decline, citing the many changes that occurred in English well before CMC became so widespread. However, ‘electronic language has been singled out for stoning’ (Baron, 2008: 162); in her sample of students in college, she finds that ‘electronic language is at most a very minor dialectal variation’ (Baron, 2008: 163). And as does Andrews (2006), Baron credits students, even in middle school, with having a ‘very clear understanding that different written styles (just like different spoken styles) are appropriate for particular settings’ (Baron, 2008: 175). Mirroring Crystal’s ‘Why all the fuss?’, she says, ‘We also tend to blow out of proportion the scope of IM [Instant Messaging] or texting language at issue. In reality, there are relatively few linguistic novelties specific to electronicallymediated language that seem to have staying power’ (Baron, 2008: 175). Studies do find evidence of carry-over of texting to academic language use. Lenhart et al. (2008) report that [t]eens generally do not believe that technology negatively influences the quality of their writing, but they do acknowledge that the informal

12

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

styles of writing that mark the use of these text-based technologies for many teens do occasionally filter into their school work. Overall, nearly two-thirds of teens (64%) say they incorporate some informal styles from their text-based communications into their writing at school. (Lenhart et al., 2008: ii) Lems et al. (2010) cite the effects of texting on spelling, specifically alphabetic spelling (e.g. U for you) and numeric spelling (e.g. 2 for to and too). Lenhart et al. (2008), as part of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, surveyed seventh to twelfth graders and parents about CMC such as email, instant messaging and texting. Of the teens surveyed, 60% do not consider CMC a form of writing; however, these teens acknowledge that ‘good writing’ is essential to school success and that their high school classes should give even more writing instruction. Apparently, students realize that they cannot live by texts alone. Hewings and Coffin (2004) see CMC as a new, hybrid genre, more like writing in terms of grammar, but more like speech in the use of first person pronouns. It seems, then, that texting has an impact on the language of teens and future college students, but the effects are not so unambiguously detrimental. When teachers and students have this type of conversation about texting and explore the issues, it can go a long way: both parties share expectations and assumptions about the influence of texting on academic language use.

Lack of smooth transition to college What else might hinder student mastery of academic English? Many of the recent books on the subject place blame on the poor academic preparation of students at the secondary education level. Speaking of the situation in the USA, Greene and Winters (2005: 1) say ‘that a student can graduate from high school with a regular diploma and still lack the necessary academic qualifications to attend even their state’s public university. This is because the minimum standards for earning a high school diploma are often lower than those required to enter even a minimally selective four-year college’. Cox (2009: 10) sees a lack of communication as a large contributor to the problem; high school and college educators should be (but aren’t) talking to one another, she says. ‘The sense of disappointment and surprise on the part of college professors when they discover their students’ weaknesses’, demonstrates the consequences of this failure of communication. First-year college students whom Cox interviews say that the high school-to-college transition for them meant a stepping out of their comfort zones to a place where they didn’t even know how to ask for help.

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning

13

Blame placing continues up and down the chain. High school teachers point fingers at elementary school teachers. There are many high school teachers, say Ehrenworth and Vinton (2005: 20), who are looking at basic language issues in their students and saying to themselves, ‘I would never teach that lesson in secondary school—students should have had that lesson in second grade!’. Delbanco (2012) blames primary and secondary schools for college students’ lack of preparation for eventual success in college. Educators at senior colleges criticize those at two-year colleges for failing to anticipate and prepare their students for continued college study. Community colleges are under attack for being ‘overly involved in remediation at the expense of baccalaureate transfer […] and duplicating K-12 education’, says Perin (2006: 340). A report by the National Center on Education and the Economy (2013: 24) calls the ‘meager amount of writing students are assigned in high school […a…] recipe for trouble’ when students enter college and the workforce. Other factors have been cited in the poor showing of students once in college. College students do not always clearly perceive the expectations of their teachers (Popovic & Green, 2012). Often, teachers think they are being perfectly clear and transparent and are later surprised that students want more clarification. Popovic and Green also find that teachers harbor beliefs (some unsubstantiated) about behaviors that are related to student success, including the assumption that students know how to develop study habits that are different from those they relied on in high school. Yet, the researchers do not find a link between high grades in pre-college years and high grades in college. Students’ old habits, then, of studying and of mind – the habits that gained them success in high school – are no longer as useful. From these results, Popovic and Green call for more conversation: transparent, overt, explicit talk between educators and students about expectations. In addition, if students can’t read a text critically, write a coherent essay, take useful notes during a lecture, effectively use feedback on their papers – educators need to model strategies. For example, teachers should explain what ‘reading’ means when giving an assignment: how deeply and for what purpose? And how long should the assignment take? In addition, teachers should explain to students how to formulate and ask quality questions of professors (whether in class or during office hours). And we educators should be able to reflect on our own pedagogy; for example, what is a teacher doing that might be shutting down question asking or follow-up questions? How can we help students burdened with reading loads approach their assignments with better linguistic strategies? Being more overt with students isn’t necessarily easy, however. Cox (2009) identifies a problem with scholarly experts also being educators: Most college professors are now in higher education because we ‘got’ the system,

14

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

i.e. we were successful students ourselves, most likely through intuition or trial and error. Instructors’ own academic orientation and experience inevitably shape their expectations of appropriate student behavior and ‘college’ standards. As a result, it is very easy for new college instructors to enter their classrooms with expectations of students that do not match reality. Thus, although students can certainly be described as unprepared for college, the professors are not necessarily prepared for their students. (Cox, 2009: 165) Delbanco (2012: 21) echoes that sentiment, adding in the factor of generational differences as our students (seem to) grow even younger: ‘The fact is there is always a lag between what’s happening in the mental world of students and that of the faculty, and by the time the latter catches up with the former, new students have arrived with new attitudes, so the cycle begins again’. The message, then, is that we need to uncover and share what are currently unconscious expectations and assumptions.

Teachers’ perceptions and expectations about academic English If new college students need a more solid knowledge base about academic language, a good percentage of teachers do as well. The so-called grammar wars of the latter part of the 20th century (discussed in Chapter 3) have resulted in many educators who have no training in English grammar, only a vague idea of how language works and are often left to rely on their linguistic intuition (Fogel & Ehri, 2006). Teachers need to learn this information. The benefits are twofold: to work more effectively with students and to pass the knowledge along to students, so a chain of learning-teaching-learning can develop. Zwiers (2007: 113) echoes this call for teachers to have a better understanding of language – the ‘underpinning’ of academic English. Teachers don’t need to become linguists, but we all need more language training than most currently receive. Pearson (2007: 150–151) agrees that those in higher education ‘have been too ready to dismiss deep disciplinary knowledge – linguistics (from phonology to text structure to pragmatics), language development, psychology of reading and learning, orthography, literature and culture – as too distant from the concerns of classroom teaching to merit much emphasis’. Zwiers (2007: 114) says that if teachers had ‘a greater knowledge of […] effective classroom discourse patterns, [they could] facilitate learning experiences that develop

Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning

15

students’ thinking and communication skills that are necessary for higher education, desirable jobs, and positive societal change’. Knowing academic English more overtly also means knowing more about non-standard forms of English. Such knowledge is useful when working with both native speakers whose home English is not standard, as well as non-native English speakers. Fogel and Ehri (2006) point out that such knowledge is necessary to distinguish between errors and dialectal differences. Shatz and Wilkinson (2013) single out ELL teachers who don’t know, but need to know, more about the differences between their students’ native languages (especially grammatical structures) and English: ‘Despite repeated calls for more extensive preparation of teachers in the area of language and diversity, many of the teachers in today’s schools are under-prepared to deal with the range of background languages and cultures present-day students bring to their classrooms’ (Shatz & Wilkinson, 2013: ix). Another problem that educators face when asked to be more explicit in their language demands is that experts can be hampered by so-called blind spots, whereby they forget what it is like to be unfamiliar with the course material. Nathan and Petrosino (2003: 906), in a paper about the expert blind spot in those training to be teachers, say that ‘subject-matter expertise often overshadows [teachers’] pedagogical knowledge about how their novice students learn and develop intellectually in the domain of interest’. When one knows the solution or answer, they say, it is easy to overestimate the ease of reaching that solution. (The researchers also refer to this blind spot as the egocentric effect.) Thus, ‘expertise in a subject area may make educators blind to the learning processes and instructional needs of novice students’ (Nathan & Petrosino, 2003: 906) without even realizing that a blind spot exists. One way to combat the problem is with metaknowledge: Nathan and Petrosino found that when participants were clued into the need to be explicit about their knowledge, the egocentric effect disappeared. So many unspoken assumptions about the nature of ‘college-level’ English often lead to frustration on the part of students and teachers, as well as stereotyping of students who are or are not working at a college level. Such unstated expectations can be detrimental to student learning. Zwiers (2008) calls the unstated expectations that professors are working with the invisible criteria: invisible to both students and teachers. We teachers expect something that we do not, and perhaps cannot, articulate. This lack of concreteness works to the detriment of students’ learning. Academic language is a gatekeeper and also a kind of ‘entrapment’ since educators require this language but ‘do not explicitly teach’ it (Zwiers, 2007: 97). Similar to Zwiers’ concept of invisible criteria is Davison’s (2011) belief that academia presents students with a hidden curriculum: besides content,

16

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

students face a second curriculum: needing to learn how to manipulate language to their professors’ liking. This additional task (and burden), though, is left largely unstated. Even graduate students have not necessarily gained full and overt control over academic English. Supposedly, graduate students learned the academic language as undergraduates; with a move to graduate school, students find that the required language forms have again changed. Rocco (2011: 3) reflects on her own student days: ‘Neither my life experiences nor my academic experiences prepared me for scholarly writing and publication. When as a doctoral student I asked faculty how to write for publication, the response was vague’. It is worth recognizing our expert blind spots, uncovering those invisible criteria and discussing the hidden curricula with students. Critical reflection and rhetorical skills demand a keen ability to manipulate language (Hansen & Farris, 2010), and we have seen that students are failing to learn to think critically, engage in complex thinking and write clearly. Mastery of this specialized form of English is at the heart of academic success; it is linked to these crucial skills, as well as the ability to read academic texts, do the writing assignments, demonstrate academic oral communication skills and follow lectures and class discussions. In fact, The National Center for Literacy Education (2013: 26) states as a goal that ‘educators must understand the reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills needed by students in their content area […and…] pedagogical strategies to help students’. We have seen that as college professors, our duties include acknowledging and better understanding the linguistic demands we place on our students; and we need to develop strategies to guide them to mastery of academic English. Before discussing pedagogical approaches, though, we need to take a closer look at the form and function of academic English itself. The next chapter explores the nature of academic English, a necessary step toward uncovering this knowledge and building pedagogical strategies. Chapter 2 will look more closely at making the invisible visible, by explaining the secondary to post-secondary language demands, college as a linguistic journey for students and some challenges to the notion of academic (and standard) English itself.

2 Examining Academic English: Form and Function As we’ve seen, first-year college students are asked to work in an unfamiliar form of language called academic English, one that entails specific literary ways of thinking, speaking and writing (Zwiers, 2008). What is the nature of academic English? Students are rarely handed a definition, and educators also often work with an intuitive sense of what constitutes ‘academic’. Chapter 2 takes a closer look at the nature of academic English. It looks at the working definition of academic English, both in its form and its functions. What does it look like? What does it do? Why is it valued in education? The chapter then examines the high school–college transition, a rocky one in which expectations and assumptions are often left unstated. If, as the chapter argues, college readiness rests on linguistic abilities, everyone involved needs a clearer picture of the demands. The chapter finishes with a look at some challenges to the notion of academic and standard English itself.

Definitions Academic English is a type of linguistic capital. It is also, unfortunately, an elusive entity, in that how it is defined and what is expected of students can differ from high school to college, across disciplines at the college level and even across sections of the same course with different professors. Snow and Uccelli (2009: 112) raise concerns about there being ‘no simple definition of what academic language is’, despite its crucial role in student success. Kynard (2004: 102) believes that ‘there is no monolithic, stagnant, unchanging, standardized academic discourse where nonmainstream or non-Western writers sift out all traces of their mother tongues’. Students must do the linguistic work, then, of figuring out what forms are expected and deemed appropriate for each academic purpose. This challenge has been present since the beginning of one’s schooling, in fact: ‘As students progress through the grades, they are increasingly required to manipulate language in cognitively-demanding and context-reducing situations that differ significantly from everyday conversational interactions’ (Cummins, 2008: n.p.). 17

18

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

The skill of conscious language manipulation does not come easily to all students. Many new college students do not automatically understand how to read the texts they are assigned, take notes on reading and in-class discussions and lectures, fully understand assignments, successfully write papers, give oral presentations or even phrase and pose questions to their professors (Graff et al., 2009). For example, Delpit (2006) says that it is a very middle-class, Western academic assumption to be explicit, to elaborate on each point. In other cultures, it might be wrong ‘saying what everyone knows’ already (Delpit, 2006: 145), but in Western academia, writing is supposed to be explicit, geared to an unseen readership. Most agree, however, that academic English is necessary, and researchers have tried to make the invisible visible. Kutz (2004) defines academic discourse as “compressed, densely packed, and distant” (90), as well as “syntactically dense, with specialized vocabulary” (87). Wilkinson and Silliman (2012) delineate what they see as the traits of academic English this way: • • • •

Specialized vocabulary. More complex syntax, unfamiliar constructions, less like conversational speech. Higher degree of formality found in both speaking and writing. Higher degree of explicitness, elaboration of all points.

Anyone familiar with ‘college prep’ courses will remember long lists of ‘advanced’ vocabulary words. Those academic vocabulary items tend to be derived from Greek and Latin, be multisyllabic and have a relatively low frequency of use in the language overall, i.e. they are found more in written discourse than speech (Corson, 1997; Cummins, 2008). Corson (1997: 673) finds that this type of academic vocabulary ‘is culturally bound and very unevenly distributed among the population’. Snow and Uccelli (2009: 124) say that academic English requires us to be as explicit as possible. Students are often told to imagine their reader as having ‘high levels of language but without specific knowledge of the target topic’, even though this might be untrue, since the teacher usually knows the topic well. Academic English is also grammatically distinct. Swales (2001) reports that the structure of academic English includes many negatives, embedded clauses inside larger sentences, passive constructions, parenthetical interjections, words whose definitions come later in a passage (delayed) and a penchant for nominalizations (nouns made from verbs, such as application instead of apply or analysis instead of analyze). Such prose requires an increased processing load that takes its toll on readers and listeners. Zwiers

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

19

(2008) elaborates on the various linguistic features of academic language. He finds figurative language (metaphors, analogies, idioms); dual meaning terms (words with separate lay and specialist meanings, such as volume); frequent use of the passive voice; as well as long sentences with more clauses, more embedding and more ideas per sentence than that found in non-academic venues, all of which (again) increase the cognitive load of processing a sentence. Why is this sort of language necessary for academic success? Leamnson (1999) considers academic English well equipped to illustrate causality and logical connections among ideas. Zwiers (2007, 2008) argues that the structures of academic English correspond to specific functions. Besides being the form expected by teachers, academic English helps students start to think like academics. It makes sense, then, that what needs to be mastered goes beyond a list of vocabulary items. Academic English comprises the totality of vocabulary, grammar and discourse organization that functions to describe ideas that are abstract, complex and require higher-order thinking. When the elements of academic English are missing, the language user is marked as subpar and an outsider. His or her language is seen as lacking clarity, evidence and focus. Notice the subtle distinction, though, between the arguments that (1) academic English improves students’ abilities to reason and think more critically, and (2) academic English improves students’ abilities to present their ideas in a form deemed clear and focused. Perhaps these two arguments are ultimately one and the same, for the medium of academic English is what students are immersed in when they enter college and are expected to process and reproduce, even more so as the material they encounter becomes intellectually advanced. Certainly, students’ knowledge of terminology needs to grow, and the syntax they encounter will become more complex. But as Green (2009) and Wareing (2004a, 2004b) have found, and Graff (2003) chides academics about, complex thoughts do not require unnecessarily complex writing. Expected language forms are different at the college level, and understanding those forms more overtly is essential for both teachers and students. Take as an example of the (often unexplained) linguistic nature of academic English something called the lexical bundle (also called word bundle): ‘words which follow each other more frequently than expected by chance, helping to shape text meanings and contributing to our sense of distinctiveness in a register’ (Hyland, 2008: 5): for example, as you can see and if you look. No one overtly teaches students to use these bundles; they are not found on vocabulary lists. Nevertheless, Hyland (2008: 5) says that ‘[t]hese bundles are familiar to writers and readers who regularly participate in a particular discourse, their very “naturalness” signaling

20

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

competent participation in a given community. Conversely, the absence of such clusters might reveal the lack of fluency of a novice or newcomer to the community’. Students must thus play catch-up to acquire and use these expressions in a natural-sounding way. And English language learners (ELLs) must catch up even more. Hewings and Hewings (2002) report on structures such as ‘itclauses’, e.g. It is interesting to note…, used in academic texts as a type of hedge, whereby the writer can distance himself or herself from the reader. The researchers find that papers by non-native English-speaking graduate students contain a type of mimicking of this construction, but with awkward wording, such as It may be clear that and It is not arguable that; ELL students also use many more instances of the it-clause construction than are found in published texts. Hewings and Hewings cite the rarity of the it-clause structure in other languages as a possible explanation for non-native-speaking students’ problem with this construction. Lin (2012: 89) sees it a bit differently, saying that academic language needs to be ‘unpacked’ for all students (not just ELL populations) so that they can understand it. Students then need to learn how to ‘repack’ the language so that they can articulate it themselves (Lin, 2012: 92). No one has overtly unpacked the it-clause structure and function for students, nor has anyone helped student writers repack it. Another instance in which students should be more aware of academic English patterns is in their choice of adjectives. Hewings and Hewings (2002: 377) find that non-native speakers choose adjectives in those it-clause structures that seem out of place in an academic context, such as, ‘It is amazing that, it is pointless to, and It is wise to’. The researchers advise a more direct pedagogical intervention with students to address these issues. Academic English is an essential tool for students, argued by some researchers (e.g. Zwiers, 2007, 2008) as necessary for higher-order thinking, and by others as ‘at least’ necessary for processing and producing text and speech that exist at the academic level and that fulfill the expectation of educators (Delpit, 2006). What linguistic background do new students bring to their first college course? We next look more closely at discrepancies between language expectations and demands at the secondary school and college levels.

Secondary vs. Post-secondary Language Demands We have already seen the high school-to-college disconnect that students experience, whereby they must retool their language skills for higher educational demands without much guidance. It is worth looking more closely and asking the following questions: What types of texts do high school students encounter in college? What types of writing do high school teachers

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

21

assign, and do these assignments prepare students for college writing? What are students asked to do with language, and how can professors better help students get past the shock of a new level of demand and be proactive? A teacher who transitioned himself from secondary to higher education, Thompson (2002: x) asks why ‘teaching college is an entirely different world from teaching high school […] the students I face in August were sitting in high school classrooms in May. Have they changed that much in three months?’. While the students might not have changed much, the linguistic demands placed on them have.

Reading and note-taking Erickson et al. (2006), in a book for professors about teaching first-year college students, say that college reading assignments often catch new students by surprise: they cannot understand the assigned textbooks, which they read too passively, and they are not being supplied with strategies to process the material. While students do need to develop good time management skills, a lack of ‘language savvy’ can contribute to avoiding the reading, having to reread unnecessarily or read without understanding. Lafer et al. (2002: 108) say that new college students cannot handle the assigned reading ‘in an “adequate” manner’. Students new to college have had an education that does not, for the most part, emphasize reading, and certainly not across many genres. Both the number of, and difference in, assignments once at college can leave students stunned. Again, a discrepancy in expectations and assumptions work to the detriment of students: ‘Faculty plan a course assuming the readings will be a major learning resource’ but undergraduates do not realize that ‘genres within a discipline […] call for distinctive reading strategies’ (Erickson et al., 2006: 122). Many first-year students also enter college with poor note-taking skills (Leamnson, 1999). Their default method is to copy down everything. ‘Many first year students enter our courses underpracticed in doing much more than committing things to memory. When we seek to engage them in activities and assignments that require deeper learning, they (and often we) founder’ (Erickson et al., 2006: xiv). Students need to learn how to separate thesis from supporting data, for example, and supporting data from secondary information, how to paraphrase and how to synthesize facts from different sources. Note-taking skills also relate to writing: they help in both peer review sessions, exercises in which students give feedback on others’ papers; and with taking margin notes on drafts of their own as they work to revise.

22

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

The five-paragraph essay We have now raised the issue of writing. Do high school writing assignments prepare students for college work? Most people are familiar with the five-paragraph essay: introduction, three paragraphs of support and conclusion. Further, we tend to associate this type of writing with secondary school (or even middle school) but not writing at the college level. The five-paragraph essay is a less-than-authentic writing artifact of schooling. Beck (2004) challenges us to find professions – outside of high school – for which the five-paragraph essay functions as a useful written form. While students do encounter the need to state a thesis and support it with data from various sources, many college instructors find that we must ‘unteach’ the five-paragraph type of writing, especially with first-year students (Strachan, 2002: 139). We must also tackle the preconceptions that students bring to class about writing: never begin a sentence with and or because, for example. Writing in high school also tends to vary qualitatively from college assignments. Prior to college, say Graham and Perin (2007), students summarize, analyze facts and express their opinions with supporting data. High school writing has been categorized as ‘safe but shallow’ (Lafer et al., 2002: 106), in contrast to the critical engagement required of college assignments. High schools may also employ a free-writing, holistic approach to writing instruction. Smagorinsky et al. (2011: 284) quote an eleventh-grade teacher of college-bound students who believes that the holistic approach to writing used in her high school is not sufficient preparation for the next level: ‘Before you can go holistic [students] have to understand that there really is a formula behind everything […] sentences do have a structure […] but we never taught them that structure’. Other high school teachers describe fighting against the stereotype of the ‘how do you feel’ type writing prompts in English assignments; they are aware that such prompts do not help prepare students for college work. Vuocolo (2012: 25) addresses this potential pitfall in her own teaching of English: ‘[M]ost of us who teach a core English course stay away, as often as possible, from asking students their opinions. Asking so many personal or opinion-based questions gives students a false sense of experience. For example, I do not allow my students to use I in formal writing pieces because, as I tell them, their opinion on the topic does not matter—they are not experts in the field […] it prompts them to do the research needed and to go to the text for support of their written assertions’. The data show, however, that such high school writing guidance as described by Vuocolo is not the norm. Further, use of the first person voice does not necessarily preclude the construction of a coherent argument. It

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

23

is the teacher’s task, however, to separate out opinion statements from support for a thesis, whether I is used or not. In an essay addressed to college educators, Bernstein (2013), a retired high school teacher, blames the US education policy No Child Left Behind for an overemphasis on testing and test scores. He laments the many tests he has administered over the years that are formatted as multiple choice and require writing that ‘often does not demand that higher-level thinking be demonstrated, nor does it require proper grammar, usage, syntax, and structure’ (Bernstein, 2013: 34). Bernstein (2013: 34) also criticizes the Advanced Placement exams common in US high schools that allow students to transfer credits into college. These exams, he says, are ‘graded by a rubric that is concerned primarily with content and, to a lesser degree, argument […] there is no consideration of grammar or rhetoric’. It is not impossible, then, for a student to receive a high score even with ‘bad writing’. ‘I would like to believe that I prepared [my students] to think more critically and to present cogent arguments, but I could not simultaneously prepare them to do well on that portion of the test and teach them to write in a fashion that would properly serve them at higher levels of education’ (Bernstein, 2013: 35). Thus, even in such Advanced Placement classes, the students are not ‘wrestling with the material at a deeper level’ (Bernstein, 2013: 35), leaving them potentially ill-prepared for college work. High school instructors should know what the writing demands are that their graduates will face in college. Alsup and Bernard-Donals (2002: 122) see college argumentation as ‘a process of inquiry with others’, which goes beyond fact-finding; they say that in college a student is writing for his or her peers, rather than for the teacher. Graff (2003) sees college writing as inquiry and argumentation, that it is more than just reporting or summarizing. What models of good academic English do students encounter, though? Graff warns academics that we are not helping ourselves (or our students) with obtuse language. Further, Graff et al. (2009) argue that teachers need to better explain to students the discourse structure found in college-level texts and more clearly describe the argumentation patterns required in college writing. The authors agree that all educators benefit from a better understanding of the nature of the English we work in and demand of students. Other college instructors speak out to high school educators: ‘What college composition instructors wish to see in their students is this: a history of reading widely and well, of writing often and in many genres, and of analytical thinking that informs their reading and their writing. In short, we want students who are engaged with language and who eagerly use oral and print literacy to explore the world around and within them’

24

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

(Budden et al., 2002: 81). The best preparation, then, is to have students ‘think about ideas and generate original theses about topics of interest that they then defend and support with specific details and concrete examples – skills that will be essential no matter where they attend college’ (Budden et al., 2002: 76).

Approaches to smoothing the transition to college High school teacher Bernstein (2013: 36) ends his essay to professors on a plaintive note: ‘If you, as a higher education professional, are concerned about the quality of students arriving at your institution, you have a responsibility to step up and speak out [… High school teachers] have not been able to prepare [students] for the kind of intellectual work that you have every right to expect […] it is for this that I apologize, even as I know in my heart that there was little more I could have done’. Essays such as his are needed, for they begin communication across the divide. In fact, many researchers have cited a lack of communication between high school and college educators as contributing to students’ difficulty making the linguistic transition. Budden et al. (2002) say that high school teachers would do a better job of advancing a student to college readiness by communicating with the first-year composition professor whom the student will be seeing in September. Lapp (2009: 22) says that education in general needs a ‘culture of collaboration’. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (2011: 11) calls for ‘shared efforts, between school and college, to develop more purposeful pathways for student learning over time’. A 2012 report by the American College Testing Board (ACT, 2012: 10) on college readiness recommends that institutions of higher education ‘initiate collaboration and dialogue with K-12 teachers’. Finally, students themselves can be guided to a level of awareness so that they can detect the changes in language demand as they settle into college.

Role of Language in College Readiness If language mastery plays such a large role in college success, it also contributes to college readiness, a predictor of the ability to succeed in higher education. The 2012 ACT report defines college readiness as ‘the acquisition of knowledge and skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in creditbearing first year college courses at a postsecondary institution without the need for remediation’ (ACT, 2012: 2). The report calls on educators to help students develop the academic habits of mind, ways of approaching

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

25

how to learn, by fostering practice in writing, reading and critical analysis. Similarly, the Council of Writing Program Administrators (2011) states that the desired end results of college are flexibility, habits of mind, rhetorical versatility, rhetorical knowledge and metacognition. Metaknowledge of language fits right in.

Writing and reading Lems et al. (2010: 193) calls writing and reading ‘the cornerstones of academic success’. Even academic punctuation must be learned and embraced by students; they need to know more than they ever did before about semicolons, apostrophes, colons, parentheses and hyphens, for example. But where do students learn all this? Usually it is in the standard first-year writing course, often called first year composition (FYC). When they enter college, students need to realize that they are also entering a new discourse community (Gee, 2005; Verdi & Eisenstein Ebsworth, 2009). The very existence of a first year writing requirement signals that high school writing classes do not prepare students for this new discourse. The FYC type course “remains one of the few common general education requirements for nearly all students in all colleges and universities across the country” (Wardle, 2007: 66). Students need more overt guidance. Cox (2009) finds, however, that students have a real fear of that course. As the portal to more exclusive classes, [first year] composition plays a crucial role in selection of students. Those who successfully complete the course are judged proficient in the general writing skills deemed necessary for further academic study. Thus, the outcome for each student in composition holds important consequences for his or her educational trajectory and ability to succeed as a college student. Not by coincidence, among community college offerings, this high-stakes course has some of the highest dropout rates—second only to those in math courses. (Cox, 2009: 28) Ironically, others report that students enter college holding the belief that they have already learned all they need to know about writing in high school (Berrett, 2014). Another problem is the notion that one semester or two of writing instruction is adequate preparation for all the work that students face. Cox (2009: 148) says that it is wrong – but a reality – that ‘English professors and

26

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

composition classes become the sole guarantors for collegewide literacy and writing competence’. This is the very point of the Writing-Across-the-Curriculum movement: to infuse all content courses with opportunities for students to continue to develop writing skills (Carter, 2007). Horner and Trimbur (2002) also argue against a make-or-break approach to first-year writing, especially as it relates to native-speaking students with non-standard home dialects: We have already noted the common identification of certain groups of native-born U.S. students as foreigners to the academy in public and scholarly discourse on composition students. Such identifications use instances of these students’ written language to mark them as belonging outside the academy, foreign to its ways […] the language of the academy is seen as discrete from the language of the outside, associated with students’ home neighborhoods or ethnic, class, and racial identities. Finally, the composition course, or a fixed sequence of required writing courses, is charged with moving students/foreigners to the academy toward that ideal state of competence in academic English writing through a predetermined set of stages of writing development […] Writing itself, like language, is understood in reified form, rather than as a set of heterogeneous and shifting practices. (Horner & Trimbur, 2002: 614) The practice of interpreting a weak skill set as disqualification from college can be particularly detrimental to native speakers of non-standard English dialects. Wardle (2007) sees educators as having low expectations in general about how well first year students can handle academic writing. And, in fact, finds Wardle, many students do not consciously apply skills they encounter in FYC to other writing assignments. This failure could be a problem with FYC pedagogy. Data from focus groups show students and educators both seem to be working with vague expectations of academic writing in general (Behrens, Johnson, Allard, & Caroli, 2016). Further, neither group reports initiating conversations with the other to find out specific criteria for writing assignments. Students are left to figure out for themselves the rules they should follow. The problem is compounded by discourse differences across disciplines. Says Kutz (2004), “introductory courses, despite their intention to provide an entry point to work in the discipline, are rarely explicit […] in providing the interpretive context that will allow students to engage meaningfully with the information they find in their textbooks” (79).

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

27

FYC remains a gatekeeping course. And its problems have an impact on reading as well. Besides writing skills, reading ability has also been cited as a predictor of college readiness. In its 2006 report, the ACT finds that the reading comprehension levels of high school graduates are far too low for college preparation and that reading needs to be emphasized. Crucially, the report cites the clearest predictor of college preparation as the ability to complete complex reading assignments, defined as those with ‘multiple layers of meaning, not all of which will be immediately apparent to students upon a single superficial reading. Rather, such texts require students to work at unlocking meaning by calling upon sophisticated reading comprehension skills and strategies’ (ACT, 2006: 7). The report concludes that the issue is more about the quality than the quantity of reading, not how much students are assigned but in what ways they are engaged with the texts. The US National Center on Education and the Economy (2013: 2) also finds a ‘disconnect’ between reading demands in high school and college: ‘[R]eading for in-depth subject matter comprehension is not formally taught in our high schools and the reading that is required more often than not demands little more than searching for basic facts as opposed to trying to make sense of complex or conflicting ideas or both’. Students do better when they know, for example, why they have been assigned a particular reading and how they should respond. Hoeft (2012) reports that only 46% of the first-year students she surveyed claim to actually finish reading assignments, and of those, only 55% showed comprehension of the material when tested. The overwhelming advice that Hoeft receives from students themselves about how to ensure students do the work? ‘Quiz us’. In a follow-up study, the researcher does find better compliance and comprehension when regular quizzes are incorporated into class work. Even if needing to take a quiz counts as external motivation, compared to the more-desired internal motivation, students do seem to respond. As mentioned earlier in relation to the findings of Cox (2009), time and motivation issues might also stem from students’ lack of good reading strategies: not knowing how to process prose with unfamiliar lexical bundles and complex syntax. It is possible that with a better understanding of academic English and how it works to further the arguments made in texts, reading skills can improve, students can approach reading more efficiently and the task can be less frustrating to students, more relevant and perhaps even more enjoyable.

Awareness of expectations Another factor cited in the literature as a predictor of college success is the type of expectations that students hold about college. ‘Expectations are

28

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

of fundamental importance to adjustment, because our expectations about events often influence how we feel about and understand events, and how we choose to respond to them’ (Jackson et al., 2000: 2101). When academic English is associated with invisible criteria, though, students do not know what is expected of them linguistically. Zajacova et al. (2005), investigating the predictors of college adjustment, find a positive relationship between college success and both a low level of stress and a high sense of self-efficacy on the part of the student. The researchers also report that while high school grades are strongly related to college grades (in contradiction to the weak link found by Popovic and Green [2012]), grades in high school are only weakly related to the likelihood of actually staying in college, suggesting that one reason for students dropping out of college (and, of course, there are several) is a discrepancy in expectations, even for those who excelled in high school. It could well be that the old habits of mind and linguistic expectations do not necessarily work at the college level. Understanding oneself as a learner seems to be beneficial. In a study of college readiness among students with learning disabilities, a population with generally low completion rates, Milsom and Dietz (2009) find that the two greatest aids to academic improvement are knowing when to ask for help and an awareness of one’s own learning issues: in other words, knowing how one learns and knowing how to increase one’s learning opportunities. Snyder et al. (2002) discuss the need for students to go beyond self-efficacy and awareness to hope: having a sense of agency, control and a say in their own goals. The researchers report that a sense of hope benefits students across all four years of college, but they warn that such optimism needs to be present in the first-year or else students fall too far behind, too quickly. As we’ve seen, many researchers see college as demanding more than new reading and writing skills; higher education demands that students work in a new type of discourse, with a new type of literacy. This constitutes a different involvement with language that requires engagement in a particular culture, with its own ideals, values, beliefs and attitudes, the uses of which are agreed upon by members of that culture (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Gee (1992, 2005) makes a distinction between small-d discourse and big-D Discourse. The latter entails more than just language and its context; it includes the way that ideas and values are expressed through language. Another way to see Discourse is as a medium or vehicle that allows the communication to take place (Flowerdew, 2013). Davison (2011: 180) sees it as being ‘greater than language and incorporat[ing] beliefs, values, ways of thinking, of behaving’ besides ways of using language. Rarely is this

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

29

expectation overtly explained to students. And we have already seen that invisible criteria neither help us teach nor offer any aid to our students.

Role of Language in College by Modalities Academic English is crucial to students across language modalities. Increasing the challenge that students face, however, is the fact that the form of English considered academic can also vary by modality. Academic speech can be more informal in its structure, function and style than academic writing, for example (Swales, 2001). We also find differences in the language used in textbooks and in journal articles compared to classroom discussion, and so on. If we look closely at the four modalities of language (writing, reading, speaking and listening), we find language at the core of many academic activities. •

• • •

Writing at the academic level includes the effective use of disciplinaryspecific vocabulary, a balance of concrete and abstract prose, the appropriate level of formality, work with complex syntax, organization of long papers and the ability to revise drafts. Reading at the college level includes reading scholarly articles, textbooks, primary sources, handouts, course syllabi, multiple drafts of one’s own papers and those in peer editing groups and one’s own notes. Speaking (oral communication skills) includes asking and answering questions, participating in class discussion, giving oral presentations and communicating one-on-one in conferences and during office hours. Listening (spoken language comprehension) includes listening to and comprehending lectures, teachers’ questions, overall class discussions, conferences with peers, tutors and professors and discussions in professors’ office hours.

It is worth looking at variations in language usage across these modalities. Biber et al. (2004: 374) investigate similarities and differences across spoken and written academic English, specifically classroom teaching and textbooks, ‘arguably the two most important registers in the academic lives of university students. However, we know surprisingly little about the language of these registers’. Among the linguistic devices they examine are lexical bundles, those combinations of words that often co-occur. Biber and colleagues find that the academic prose in most classroom teaching consists of either noun phrases (e.g. the nature of the X) or concurrent prepositional phrases (e.g. as a

30

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

result of X). These findings contrast with the linguistic traits of textbooks, which tend to use fuller expressions, with more full clauses. Some think of academic writing as impersonal, but is it? Hyland and Tse (2004) and Biber (2006a, 2006b) look at something called stance, writerattitude that can be conveyed by a range of discourse devices. Biber (2006b: 98) finds that academic writers also make frequent use of hedges, devices that can be used ‘to express tentativeness and possibility’. Hedges can be found in the choice of certain modal verbs, as in ‘I would like you to…’ instead of ‘I want you to…’ and in other linguistic devices that soften tone: ‘kind of’, ‘sort of’ and ‘perhaps’. Stance expressions are uncommon in university textbooks compared to spoken university registers, textbooks being a genre in which the author rarely imposes himself or herself on readers. One genre that seems to allow for more author personality via stance is the academic book review. Tse and Hyland (2008: 1238) find that reviews contain some distinguishing discourse markers when compared to other genres such as research articles and dissertations, especially markers of engagement with readers: inclusive pronouns we and us, to establish ‘scholarly solidarity and communal understanding’ and hedges ‘to tone down the author’s judgmental authority’. We are still learning how academic English shifts across the modalities. The research continues.

Academic English by Discipline Another aspect of academic English is that it can vary by discipline. If we think about the American Psychological Association (APA) formatting of psychology, the Modern Language Association (MLA) formatting of the humanities and the Chicago Manual of Style used by those in political science, we can get an idea of the various norms that must be learned by students, norms that are ingrained in professors who have long been immersed in their fields. Hyland and Tse (2007: 236) say it is misguided to think that there is a ‘single literacy which university students need to acquire to participate in academic environments’. Disciplinary differences also need to be unpacked for students. Differences by discipline can go beyond formatting issues. Popovic and Green (2012) see the language differences in each academic field as reflecting different ways of thinking, different skills and norms. We educators need to be more aware ourselves of these differences. Being more overt with our students means that they are less likely to see the expectations and grading system of a professor as stemming from a random, esoteric or even vindictive system (Popovic & Green, 2012). In order to better convey language expectations to our students, teachers should be asking such questions as,

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

31

‘What counts as evidence in my discipline? How does my discipline construct an argument? What linguistic and stylistic norms exist when writing in my discipline? What really matters in my discipline?’ (Popovic & Green, 2012: 146). The sciences, for example, are said to demand a type of writing not necessarily desired in the humanities (Biber, 2006a; Hyland, 2009). Lin (2012: 85) says that to ‘learn science’, one is really learning the discourses of that discipline: being able to articulate, orally and written, ‘disciplinespecific ways of expressing/constructing scientific concepts and theories’. Hudson (2004) agrees that each subject has a distinct linguistic style, vocabulary and register, and that these must be learned – somehow – by students. Erickson et al. (2006) point to different subjects requiring not only different ways of reading the assigned texts but also different ways of taking notes in the classroom. One linguistic ‘norm’ that students often cite in frustration is the policy on usage of the first person pronoun. High school teachers apparently tell students to avoid the first person; students then study with a professor who wants to hear the students’ own voices coming through in their essays and welcomes the use of I. Let’s take this small linguistic example, the use of I in academic prose, and see how it plays out across disciplines. Hyland (2001: 217) finds that authors in the hard sciences use fewer first person pronouns, that they are ‘less explicitly present in their texts’ than authors in the soft sciences. Strachan (2002: 140) says that in philosophy texts, the writer tends to ‘summariz[e] and stays in the background’ and that in political science, a writer will refer ‘not to himself but to “the paper”’. Biology articles, although not written in the first person, have been found to include more citations of the author’s own works than do articles in other fields (Hyland & Tse, 2004), thus introducing an alternative way for the author to be present in the writing. Hyland (2001: 213) finds that ‘self mention might vary with different assumptions about the effects of authorial presence and rhetorical intrusion in different knowledge-making communities’ and that writers across different fields have different ways of establishing authority and expertise. And we have already seen such devices as stance and hedges being used as a way to manipulate the ‘personal’ element in academic writing. Because ‘the kinds of writing skills required in different academic disciplines vary immensely’ (Cox, 2009: 147), students need to get up to speed immediately. Yet, first-year composition courses usually do not teach writing for specific disciplines. Many academics, says Carter (2007), wrongly think that writing is a skill that can easily apply across disciplines, and we fail to see where there are similarities and differences across subject areas. Bartholomae (1993: 20) thinks that the basic skills writing courses should teach the disciplinary differences, that it would be

32

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

wrong to ‘ignore the role of the introductory writing course in preparing students to negotiate the full range of expectations in the university […] including linguistic convention’. Lea and Street (1998) talk about the ‘course switching’ required of students, whereby they are burdened with having to learn to write appropriately for each different course they are taking in the same semester. The feedback that students receive on essays in anthropology compared to history, for example, can seem contradictory to them, and students are left in doubt about what constitutes an ‘appropriate’ response. Disciplinary language differences are not hard and fast, however. Within a discipline, students also need to learn a professor’s personal preferences. One person’s norms might well contradict another’s expectations. In fact, someone in my field recently told me that she steers her students away from constructions such as The author of this paper says, preferring the ‘more correct’ The author writes (or explains or argues). I am perfectly fine with an author saying and, in fact, I use the verb throughout this book. What is a student who has us both as professors to do? It helps to state our preferences upfront and recognize them as style choices.

A Caveat: Academic English and Standard English Earlier, we encountered the various labels attached to what this book calls academic English. One distinction that should be made at this point is between the nature of academic English and that of standard English. They are not synonymous. There is general agreement that standard English is the form expected in educated circles. (While linguists call standard English a dialect of the language, less descriptivist circles reserve ‘dialect’ for forms that deviate from standard structures and consider standard English the ‘correct’ form of the language.) Academic English, more associated with higher education, is a specialized type of standard English. It is based on fluency in standard English, and besides following standard grammar rules, academic English also employs particular conventions of use, narrative organizations and idiomatic expressions (Cox, 2009; Swales, 2001; Zwiers, 2007). The linguistics literature is full of much questioning of the supposed superiority of standard English. So too, many researchers interested in the social side of linguistics warn against blanket acceptance and transmission of a form of academic language that makes no room for student input, a form that mirrors and perpetuates a status quo (e.g. Dewey, 2012). Lindblom (2006: 94) uses the term ‘“standardized English,” instead of the more common (and

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

33

less precise) “Standard English,” as a reminder that the version of English that counts as correct in most English classes does so as a result of tradition and compliance, not as a result of any linguistic superiority of one version of English over another’ and calls for ‘an intelligent exploration of language’ rather than ‘an ill-formed fixation on correctness’ (Lindblom, 2006: 95). The US National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, 2002a) offers alternatives to the potentially objectionable term standard English, including edited written English and Language of Wider Communication. Other researchers believe in reframing the issue, for ourselves and our students. ‘Educators can and should teach standards, but precisely as historical, variable, and negotiable. This will help to demystify (and lessen confusion among students about) what these standards are, and will make students feel a greater sense of responsibility, as writers, for the writing practices they engage in’ (Horner et al., 2011: 311). Conversations can supplant the perception of English in the classroom as a static and homogeneous entity and thus replace what Horner (2001: 743) calls ‘damaging handbook grammarism’. Horner (2001: 754) further cautions educators against imposing ‘academic’ identities on students through unexamined acceptance of one form of English and to consider students’ agency in the educational process. He sees more benefit in a dialogue between teachers and students so that students get ‘to think through the dynamics and conditions of what makes such language practices accepted or not’. In Chapter 1, we saw the many obstacles that new college students face when attempting to master academic English. Some students bring standard English to class, a great advantage; others bring non-standard native dialects of English or foreign language influenced forms of English. And no one speaks academic English as his or her native language form. Among the obstacles all students face, however, is a lack of conversation in higher education about the true nature of academic English. Dickar (2004) is an exception. In her research and teaching, she asks her inner-city high school students, many African American English (AAE) speakers, what they think about standard English. Should they be required to speak standard English in the classroom? Dickar finds that student opinions vary. One student expresses concern that if he or she uses standard English, the teacher might think that the student has plagiarized. Dickar (2004: 74) discusses another student who equates Ebonics (the student’s label for AAE) with ‘reinforced racist stereotypes of Black people’. Other students say they would sound too white if they used standard English. In Dickar’s (2004: 77) words, ‘Standard English is represented [in these interviews] as the language of intelligence, pride, and dignity. By implication, Ebonics does not convey these qualities. In addition, many students perceive Ebonics as a language for

34

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

children, but not for adults’. In the classroom, say her students, one is talking to an adult and has to sound adult. ‘Most students acknowledged that the classroom is polyglot, that no single idiom prevailed. However, the teachers speak in Standard English, and the texts students read are in Standard English. Students are expected to use Standard English in their written work and were judged accordingly’ (Dickar, 2004: 78). Dickar also interviewed teachers at this high school and found that they, too, were conflicted about the language policies they imposed. Most teachers interviewed (17 teachers were) did not correct student speech for the most part, recognizing that language is linked to culture and to embarrass a student openly is to diminish the student and his or her culture. However, most teachers more readily corrected written work though even here the tendency was to focus on the most severe grammatical errors. Other teachers focused more on content than form. The variation among teachers, via à vis linguistic expectations and corrections, highlights how uncertain all participants were about the status of the classroom as either student or teacher space. (Dickar, 2004: 78) Dickar (2004: 79) calls for more sharing of expectations and says that ‘because language is about power, students need to become conscious of the ways they might control language’. Horner et al. (2011: 304) advocate for a translingual approach to teaching writing, one that ‘calls for more, not less, conscious and critical attention to how writers deploy diction, syntax, and style, as well as form, register, and media’. ‘Notions of the “standard English speaker” and “Standard Written English” are bankrupt concepts’ say Horner et al. (2011: 304), since we all speak several versions of the language. Students should understand that academic English varies, both across time and across different types of usage (genres). ‘Mastery of any single identified set of such practices is inappropriate insofar as it leads language learners to a false sense of stability of such practices and the finite character of language learning. Instead, we recognize that we are all language learners, and that learning language is necessarily continuous […] mastery must be redefined to include the ability of users to revise the language’ (Horner et al., 2011: 307). Here then is a new definition of fluency, one incorporating flexibility. Along these lines, Lu (1994) argues for more multicultural voices on college reading lists. That way, students can encounter dialectal variation

Examining Academic English: Form and Function

35

in published texts and work toward a greater sense of their own language rights instead of being fixated on what is correct and educated-sounding English. In ELL education, criticism has focused on the target form of English in lessons. Horner and Trimbur (2002: 620) believe that the ELL world teaches ‘a reified version of academic language at odds with its heterogeneity, fluctuating character, and negotiability’. They continue: If we grant that definitions of academic discourse and competence in it are arbitrary, then the notion of leading students through a fixed developmental sequence of stages of mastery of that language has to be rethought. While different writing courses may well appropriately focus on different aspects of all that goes into writing and different writing practices, recognition of the heterogeneity and fluctuating nature of writing, including what’s called academic writing, requires that we incorporate attention to such heterogeneity and fluctuation in how we design both individual writing courses and curricular programs […and …] requires that we reject denials of the legitimate place of students and their work in the academy, manifested in the refusal to grant academic credit for basic writing courses and the treatment of composition courses generally as, at best, preparatory to rather than an integral part of academic work. If we reject the reification of academic language and competence in it, we cannot use instances of students’ language to deny them academic citizenship. (Horner & Trimbur, 2002: 620) What should educators do, then? Lazere (1992) cautions that it is dangerous for teachers to belittle academic English, that failure to teach it to students who do not have social power disenfranchises them even more. ‘Students from upper-class backgrounds and attending elite colleges are more likely than those at working-class or non-elite middle-class colleges to have been socialized in academic English and the culture of critical discourse and to have acquired a sense of social power—that is, they are already adept in elaborated codes’ (Lazere, 1992: 17). Delpit (2006: 153) likewise says that educators do students a disservice by withholding these tools of cultural capital. ‘Status is […] maintained because dominant groups in a society apply frequent “tests” of fluency in the dominant discourses, often focused on its most superficial aspects—grammar, style, mechanics—so as to exclude from full participation those who are not born to positions of power’. Kolln (2006) says that

36

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

every student has the right to a language education. I believe it is the responsibility of English teachers to give students every opportunity to learn the vocabulary, the language, of literacy. In every other class in their schedule, they learn that discipline’s special vocabulary: the language of mathematics, of history, of biology, of soccer. (Kolln, 2006: 19) In other words, while it might feel revolutionary not to teach academic forms, as educators we should, and we should do so by framing the lessons to show the context of social power. What can educators do to facilitate students’ fluency in this discourse? The next chapter explores the notion that academic English needs to be negotiated, taught and learned, and that those in higher education need to gain a more thorough knowledge – a metaknowledge – of language. It also reviews successful cases of linguistics informing pedagogy. Chapter 3 will look more closely at a current movement at work in the primary, secondary and middle school grades, a movement finding educators and linguists teaming up to design a curriculum; a brief history of the arguments for and against the teaching of grammar; the lessons that can (and should) be applied to higher education; and the need to shift the discussion from grammar to a metaknowledge of language.

3 Linguistics and Pedagogy Chapter 3 expands on the argument that educators need a better grasp of how language is structured and works. It first reviews the movement in primary, middle and high schools that embraces a linguistics-infused pedagogy, providing data that support the argument that overt knowledge about language, engaging both teachers and students, enhances learning. The issue of language lessons in the lower grades calls up the specter of grammar. This chapter next offers a brief overview of the debate about overt grammar lessons, the so-called grammar wars, reviewing the pros and cons offered by scholars of whether grammar should be taught. The chapter shows that instead of the old-fashioned grammar drills, a larger overt knowledge about language, a metaknowledge, supplies a necessary tool for both teachers and students. So far, we have seen that, in many institutions and many classrooms, proficiency in academic English is judged by invisible criteria. Academic English is, nonetheless, necessary for college success. We have also seen that making the invisible visible, the hidden more transparent, can be beneficial to students. Academic English is not native to most students; it is rarely overtly taught; and it differs across modalities, disciplines and professors. Thus, students need to be negotiators, and they need to obtain a metaknowledge of language to assist them. If students understand the language, they then do not need to memorize or robotically apply rules that often make little sense to them. With metaknowledge, they gain a wider appreciation of language, can apply the knowledge in more instances and can reason through unfamiliar structures in reading and writing. Lea and Street (1998) see the task in front of students as one of figuring out how to adopt new literacies. Students need to find out what it means to be academically literate. They also need teachers who themselves are metalinguistically aware. Acquiring metaknowledge is ultimately necessary for both students and teachers. Lea and Street (1998) cite as an obstacle that students face the fact that we educators are not good at articulating what kind of writing we expect from students, giving feedback on papers that is vague (such as writing vague in the margin, without further explanation), especially when a student’s performance is not up to our standards. Even when guidelines are given ahead of time, the criteria tend to be too elusive to help students. Further, Lea and Street find that students rarely challenge their teachers’ 37

38

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

feedback comments, comments that are notable for sounding very imperative, assertive and authoritative. Those in education, with teachers in the lead, need to be able to ‘both describe the [language] varieties they encounter and to make explicit the criteria for judgments [… with] closer attention being paid to the varieties of genres and styles that are called upon in different disciplines and at different stages of academic work’ (Leung & Street, 2012a: xiii). When educators don’t have the language to discuss language, we cannot discuss the writing process with students, we cannot have those useful types of metadiscussions. We often fall back on familiar territory to convey to students what is ‘wrong’. The results include a ‘pathologizing’ of students’ writing, so that it seems to be a skills problem as opposed to a communication problem; we compensate for lack of informed feedback by focusing on grammar or spelling, texting and student motivation; and we blame other instructors: those in high school or those teaching first-year composition. Fortunately, work has begun that bypasses blame with information, a movement that infuses linguistics into pedagogy.

Linguistics in Primary, Middle and Secondary Education Answering the challenge of Jackendoff (2007), linguists are making their way out of isolated college programs and into primary, middle and secondary schools, working with teachers to train them in linguistic principles and to design lessons rich in metaknowledge about language. In books such as Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2011) and Linguistics at School: Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education (Denham & Lobeck, 2010), linguists encourage K-12 (kindergarten through the end of high school) educators to be more aware of language diversity in the student population and to incorporate linguistics into lessons so that students also gain language awareness. (See also Adger et al., 2007; Cameron, 2007; Dunn & Lindblom, 2011; and Lobeck & Denham, 2014.) We do our students a disservice, say these authors, by failing to understand dialect and accent differences, and failing to distinguish linguistic variation from errors in grammar and pronunciation. We also miss learning opportunities when we do not show students the workings of language or guide them to their own metaknowledge, to their own control and informed decision making. Jackendoff (2007) has been working to bridge the gap between linguistics and education. His group of linguists trains teachers in grades K-12 to

Linguistics and Pedagogy

39

develop lesson plans for the classroom, and Jackendoff considers linguistics foundational to all types of other learning: ‘[P]rojects like this are the most important thing a linguist can do with his or her life’, and he ‘challenge[s] readers to go out and find their own way to contribute’ (Jackendoff, 2007: 261). Some of the pioneering work in this bridge-building is reviewed below. Charity Hudley and Mallinson (2011) report on work they conduct, training teachers in K-12 classrooms to be more responsive to dialectal differences in their students’ home languages. They focus on two non-standard dialects of English: African American English (AAE) and southern US English. Their aim is for ‘all students to attain academic success’ and better overall communication skills by ensuring that both teachers and students possess the language awareness that leads to ‘knowledge about and respect for linguistic and cultural diversity’ (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2011: xvii). Yes, students need to know how to speak and write in standardized English (their term, emphasizing that there is no one single standard English form), but it can be taught in a more informed and enlightened way than it has been in the past. Their work encompasses both coverage of the distinction between standard and non-standard English forms and pedagogical strategies that are appropriate across age groups and content areas. An example of their mission to replace subjective, often judgmental terms about students’ language use with linguistic knowledge is an explanation of a pronunciation process called consonant cluster reduction. (See Chapters 5 and 10 for more on this phonological process.) Students whose accents allow for certain clusters of consonants (blends) to be ‘reduced’ might pronounce the word desk as des. Teachers who lack linguistic knowledge might well label this as ‘lazy speech’ or ‘mumbling’, as opposed to seeing it – and explaining it to the student – as a rule-governed pattern. Even if the desired end result is the standard pronunciation desks, the journey to that end can be more informative and less stigmatizing and frustrating for non-standard-speaking students. Another example: In parts of the US South, politeness rules dictate that students address teachers with the honorifics sir and ma’am. Some younger teachers in other geographical locations have been known to bristle at receiving these politeness markers (Charity Hudley & Mallinson, 2011). Having the conversation about why one uses these forms, and potential reactions to their use and to the users, circumvents resentment and confusion. Adger et al. (2007), an acknowledged inspiration for Charity Hudley and Mallinson, have been promoting the linguistics–pedagogy connection for some time. Their work focuses on a range of American English dialects, including the English spoken in Appalachia. Denham and Lobeck (2010) work with teachers-in-training in the K-12 curriculum in the Pacific

40

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

Northwest of the USA, as well as undergraduates at the university level in English departments. This team stresses the interdisciplinary strengths of linguistics and its opportunities to foster a grounding in scientific inquiry in students at the pre-college level. Denham and Lobeck also encourage collegelevel programs to see the benefits of engaging with linguistics departments, exploring the benefits of collaboration. Other researchers are also making the linguistics–pedagogy connection. After all, the linguistic demands of schooling are great even early on. Zwiers (2008: xiv) points to the end of primary school (in the USA, fifth grade) as the time when students first encounter an academic language that varies by content area, and argues that teachers need to help students move into these different ‘communities of practice’. Zipke (2008) designs lessons for middle school students to raise their metalinguistic awareness. Her focus is on the many common words of English that are ambiguous, i.e. they have two or more possible meanings. Zipke’s sixth and seventh graders show gains in reading comprehension after just two hours of lessons focused on homonyms, riddles and ambiguities. ‘Brief training in [metalinguistic] skills is enough to increase students’ sensitivity to the vast possibilities of our language […and…] helps students recognize the need to monitor their comprehension and ultimately to better comprehend what they read’ (Zipke, 2008: 136). Students (and teachers) can have what one of my own students called a ‘morpiphany’ by suddenly seeing words within words (month is a lunar [moon!] cycle, for example) – seeing familiar roots in complex words. Kieffer and Lesaux (2012) also work with both non-native and native English-speaking middle school students to develop explicit awareness of roots, prefixes and suffixes (morphology). They see morphology as a level of language that conveys both meaning and grammatical function and that contributes to mastery of academic English in both reading and writing assignments. Kieffer and Lesaux call their intervention Academic Language Instruction for All Students (ALIAS). The researchers find that not only does explicit instruction (embedded in authentic lessons) aid students, but that some teachers in their study themselves have to be taught the derivational suffix system of English, e.g. endings such as –tion convert verbs into nouns. For instructors to benefit from research-based pedagogy, we need to understand in a more sophisticated way the structure and functions of the linguistic system of our language. Stanford (2006) and Berger (2006) also work in middle schools. Stanford (2006: 60) sees student problems with reading assignments as connected to ignorance of ‘genre-specific grammatical complexity’; students start to encounter grammatical constructions that ‘are common conventions in fiction writing [but...] are rarely used in conversations, television, or other

Linguistics and Pedagogy

41

genres most students are exposed to outside of school’ (Stanford, 2006: 61). They ‘miss important cues’ and ‘may need direct instruction in these grammatical elements and how to use them to make meaning’ (Stanford, 2006: 61). In other words, students need to develop metacognition so that they can identify and utilize such devices as organizational discourse markers. For example, the word however signals a turn in an argument; thus marks a summing up of points. Berger (2006) believes in setting monthly grammar goals. ‘While students can learn grammatical structures and terms in one year, we have discovered that learning to express ideas with complex structures requires at least two years’ (Berger, 2006: 53). Students and teachers need to share a grammatical vocabulary. With this knowledge, ‘I can communicate with [my students] about their sentences. I can read first drafts and suggest, “Combine with an appositive” or “Use an adverb clause to suggest relationship” or “There’s a problem with this participle”’ (Berger, 2006: 58). Berger continues, ‘We, as teachers of writing, need not apologize for using a meaningful nomenclature’ (Berger, 2006: 58). Brown (2009), Wheeler and Swords (2006), Wilde (2012) and others employ code-switching as a way to teach standard English and academic writing in lower grades with populations that speak non-standard English forms as their home dialects. For example, Wilde successfully uses lessons with eighth graders whose native dialect is AAE in which the class compares such forms as (standard English) There’s a pencil in the drawer and (AAE) It’s a pencil in the drawer (Wilde, 2012: 75). For the ask/aks alternation, she gives students the sociolinguistic history of the verb from earlier in the English language. Wheeler, in fact, talks about reaching teachers in grades K-16, acknowledging the continuum of education through the college years. In her forward to Brown (2009: ix), Wheeler says that ‘linguists have remained largely sequestered in their universities, not venturing out into the applied world of teaching real students in real classrooms’. The field seems a natural partner for education. Says Brown, ‘If students can become more aware of the linguistic choices they already make, if their inchoate knowledge of English grammar can become more conscious and intentional, their emerging awareness can be applied to the kinds of choice and tasks called for in academic writing’ (Brown, 2009: xi). Of course, teachers need that knowledge, too, and a pedagogical resource exists in linguistics. In the English language learner (ELL) classroom, Schleppegrell (2013) reports on the use of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to train teachers from the second grade through the fifth grade levels in the USA so that they can move their students toward a more overt meta-awareness of how language works: how to connect form to meaning, how to make more informed

42

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

choices in one’s own language use and in processing texts, how to abstract from the particular and how to vary language by register. Such work aims very directly at assisting students to deal successfully with academic English (Schleppegrell, 2012). The explicit focus on language goes beyond learning the names for parts of speech; terminology is joined with the way meaning is formed, conveyed and received. Schleppegrell (2013: 158) says that ‘[l]earning to use new metalanguage is a skill in itself that needs to be taught […and…] situated in instructional contexts’ across content areas. The fact is, though, that many teachers themselves need to learn this metaknowledge, so Schleppegrell and her colleagues develop lessons and materials for teachers and their students to learn together to see language in a new way. (See also French [2010] for a review of systemic functional grammar in the classroom.) The issues covered so far in this book raise the following question: Is this call for more overt discussion of language demands, a need for a metaknowledge of language, also a call for the return of traditional grammar instruction? Metaknowledge, after all, does entail understanding the grammar of language. The word grammar seems to provoke much controversy. The last 40 years have seen researchers arguing for and against a full endorsement of grammar in the curriculum. The controversy surrounding grammar instruction is relevant to the discussion at hand and is worth exploring.

Brief Review of the Grammar Wars In an often-cited 1984 meta-analysis of studies looking at ways to improve student writing, Hillocks finds overt grammar instruction to be ineffective, and even counterproductive, at least in terms of developing writing skills: The study of traditional school grammar (i.e. the definition of parts of speech, the parsing of sentences, etc.) has no effect on raising the quality of student writing. Every other focus of instruction examined in this review is stronger. Taught in certain ways, grammar and punctuation instruction has a deleterious effect on student writing. In some studies a heavy emphasis on mechanics and usage (e.g. marking every error) results in significant losses in overall quality. School boards, administrators, and teachers who impose the systematic study of traditional school grammar on their students over lengthy periods of time in the name of teaching writing do them a gross disservice that should not be tolerated by anyone concerned with the effective teaching of good writing. (italics added) (Hillocks, 1984: 160)

Linguistics and Pedagogy

43

The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, 1985) in the USA issued a position statement the following year supporting Hillocks’ findings: ‘[T]he teaching of grammar in isolation does not lead to improvement in students’ speaking and writing, and that in fact, it hinders development of students’ oral and written language’. Another landmark paper came out that year. Hartwell’s (1985) ‘Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar’ argues against the teaching of grammar in isolation. It even discourages the teaching of the grammars being uncovered by the field of linguistics, for such rules are complex and ‘simply unusable for native speakers’ (Hartwell, 1985: 116). More than 20 years later, Wyse (2006: 34) agrees that ‘overall the evidence to support detailed, explicit grammar study as a means to improve writing is very weak’. The old-style, traditional grammar lesson, the type that has been dubbed ‘drill and kill’, does not seem to help students with writing skills or with critical thinking and problem solving. Such instruction fails to tap higher-order thinking, say Smagorinsky et al. (2007). Grammar, though, in all of these studies is not being totally dismissed. Researchers and educators mainly advocate instead for a grammar-incontext approach. ‘Teachers concerned with teaching standard usage and typographical conventions should teach them in the context of real writing problems’, says Hillocks (1984: 160). Grammar should be taught in contexts that are meaningful to students. Educators are advised to ‘[t]each grammar and usage in the context of student writing [;] rather than insisting on a single “standard” version of English, encourage generative approaches to language study such as sentence combining, view students’ own linguistic knowledge and practices (including those believed to be non-standard) as resources to build on in language study, and in general advocate attention to how speakers and writers use language for communicative purposes in social contexts based on cultural knowledge and practices’ (Smagorinsky et al., 2007: 82–83; see also Weaver, 1996). In his meta-analysis, Hillocks (1984: 160) finds that the most effective pedagogical method seems to be one in which the ‘instructor plans and uses activities that result in high levels of student interaction concerning particular problems parallel to those they encounter in certain kinds of writing’ as well as ‘structured problem-solving activities, with clear objectives, planned to enable students to deal with similar problems in composing’. Sentence combining, for example, is recommended, because such an activity allows students to manipulate syntax in well-defined ways. Paraskevas (2006) believes that apprenticeship into grammar should always be presented in the context of reading and writing; years of research have made it clear that

44

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

grammar taught in isolation does not contribute to the writing skills of students. Yet, it is also clear from various articles and books recently published that thoughtful grammar instruction can lead to better, more effective writing if it is done in the context of reading and writing, with an eye toward connecting grammar to rhetorical and stylistic effects. (Paraskevas, 2006: 65) This is especially true with a focus on grammatical structures that students tend to encounter exclusively in academic genres. A 2002 guideline statement from the NCTE about grammar says in the first paragraph that ‘[g]rammar is important because it is the language that makes it possible for us to talk about language’ and that ‘knowing about grammar [as opposed to knowing grammar] offers a window into the human mind and into our amazingly complex mental capacity’ (NCTE, 2002a). This more recent statement sees grammar in a much more positive light than did the NCTE’s 1985 position statement. In fact, pro-grammar statements have become bolder in the last decade, with more emphasis on metaknowledge and control. The pendulum is swinging back toward more overt knowledge about language, in a more mindful way, so that students can move from passively mimicking standard conventions and toward co-constructing the academic discourse. The president of the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar (ATEG) in the USA, Amy Benjamin, gives in her recent keynote address several reasons to teach and study grammar, among them the fact that the acquisition of metaknowledge amounts to being handed an owner’s manual for our brains: ‘Learning grammar helps you understand how your brain learns through patterns, names, and core principles of complex systems’ (Benjamin, 2012: viii). As Benjamin put it a few years earlier, ‘I believe we should teach grammar because learning grammar makes you think, and thinking makes you smarter’ (Benjamin & Oliva, 2007: vii). Benjamin is calling for a focus on what she and Oliva label linguistic grammar, a type of knowledge about language that leaves room for acknowledging language’s fluid, social implications and variety. Benjamin and Oliva (2007: xv) say that students actually ‘develop a new mental schema for understanding what the English language is made of and how it works’. Further, grammar knowledge ‘facilitates the ability to learn other knowledge’ (Benjamin & Oliva, 2007: 4). They also champion the teaching of linguistic terminology, so that students can ‘notice, name, apply’ their knowledge about language to their academic work (Benjamin & Oliva, 2007: 7). Other benefits to learning grammar and seeing how sentences pattern, say Benjamin and Oliva (2007: 48), include better ‘understanding of punctuation, sentence completeness, stylistic fragments,

Linguistics and Pedagogy

45

sentence variety, parallel structure, and the effects of placement of elements on meaning. It serves as a framework on which to organize all the details’. Ehrenworth and Vinton (2005: 31) see grammar as part of inquiry-based instruction, a knowledge base with benefits that go beyond writing competence: students engage in ‘inquiry; thinking; the forming and testing of hypotheses; the development of responsibility; the ability to reflect on and articulate what has been learned; and the ability to transfer knowledge and understanding from one situation to another’.

Grammar Controversy Remains There are still detractors who argue against infusing the curriculum, at any level, with grammar. And there are obstacles to overcome. One obstacle is that for the past 30 years, many teachers have not themselves received an education in grammar. Myhill (2005: 90) says that ‘novice teachers struggle to simultaneously understand linguistic terminology themselves and to teach it effectively’. There exists another obstacle to more overt grammar instruction found in a climate antithetical to terminology. Trying not to return to ‘drill and kill’ lessons, those educators who are pro-grammar sometimes still downplay the linguistic details (e.g. Calderonello et al., 2003). Questioning such resistance to a metavocabulary informed by modern linguistics, Andrews (2006: 32) asks us to ‘imagine the public outcry if science or geography teachers used facts, definitions, or concepts from the 19th-century knowledge base’. Our language knowledge base has grown immensely thanks to advances in linguistics. He adds, ‘To omit grammar study from the classroom would be as unprofessionally irresponsible as teaching only grammar and no other aspects of language’ (Andrews, 2006: 33). Hudson (2004) sees many missed opportunities for linguistics to inform education and discusses the benefits of instructing teachers in linguistic issues. In the meantime, many students rely on various grammar-checking software packages, which are considered erratic and unreliable (McGee & Ericsson, 2002; Vernon, 2000). McGee and Ericsson (2002: 459) give an example of the sentence Bill was left on the side of the road being ‘corrected’ by software to The side of the road left Bill, showing an over-zealous hunting down of supposed passive constructions. Or students rely on grammar handbooks, guides that not only change over time but can also contradict one another. Zuber and Reed (1993: 518), writing about grammar and usage handbooks, question what is ‘correct’: ‘Too often handbooks promote rules of standardization outside the students’ linguistic experience’, and the researchers see the guides as overly concerned with conserving the language.

46

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

Instead, handbooks should ‘contain rules that [are] responsive to the variety and growth in a language’ (Zuber & Reed, 1993: 527). On the bright side, Benjamin and Oliva (2007) contend that students want to learn grammar and consider it a resource. Some detractors are unmoved. In a study of schools in the Netherlands, where overt grammar instruction is common, van Gelderen (2006: 48) finds that linguistic reflection as a means to a useful end is not substantiated by research and that some rules of grammar ‘only specialised linguists can explain’. His argument is that it is both possible to not know the rule and make no error, as well as to know the rule and make an error. It is also possible that students become very adept at metalinguistic tasks, for example, judging the grammaticality of a sentence, but that the knowledge does not translate to correct forms in their own writing. In terms of teaching knowledge about word and sentence grammar, ‘instruction in explicit rules and meta-linguistic terminology has a very limited effect on students’ skills […] it would be advisable if a more rational choice were being made between time-consuming, explicit rule learning and implicit alternatives’ (van Gelderen, 2006: 51). The situation, then, is this: ‘Whether there is any value in teaching explicit knowledge of grammar has been and remains today one of the most controversial issues in teaching grammar’, says Ellis (2006: 96). It is ironic, says Lu (1994: 446), that higher education both assumes mastery of grammar and usage and then ‘assigns teachers trained to deal with such “problems” to the periphery’, such as writing tutors and part-time instructors, but not professors. Mullin (1995) sees educators as somewhat two-faced. They tell students who are entering college that grammatical knowledge is developmental, something that they should have learned already. However, they are also guilty of ‘downplaying’ grammar’s importance by not teaching it and ‘relegating grammar to handbooks’ (Miller, 1995: 109). Baron (2003) believes that grammar is indeed essential to a college education, but when he looks at the high school English curriculum, he finds that grammar is marginalized, seen as unimportant. He also cautions against relying on grammar as a cure-all for writing weaknesses. Both Mullin and Baron call on the teaching profession to take a fresh look at grammar. Others are concerned that grammar lessons reinforce the reification of standard English. (See also ‘A Caveat’ in Chapter 2.) Today’s ‘emphasis on form and standards brings back pressures to conform to a single linguistic standard. How ironic or predictable that at a time when more and more immigrants and more and more poor people are elbowing their way into higher education that the pressures on them to conform to “Standard Written English” are greater than ever. Grammar—that many-headed Hydra slain

Linguistics and Pedagogy

47

repeatedly by a century of research—is back with a vengeance in schools’ (Pradl, in Pradl & Mayher, 2004: 16–17). Mayher continues: Even otherwise quite progressive English teachers in training are willing once again to shoulder the burdens of the language police. We do so for benign reasons, of course, in our effort to make the playing field more level for those who were raised outside the linguistic mainstream. And we recognize that the pressures of the high-stakes tests that will determine promotion and graduation in many if not all of the soon to be Unitized States demand such linguistic conformity. Teaching prescriptive grammar, however, is not likely to work now any better than it ever has to accomplish these homogenizing ends. How can we get our colleagues to see that it is in fact doubly ineffective since it not only fails to deliver on its promise of help, but actually hurts children’s chances of achieving writing and reading competence because it’s robbing curricular time from real writing and reading experiences? (Mayher, in Pradl & Mayher, 2004: 17) If educators do not teach prescriptive grammar, i.e. the traditional rules of structure and usage, what is the alternative? Here is where we return to the larger body of knowledge called metaknowledge.

From Grammar to Metaknowledge of Language Metaknowledge allows us to work with grammar as a way to heighten thinking skills. Hudson and Walmsley (2005) argue for the teaching of explicit language lessons, knowledge that, once established, can help students become self-learners. The goal, they say, is acquisition of active, critical knowledge. Cazden (2008: 163) sees metaknowledge as an advanced form of learning, for ‘only when you have to explain an idea to someone else successfully do you realise just what you do and do not understand’. Hyland (2001: 224) puts it this way: ‘Academic writers have rhetorical options […] and the effects of manipulating these options suggest that there are considerable advantages for our students in being aware of them’. We need to reframe the issue so that it is not about grammar – and whether to teach it or not – but instead about a better understanding of language: how it is structured and how it works. Janks (2005: 109) explains the difference as one of teaching grammar as connected to form versus grammar as connected to meaning: ‘Where grammar for grammar’s sake may be boring, meaning is not’. Findings from the field of linguistics can inform this pedagogy. We’ve seen the calls for educators to work with more than their intuition about

48

Part 1: The Role of Academic English in Higher Education

language, to see language from metalevels (Jackendoff, 2007). Understanding how language works, then, does not mean sitting through the traditional, oldfashioned type of grammar lessons. Language is more than grammar, and even grammar can be understood in more meaningful ways, as a description of the rules our intuition relies on to determine if a sentence ‘sounds right’ or not. Citing the ubiquitous belief that teaching grammar is only ‘okay’ in context, Myhill (2005) calls for more discussion about what the practice of ‘grammar in context’ actually means. She says that what is missing in such lessons is the why of learning language knowledge such as parts of speech, how this knowledge helps students form mental connections and formal schemata. Educators need to explain to students that ‘linguistic choices can affect how meaning is shaped through form’ (Myhill, 2005: 87). Students need both declarative knowledge (knowing about grammar) and procedural knowledge (how to use it appropriately). In a more recent article, Myhill (2011: 75) explains that ‘[i]n essence, the professional debate divides those who see no place for grammar, because of no demonstrable impact on students’ learning, from those who believe that knowledge about language in its own right has a role in a language curriculum’. Budden et al. (2002) also believe that we need to redefine what teaching grammar entails: [I]f you help students understand how to use language appropriately for their specific writing situation, how to make editing an integral but not stifling part of their writing process, and how to understand the way language works in our society, then you are teaching ‘grammar’. (Budden et al., 2002: 83) Metaknowledge is considered a type of power, says Gee (1992: 117), ‘because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing. Such metaknowledge can make “maladapted” students smarter than “adapted” ones’. This metaknowledge is especially useful for those new to the academic culture. Writing about the demands of standard English in school success, Delpit (2006: 24) explains the situation this way: ‘If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier’. Since the language of academia ‘is not native to any community’ (Canagarajah, 2006: 593), students (and educators) need to toggle between forms of English in ‘rhetorically strategic ways’ (Canagarajah, 2006: 598). It helps that all dialects and forms of English deep down share the same grammar. ‘The different varieties of English still belong to the same grammatical system […] from this point of view, speakers don’t have to be experts in another variety of English in order to speak to other communities. They simply need the metalinguistic,

Linguistics and Pedagogy

49

sociolinguistic, and attitudinal preparedness to negotiate differences even as they use their own dialects’ (Canagarajah, 2006: 593). Not just adopting the power dialect, but having a metaview on it as well, is extremely beneficial. Once teachers gain heightened awareness of language – metaknowledge – we can use it to enlighten our students. Dunn and Lindblom (2011) have designed lesson plans for teachers to direct students’ attention to the socalled ‘grammar rants’ of prescriptivists. Their premise is to make overt the underlying biases of certain forms, specifically in the grammar, by naming structures, deconstructing the common rants in the media about ‘poor English’ and gaining control of their own sense of the linguistic system of their language, with all its rules, exceptions and emotional associations. Waring (2009), likewise, shows how the linguistic methodology aimed at the analysis of conversations can free up class time for students to ask more questions and initiate more turns. With such awareness, both teachers and students enhance the learning opportunities in the classroom. (See Chapter 1 for more on turn-taking in the classroom.) The time is right to look anew at the language of the classroom, with a focus on higher education, to examine the forms of English that college demands. Part 2 offers guidance for both teachers and students to take advantage of a metavocabulary and fuller overt awareness of language. I’ll end this chapter with a range of voices calling for more linguist–educator collaborations. From Hudson and Walmsley (2005: 24): ‘Linguists thus have an opportunity here to think more deeply about the input they can usefully provide on educational issues […and] we believe that the time has come to review what linguists can contribute to the study of English at all levels, not only in [linguistics] courses at university’. From Zwiers (2008: xv): ‘[T]eachers need more practical awareness of the language that is what I call the lifeblood of learning in all classes’; ‘[A]ll teachers should become what I call practical educational linguists. We must know about the basic inner workings of language in our discipline and put this knowledge into practice in our classrooms’ (Zwiers, 2008: xvi). From Benjamin and Oliva (2007: 25–26): ‘[A]ll English teachers [should] reflect on their own language prejudices […E]fforts to eradicate language prejudice through education about dialect must be in the forefront of the English teacher’s sensibility, even as we teach the conventions of Standard English’. From Danzak et al. (2012: 267): ‘All teachers, regardless of the grade level or content area they teach, should have sufficient knowledge about language—including academic English language […] to assist all students to comprehend and produce academic discourse and content’.

Part 2 The Linguistic Conversations

Part 1 reviewed the scholarly literature on academic English and argued that a closer collaboration between linguistics and education – a more linguistically informed teacher and student – is a step toward more effective teaching and learning. It also called for more communication about language and expectations in higher education. Part 2 now shows readers how such metaknowledge about language can be applied to the classroom. It starts with Chapter 4 laying the foundation for the information conveyed in the following conversations by covering the pertinent principles of linguistic markedness, formality and style. Chapters 5 through 11 supply the linguistic conversations. They review the common questions about language asked by teachers and students, organized by the linguistic structure under discussion. These questions and concerns of those in college come from three sources: (1) my 25 years as a linguist and educator, often in settings where very few teachers had training in linguistics; (2) interviews I have conducted over the last two years with almost two dozen students, graduates, professors and administrators on the nature of academic language (for the film The Three Rs; see Appendix for YouTube links); and (3) a series of focus groups, held in the spring of 2013, in which separate groups of students and professors, across disciplines, discussed the language demands of college, both parties raising concerns, sharing frustrations and revealing a desire for more linguistic information and context. (Most questions are paraphrased for conciseness.) The conversations are organized around the standard levels of language. Readers first encounter issues of word formation (morphology; Chapter 5), then word meaning (semantics; Chapter 6), followed by grammatical markers (morphosyntax; Chapter 7), grammar and punctuation (syntax; Chapter 8), narrative structure (discourse; Chapter 9), pronunciation (phonology; Chapter 10) and voice quality and speech melody (prosody; Chapter 11). Each chapter first defines the relevant linguistic terminology. At the end of

51

52

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

each chapter, readers find a discussion of how the four language modalities (writing, reading, speaking and listening skills) connect to each language area. Finally, readers are guided to related study sheets in Part 3. Starting with Part 2 and throughout Part 3, words in boldface are defined in the glossary at the end of the book.

4 Introducing the Conversations: Linguistic Principles Standard and Non-standard/Linguistic Markedness There are several guiding principles in the discipline of linguistics. One principle crucial to this discussion is that all language forms (accents and dialects) within a language family are regular, rule-governed and equally capable of conveying any idea or thought. This, of course, is not the usual view in the world of education, which privileges the standard dialect of a language. (In fact, this book argues that educators need to guide students to mastery of a particular form of language, academic English, albeit with a caveat about the ‘superiority’ of one type of dialect over another.) Standard English is a dialect of the language, a language form that varies in a systematic, rule-governed way from other forms of this language family. A dialect varies in more than accent, which is the way a speaker pronounces his or her phonemes (consonants and vowels) and uses prosody (melody). Dialects also involve variation in semantics (vocabulary) and syntax (grammar). Linguists say that all dialects in a language family vary systematically from one another. The more popular view is that standard English is the correct form, and all other forms are dialects, deviating from the standard. The linguistic way to think about standard English is that it is one of many dialects, albeit the expected dialect in educated circles. Instead of labeling forms of English right and wrong, linguistics uses the terms standard and non-standard. Standard English contains many forms that are considered linguistically unmarked. That is, they are perceived as the norm by mainstream speech groups, considered the correct structure or pronunciation. Forms that do garner negative critiques are termed linguistically marked. Marked forms tend to be labeled by mainstream speakers as poor or bad English and are stigmatized. As an example given in Chapter 3, the pronunciation ask is the unmarked form of the verb and aks the marked form. Grammatically, a double negative construction would be marked, as 53

54

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

would the conjugation in She don’t. The concept of markedness exists at several levels of language. In semantics, for example, if I said I went to a female doctor, that expression is marked, i.e. it deviates from the normal form without a modifier. While not a stigmatizing form, female doctor conveys the message that the default semantic value of a doctor is male. There are also marked and unmarked speech sounds. This book considers markedness as any structure that ‘gets noticed’ because it does not fit the neutral case. Situations also exist in which both (or all) variations of a form are relatively equal. The word often (with the ‘t’ pronounced) tends to sit alongside often (without the ‘t’ pronounced) somewhat equivalently, both for the most part being considered correct. The issue of degrees of markedness shows that language is in flux, with some forms becoming less marked over time, such as the construction none are. It also calls into question whether a student’s grammatical or other type of linguistic ‘mistake’ is really a mistake. As we’ve seen in Part 1, and will see in the conversations, students might use grammar differently from their teachers but in ways that are grammatical and well formed to the students themselves, due to a recent change in the language. Dialects that vary when compared to the standard are non-standard, containing many marked forms. While no overt judgment is meant by the +/– standard dichotomy, some linguists have pointed out that the modifier ‘non’, in opposition to standard, implies substandard and have expressed concerns with these labels (e.g. Adger et al., 2007; Lippi-Green, 2012). Some prefer terms like vernacular and colloquial English instead. Is academic English the same as standard English? Some linguists would say academic English is its own dialect. Others would call it a subset of the standard, a register. (See also A Caveat in Chapter 2.) A register is a form of language that varies by use in particular domains. Registers include the language of medicine, law, sports, religion and yes, even academia. Of course, there are many commonalities among dialects and registers.

Formality and style No matter the dialect someone is using, she or he still has a choice to be more or less formal within that dialect. Formality is a matter of linguistic style. When a speaker is informal, her or his choice of vocabulary, pronunciation, syntax and even discourse organization and prosodic elements might be very different from a situation in which that person is being formal. An informal style is usually followed when we phone a loved one, where we might not even identify ourselves: just a Hi, it’s me suffices to start the

Introducing the Conversations: Linguistic Principles

55

conversation. A business call might find the speaker using extensive introductions, asking after someone’s health and then moving onto business. Academic English tends to be not only more standard and contain more unmarked forms, but also more formal than non-standard forms and even more formal than standard forms used for other purposes. In other words, a speaker or writer of standard English can still move along the style continuum to the less formal end when communicating with friends and family, and to the very formal end when, for example, giving a speech or presentation. In academia, though, there is much less movement away from the formal style.

Units of language We employ many different units of language at once when we speak or write. When we construct a sentence, we are choosing grammatical structures, selecting vocabulary items, pronouncing speech sounds, ordering all these units into a certain structure and varying our tone of voice simultaneously. It helps, though, when studying language as a science to deconstruct language into smaller units. These different units, or levels, do not correspond to different degrees of sophistication or even to the age at which children acquire them; but they are useful as a way to analyze language. Chapters 5 through 11, which follow in this part, discuss units of language in an order that moves from words (formation and meaning) to grammar and discourse, and then onto the oral qualities of language: accent (speech sounds) and melody of speech (prosody). Some chapters relate to both spoken and written language; others are just related to speech. All levels ultimately have an impact on a student’s abilities to master academic English in the four modalities of language: speech, writing, listening and speaking. Each conversation starts with a short passage defining relevant terms. It then covers the top five to seven questions that college students and educators frequently ask me about how language works, and the linguistic answers to those questions. The questions in the rest of Part 2 come from my many years as a professor in undergraduate institutions; they also come from interviews and focus groups I have recently conducted with teachers, students, new college graduates and administrators about their experiences with, and assumptions about, college-level English. Each chapter ends with a short paragraph explaining how the linguistic information covered relates to skills in all language modalities; and it guides readers to pertinent study sheets, found in Part 3, that model ways to convey to students metaknowledge of language.

56

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

In addition, the lesson plans (also to be found on http://www. multilingual-matters.com/textbooks.asp.) can be paired with the chapters that follow in these suggested ways: Lesson 1 focusing on how word meaning changes, as well as Lesson 2 on slang terms, work well with the conversations in Chapters 5 and 6 on Word Formation and Word Meaning. Lesson 3, which examines the influence of texting on literacy, can be linked to Chapters 7 and 8 on Grammatical Markers, Grammar and Punctuation. The material in Lesson 4 on conversational patterns and Lesson 5 on gender issues in language use can be connected to Chapter 9 on Narrative Structure and Discourse. Lesson 6 on foreign language accents and Lesson 7 on regional accents is associated with Chapter 10 on Pronunciation. Finally, Lesson 8 on the phonatory phenomenon called vocal fry, as well as Lesson 9 on the so-called ‘gay voice’ and its components, relate to Chapter 11 on Voice Quality and Speech Melody.

5 Word Formation/Morphology This chapter covers non-standard forms of words, suffixes that convey meaning and grammatical information, morphologically related words, acronyms, shifting parts of speech and new word coinage.

Morphology Morphology is the study of how words are formed: what smaller pieces go together, and in what order. Those pieces are not syllables or consonants or vowels. They are units of meaning called morphemes. A word can be analyzed in terms of its morphological structure. In English, for example, roots (the substantial, content-conveying part of the word) can take prefixes and suffixes. If I describe my favorite denim jacket as ‘pre-washed’, I have used a morphologically complex word, with a prefix (pre), root (wash) and suffix (ed). English is also more suffix-heavy than prefix-heavy, in that a word can have several suffixes (e.g. likelihood, friendliness) but rarely several prefixes. Further, grammatical information – tense markers, and indicators of plurality and possession – tends to be placed on the ends of words in English. When new words are formed, or used in a new way – such as party (the noun) becoming party (the verb) – a morphological process has been employed. Thus, morphology also covers word coinage. We now turn to the conversations related to issues of word formation/ morphology. Question from Teacher: Why do students say conversate? Why don’t they use converse? Question from Student: My teacher told me I use words that don’t exist. But I hear them used all the time. Am I wrong? Linguistic Context: English offers us many linguistic variants. Among pairs like converse and conversate, one form is usually considered acceptable or normal (linguistically unmarked) and the other unusual or even stigmatizing (linguistically marked). What is going on in this example relates to a word formation process called backformation, whereby a new word is formed by deleting a suffix or another smaller part from an existing word, usually in the final syllable. The words conversate and 57

58

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

converse originate from conversation and are derived through the backformation process. The form converse happens to be considered standard, part of standard English. Both converse and conversate are products of the same morphological process, but the former is viewed as correct (in linguistic terms, unmarked) and the latter as slang or even wrong – linguistically marked. It is important to be aware of the impact of using a marked backformation, given the negative reaction it might receive in academic venues. Teachers and students benefit from such a conversation, discussing which backformations are considered acceptable in academic English. By the way, backformation is a different linguistic process from abbreviation (also called clipping). While the word application can be abbreviated to app, for example, the two words mean about the same thing. Backformation, however, creates new words, often with different parts of speech. (Study Sheet A lists some common backformations in current usage. It is helpful to track changes in acceptability of these evolving forms.) Question from Teacher: I’m baffled when students use the wrong ending for a word; for example, they might write linguistic or linguistics for linguists, as in linguistics believe. Do they just ignore suffixes? Question from Student: Why are some words just so complex? All those endings make the words seem unnecessarily difficult. I know communication, but communicative? Systematic, but systematicity? Linguistic Context: Words in English often change their part of speech due to added suffixes. The type of suffix that alters the meaning of a word, usually also changing the part of speech, is called a derivational morpheme. A derivational morpheme functions to derive a new word from the stem to which it attaches. Linguist, linguistic and linguistics all share the root ling, meaning tongue/language. Students who are encountering any form of this word for the first time might be thrown by the multiple derivations: Linguist is a singular noun/person Linguistic is an adjective Linguistics is a noun/the field of study Related words with different derivational morphemes are more often than not derived from roots that students already know. Take the word communicative. In linguistics courses, we talk about communication and people communicating. In my own classes, when I get to the concept of ‘communicative competence’, students become nervous about the phrase sounding too complex.

Word Formation/Morphology

59

Here is where understanding what suffixes (and prefixes) do in English helps to process new vocabulary. The –ion ending in communication denotes a noun; the –ive ending in communicative signals that the word is an adjective. The root stays the same in this derivational family, and thus the meanings are related. Communicative competence is the competence (ability) of communicating effectively in one’s society (especially related to pragmatic behavior). One of my colleagues recently published a book about the commoditized notion of motherhood in Western culture. Commoditize: to design as products for sale. The more familiar term commodity helps students process the less familiar derivation, whereby the suffix –ize creates a verb from a noun. This is not to say that academic vocabulary is easy. A term that used to throw me as a student was historicity. Here, the derived term does have a special, separate meaning from the more familiar history. Both are nouns, but historicity means being part of a history that has been recorded (as opposed to being a legend). Similarly, presentism is a philosophical view that only what is in the present really exists or is valued, a meaning distinct from simply ‘in the present’. Derived words are also more likely to be found in writing that is formal in style, such as academic texts, and less so in speech. Systematicity, for example, having the quality of regularity, is being flagged by my computer’s spell checker, perhaps attesting to its limited domain. It is also a word I find myself using only in teaching. We can help students to sort out the problem of ‘complex words’ by explaining the functions of derivational morphemes and the benefits of root-spotting. An issue related to morphological endings on words has to do with how they are pronounced. Sometimes, the addition of a suffix creates a consonant cluster, two or more consonants in a row (we see this in the plural linguists). For some accent groups, certain consonant blends result in a cluster reduction through the deletion of one consonant, so the plural form might be pronounced without the overt plural marker, e.g. two linguist. The plural suffix, although not a derivational ending, is compromised. (Plurals are inflectional markers; see Chapter 10 for more on inflections.) As I was revising this book, I encountered the following constructions in a few student papers: many speech pathologist and two text that the class read. In each, a plural –s is omitted from a word ending with a consonant cluster. (See Chapters 3 and 10 for more on cluster reduction.) It helps to think linguistically when encountering morphologically related terms. Research shows that learning these terms, especially those used in academia, should not be left to incidental exposure to such vocabulary. Students benefit from recognizing Greek and Latin roots, the origins of a majority of academic terms, as well as patterns of prefixes and suffixes. Such information can and should be overtly taught (Coxhead, 2000;

60

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Cummins, 2008). This linguistic knowledge helps with spelling, as well. The semantic distinction between the homophones incite and insight, for example, is more evident when we recognize ‘sight’ in the latter word; this then helps students remember the correct spelling. (Study Sheet B lists useful prefixes and suffixes that derive complex words.) Question from Student: Why do teachers always blame texting for writing mistakes I make? They think all I know how to do is use abbreviations. Question from Teacher: Why do students rely on acronyms so much? It must be all that texting ruining their writing skills. Linguistic Context: Let’s first define some terms. An acronym is a word formed from the initials of a sequence of words. ASAP, pronounced as a two-syllable word A-SAP, for example, comes from the fuller expression As Soon As Possible. Sometimes the acronym isn’t pronounced as a full word but is instead pronounced as the sequence of initials, as in FBI, CIA and many texting terms (BTW, LMK). These words are called initialisms (although some linguists will group both types together as acronyms). Then there are acronyms that do not cleanly derive from initials. UNICEF, for example, is an acronym formed from the letters of the phrase United Nations Children’s Fund. In fact, the original name did fit the acronym – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund – but the organization’s name was later shortened (and the acronym stayed the same). Some acronyms are retrofitted so that they are sure to form an appropriate word. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) chose an acronym that highlights the organization’s mission. (Crovitz [2011] calls these types of acronyms backronyms.) Sometimes, acronyms and initialisms go right to word status and lose their morphological transparency, so we find people redundantly referring to ATM machines (the M is for machine) and SAT tests (the T is for test). When we blame texting for all these shorthand terms, we might not realize that this word formation process is very old and does not originate in the new technology of texting. In fact, several established words that have entered the English lexicon started as acronyms, such as laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation), radar (radio detection and ranging) and scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus), and were always in use as acronyms. Teachers believe that students are being lazy, sloppy or inappropriate when they bring what seem informal linguistic devices to a writing task. Understanding that acronyms and initialisms themselves are not bad, uneducated or wrong is the first step for

Word Formation/Morphology

61

both students and teachers to sort out the appropriate venue for the creative use of more recently coined terms. Ironically, acronyms and initialisms are actually commonplace in academic writing because they allow the condensed information for which academic English is noted (Zwiers, 2008). In my field, we have VOT and MLU, two measures of speech and language (voice onset time and mean length of utterance). In my research for this book, I came across a text that used five acronyms in three pages: EAL (English as an Additional/Second Language), ELT (English Language Teaching), CLIL (Content-Language Integrated Language Teaching), EFL (English as a Foreign Language) and ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) (Leung & Street, 2012b: 1–3). This book is too short to list all the acronyms a college student encounters, even in a single discipline. Some acronyms, it seems, are better than others. Recent books on texting by linguists (e.g. Baron, 2008; Crystal, 2008) actually praise the new phenomenon of texting. (See also John McWhorter’s TED talk, listed in the Appendix and Chapter 8 for discussion of texting and grammar.) In fact, texting is seen as a pretty sophisticated linguistic feat, one requiring some language-savvy to pull off. It might be easier, though, for teachers to blame texting for students’ errors that they are unsure how to deal with themselves. Acronyms and initialisms are also found to be less frequent in the average text than you might expect: Crystal (2008) estimates about 6% of total words. Further, acronyms and initialisms come and go, but they do not signal the death of literacy; we seem to have survived the use of abbreviations (Mr, Mrs and Dr), nicknames (Sam, Jen and Rich) and other clippings in good health. (Study Sheet L lists common texting features besides acronyms and allows readers to survey their own use of these devices in various types of writing.) Question from Student: Can a word be both a noun and a verb? Question from Teacher: If students use disrespect as a verb, is it that they don’t understand the parts of speech? Linguistic Context: What part of speech is any particular word? The answer is more complex than many realize. Words have been changing their parts of speech for a long time; it is not a sign of sloppiness or laziness on the part of the user. When a word changes its function without altering its shape, linguists say it is undergoing a conversion. The word disrespect was solely a noun for a long time. Its conversion so that it can function as a verb has become widely acceptable, although not necessarily by all teachers. Of course, there is a bit of asymmetry here that conversion has righted: respect is both a noun and a verb, so why not disrespect?

62

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

English has many words that function as both nouns and verbs (e.g. mail, cook). Get as a noun (That was a good get from Federer) is accepted in a narrower way, such as in sports commentary. I have heard the verb key (Now key in the code) when perhaps I would have used type or punch. RSVP seems to be more acceptable as a noun than when it is marked as a verb (as in I RSVP’ed already). A series of ‘gotcha’ emails went around my college when a dean asked people to RSVP to an invitation. Most of those in my department, however, saw nothing wrong with the word being used as a verb. I mentioned this exchange to my students, and a woman from France reminded us that RSVP, being shorthand for Répondez s’il vous plaît, or Respond please, already has an action quality. A similar gotcha moment happened when a professor innocently reported that a teaching assistant would be TA-ing in the spring; she was informed that the noun could not be used in verb form. The linguistically conservative think the word fun should be used only as a noun, while others (most of us?) are fine with it being used as an adjective, as in We had a fun time. Note, however, that one party being funner than another is not (yet?) acceptable to most people. The take-away (!) is that conversion happens and that new structures either do not always catch on or they take time to be accepted. Students are better equipped when they have an understanding of which conversions are more linguistically marked, especially for an academic audience. And certainly, in day-to-day communication, we tend not to be confused by all this noun/verb versatility. An interesting study by Sereno and Jongman (1995) found that words like design, which could function as both nouns and verbs without any changes in pronunciation, are actually distinguished by the way that speakers pronounce each meaning: the noun forms tend to be produced with longer and louder initial syllables and the verb forms with longer and louder second syllables. The researchers believe that this pronunciation difference functions as an acoustic cue to aid listener comprehension and lessen the chance of confusion. Finally, not quite a conversion issue, but some nouns that traditionally do not take a plural (called mass nouns) are shifting so it is more common to find them pluralized. A very accepted case of this is for someone to order two coffees (instead of cups of coffee). (Study Sheet C lists some common conversions. How many of them are acceptable in current usage for you?) Question from Student: I hear people use words like ‘guestimate or ginormous’, but I bet I’d get points off if I used one of those words in an essay. How do I know when a new word is legitimate?

Word Formation/Morphology

63

Linguistic Context: Once upon a time, there were no brunches, motels or smog. Words like brunch were formed by blending existing words: breakfast + lunch; motor + hotel became motel; and smoke + fog (unfortunately) gave us smog. Blending was the morphological process at work, and it is still around; hence the term guestimate (guess blended with estimate) or ginormous (giant with enormous). (Blends are sometimes called ‘portmanteau words’: two words packing themselves into one.) It’s difficult to tell which blends will have staying power. In the 1990s, a restaurant in Manhattan sold broasted chicken (I think they meant broiled + roasted, but I was never sure). Google’s NGram tells me that broasted peaked in the first half of the 1990s and that its current usage is way down. The word does have its own Wikipedia entry, however. Actor Ben Affleck and whichever Jennifer he was dating at the time were referred to in the tabloids as Bennifer, a usage that I am sure has been surpassed by another famous couple. (I wonder if anyone remembers from the 1970s the blend Woodstein, the combined nickname of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, reporters at the Washington Post who broke the Watergate scandal.) The newest blend I’ve seen is drunch (lunch that includes drinks). The concept of drunch has been around; now it has a name, but will the new term last? Blends that have not (or not yet) been accepted into mainstream English will rarely pass muster in academic venues. Then again, my colleagues are always guestimating something or other at meetings, and facing ginormous tasks back at their desks, so who knows! We thus shouldn’t be too fast to fault our students for their own use of blends. Chapter links to language modalities Word formation issues bear on both speaking and writing abilities. In addition, when a student fails to grasp the change in meaning caused by the addition of a grammatical morpheme or fails to differentiate a noun from an adjective form, for example, reading comprehension and listening skills can also be affected. Knowing the root of a word helps in all modalities; when we are able to see the relationship of a word to its wider word family, our language processing skills are enhanced. Associated sample study sheets in Part 3 A: Backformations B: Common Derivational Morphemes L: Texting Features C: Common Word Conversions

64

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lessons: Lesson 1: A discussion of the ways (and whys) of changes in word meaning. We start with criticism of the current use of literally and move from there to review meaning change processes. Lesson 2: A look at slang and the preconception that it has no place in writing.

6 Word Meaning/Semantics This chapter covers slang and jargon, gender-neutral language, mixed metaphors, changes in word meaning, synonyms, lexical bundles and changes in the English preposition system.

Semantics Often in an argument, one side might say, ‘Well, this is merely a matter of semantics’. To linguists, there is no ‘merely’ in terms of semantics, which is the study of the meaning of words or larger pieces of language. Differences of semantics do matter. For example, a friend and an ally might or might not be one and the same. (I always puzzle over archenemy vs. nemesis, and on silly days, vampires vs. zombies.) What words mean, which words are in the same semantic field, what are accurate synonyms or antonyms: such aspects of semantics can make a vast difference in communication. Semantics also looks at the way we play with language to create figures of speech such as metaphors and idioms. And if you sometimes feel confused about what the difference is between slang and jargon, look to semantics for the answer. Note that while morphology considers the formation of words from smaller units of meaning, semantics focuses on the meaning of the complete unit, be it a word, phrase, clause or sentence. Those linguists who study semantics also look at how words change meaning, both over time and across communities of users. Let’s move to the conversations about word meaning/semantics. Question from Student: I’m told by my teacher to stop using slang, but how is slang different from all these new terms we learn in class? Question from Teacher: How can I help students appropriately use the technical terminology of my discipline? Linguistic Context: What is the difference between slang and jargon? Both are types of specialized vocabulary. Slang is associated with an informal style of speaking and writing. Jargon is more likely to appear in venues that are professional and academic. In a way, then, slang and jargon are not that different; what they have most in common is that students are wary of using both. 65

66

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Another problem that students have with these types of words, and teachers have when trying to help, is that slang terms can become mainstream and more acceptable over time, so that what was slang a while ago might be mainstream now. Slang terms might also fade away or take on a dated quality, as with groovy. The word freshman is an interesting example. It started as a slang term, became part of the mainstream for a while, and is now being replaced with first-year student, most likely due to the older term’s male-centric connotation. The term co-ed (also spelled coed), for a female college student, seems not only dated but suggesting a secondary role for women in higher education; it is rarely used anymore. Another semantic problem for students is that the specific meaning of a word in a discipline might vary from the way it is used in non-specialist circles. For example, inflection in linguistics means a marker on a word that conveys grammatical information. Walked and went are both inflected forms, with the past tense marker (the former resulting in a regular form, the latter in an irregular form). For most people, inflection means the melody or tone of one’s voice. Linguists would use the terms intonation and prosody instead. Leamnson (1999) believes that students come to college with their own private vocabulary and need to separate out the ‘new’ academic meaning of many words they encounter. Sometimes these definitions have interesting origins. A student of mine a long time ago thought frugal meant delicious because of a cooking show on television called ‘The Frugal Gourmet’. Leamnson also suggests that as teachers, we should not simply give but lead our students to a definition, after supplying explanations and examples. If students can explain terms in their own words, they benefit much more than memorizing glossary entries. (Study Sheet D lists words that have more than one meaning, both a general use and a specialized meaning in academia.) Question from Teacher: When did women become guys? My students call everyone, even groups of women, you guys. Don’t they know that it’s sexist? Linguistic Context: Gender-neutral language gained attention in the 1970s, and most publishers today have guidelines for non-sexist usage. The National Council of Teachers of English (2002b) in the USA issued a position paper about gender-neutral use of language, aiming to promote equal treatment of both sexes by ‘influenc[ing] thought and behavior’. In the old days (in grammar and in reality), the world was male-centric, so we would talk about the man on the street and mankind. The generic student or teacher was referred to as he and him. Many are probably

Word Meaning/Semantics

67

comfortable today with either the more inclusive usage of he or she, him or her; she/he; or the plural they and their as pronouns functioning as the generic singular. Regarding the questions above, many people (not just students) have taken the neutralizing of gender a step further and redefined guy to mean a generic person, at least in the plural. So you guys is a common form of address for mixed and female-only groups. Some of this stems from the absence of a plural you in English. Users fill in gaps with such expressions as youse and y’all, and now you guys. Whether language change can indeed correct sexist thoughts and behaviors is still under debate. In the 1980s, various groups proposed to equalize the language with terms like herstory and wymen (Cameron, 1995, 2006). Nowadays, those words seem dated. However, we do find more genderneutral terms in common use, with server or wait staff for waiter and waitress, flight attendant for steward and stewardess and firefighter instead of fireman. As for pronouns, transgender groups are advocating for the acceptance of gender-neutral zie (instead of the he/she distinction) and hir (instead of the his/her distinction). Language will continue to change, sometimes ahead of society and sometimes playing catch up. Question from Teacher: What do I do with mixed metaphors that keep popping up in students’ writing? Linguistic Context: Mixed metaphors can be very creative, but when they are a product of an incomplete understanding of the expressions involved, they signal fuzzy thinking. Take this example from the website ‘Grammar Girl’: We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it. That construction might make sense in some scenarios (perhaps during an invasion), but the writer has conflated burn our bridges (leave nothing behind) with cross that bridge when we come to it (put off a decision until one cannot delay anymore). Metaphors (as well as similes and idioms) play with the semantics of a word. When I say to my sister, ‘You are a peach’, I don’t mean it literally. These are figures of speech and can be so instilled in us, in holistic forms, that we don’t always think about the individual words in the phrase and thus conflate them, i.e. we mix our metaphors. Let’s run it up the flagpole and see if it sticks or In the school of hard knocks, it’s not smooth sailing or to get the juices rolling are all examples of mixed metaphors. Metaphors can also be misused so that they convey the opposite of what is intended. If a difficult person is called a piece of cake, the speaker probably meant a piece of work. There are

68

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

also ambiguous metaphors. When something is all downhill from here, the ensuing situation could be positive (easy) or negative (unraveling); tossing out an idea could be inclusive or dismissive. Incorrect use of metaphors signals a holistic and incomplete processing of the individual words used. On the other hand, idioms are figures of speech that are indeed processed holistically, as opposed to on a word-byword basis. It’s raining cats and dogs, for example, does not refer literally to felines and canines. We are also not able to play around with the wording: It’s raining dogs and cats just won’t do. Finally, there are subtle cultural differences residing in idioms. An unlikely event isn’t on the cards in the UK and isn’t in the cards in the USA. (See Chapters 1, 2 and 10 for more on idioms.) The message is that metaphors should be used carefully and deliberately to enhance our message and not as fillers or clichés. Question from Teacher: Why do students sometimes misuse very common words? For example, unique means one of a kind, not the way my students use it: something being very unique. Linguistic Context: Word meaning evolves. Over the centuries, some English words have even flipped 180 degrees and now mean the opposite of what they used to convey. Calling someone nice, for example, used to be an insult (meaning foolish, although in certain instances, the word still works as a subtle insult). While there are ‘dictionary definitions’ of words, even those entries change over time when usage changes. The question about unique highlights a current semantic change. More and more, people are using this word to mean unusual. As such, it can take a modifier, as in something being very or quite unique. Older folks, and those conservative types, still see unique as meaning ‘one of a kind’. The semantic change seen in unique is not alone. When someone tells me that she will be with me momentarily, I know she means in a short time, but I also know the older meaning of the word is for a short time (not necessarily the intended message). Once language users are aware of a meaning in flux, they can adapt. Still, there might be a reason to keep the original meaning of a word if it is used in a specific way in one’s discipline. The mathematical meaning of random is not the same as the current use, meaning arbitrary or spontaneous (e.g. I have a random question). When I conducted psycholinguistic experiments, I would pseudorandomize the stimuli, that is, depend on a computer algorithm to scramble the items but then comb through the lists to smooth out awkward juxtapositions. Traditionalists will say that presently is not the same as currently (the former meaning ‘soon to occur’ not ‘at the moment’). If enough people use presently to mean ‘at present’, though,

Word Meaning/Semantics

69

and enough receivers of that message understand the intended meaning, linguists would say we have an evolution on our hands. Semantics can cause confusion for students in other ways besides when meanings change. Sometimes the meaning of a word’s root can be deceptive (we saw this in Chapter 5 with historicity). Take the word fulsome. If we are tuned into morphological roots, we see ful[l]. The word, however, has a specialized meaning of full: full of excessive praise, to the point of irritation. Toothsome doesn’t mean showing a lot of teeth; it means delicious. Noisome has to do with offensive odors, not noise. (Chapter 5 offers a fuller discussion of morphology.) Such words pose problems for students trying to adopt new vocabulary. Faculty too: I have heard my peers use fulsome non-traditionally. And as I said above, enough ‘errors’ might eventually lead to linguistic changes. We all have our pet peeves, though. The distinction between eager and anxious, one I happen to value, is disappearing. I am anxious to read the report might mean that the speaker is looking forward to the report (eager), nervous about the report (anxious) or a combination of the two. The sentence as it stands is ambiguous. We should all ‘own’ our linguistic preferences and convey them to our students as such. Another problem for students can be found with similar-looking and sounding words. The pair site and cite are easily confused, so that students might in error write that they are siting (or even sighting) a reference, as opposed to using citing from citation. With semantics, we also need to keep in mind the distinction between denotation and connotation. Translators wrestle with this one. Boldt and Roncero (2010) write about translating the phrase apple pie into Spanish. The dictionary definition (denotation) is easy enough to translate; the symbolic or emotional meaning (connotation), here related to America and old-fashioned values, is harder to translate. Connotations can be difficult to translate across cultures. It helps to keep in mind the fact that words have multiple (and shades of) meanings. Question from Student: I am told that I repeat myself too much in my writing, so I started using a thesaurus. How come I now get ‘awkward’ on my papers? Question from Teacher: Students sometimes use ‘big words’ in their essays that make no sense in the context. I get a lot of heretofore. Why would they write that way but not say it? Linguistic Context: I wrote for my college newspaper, and we always had a well-worn thesaurus lying around the staffroom. If the editor saw any of us rifling through it, though, she would warn us, ‘You know, the thesaurus is not your friend’. Her comment stayed with me, somewhat unexplained, until I learned in an early linguistics course that there are

70

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

no true synonyms. (See also Chapter 9 for discussion of the deliberate repetition.) Words can be in the same semantic ‘ballpark’, but substitutions among items in an entry from a thesaurus are not all equivalent and, if used as equivalents, can create some strange constructions. Let’s take as an example a student writing an essay arguing that taxes should be lowered. He wants to avoid using the verb to lower over and over again in the same paper, so he looks in Roget’s Thesaurus and finds the verb under the entry for decrease. He also finds diminish, lessen, abridge, shorten, ease, ebb, wane and mitigate. While all these verbs have the same general sense as lower, they are not interchangeable. Abridge has to do with length, mitigate with circumstances, ebb usually with tides and energy levels. If the student, though, does not have these words in his own vocabulary, they will all seem suitable synonyms. How would a thesaurus user be steered away from awkward substitutions? Understanding the nature of semantic value allows users to choose more deliberately. We wouldn’t say that someone is drinking peanuts or reading the wind (unless in a metaphorical sense). Why not? The semantic value associated with a word sets certain conditions that have to be in place to use that word appropriately. These conditions are called selectional restrictions. To drink tends to require an object that is liquid; and one reads something visual (usually also linguistic, but it could be a facial expression or a look in one’s eyes). There are also differences within English, of course: the British clean their teeth and hire cars; the Americans brush their teeth and rent cars. A problem related to students’ overuse of the thesaurus is their trying to sound too academic in writing and speaking. Academics seem to be good at using well-worn phrases, collections of words called lexical bundles or word bundles (also called collocations). (See Chapter 2 for more on lexical bundles.) These expressions are useful to know. Biber (2006a) identifies such set expressions as Let’s have a look at and Based on the evidence so far as common in academic discourse. The most frequent bundle in a study of academic English by Hyland (2008) is in order to. Zwiers (2008) cites It can be observed that as a frequent bundle and calls such structures academic idioms. College students have to learn to use these expressions accurately. Sometimes, though, over-reliance on formulaic structures leads to clichés or redundancies. For example, with young girl, is there such a thing as an old girl? Or true facts: can there be false facts? And students who try to sound academic without a full grasp of the genre can wind up producing some bad imitations (hence the heretofore). I have had students enamored of the phrase to which and use it whether it actually works or not in a sentence,

Word Meaning/Semantics

71

e.g. People gravitate to the social groups to which they feel is most comfortable to them. One writer who tried to mimic the passive voice nature of science writing produced, ‘Speculation has been brought to the forefront about…’. Recently, a student wrote in a summary of a journal article, There showed to be no significant differences, conflating proved to be with the research showed that. Another student tried to go beyond the pedestrian thus and used for these facts being said, an expression that would warrant an ‘awkward’ comment. Teachers tend to believe that a ‘fix’ of telling students to write the way they speak will lead to even more problems. However, it is far better to write in a style that sounds like us, than in a distortion of our voices. Our ideas come across more clearly that way. Question from Student: My teacher keeps correcting me when I say or write that something is based off of. What is wrong with that? I hear it all the time, and it seems fine to me. Linguistic Context: The prepositional phrase in the structure X is based off of Y is becoming more and more mainstream, less and less linguistically marked. As of this writing, I hear it and see it written all the time from my students and from my younger colleagues; my older colleagues dismiss the structure as just plain wrong. Based off of is an expression using a preposition in an idiomatic way. Literal prepositions such as on to convey location (on the table) and during to convey time (during the meeting) are relatively stable. The non-literal uses of prepositions, such as a movie being based on a Disneyland ride, are more susceptible to change, and many are in flux in today’s English. Besides based off of, other constructions my colleague Cindy Mercer and I have collected from essays written by native English-speaking students include have concerns to a problem, look forward for a vacation and the latest trends on fashion (Behrens & Mercer, 2007). We believe what is going on is a merging of analogous expressions. When a student uses based off of, or build off of, she or he might be merging based on with jump off of. And analogies to the new based off of are now appearing: we just encountered constructed off of. Other examples of prepositional change include: The government alerted them of the rising water, which is similar to The government warned them of Has the sole purpose for…, which is similar to reason for

72

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Bored of..., which is similar to tired of Due from…, which is similar to expected from These new, merged structures are a bit like mixed metaphors. And depending on where you live (linguistically), something can be different from, than or to (the first being the most linguistically unmarked construction). As for ‘remediation’, the first step is a better understanding of the change in the prepositions of English. From there, instructors must decide to what degree they want their students to adhere to the more standard wording, and how much new constructions are acceptable. In addition, teachers of English language learner (ELL) classes have a different job, for they are not so much pushing against a student’s sense of what sounds right but are instead introducing phrases that are similar to vocabulary words that must be memorized. (Study Sheet E lists some recent changes in the idiomatic use of prepositions. How many of these constructions have you encountered? How many sound ‘natural’ to you?) Chapter links to language modalities A solid grasp of vocabulary and figurative language is useful to a student’s academic writing and speaking skills, as well as to the ability to process lectures and comprehend college-level texts. Understanding frequent lexical bundles of academia, especially the ones common to particular disciplines, helps processing (both producing and reading) academic writing. Associated sample study sheets in Part 3 D: Jargon/Words with Special Meanings E: Idiomatic Use of Prepositions This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lessons: Lesson 1: A discussion of the ways (and whys) of changes in word meaning. We start with criticism of the current use of literally and move from there to review meaning change processes. Lesson 2: A look at slang and the preconception that it has no place in writing.

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 1: ‘The First Lesson, Literally’: Words Change Meaning

The Stereotype ‘I was literally glued to my seat.’ Were you really? ‘I was literally there at 9 am.’ Is there a figurative way to be somewhere at 9? No one uses literally correctly anymore!

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to • • •

Articulate the general criticism that arises when words change meaning, especially the word literally. Discuss the cited linguistic research on literally and other meaning changes via semantic processes. Discuss the nature of language change, as well as the general resistance to language change and variation.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom about the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics As the (mis)uses of the adverb literally pile up in the news, we take a moment to pause and ask, Is the word actually being used incorrectly or, instead, has the meaning shifted? In this lesson, we look at the meaning 73

74

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

of words, and how meaning can be mutable. Words do change meaning, and those changes are studied in an area of linguistics called semantics. Common types of semantic change include amelioration (shift to a more positive meaning, as in the change of nice, which used to be an insult), pejoration (shift to a more negative meaning, as in the change of silly, which was a compliment), narrowing of meaning (meats, which used to refer to any food), and widening of meaning (as in Hey you guys! for groups of men and women, or just women) (Litty et al., 2016). Sometimes, older and newer meanings exist simultaneously. Literally will be our example of such a situation.

The Linguistic Research Today, many self-proclaimed grammar purists hold to literally as meaning the opposite of figuratively. If you are literal, you are not using a figure of speech. (The glue in the example above is metaphorical, not real.) Criticisms arise when a user does not adhere to this strict binary distinction. In a review of the history of the word literally, Israel (2002) says, ‘At root, the words literal and literally are really about letters. The literal meaning of a word is the meaning inherent in its letters: it is the “plain” meaning of a text, opposed to “figurative” senses requiring a richer mode of interpretation’ (Israel, 2002: 424). Around the late 1600s, the word was used as a way for speakers to highlight the transparent nature of a statement. ‘Literally says, in effect, “I mean what I’m saying: to understand me correctly you need add nothing to the meaning of my words”’ (Israel, 2002: 425). How, then, are people using literally these days? Israel lists several current meanings of the word, such as a way to highlight the seriousness of what is being said, how apt or fortuitous is the wording, or how remarkable is the statement. McWhorter (2013) says literally is now being used to emphasize a point, even if it is a figurative one. Thus, saying ‘literally glued to my seat’ heightens the metaphor. In many instances, literally has become a synonym of really, as in I really like/believe in/endorse the statement I am making, be it literal or figurative (Israel, 2002). In a way, then, the word’s usage has gone back to its 17th century meaning, to show the sincerity of the speaker.

Advanced Linguistic Information: Linguistic Processing of Dual Meanings If a word has more than one meaning, does a listener become confused? Linguists have looked at how we decode words that have more than one meaning, especially polysemous (multiple, yet related meanings) and ambiguous (multiple, unrelated meanings) words. How much do we consider the context of a sentence when choosing a meaning?

Instructor Guidance Material 1 for Chapters 5 and 6

75

Giora’s (2002) research calls into question the very idea that a word has a binary, literal vs. figurative meaning. The researcher finds that we are less guided by whether a meaning is factual or play on words, and more by the saliency of the term, i.e. the familiarity or frequency of one meaning over another. Readers take longer with words when the intended meaning fits the context but is a less familiar meaning than when it is a familiar one. Thus, ‘salient meanings are activated initially, regardless of context or literality’ (Giora, 2002: 495). Take for example the ambiguous word bug; the meaning of crawly thing is more frequent (salient) in most people’s minds than bug the spying-upon device. So, when we hear or read the word, we supposedly first access the insect meaning of bug before the spy-technology meaning, even in a sentence about spying. Words with two or more meanings are useful in word play. For a pun to work, we need to recognize both meanings. ‘Love at first site’ (vs. sight) for an online dating service (Giora, 2002: 503) works because the word play activates both meanings of sight/site: a face-to-face meet-up and a web page. (One could try for a triple pun with a reference to cite, perhaps for an academic dating service.) ‘Our intuition, then, that literal and non-literal language involve different processes has not yet gained empirical support. Salience and functionality, however, seem better predictors of the differences and similarities found’ (Giora, 2002: 504). In other words, the stark literal/figurative divide might not hold, at least in terms of our mental processing. So should the distinction be upheld in our usage? Should we care that literally has spread its wings?

Conclusion/Going Forward Semantics, we find, is a system with flexibility. It might be worth stepping back from the attacks and questioning the criticism of literally, instead of nodding sagely and darkly that the word (or the English language) is being destroyed. Returning to Israel (2002): ‘[W]e may do well to pay attention to the strange and contradictory ways people use the word literally, for these may reveal a great deal about their common sense folk models of literal meaning’ (2002: 424). And about our language. And about ourselves.

Cross-referenced with Lesson 2 on Slang Extending and Customizing the Lesson Research other word meaning changes. •

Singular they was the American Dialect Society’s Word of the Year for 2015. LaScotte (2016), studying this use of they as singular and without

76

•

•

•

•

• •

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

gender reference, surveys usage by men and women in a range of age groups and finds a gender-inclusive approach (use of they instead of he or he/she) in 79% of subjects and in 68% of stimuli (2016: 76). Conduct some research on the history and current state of singular they. What patterns do you find historically? How accepting are your peers to this usage? Look at other Word of the Year lists from the past few decades. (Hint: dictionaries tend to run such competitions.) How many words do you recognize? How many have changed meaning since the year they were voted on? Litty et al. (2016) track the changes in meaning of three words: hotdog, tweak, and dope. Consider the term dope, for example, a word that can have more than one meaning even in the same conversation, a mainstream and a slang use. It can be used to refer to drugs, but only certain ones. Young people might use it as a positive adjective (something is dope); older people as a negative description (someone is a dope). Somehow, listeners keep all this straight. Look into this trio of words. What semantic changes have these words undergone? How does each compare to the criticisms leveled at literally? Listen to this National Public Radio interview with linguist John McWhorter about literally. What principles of linguistics is McWhorter citing to defend the change in meaning? http://www.npr. org/2017/01/10/509035454/why-its-literally-not-wrong-to-say-literally Consider the semantic changes undergone by nice, silly, meat, and guys. Trace each word and discuss what semantic process was involved in its shifts in meaning. Think about more current meanings, such as bad or sick to describe something good. Research the current usage of momentarily (does it mean in a moment or for a moment?) and presently (is it now or later?). What usage trends do you find? At least one linguist argues that the suffix ish is now its own word (Pierce, 2014). We have already seen prefixes promoted to word-status, as in the sentence ‘Re: the “dis”: Is your ex pro or con?’ And even prepositions (although the idiomatic ones, not those of time and locale) seem to be shifting around. Based off of vs. based on? Ask an 18 year-old and you might be surprised what sounds ‘natural’ (Behrens & Mercer, 2007). On the one hand, on the other sits alongside On one hand. Conduct some research into these changes, including interviews with peers and/or explorations in corpora (large data bases of language behavior). What else is changing?

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 2: ‘Slang Should Know its Place’

The Stereotype Slang is no longer confined to the edges of language; it has infected our students’ writing, where it has no rightful place existing.

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to… • • •

Articulate the popular impression of slang terms as incorrect language or of limited value. Discuss the linguistic views on the nature of slang. Discuss the nature of language change, as well as the general resistance to language change and variation.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics What is slang? How does it differ from mainstream language? According to linguists, slang is the vocabulary of informal language use. It can vary by region and age group and sometimes ethnicity of the speakers. Use of 77

78

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

slang can function to create inclusivity within a group; it can also function to exclude someone from group membership. Green (2016) calls slang ‘[a] linguistic form of secret handshakes’ (Green, 2016: 60). In popular parlance, the term ‘slang’ is sometimes used to refer to non-standard language forms in general, variation in pronunciation, grammar, not just lexical items. Yet, one can be a Standard English speaker and still use slang (as well as jargon, another type of special vocabulary more associated with professions and activities). Far from marginal for linguists, slang is seen as functioning in numerous ways in our lives, and naturally it is the focus of much research.

The Linguistic Research The general agreement in society is that slang is not ‘proper’ and in fact puts such proper speech in peril (Green, 2016). Recent US politicians have been criticized for language use. George W. Bush coined so-called Bushisms, such as misunderestimate and embetterment. Sarah Palin’s refudiate got a lot of bad press. More currently, we have had Donald Trump’s supposedly saying bigly (although he might have said big league). Complaints about use of not-real words, however, go way back. Critics in 1560 complained about the word accersited (it didn’t last) and dexterity (it did, and became mainstream) (Curzan, 2014: 96). Why are we so down on slang? Let’s wrestle with the fact that Shakespeare used upwards of 500 ‘non-standard terms’ in his writing, with plays being none the poorer for them (Green, 2016: 44). Crystal (2004) says Shakespeare created over two thousand new words (318). Somehow, the playwright’s ‘creativity escaped criticism at the time and in modern times’ (Curzan, 2014: 106). In his book dedicated to slang, Green (2016) discusses the uncertain origins of the term itself. Perhaps slang arose as a variant of sling (as in ‘to throw at someone’). Or maybe it began as shorthand for Secret LANGuage. We do know that slang worked well as a secret code used by criminals. While today slang is more ‘flippant, colourful, or irreverent’ (11), Green says that slang ‘continues to offend language purists’ (9). For many, if a word is in a dictionary, then it is legitimate. But what about a slang term? What traits must a word possess to be considered not a mainstream lexical item but instead slang? Lexicographers (dictionary compilers) have over time included such criteria as a word being informal, referring to something taboo, or alternatively functioning as a euphemistic way to avoid a taboo term or topic (Green, 2016). Curzan (2014) argues that slang terms should be considered real words since each ‘is a freestanding lexical unit that carries conventional meaning within a speech community’ (93). Stigma and suspicion still exist, though,

Instructor Guidance Material 2 for Chapters 5 and 6

79

surrounding words not found in a ‘regular’ dictionary: ‘Words not in dictionaries have a questionable status as words at best,’ says Curzan (2014: 94), and that ‘while speakers may still say a word that their dictionary does not endorse, as writers they may hesitate to write it down in any more formal contexts (especially if Microsoft Word does not recognize it)’ (106) (italics added). Some slang terms are recently coined, but more often, they are old words given new meaning. Further, they have unpredictable lifespans and trajectories. Some terms become mainstream (fan from fanatic), some remain with us but with the ‘slang’ designation still attached (kerfuffle, ginormous), and some die out or smack of an earlier time (groovy). On the whole, though, a language is never ‘free’ of slang, even in our writing: ‘[S]lang seems a part of all but the most formal writing’ (Green, 2016: 49). It is the flavoring we add to our language.

Advanced Linguistic Information Linguistics continues to study slang, both new and old terms. Slang is a window into human history, social membership, and even migration patterns. It also offers a glimpse into human cognition. Chrisomalis (2016), in a study looking at ‘indefinite hyperbolic numerals’ (e.g. umpteen), finds creativity in, and a long history to, such words. The Greeks had the term sand-hundred for a vast amount of something (2016: 6). In the 1870s, English had the regional term forty-leven (2016: 9) to mean pretty darn large numbers. These are slang terms of long ago, mind you, so slang goes back to pre-classical times. The usual word-formation processes we see in mainstream vocabulary are also in use for slang terms. For example, we have prefixing in McMansions; abbreviations in app, acronyms in bae and phat; and blends in hangry, fugly, and frenemy. Chrisomalis finds even more regularity, rule-governed behavior, to slang derivations. For example, jillion and zillion can be intensified by adding the prefixes ba-, ga- and ka-. (We could assume that no one would use gahundred.) And this is not just word play: bazillion in people’s minds seems to be consistently larger than zillion (2016: 25). So there exists both a linguistic regularity and psychological reality. Slang terms abound. Green’s database of slang words contains 130,000 terms. Urban Dictionary (an open source dictionary of slang) has approximately 7 million entries. Our families and friends have their own slang, in-jokes, references and words that keep us connected with shared knowledge. Some slang terms have been around for so long, or have been embraced so widely, that many people do not even consider them edgy anymore (cool and selfie are good examples).

80

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

If slang is temporary, fleeting, informal, or even impure, should slang be represented in dictionaries at all? ‘Slang dictionaries, one might suggest, are built upon an innate paradox: the lexicographer wishes to offer authority but is mining, displaying, and explaining a lexis the entire function of which is to challenge authority in every form’ (Green, 2016: 113). Curzan, a scholar of the history of the English language, says that ‘[i]n fact, contemporary dictionaries have become less prescriptive since the undertaking of the [Oxford English Dictionary] at the end of the nineteenth century’ (2014: 98). Now we have usage panels and labels to represent the degree of acceptability of a term. It follows that any usage should be represented in a dictionary.

Conclusion/Going Forward To return to the stereotype of this lesson, should slang ever appear in writing? To say that slang has no place in writing – or at least in academic writing – we need to question what the divide is between slang and academic jargon. The latter is a set of vocabulary shared by a speech community (such as linguists’ use of semantics and lexicography) to communicate. And this vocabulary is not only appropriate for writing, its usage is encouraged. Further, ‘[i]t is some time since slang was seen as alien to “quality literature” and some of the “best writers now use slang without hesitation, but the main sources are definitely non-canonical”’ (Green, 2016: 114). The line between speech and writing can be blurry (Elbow, 2002). Texting (along with IMing and email) is a hybrid of the two modalities. As technology continues to be integrated into teaching and learning, why not also the colloquial language? Especially since today’s slang might be tomorrow’s academic jargon, some question whether slang is now even a distinct category from colloquial speech or from standard speech? In fact, Urban Dictionary no longer calls itself a slang dictionary but instead ‘[a] veritable cornucopia of streetwise lingo, posted and defined by its readers’ (http://www.urbandictionary.com). Perhaps a better definition of ‘slang’ would be ‘that subset of English spoken in the context of certain themes, by certain people, in certain circumstances’ (Green, 2016: 122). Slang is, after all, useful.

Instructor Guidance Material 2 for Chapters 5 and 6

81

Cross-referenced with Lesson 1 on Word Meaning and Lesson 3 on Texting Extending and Customizing the Lesson • •

•

• • • •

Examine entries in Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com) and other slang websites. How many of these terms have you seen in print elsewhere? Consider the Dialect Society of America’s annual contest for Word of the Year. (http://www.americandialect.org/woty). Research the winners for the last 10 years. How many of those terms (as well as the runners-up) have now become mainstream, maintained (to you) a slang status, or disappeared from the language altogether? Each volume of the journal American Speech features a column titled ‘Among the New Words.’ Cf. Zimmer, Solomon, and Carson (2016). Consider the longevity of listed terms, and whether they have been accepted into mainstream usage or not. Look at rare English words on the website The Phrontistery (http:// phrontistery.info/clw.html). Why might a word die out? Research the history of the word okay. What are conflicting stories of its coinage? Do you consider the word to be slang? For a good comparison, do the same with the history of the words Google and cool. Research slang terms within regions but across other cultural boundaries. Be inspired by this collect of Jewish deli terms: https://firstwefeast.com/eat/2016/03/jewish-deli-slang-101 Read Reyes’ (2005) examination of Asian American youth appropriating African American slang. Discuss how complex the employment of slang can be for creating identity.

7 Grammatical Markers/ Morphosyntax This chapter covers pronoun forms, noun/pronoun connections, ambiguous pronouns, the –s suffix on verbs, apostrophe use, the copula verb and nominalizations.

Morphosyntax As mentioned in Chapter 5 (Word Formation/Morphology), English conveys a good deal of grammatical information through suffixes. The study of morphemes, then, intersects with the study of the syntax (grammatical structure) of the language, giving us a level of language called morphosyntax. The morphemes that convey grammatical information are called inflectional morphemes, for example plural –s, possessive –s and past tense –ed. Another issue of morphosyntax involves the pronoun distinction shown in he vs. him and in I vs. me. Both pairs of pronouns display a difference called case: the first in each pair is in the nominative case (functioning as a subject in a sentence) and the second in each pair is in the objective case, marked as an object. Different cases correspond to how a word functions grammatically in a sentence. Below are the conversations related to grammatical markers/ morphosyntax. Question from Teacher: Is the I/me pronoun distinction falling away? Students don’t seem to know the difference. And what is going on with the overuse of myself (as in Direct questions to Kim or myself )? This I hear from my colleagues. Linguistic Context: Pronouns are the only class of words in English that convey what is called case: a marking that signals whether a word functions as a subject or an object in the sentence, an object in a prepositional phrase or whether it signals possession (as in I/me/my). (Case signaling possession is also found on nouns, as in Bart’s.) In general, people tend to favor I over me, regardless of sentential context. This bias can be traced to a linguistic phenomenon called hypercorrection. 82

Grammatical Markers/Morphosyntax

83

When we are corrected enough over the years with the directive, ‘It is I, not me’, but without being supplied with reasons, the message becomes distorted. Many people thus believe that I is intrinsically better, and if asked to choose between Joy and I or Joy and me, they will choose the former construction, even though either could be grammatical depending on the full sentence context (e.g. Joy and I go to the store; The clerk helps Joy and me). Here’s the linguistic story. The pronoun I (which is in the nominative case – sometimes called the subjective case) is used when the word appears in the subject slot of a sentence (I saw someone); the pronoun me (which is in the objective case) is used when it is in the object slot of the sentence (Someone saw me) or after a preposition (Someone did something with me). This nominative/objective case distinction is also found in the pairs she/her, he/ him, they/them and we/us. The pronoun you happens to be the form for both nominative and objective case, which might further explain why the hypercorrection between you and I is so common. Some people ‘resolve’ the I/me confusion by instead using the reflexive pronoun myself. Not only does the reflexive allow the user to avoid having to make a choice, but for many the pronoun myself conveys a level of erudition. Reflexive pronouns, though, have their own rules of usage. They can be used for emphasis, as in I, myself, will solve this puzzle! They are also required when a second reference is made to an entity in a single clause. Thus, Jane looked at herself in the old photograph signals a reflexive meaning (Jane is in the photo), as opposed to Jane looked at her (another woman is in the photo). It is difficult to ‘nail down’ parts of a language that are in flux, such as the case system in English. After all, the who/whom distinction (which is one of nominative vs. objective case) is dying, and many teachers are fine with who filling in for both. Students still need to learn, though, that I is not better than me, and that the use of myself needs to be double-checked. (Study Sheet F lists the case markings of English pronouns and allows readers to take a quiz on the distinctions.) Question from Student: I am trying to avoid using I in my essays (as I learned in high school), so I don’t start sentences with I think that…; but then how do I ‘academically’ begin my sentences? Question from Teacher: How do I get students to be more exact, less vague in their writing? They often write, It showed that… without making clear the meaning of it. Linguistic Context: A pronoun needs to have a noun or noun phrase to which it is anchored, giving the pronoun meaning. This anchor is called

84

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

the antecedent, and the antecedent/pronoun pair must match in number, gender and case (see the conversation above, about pronouns and case). When a student uses it in a sentence, we would expect it to have a definite meaning. The sentence I looked for the book and found it pairs up the words book and it. The construction It showed that… needs an antecedent for the pronoun in the prior sentence. Sometimes, however, the pronoun it appears in the subject slot of a sentence and ‘legitimately’ has no antecedent. The English language requires all sentences to have a subject, even if the subject is a word without real meaning, such as in the sentences It is sunny and It is 3pm (the word it doesn’t match up with an antecedent in either sentence). Words used this way are called dummy subjects, functioning more as placeholders than anything else, and they do not need an antecedent. (Some linguists call this usage ‘anticipatory it’ [Hewings & Hewings, 2002].) Students, though, might overuse sentence-initial it in vague or ambiguous ways, as in The researchers completed the experiments. It showed that the drug had an effect. What is the antecedent to it? In this construction, there is no clear connection. The word this can also be used ambiguously, as in, As a result of this; what is this? Unanchored pronouns can lead to ambiguous or vague sentences. Take the following passage: The books focus on the syntactic abilities of children. They are fascinating. Three possible antecedents exist for they: books, abilities and children. Pronoun use in this sentence is thus ambiguous – has more than one possible meaning. Whenever pronouns are used, it is worth taking the extra time to make sure they match up clearly with antecedents. In the example above, I would suggest to a student that he or she revise so that the pronoun they does not follow a sentence with three plural nouns. Now look at this sentence: Sylvia Plath’s only novel was published in 1963. She died the same year. The sentence, because of the pronoun, is technically vague because she has no antecedent. The possessive noun Plath’s does not match the nominative she. The second sentence can be reworded – something like Plath died the same year or This author died the same year. Then again, unlike the vague sentence we saw earlier, this sentence does get its message across and might not be flagged (or even noticed) by all teachers. (Full disclosure, though: these types of sentences always annoy me, and I am one of those teachers who flag them.) A related aspect of ambiguous and vague pronouns is a category of language called deixis or deictic terms. Deictic terms are words with meanings that depend on the context in which they are spoken (or written). When

Grammatical Markers/Morphosyntax

85

we use deictic terms, we are assuming shared knowledge with our listener (or reader). Thus, if I say, ‘Pegi will be there tomorrow’, the locale of there and the timing of tomorrow are presumably known already. There refers not to a fixed location but to somewhere far from the locale in which the utterance is spoken (otherwise, I’d say here); tomorrow means the day after the day on which the utterance was said. Besides locale and time conditions, deictic terms can also signal who is speaking, with the use of first or second person pronouns. The meaning of I and you in the sentence I hear you depends on which speaker is taking a turn, and the meaning of each pronoun will shift when speakers trade turns. Deixis use bears on academic English, for students in essays and in class discussions can be thrown by how much shared knowledge to assume of their audience. Even though a teacher reading an essay probably knows the information that the student is covering, it behooves the student to be explicit. In fact, many linguists have categorized academic English as an elaborated register in which all information should be as overt as possible (Snow & Uccelli, 2009; Wilkinson & Silliman, 2012). Elaborated register is contrasted with the ways we use language with our intimates, in a kind of restricted register, which entails many more assumptions of shared meaning. Part of the work of mastering academic English is to find a balance between being explicit and not being redundant. (See Chapter 9 for more on discourse and use of the first person pronoun.) (Study Sheet G allows readers to take a quiz identifying pronouns that are ambiguous, vague and inconsistent.) Question from Teacher: I hear some students say, This is mines. What type of error is that? How can I explain to students that it doesn’t sound ‘academic’? Linguistic Context: This question makes me ask another one: Is mines indeed an error? The words mine, yours, his, hers, its and theirs are called nominal possessive pronouns – they show possession and are not followed by a noun (the possessed entity), e.g. That is mine vs. That is my book. Notice that every item in the list of pronouns above, except mine, ends in an –s. Some dialects of English regularize the pattern by using the form mines. Academic English, however, includes the standard (although irregular) form without the –s. The word mines, then, is not an error in some dialects. The linguistic markedness of mines in standard English can be viewed more contextually by both teacher and student by recognizing and discussing the regularity of the non-standard form and the (perhaps surprising) irregularity of the more accepted form mine. The fact that

86

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

academic English prefers the irregular form makes for an interesting conversation. Question from Teacher: Why can’t students just memorize the rules for apostrophe use? I’m tired of crossing out or inserting apostrophes on student papers. Question from Student: Can’t anyone just give me the rule for apostrophes? I’m always being told I use too many or not enough. Linguistic Context: It seems that students are dogged by either overuse or underuse of the punctuation mark called the apostrophe. Many of us know the rule that apostrophes signal possession. So, for example, we have Harry’s book. That single rule does not suffice, however, and complications soon set in. What if the (singular) possessor’s name ends in an s such as Bess? Style guides differ on whether the correct form for possession is Bess’s or Bess’. Some say the deciding factor is if the addition of the possessive creates an extra syllable; in that case, Bess’s is called for since we add a syllable when saying the possessive. (To my taste, that is one too many s endings.) Here are some additional factors to consider. With possessives that are plural, such as Students’ papers are graded on a curve, the –s suffix is already present; just add the apostrophe after it. When a plural exists, though, writers might be tempted to leave out the apostrophe. I have also seen constructions in student papers such as My countries flag… where the possessive is instead turned into a plural, with the corresponding change in spelling. Another consideration in the correct use of this punctuation mark is that possessive pronouns do not take the apostrophe: Hers is the next paper in the pile (not her’s). Thus, the rule that apostrophes signal possession has an exception when it comes to pronouns. What about troublesome pairs such as your and you’re; its and it’s; their and they’re? A student recently wrote Theirs no way! I always say that when there is a word with an apostrophe, and you are unsure which meaning it signals, choose the contraction; thus, you’re = you + are (not the possessive meaning) and it’s = it + is (again, not the possessive meaning). Such a guideline follows the rule that possessive pronouns do not take an apostrophe. Here’s another complication. Sometimes – but in very limited instances – the apostrophe is used to signal plurality, as in The name Tropp is spelled with two p’s. These cases usually take an apostrophe if the lack of it makes the construction difficult to read (e.g. two ps). What often happens is that students add the plural –s to a plural noun, and the apostrophe seems to come

Grammatical Markers/Morphosyntax

87

along as a package, whether it is warranted or not (as in three book’s). Finally, the apostrophe signals missing letters in contractions, as in don’t, can’t, aren’t, etc. English has some contraction examples that might even be overlooked, such as o’clock (of the clock) and in the UK, ‘flu (influenza). It is worth noting here that part of the unstated rules of academic English include avoiding contractions. In fact, a colleague who read over this book in manuscript form flagged all my contractions and noted in an email, ‘I encourage my students not to use contractions in formal writing. I don’t know where I picked that up – perhaps I’m just trying to get them to be less informal’. (See Chapter 10 for more on contractions in academic English.) Many students seem to have a vague sense of apostrophes and both overuse them in plural constructions (Student’s attend classes four day’s a week) and underuse them with possessives (The students paper was back in his dorm). A good rule of thumb (three, actually) to tell students is this: Contraction? Apostrophe; Possession? Apostrophe, except for pronouns; and Plural? Apostrophe once in a blue moon. (Study Sheet H offers practice work using the apostrophe.) Question from Student: My teachers tell me my verbs are unexciting. How can I distinguish exciting from boring verbs? Linguistic Context: The verb to be gets little respect. Many writing guides call it the ‘blah verb’ and consider it a sign of a lazy writer. Since there are so many more active verbs to use, why settle for this one? Let’s consider this matter a bit more, though. To be (also called the copula verb) is the most irregular verb in English: think about the varied forms in the present tense alone, and then add was, were, being and been. It is not so lazy to use to be, then, in that a writer must do a bit of work to choose the form that agrees with the subject. As a main verb, to be functions as a link between the subject and information about the subject. Take She is tall. Is works as an equals sign here (She = tall) and in some English dialects can even be omitted. By using to be, though, the writer has chosen a linking verb instead of an action verb: no action is being conveyed, no ‘is’ing’ happening, perhaps contributing to the blah reaction. One could say instead that She stands tall or get specific with She measures 6 foot 1 inch. Another reason that teachers might feel ill-disposed toward to be is that it functions as the helping verb in the passive voice and they are trying to steer their students away from the passive construction. (See Chapter 8 for more discussion of passive sentences.) To me, the only laziness about to be is when the writer over-relies on it. Variety is good.

88

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

An additional word about to be: non-standard English dialects such as African American English (AAE) include linguistically marked forms of be. The grammar of AAE makes a distinction between what is called the habitual be (signaling something that is usually true, as in We be working at Starbucks), in which the verb is not conjugated; and the zero-form be (signaling something that is true right now, e.g. We working), in which the linking verb is not present. So much for calling to be a boring verb! Question from Student: A teacher told me I use zombie nouns. How can I spot, and avoid, these nouns (and should I even bother)? Linguistic Context: The teacher’s comment is similar to the one calling to be a blah verb. Sword (2012) uses the term ‘zombie nouns’ to refer to verbs that have been nominalized, i.e. made into nouns. Nominalize a verb or adjective with one of the suffixes –ion, –ism, –ment, –ness, – ance and –ence, and you have a complicated-looking word that, according to Sword, numbs the reader; an energizing verb would be a better choice. (See also Chapter 5 on derived words.) Take for example the structure the beliefs of students; Sword prefers the construction students believe. Similarly with the recruitment of students, she directs her readers instead to the verb phrase to recruit students: go with the clean subjectverb wording, she says. Snow and Uccelli (2009: 121) say that nominalization contributes to the increased information (and processing) load of academic English. The example they give is the sentence The increasing evaporation of water due to rising temperatures is alarming; here we see a long nominalization phrase functioning as the subject, with a delayed verb at the end. While academic English is known for its ‘big words’, there is something to be said for not relying on too many nominals. Again, variety is good. Chapter links to language modalities Understanding the antecedent–pronoun connection allows us to better monitor the connections among parts of a complex sentence, in speech, writing, reading and listening. Our own writing is less distracting to readers; and our reading and listening skills benefit when we keep track of the alignment among different parts of a sentence. As writers, we can also vary word order (where the antecedent might follow the pronoun, for example) and take advantage of alternating between the noun and verb derivations of words.

Grammatical Markers/Morphosyntax

89

Associated sample study sheets in Part 3 F: Pronouns and the Case System G: Ambiguous, Vague and Inconsistent Pronouns H: Punctuation/Apostrophes and Commas This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lesson: Lesson 3: Examining the belief that texting is detrimental to grammar and literacy skills.

8 Grammar and Punctuation/ Syntax This chapter covers run-on sentences and sentence fragments, subject-verb agreement, use of modifiers, passive sentences, structural dependencies and the influence of texting on grammar.

Syntax Syntax is the study of the structure of larger units of language, phrases, clauses and sentences. It describes a language’s rules for combining nouns and verbs, ordering of adjectives and adverbs and so on. Often, non-linguists will call this level grammar. Syntax also describes passive sentences, which involve a part of language called voice. To understand how voice is different from tense is to acquire useful metaknowledge. (Another dimension in the verbal system is something called aspect, which curious readers can research by browsing Texts Introducing Linguistics in the Appendix.) A distinction that could be made, but rarely is in the educational world, is the difference among syntax, usage and mechanics (punctuation and spelling). To many teachers and students, all of this is grammar. A student’s concern about where to place a comma in a sentence might not qualify as syntactic to a linguist, but in that larger conversation of language in the classroom, commas do tend to fall under the rubric of grammar and reflect such syntactic structures as clause and sentence boundaries. Usage is more a matter of how a word is used. ‘Disinterested’ and ‘uninterested’ are both good English words, but the former traditionally means impartial and the latter means lacking emotional engagement, hence a semantic distinction. (One could also say that this distinction is falling away, the former becoming a synonym of the latter. See Chapter 6 for more on semantic issues.) Let’s now look at the questions that students and teachers have about syntax, which will include the comma as it bears on the grammatical structure of academic English. Question from Teacher: Why is students’ writing so prone to run-on sentences and sentence fragments? 90

Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax

91

Question from Student: My teacher tells me to avoid run-ons, so I make sure to keep my sentences short. I am still marked wrong. What is a run-on? Linguistic Context: Run-on sentences and sentence fragments seem like opposite concerns, but both are punctuation errors related to a problem that students might be having identifying sentence boundaries, i.e. where one sentence ends and the next begins. One of the misperceptions that students have about the run-on is that it is a sentence that is simply too long. Counting words, however, does not help to detect a run-on. Instead, writers need to be tuned into the sentence’s syntactic structure, i.e. the grammatical organization. Further, one mistake can lead to another: to prevent run-on errors, students might try shortening a sentence by adding a period too hastily, thus creating that other error, a sentence fragment. Some teachers try to explain a run-on sentence to their students as an expression that conveys more than one idea, and a fragment as an expression with an incomplete thought. In fact, it is better to think in terms of sentences and clauses, not completed thoughts. A clause is a group of words containing at least a subject-verb pair, in which the subject and verb agree and the verb is finite, i.e. in a particular tense and marked for number and person. Verbs such as does and did are finite since they are in the present and past tenses, respectively. A nonfinite verb, in contrast to a finite verb, is one that does not convey complete time information or person and number. An example here would be the type of verb called a participle, e.g. doing, done. While participles convey some type of ongoing action (present participle) or completed action (past participle), we still don’t know exactly when those actions happened, and whether the subject is singular or plural; first, second or third person. We could have I am doing, you were doing or they will be doing, all with the same present participle. Hence, a sentence with just doing or done as the verb is not yet grammatically complete (is a sentence fragment). Another complication arises in that, while we say that a clause has this agreeing subject-verb pair and finite verb, some clauses can stand on their own as sentences (they are independent clauses) and some cannot (they are dependent clauses). Take, for example, The price of textbooks rose rather sharply last year which means that students will feel the pinch. For some student writers, this sentence is getting dangerously long, so they add a period before which. While the first clause (The price of textbooks

92

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

rose rather sharply last year) can stand alone (is independent), the clause starting with which cannot (is dependent); on its own, it is a fragment. The good news is that a period before which, while incorrect, is at least at a clause boundary, suggesting that the writer has an intuitive sense of where the first clause ends and the second one begins. The correct punctuation would be a comma at that boundary, before which. Few sentences, in fact, begin with the word which. I tell my students that unless the sentence is a question (Which book are you reading?), a sentence that begins with which might well be a fragment. I call which a ‘high-alert’ word, signaling that the writer should take extra care with punctuation placement. Another common punctuation problem area, also ‘high alert’, involves a sentence that contains however between two independent clauses. This word is a conjunctive adverb and warrants different punctuation from a coordinating conjunction such as but or yet (even though the meanings are equivalent). Take this example: The price of textbooks rose sharply last year, however e-books can cut down on a student’s expenses. Many, many students will put that comma before the word however, thus creating a run-on (some grammarians call such an error a comma splice). If the conjunction but or yet had been used, which is the equivalent semantically but not grammatically, a comma would have been just fine. However, however (sorry) is not a conjunction but a conjunctive adverb, cannot join two independent clauses, and requires different punctuation. The more standard punctuation in this case is a period or a semi-colon before the conjunctive adverb and a comma immediately following. Another reason the word however throws students off is that it can sometimes be preceded by a comma when it is used in other environments. Take the following two sentences: The price, however, will continue to rise. E-books might not catch on as predicted, however. The word however requires extra scrutiny; the writer should take an extra moment to make that punctuation choice. In English, as we well know, there are always exceptions to the rule. Some writers use fragments on purpose. In fact, the literature calls these deliberately truncated sentences minor sentences, not fragments, suggesting that once we know the rules, we can break them ‘legally’ (Kline & Memering, 1977; Schuster, 2006). Kline and Memering (1977: 108) give such examples as the literary ‘Oh, for summer’ and the elliptical ‘Just to get away from the city’ (Kline & Memering, 1977: 107) as two of many instances (and functions) of minor sentences.

Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax

93

(Study Sheet H on comma placement gives readers practice using commas with different clause types.) Question from Student: My teacher keeps writing ‘agreement’ on my papers; apparently, I have an ‘agreement problem’. I think it has something to do with whether or not my verbs get an –s ending. What’s the rule? Linguistic Context: Regular present tense verbs take the –s suffix when they are paired with nouns (or associated pronouns) in the third person singular. That rule doesn’t roll easily off the tongue, unfortunately. Another way to think of it is this: if the equivalent of he, she or it is doing something in the present (is the sentence’s subject), most likely the associated verb needs that –s ending. For example: he talks; she reads; it works all require a third person singular verb form in the present tense. Irregular verbs usually take an –s ending as well, but they might, in addition, have an internal change. So we have forms like she does, he has and it is: verbs in the third person singular present tense that display not just an –s suffix but some other change to the root. The tricky part of agreement (or one of the tricky parts) is when the subject and verb are separated by other words, and the closer noun (not the subject) is mistakenly paired with the verb. This is called a proximity error. (Of course, the label ‘error’ refers to the standard English rules of agreement; some dialects of English follow a rule in which the closest noun does agree with the verb.) A pile of papers appears in the mailbox (not appear) is more standard, since the controlling subject is pile and agrees with the singular verb appears. Papers is disqualified from agreeing with the verb since it is in a prepositional phrase (and hence cannot be the subject). There are instances, however, when the noun in the prepositional phrase does agree with the verb. Take the word all in All of this pizza tastes delicious compared to All of these pizzas taste delicious. All is the subject in both sentences, but all defers to the object of the preposition when it comes to pairing with a singular or plural verb. A useful mnemonic for these ‘it depends’ words is SAMAN: some, all, most, any and none, words that defer to the object of the preposition for agreement. Note the inclusion of none in this list. Strict grammarians would mark as wrong a sentence like None of the flowers are blooming, saying that none is always singular and must agree with a singular verb. That rule, however, is in flux. English isn’t easy (or static)! When we write a construction with a separated subject and verb, then, it is useful to double check agreement and verb endings. (Study Sheet I gives readers practice with subject-verb agreement issues.)

94

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Question from Teacher: It seems the –ly ending has disappeared. She talks loud, for example, seems to be more common these days than loudly. I see in papers, The price rose sharper than last year, not more sharply. Are adverbs dying? Linguistic Context: This question touches upon the use of adjectives and adverbs. One of the ‘rules’ many of us remember from primary school grammar lessons is that adverbs can be identified by their –ly suffixes. It might be harder to remember, perhaps, the role adverbs play in sentences and how they differ from adjectives. It’s more logical to start this discussion with adjectives, since they often function as the root to which the –ly suffix attaches to derive an adverb. An adjective is a descriptor or modifier. It gives extra information about an entity. Thus, a loud person, a deep hole and some quick meals all show adjectives modifying nouns. Pronouns are entities, too. We can modify a pronoun, not by using the construction loud she or deep it, of course. Instead, we can use a linking verb, such as She is loud, it appears deep and they seem quick. Adverbs modify (among other things) actions. The loud person thus speaks loudly; a deep hole was dug deeply; and quick meals are cooked or eaten quickly. The adverbs in these cases are derived from adjectives by adding –ly suffixes. Some adverbs do not end with –ly, and these are called flat adverbs. We are warned, Don’t drive fast, not fastly. (Note that fast can also function as an adjective, as in a fast car.) There are also words that end with –ly but are not adverbs; they are instead adjectives. Such –ly adjectives can be traced back to nouns that are then turned into adjectives, such as friend Æ friendly, as in She is friendly. Another issue with adverbs is that they have a certain amount of freedom in terms of their placement in sentences. If only I could play the piano and If I could only play the piano are roughly equivalent to me. The rule of thumb is to have the modifier as close to the modified word as possible (in this case, next to the verb play). Placement sometimes doesn’t change meaning, but sometimes it does. A New York City subway poster against soliciting for money aboard the trains reads It’s good to give – just not here. I keep reading that sign as It’s good to give – not just here every time I see it, a different placement of the adverb that reverses the meaning. Adjectives also come in two forms called comparative and superlative, the former for comparison of two entities, the latter for three or more. Usually, a comparative form takes the –er suffix and the superlative the –est suffix. So we have Julie in the race being faster than Jim, and ultimately being the fastest runner of the group. For adverbs, the –ly ending makes the comparative/superlative forms in a different way. Here, Julie runs quickly,

Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax

95

more quickly than Jim and the most quickly of the group. When adjectives are longer (usually more than two syllables), they also take more and the most constructions: Joan is diligent, more diligent than her room-mate and the most diligent in the study group. The question asked at the start of this conversation shows that the trend is toward omitting–ly endings on adverbs, thus merging adverbs with their adjective forms. Whether someone writes or says She speaks loud or She speaks loudly, there is little chance of the message being misunderstood. The lack of a suffix might distract the reader or listener, but the meaning of the utterance is preserved. Sometimes we find hypercorrection of the –ly ending, where it is overapplied to the point of non-standard use. The sentence I feel badly is such an example (although its widespread use calls into question whether it is now standard after all). Since the verb feel is not an action verb in this sentence but one reflecting an inner state (stative verb), the sentence needs an adjective, not an adverb. One wouldn’t likely say I feel sadly, an analogous construction. (Study Sheet J reviews adjectives and adverbs and gives readers practice distinguishing between them.) Question from Teacher: I remember from my own English classes that passive sentences should be avoided. I never quite knew why. What should I tell my students? Question from Student: Passive sentences are bad! Um, what is a passive sentence? Linguistic Context: The passive sentence is where the linguistic distinction between tense and voice needs to be addressed. Tense is time information, usually on the verb. Voice is a sentence construction (particular word order) that emphasizes either the entity doing the action (the agent) or the recipient of the action. The active voice highlights the agent, which is in the subject slot of the sentence. The passive voice places the receiver of the action in that subject slot, thus shifting the emphasis. To illustrate, David walked the dog is an active sentence, and its passive counterpart is The dog was walked by David. Passives get a bad rap for several reasons. One is that they tend to be wordy, longer than their active versions. The verb form in a passive sentence comprises a helping verb form of to be and the past participle of the main verb, e.g. is fed, was done, will be seen. In fact, many people mistakenly believe that the passive voice is the same as the past tense. Notice that the occurrence of the past participle in the verb phrase does give the sense of an action already completed. Passive sentences, though, can be in any tense. Here’s

96

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

one in the present tense: The dog is walked by David. And if one is biased against the copula verb to be, that is another strike against passives, for it too is in the verb phrase. (See Chapter 7 for more on the copula.) Passive constructions challenge students to distinguish between a grammatical subject and a semantic agent. In the sentence The spy is being watched by the counterspy, for example, the spy is the subject if one is talking about grammatical structure (syntax); the counterspy is the agent, however, if one is talking about meaning (semantics). The student needs to know who is spying on whom. About the common criticism that passives are, well, passive, lazy and blah: when the agent (the doer of the action) does not appear at the start of the sentence but is either placed at the end of the sentence or omitted altogether, some consider that delay to signal weak writing. Ironically (and counter to teachers’ aversions to the passive), some academic disciplines actually prefer the passive voice. A science article doesn’t announce, Then I measured the amplitude of the vowel. More likely, we would find, The amplitude of the vowel was then measured. Who was doing the measuring is either pretty obvious or irrelevant. Otherwise, the writer would have named the agent. Another linguistic device found in science writing is the ‘it + passive voice’ construction, as in It is claimed/stated/suggested/agreed upon… etc. (Carter & McCarthy, 2006). (See also Chapters 2 and 9 for more on the itclause.) If a student is in the sciences, then, the following statement about academic writing would be confusing: ‘The use of passive voice […] is inconsistent with proper norms of scholarly discourse’ (Epstein, 2011: 95). Students thus receive mixed messages: they are told to avoid using passives, and yet they encounter the passive construction in college texts. The ‘real story’ involves understanding what the passive is about and the situations in which it is useful and expected. If you want to either keep the name of the agent hidden, reveal it later or in fact do not know it, the passive is a more logical construction. (Study Sheet K gives readers practice with active/passive voice correspondence.) Question from Teacher: Sometimes I see strange constructions in student essays, such as The researchers were hopeful of the results and The protagonist was fond that the letter arrived. I have a feeling that these are more than typos. Yes? Linguistic Context: Strong writers are not uniformly strong. When an assignment carries a high cognitive load, writing skills tend to (temporarily) suffer. Students who write beautiful essays about their dream jobs or summer travels succumb to grammar traps when writing about

Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax

97

unfamiliar, more complex topics, as they simultaneously try to develop their own thesis/argument, synthesize outside sources and avoid plagiarism. The linguistic issue in the teacher’s question above is about co-occurrence of grammatical constructions. No one would say I laughed the funny joke; we wouldn’t use that wording because to laugh is an intransitive verb, i.e. it does not allow a direct object to follow. We also would not accept as grammatical the sentence I find in the library; to find is a transitive verb, requiring a direct object. The restriction on certain words appearing with other structures is called subcategorization. Just as we can say that transitive and intransitive verbs are ‘choosy’ about what follows, other words are also choosy. The word hopeful in the question above co-occurs with for or that (hopeful for something or hopeful that something), not of; and one can be fond of, but not fond that. When students are focusing on academic content, their intuition about co-occurring structures might be thrown off. (See Chapter 6 for more on poor imitations of academic language.) I find that a proof-reading session in which students read their essays aloud (to themselves, a friend or me) helps them catch these odd juxtapositions. Besides ‘strange constructions’, teachers can also encounter downright humorous ones in students’ writing. These are often created unintentionally when the author is focused on other aspects of the writing process. One example is the following: Ticking loudly on the wall, I stared at the clock. This sentence doesn’t start with the subject but instead with a modifying phrase. English syntax thus calls for the entity doing the ticking (the clock) to appear right after the comma. Instead, the sentence implies that the clock-watcher is ticking. These so-called misplaced modifiers not only elicit chuckles but corrections from teachers. When a sentence delays the subject (doesn’t start with the subject), it is best to double-check the syntax to make sure that there are no inadvertent messages being conveyed. Another example of misaligned parts of a sentence is found in the structural ambiguity. Ambiguity means more than one meaning (as opposed to vague, which means an unclear meaning). (Some sentences, such as I saw a bat in the field, contain a lexical item with two meanings and thus form a different kind of ambiguity, a lexical ambiguity.) A structural ambiguity is a sentence in which the word order can be interpreted in more than one way, thus allowing for two separate meanings. A common textbook example of a structural ambiguity is The girl saw the boy with the binoculars. Either the girl was doing the seeing with the binoculars or the boy was holding the binoculars while being seen. Two possible grammatical associations for the prepositional phrase with the binoculars (with the verb or

98

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

with the direct object) yield two possible meanings. She told me she took the exam on Thursday can mean that the telling occurred on Thursday or the exam sitting was on Thursday. Structural ambiguities tend to hinge on the interpretation of a prepositional phrase (although not always). It’s a good idea to keep an eye on sentences that end in prepositional phrases to guard against misinterpretation. Question from Student: I should always delete the extra ‘that’ in sentences, right? Linguistic Context: Words that are ‘optional’, such as that in Jack knows [that] the answer is simple, might actually be useful and contribute to better comprehension of a sentence. When a word like that is deleted, what might result is a structure called a garden path sentence. Garden path sentences are constructions that are easily misprocessed on first encounter: they seem not to make any sense and lead you down a garden path. Here’s the standard textbook example: The horse raced past the barn fell. The idea is that we have a parsing (processing) bias in English for the construction subject-verb (S-V). Thus, we first process horse + raced as a S-V pair. The final ‘extra’ verb fell (this sentence already has a verb!) then throws us. Garden path sentences tend to arise from deleted words, so the full sentence here is The horse that raced past the barn fell. The cautionary tale is about deleting words. I know you love linguistics and I know that you love linguistics should be equivalent sentences. From my students, however, I get the sense of a high school teacher divide between those that say Delete! every extra that and others that say Keep! them in. Sometimes, fewer deletions lead to faster processing of a construction. Structural ambiguities and garden path sentences can also be created by misplaced punctuation. Thus, we have the famous (famous on Facebook anyway) Stop clubbing, baby seals (with seals seen on the floor of a disco); and the creepy Let’s eat Grandma. Friends and former students forward these posts to me to show that they, too, care about punctuation. Question from Teacher: With all this texting going on, will students in the near future be unable to write a grammatical sentence? Linguistic Context: Technology always takes some blame for ‘ruining’ young people’s language skills. However, we all work daily in a range of dialects and registers that we (rightly) vary depending on our intended audience. The language forms we use when engaged with computermediated communication (CMC) tend to differ from our speech when

Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax

99

we are in conversation with someone and when we are writing for an academic audience. As we read in Chapter 5, many linguists are actually quite intrigued by technology’s influences on language. Crystal (2008) and Baron (2008) are two linguists who refute claims that CMC harms our language skills. Language users are pretty good at keeping language forms and audiences sorted out, they say. And the style of texting might in fact become more formal as it is adopted by a wider population. (See Chapter 1 for more on CMC, Chapter 5 for more on texting and Chapter 9 for more on narrative structure/discourse.) One more benefit of a more detailed understanding of academic English is the ability to ensure that language choice is appropriate to the audience/ venue. (Study Sheet L allows readers to take a survey of common texting features to measure how many make their way into other types of writing.) Chapter links to language modalities Benjamin and Oliva (2007) argue that being fluent in the terminology of grammar allows for clearer thinking, with an impact on better writing and reading. Zwiers (2008) agrees: producing both spoken and written English, as well as comprehending texts and speech, is improved when we understand more grammatical terminology, acquired as a metavocabulary at the conscious level, and thus in our control. Writers benefit from strategic use of the active vs. passive voice, for example, instead of robotically following unexamined claims that ‘the passive is bad’. As writers, readers and listeners, then, we can better control grammatical structures and convey messages more precisely. Associated sample study sheets in Part 3 H: Punctuation/Apostrophes and Commas I: Subject-Verb Agreement Issues J: Modifier Problems K: Tense vs. Voice L: Texting Features This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lesson: Lesson 3: Examining the belief that texting is detrimental to grammar and literacy skills.

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 3: ‘Texting and Literacy Don’t Mix’

The Stereotype Texting is ruining English grammar, or at least the ability of young people to write grammatically. If a certain famous English playwright had the technology at his disposal, he might have had the Prince of Denmark text the following thoughts: 2 B, or nt 2 B: dats d Q: Whether ’tis nobler n mnd 2 suffA d slings n arrows of outrageous fortuN Or 2 taK arms against a sea of troubLs by opposing Nd em W. ShAkspEr, Hmlt Green (2007: 124)

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to… • • • •

Articulate the common perceptions of texting as detrimental to linguistic skills. Cite relevant linguistic research on the effects of texting. Explain the endurance of this stereotype. Discuss the implications of linguistic research for future use of technology in education.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language? 100

Instructor Guidance Material 3 for Chapters 7 and 8

101

The Linguistic Basics The impact of texting on writing ability is one issue about which the popular impressions are oversimplified. The field of linguistics has added complexity to the issue, asking pertinent questions, such as: • • • •

What is the language of texting? What are its linguistic features? Is texting its own language? Or is it a dialect or register instead? And is it better/worse/or just different from Standard English? If grammar is negatively affected by texting, what aspects exactly are impeded? Or are the concerns more about spelling and punctuation than grammar? Is texting replacing Standard English or adding to it?

We will start with a definition of textism from linguistic research (some authors use the term textese). Definitions in the literature vary, but the four main categories of language use in texts are • • • •

Reductions, e.g. k for okay Phonetic respellings, e.g. nite for night Deletion of words and punctuation Use of symbols, letter and number wordplay, e.g. c u l8tr for See you later (Torrado, 2012: 225)

Other researchers add to the list of what constitutes textisms such features as repetitions and lengthening, e.g. soooo, as well as emojis and gifs (cf. Verheijen, 2013; Wood et al., 2014). Cingel and Sundar (2012) report that in 2010, teenagers sent an average of 3339 texts a month, making them the leaders of texting across age groups. The fear that such frequent texting is infiltrating academic writing might then seem justified. But what does research show?

The Linguistic Research Linguistic research shows mixed results about the potential impact of texting on literacy skills. Reading the literature, we can find the following associations between texting and scores on literacy tests: Negative, positive, mixed, and none. Some studies do show an association between texting and lower literacy levels, but some do not, even suggesting that texting boosts literacy abilities. While this is ‘clear as mud,’ delving into the literature is useful, as our mission is – after all – exploring untested assumptions.

102

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Negative Associations De Jonge and Kemp (2012) look at the abilities of high school and undergraduate students to translate sentences from Standard English to texts, and they compare these scores to student scores on spelling and reading tests. The results show a negative correlation; that is, three measures of texting, (1) the higher the frequency of textisms that participants use, (2) the more consistent their text spellings, and (3) the number of different types of textisms; all correlate to lower spelling and reading abilities on the administered tests. The researchers do caution, however, that they are only reporting a correlation and that cause and effect is harder to conclude. In fact, those with ‘lower linguistic abilities may be motivated to text more frequently by the greater freedom and flexibility provided’ (2012: 64).

Positive Associations Some researchers report results showing that texting is associated with high literacy scores. Van Dijk et al. (2016) look at grammar ability in spoken Dutch. They ask 10-13 year olds to repeat sentences of increasing syntactic complexity, to tap the students’ knowledge of Dutch grammar. These scores are compared to the texting abilities of the same students. While the researchers hypothesize a positive relationship, positing that texting allows for more grammatical practice and heightens grammar awareness, no clear relationship is found between literacy and the ratio of textisms a student uses (the percentage of a sentence that comprises textisms). There is, however, a relationship when they look at omissions. ‘[T]he more words children omitted in their text messages, the better their grammar performance’ (2016: 16). The researchers speculate that students need to know a system (here grammar) in order to manipulate it. Further, texting offers time with the language, which supplies beneficial practice opportunities. In addition, researchers have noted that using computer devices adds a ‘fun factor’ to reading and writing, and offers students more opportunities to develop metalinguistic awareness (Verheijen, 2013: 586). Wood et al. (2014) posit a growth in phonological awareness through texting since many texts include numbers for letters and other wordplay (e.g. c for see, 2 for to), reinforcing the symbolic side of language: ‘[R]ather than being a potentially problematic influence on young people’s written language skills…use of text message abbreviations may enhance spelling skills’ (2014: 439). Further, ‘children should not be criticized for adopting what is in fact a sophisticated, albeit alternative, way of using language’ (2014: 440).

Instructor Guidance Material 3 for Chapters 7 and 8

103

Mixed or No Associations Sometimes a research project yields ambiguous findings, either mixed associations between texting and literacy (varying by task) or no associations at all. Drouin and Driver (2014) find that omitting such marks as apostrophes and ignoring capitalization are negatively related to literacy measures, but using symbols and other manipulations for stylistic effect is positively related to literacy measures. Thus, textisms where an element is omitted show a negative association with literacy, whereas extra characters added for style show an association with strong literacy skills. In addition, the researchers find that the age of the participant matters. Children’s use of textese tends to be associated with positive literacy results; with adults researchers find a negative association.

Why Do Results Vary? Several variables should be (but are not always) taken into account or held constant across research projects. Consider the variable ‘grammar.’ What does a specific researcher mean by grammar skills or abilities? Or when ‘literacy skills/measures’ are measured, what are the actual language variables being tested? Next, what age groups are being considered? We’ve seen experimenters test a range of ages, with varying results. Also, what language is being considered? Would the same results be obtained if one looked at Mandarin, for example? What about texters who are bilingual? Might they incorporate texting into their writing differently from monolinguals? In addition, does the educational background or gender of the subjects matter?

Advanced Linguistic Information We also find variation in the methodology employed across studies. Individuals’ texting abilities might be gathered from self-reports, standardized diagnostic tests, or other assessments designed by the researchers. Some samples of texts are taken from ‘real life,’ others generated in the lab. What tasks are the subjects asked to complete? For example, do they produce texts, comprehend them, or translate? In terms of measuring texting skills themselves, we also find variation across studies. Some studies measure the frequency of texting (how many messages sent in a day), texting density (ratio of text to non-text features in a message), or proficiency of texting (how fast a participant is at texting or transcribing between Standard English and textisms). We would also want to consider the age of the research studies themselves, for the type of keyboards available now are easier to use than the older tap-three-times models, allowing for faster and easier texting and macros to auto-fill full words and phrases.

104

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Finally, and of major concern, is that all findings can only be seen as correlation, not cause and effect. We cannot say with any certainty that a high-frequency texter with low reading and writing scores has been negatively impacted by texting per se.

Conclusion/Going Forward The casual consumer of media has likely encountered over the last 10 years many news accounts with provocative headlines such as this: ‘Duz Txting Hurt Kidz Gramr?’ (Sparks, 2012: 13). Of course the implied answer is, ‘You bet it does!’ Parents and educators worry. The publication American Teacher ran an article in 2007 with the following statement: Text and instant messaging are negatively affecting students’ writing quality on a daily basis, as they bring their abbreviated language into the classroom. As a result of their electronic chatting, kids are making countless syntax, subject-verb agreement and spelling mistakes in writing assignments...[M]any teachers believed that students’ wide use of ‘text speak’ was a key factor in their students’ negative performance. (Ross, 2007: 1) The venue – a periodical for teachers – helps raise concerns and spread assumptions (e.g. ‘many teachers believed’ (emphasis added)) without giving statistical data. Making inferences does not replace research data. Lunsford and Lunsford (2008) look at errors on formal first year composition essays over the last 100 years and find, despite the infusion of technology in our lives, that error rates are virtually unchanged over that time period. They do see different error patterns, however, such as those that are created by cutting and pasting text during revision on the computer. They also see an increase in the writing and cognitive demands of today’s academic essay assignments. Why does the idea of texting as a bad influence persist? Why is it that ‘none of this scholarly insight guarantees, of course, that popular discourse naturally follows suit’ (Thurlow, 2006: 668)? Some possible reasons for the persistence of the stereotype include: •

(FOHBG) Fear of having bad grammar. Grammar is a gatekeeper, with social, educational, and professional consequences. When one masters Standard English, certain ‘gates’ open (Behrens & Sperling, 2010). Thus,

Instructor Guidance Material 3 for Chapters 7 and 8

•

•

105

the anxiety that arises when parents and educators think of some habit interfering with mastery can be quite potent. (FONT) Fear of new technology. We have seen this fear before. There was the email panic (Baron, 2002), in which a new technology was apparently out to ruin our abilities to spell, conjugate, punctuate, etc. The panic about technology clearly predates texting. A 1998 book called Language Myths (Bauer & Trudgill) includes a chapter by James Milroy with the title ‘Children can’t speak or write properly anymore.’ 1998, mind you. Which leads to a third reason for the sustained panic: (FORY) Fear of ruining youth. Any potentially harmful influence on children (be it from texting or television or comic books) can easily make headlines. At the same time, ‘[Y]outh are the vanguard of linguistic changes resulting from new technologies’ (Cook, 2004: 109), guaranteeing that adults will always have something to worry about.

Thurlow (2006) contextualizes the fear and panic nicely: ‘Although it may not appear or feel like this for lay people, it seems far more likely from a sociolinguistic and scholarly point of view that language and communication are changing and evolving as they always have’ (688). In other words, same as it ever was.

What Does the Future Hold? If use of computer mediated communication in academic pursuits is not harmful and may even be helpful, should we embrace it? Hayati et al. (2013) find that English language learning students learn idioms faster and more accurately when study material is texted to them at regular intervals, compared to the traditional approach of classwork and homework. So perhaps we will all calm down, plug in, and let the ‘fun factor’ of technological learning take hold.

Cross-referenced with Lesson 2 on Slang Extending and Customizing the Lesson •

•

How will current trends in technology mediate this discussion? Will grammar checkers be our grammar teachers? Read Curzan (2014) and Behrens, Chirinos, Spencer, and Spradley (2016) on language related technology. Interview educators about how they ‘deal with’ technology in their classroom and in their students’ lives.

106

• •

•

•

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Research what are some technological innovations showing up in pedagogy. What are their success rates? Interview people on campus to find out what their choice of communication is for sending various messages. You can use the interviews in these links, hearing from linguist David Crystal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h79V_qUp91M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj8VYzDAy8 Research past reports surrounding the panic over the ruination that would lie in the wake of comics, television, email. For a descriptive view on the evolution of language, watch this TED Talk by John McWhorter https:// www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk Deumert (2014) notes that there have always been special idioms for media, as in letter writers ending with SWALK (sealed with a loving kiss). The visual nature of the message is being exploited. ‘Typographic play is a popular way of making one’s message ‘strange’, more decorative and artistic’ (133). Investigate communication systems that make use of visual dimensions. How do they compare to texting?

9 Narrative Structure/Discourse This chapter covers fillers and hedges, transitional expressions, consistency and coherence issues in writing, repetition and paraphrasing.

Discourse The structure of language above the sentence level is called discourse. Discourse includes both speech and writing. If one studies the structure of a narrative, an essay or a conversation, one is conducting discourse analysis. Part of discourse analysis investigates the organization of ideas and the way a writer or speaker signals to the audience how to process those ideas. Discourse markers are overt items that signal, for example, transitions (e.g. on the other hand, moreover) and conclusions (e.g. in sum, thus). Discourse is also the level of language that looks at devices that signal rapport (e.g. You know what I mean?), listenership (e.g. Yes, tell me more) and qualifications, called hedges (e.g. sort of, kind of ). Now on to the top seven questions about narrative structure/discourse. Question from Teacher: What’s with all the ‘ums’ and ‘likes’ in my students’ speech? Even during oral presentations! Linguistic Context: Utterances such as um and like are called fillers or filled pauses. Speakers tend to use them when they are searching for a word or their next thought but want to signal that they are not yet finished speaking, i.e. they want to hold the floor. A related phenomenon is the use of hedges. Hedges are expressions that allow the speaker to avoid fully committing to what he or she is saying, to soften the message. Sort of and kind of are very common hedges, as in I was sort of saying that I kind of can’t do that right now. Like can be a filler (filling a pause) or a hedge as in I want to, like, get an extension on the assignment. (See Chapter 2 for more on hedges.) Another function attributed to like includes placing focus on important or new information, as in I was, like, starving by 10 o’clock. The word like can also signal a direct quotation, usually paired with the verb to be, as in He was like, ‘What are you doing?’. This use is called quotative like (Odato, 2013). Did you realize like was so linguistically busy? 107

108

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

The types of dysfluency this teacher notices in oral presentations are more likely to be fillers, as the student pauses without wanting to create silence. Hedges may also show up, especially when an oral presentation isn’t read or memorized. It is helpful to notice the types of utterances that are natural in spontaneous speech and to monitor these speech behaviors, especially when they interfere with formal oral presentations. Interestingly, academic writing has its share of hedges in both speech and writing, but they are more scholarly sanctioned than like or um. For example, hypotheses are supported, not proven; ideas are suggested; and facts are arguable. Syntactic structures such as the passive voice and it would seem, might be inferred and could be demonstrated are forms of academic hedges, too (Biber, 2006a; Zwiers, 2008). Thus, not all hedges are equal. You know, I mean and You know what I mean are considered less academic than structures like It is supposed and That is to say. The difference is in the level of formality being conveyed, academic expressions being more on the formal end of the style continuum. (See Chapter 2 for more on it-clauses and Chapter 4 for more on formality and style.) (Study Sheet M offers practice in varying linguistic formality and style. How does the way we communicate a message change with differing situations?) Question from Teacher: I have students who use although as their main transitional expression, usually at the start of a new paragraph. Sometimes they use On the other hand. These expressions are employed even when there is no reversal or contradiction in the argument. Why do they have this blind spot? Linguistic Context: Transitional expressions are a type of discourse marker. Discourse markers overtly signal the organization of a speaker or writer’s argument. Snow and Uccelli (2009) cite as an important trait of academic English just this type of overt signaling of a text’s structure. Readers of academic texts will expect transitioning from one idea to another, which should thus be signaled with markers. Students know this, for the most part, but some do not differentiate among the various markers at their disposal. Teachers probably have contributed to the problem over the years by writing comments like, ‘Need transition’ on student papers, without elaborating on this point. I always give my students the self-effacing pair of sentences, This class is fun although Sue teaches it vs. …because or since Sue teaches it. We all laugh, but the point is that students need more instruction about transitions than simply knowing they should be using them (somehow). The expressions are not interchangeable.

Narrative Structure/Discourse

109

(Study Sheet N offers examples of transitional expressions common in academic English.) Question from Teacher: There seems to be a proliferation of ‘so’ lately. Why is everyone starting their sentences with ‘so’? I also find that students throw in the word ‘so’ all the time for emphasis. They will say or write, ‘I was so interested in it’ or ‘It was so useful’. Shouldn’t they use ‘very’ instead? Linguistic Context: This teacher is raising two points about the word so. I will take them in order. We are familiar with transitional expressions like however, in addition and in conclusion that signal the organization of ideas. (See the conversation above.) A current linguistic trend is using the word so to signal the start of a new turn in a conversation. I first encountered this usage when I was teaching English to non-native speakers and a student began every turn in our conversation with so. He always sounded as if he had been interrupted and was taking back his turn, as in ‘Excuse me, I was speaking’. Now I hear so-starters from native speakers. So is both a conjunction and an adverb. As a coordinating conjunction, it tends to show up between two clauses, not at the start of a clause, conveying cause and effect relationships, e.g. It was raining, so we stayed indoors. As an adverb, so can modify an adjective (I was so tired), and it can still signal a relationship: I was so tired, I went to sleep at 8pm. The teacher’s question above points out two current, and common, uses of so. First, it is being used as a sentence starter, especially when someone is answering a question. Such usage differs from its mid-sentence function as a conjunction. Then again, other coordinating conjunctions (and, yet, but) can start sentences in informal situations. In addition, so has become the new very, acting as an adverb of intensity. The problem with both so and very is that they are somewhat vague as modifiers. If one is going for an adverb, there are more descriptive ones to choose. Question from Student: I always try to avoid using I in my writing. One is more academic, right? Linguistic Context: Students who try to sound academic but stray from being true to their own voices usually run into trouble. Take the belief among many new college students that the first person pronoun I has no place in college writing. That might be the case for some professors, but there is nothing intrinsically non-academic about any of the English pronouns. Hyland (2001: 208) says that the use of I varies by field of study, and writers need to find the balance that is appropriate

110

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

for their audience, ‘the extent to which one can reasonably explicitly intrude into one’s discourse, or assert one’s personal involvement’. Most likely, though, students have internalized the message that sentence starters such as I believe or It is my opinion are not academic enough and see academic writing as more ‘faceless’ than it actually is (Hyland, 2001: 212). Baron (2003) tells the story of a student who stated in an essay, ‘A famous literary critic once wrote…’; when asked who that famous critic was, the student confessed that he was referring to himself, trying to avoid using I. Note that reporters also avoid the first person plural, sometimes to awkward effect, referring to themselves as a reporter in a story. (See Chapters 2 and 7 for more on first person singular usage. See also Chapters 6 and 8 for discussion of bad academic imitations.) Avoiding the pronouns they are comfortable using in speech, students might attempt to sound academic with the use of one as a generic, e.g. One must study hard to succeed. Students who start down that road, though, usually end up with generic you, e.g. One must study hard if you are going to succeed. In this example, the writer has failed to keep the person (one vs. you) consistent. Another trap related to using one is when students start with singular one and then switch to a plural, such as in One must study hard if they are going to succeed. Linguists have been arguing for a while that they actually does work this way, as singular they, and is in fact filling a need since English has no gender-neutral singular pronoun (besides it). The main point is that academic writing demands consistency, whether the writer favors I or you or one. And as discussed in Chapter 2, students can use I as long as it serves the writing. Question from Student: My teacher says my writing is too repetitive. What are ways I can vary my sentences? Linguistic Context: We tend to think that repetition is bad. However, there is such a thing as deliberate (or meaningful) repetition (Benjamin & Oliva, 2007; Hancock, 2005). After all, academic writing requires us to elaborate and assume that we are writing for an unseen audience in decontextualized circumstances. The writer needs to make choices about when to be explicit and when to use ‘shorthand’ such as pronouns. When deciding what to include, the writer also needs to remember what information is already known and what is new. The so-called given/new pattern of academic English places known information first and new information at the end of a sentence. (See Graff et al. [2009]; and also Chapter 11 for more on the given/new pattern.)

Narrative Structure/Discourse

111

The writer also needs to keep in mind what is called parallelism, both lexical and grammatical, in which a linguistic pattern is established and followed across a sentence. To achieve parallelism, one might need to repeat material. And a writer needs to be able to identify linguistic structures to repeat them and maintain cohesion. Parallelism is evident, for example, in the repetition here of progressive forms: The character is fighting with his family, struggling with himself and perfecting an alibi for his crime. Flowerdew (2013: 55) maintains that to achieve such cohesion, students need ‘pedagogical intervention’ so that they experience a raising of consciousness about linguistic structure. Question from Teacher: How do I teach students what is better: to quote directly or to paraphrase? Students seem to be addicted to ‘lots of quotes’ and avoid putting ideas in their own words. Linguistic Context: Many students are scared of plagiarizing, even accidentally. Many will go out of their way to avoid even inadvertently copying and thus rely on a good helping of direct quotations from an original source. Further, students report feeling insecure about deviating from the wording in a text; they do not think they can say it any better than the original author and don’t believe they have enough mastery of the academic vocabulary, i.e. it won’t sound academic enough. Students fear that, without any kind of authority, they will be saying the obvious and just look silly (Lee & Aitchison, 2011). Another problem is that students do not always understand the nature of paraphrasing. A paraphrase keeps the semantic meaning of the text constant but varies the syntax (grammar) and word choices. Deviating from the text, of course, can lead to a change of meaning and awkward academic imitations. When students paraphrase a text, they tend to go line-by-line. Leamnson (1999) believes that a good paraphrase demonstrates a more global understanding and can be quite different in structure from the original text, even potentially longer. When it comes to quoting directly, Epstein (2011: 98) suggests that writers ‘limit quotations to primary sources or to writings that are so pithy and well articulated that no convenient alternative way of expressing the thought exists’. Otherwise, students should try to write as naturally as they can within the bounds of academic formality. Question from Teacher: How do I get students to give more than one-word answers in class discussions? Linguistic Context: Typical classroom talk between teachers and students can be said to follow the formula ‘initiation-response-evaluation’ (IRE;

112

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

also called initiation-response-feedback, IRF). The initiator, the teacher, usually poses a question that is closed (vs. open-ended) and lacks authenticity, i.e. the teacher already knows the answer. The student responds and the teacher cues whether the answer was right or wrong with an evaluation. IRE is called the ‘default interactional pattern of western schooling’ (Hall, 2012: 92; see also Waring, 2009). That doesn’t mean it is especially productive, however. Hall (2012: 93) says IRE does not ‘allow for complex ways of communicating between the teacher and students’. Waring criticizes this interaction pattern for closing down communication by leaving no opportunities for students to initiate talk and ask questions, opportunities for learning to happen. Pedagogical gains come from identifying the IRE pattern and then enhancing it. Hall (2012) and Waring (2009) suggest replacing evaluation (e.g. ‘Yes, good’; or ‘No, someone else?’) with follow-up (e.g. ‘Tell me more!’ or ‘Why do you think so?’). Such a change in the teacher’s response keeps the dialogue going, introduces authenticity into the exchange and invites self-reflected learning in the student. Waring points out that both teacher and student can co-construct opportunities for students to initiate an exchange, so that a student’s ‘I have a question’ does not get lost in the institutionalized pattern that teachers control. (See Chapter 1 for more on IRE/IRF patterns.) Chapter links to language modalities Discourse can be spoken or written. Thus, the understanding of discourse markers and their contribution to organization aids several language modalities, not only writing but also processing of texts (reading) and spoken language (listening comprehension). This knowledge also allows us to see more clearly the similarities and differences between spoken and written language. Speech patterns in the classroom, for example, can be more writinglike than speech among friends. Associated sample study sheets in Part 3 M: Formality Continuum/Style N: Transitional Expressions This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lessons: Lesson 4: A look at language behaviors that have been stereotyped as “woman-speak”. Lesson 5: Exploring what might make a conversationalist appear rude.

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 4: ‘Such Rude Talkers!’: Conversational Style Clashes

The Stereotype Some groups of people are just rude. They talk loudly and always interrupt. Or they never say anything, making me do all the work.

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to • • • •

Articulate the common perceptions of rudeness, as determined by a speaker’s linguistic behavior. Cite specific linguistic research to challenge stereotypes of rudeness. Connect linguistic behavior to social and cultural perceptions of rudeness. Discuss the linguistic structure and rule-governed nature of conversations.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics This lesson deals with conversations, a type of discourse that describes language above the level of the sentence. Surprising to some, conversations are not spontaneous strings of sentences but in fact highly regulated exchanges. 113

114

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

However, what a good conversation looks like is guided by pragmatic rules (social norms), which can be both culture-specific and situation-specific. We need to follow the playbook, the ways this particular situation, with these people, for this reason call for this linguistic behavior. The rules for being socially appropriate are ‘housed’ in our communicative competence, the dos and don’ts of language use in our speech community (Hymes, 1974). Even if we are not especially conscious of these rules, and might not be able to articulate the components of a good conversation, we know when they are being followed, and when they are not (hence the rude! reaction). Philosopher Paul Grice (1975) noted four conversational maxims that describe not what we should do to have a good conversation, but what we assume to be true when conversing with someone. We assume there will be cooperation, as summed up in these maxims. For one, we assume that the person is giving us relevant information (Maxim of Relevance), so if I ask what time it is and the person responds that he is hungry, I will most likely try to connect those two utterances to make sense of the response. Next, we assume that our conversational partners are giving us the adequate amount of information (Maxim of Quantity). Did you enjoy your vacation? is technically a yes/no question, but it really asks for details (of course, not too many). Alternatively, How was your weekend? tends to call for a brief, Fine, thanks. And yours? as opposed to a minute-by-minute accounting. We also assume that the information we are being given is true, or true to the best of the speaker’s knowledge (Maxim of Quality), so we are not as a norm expecting to be overtly lied to. Finally, we try to word our sentences so that the conversation does not lead to any misunderstandings (Maxim of Manner), trying to avoid being ambiguous or vague. Note that Grice never explains exactly what is qualitatively and quantitatively appropriate, leaving room for culturespecific norms. Of course we can – and sometimes do – ignore these maxims to even more closely suit a situation. ‘How are you?’ from your doctor requires more information than, ‘Fine thanks.’ These maxims might not pertain to those late-night chats with your BFF, where relevance can be far from the expectation and we need to give all the juicy details. And comedians will often purposefully violate (flout) maxims for humorous effect, for the surprise of the unexpected or ill-fitting utterance.

The Linguistic Research Crucial to this lesson is the fact that the ebbs and flows of a ‘good’ conversation can be different depending on one’s speech community.

Instructor Guidance Material 4 for Chapter 9

115

Different groups of people have internalized different sets of norms, which make speakers with other norms apt to be judged (usually negatively). A linguist who has researched conversational styles (and the impact of a mismatch in style) is Deborah Tannen. Tannen might be most known for her books about gender differences in language use. The larger theme of her work, though, is the ways differences in conversational style – even the little differences, such as how long a pause we take before speaking or the amount of supportive noise we make as listeners – can have huge implications for how successful the conversation seems to each participant. Our timing in pacing and pausing, degrees of politeness and directness, number and length of turns we take, and whether we interrupt or overlap with the speaker: these are the conversational variables we do not need to consider when a conversation is going well. We also might not think to ‘blame’ a mismatch of style when that conversation is not going so smoothly. We might instead ‘pathologize’ the speaker: lay the blame on a defect in the other, or the speech community she comes from (Tannen, 2004). ‘New Yorkers are so rude! They never let me get a word in. Those southerners are so dumb! It takes them forever to get their thoughts out.’ While fast-talking northerners and slower-paced southerners might be a stereotype with a grain of truth to it, the interpretation of rude or dumb, of course, is not warranted. Below we consider some linguistic variables that can result in the perception of good or not so good conversations.

Pacing and Pausing What is the appropriate time lag between turns in a conversation? What is enough silence? Does a conversational partner step on our lines? Interrupt us? Timing, even a little out of sync, can have large consequences.

Directness Besides getting the pacing and pausing ‘right,’ i.e. appropriate to community norms, we also need to find the right degree of directness and politeness when we engage in conversation. If there is a fire drill, trying to be indirect is ill-advised (Hmm, do I hear a bell?). When wanting someone else to answer the door, indirectness might work (Hmm, do I hear a bell?). Another factor that impacts the directness of a conversation is the surrounding power structure between the conversational partners. A boss can be more direct to her assistant than vice versa.

116

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Meta-message Tannen (2006) discusses the fact that what we say often has two layers: the message and the meta-message. In her book about mothers and daughters in communication, she illustrates examples of daughters focusing more on their mothers’ meta-messages (the messages’ implications) than the messages’ face value (the actual words). Is that a new hairstyle? might be intended as a compliment, but if the daughter reads a meta-message of criticism, the conversation is derailed.

Beginnings and Endings Should we plunge right into a conversation or should we take the time to engage in the necessary small-talk? Jump right into business at a meeting? Or perhaps instead ease into the main reason for gathering, with a little How was your weekend? or How’s the family? or reflecting on the latest front-page news? How do we know what is the appropriate amount of pre-talk, be it a meeting with a supervisor or buying coffee at a local bakery? In other words, should we schmooze? The term schmooze comes from Yiddish and means those exchanges of small talk that make the others in the conversation feel good. An entire book on schmoozing by Diana Boxer defines it as ‘using talk to lubricate social interactions through knowing what to say at the right time’ (Boxer, 2011: xiv). Still, what are the small talk movements that are expected? And how long do they go on? What about closing a conversation? I had a professor who never said goodbye on the phone. When he was done, he would just hang up. We all (eventually) expected it (That’s just Prof. X’s way), but at first I thought he was very rude. Small talk serves a phatic (social) function (Boxer, 2011). There might be no direct benefits to reflecting on the weather or politics before paying for your coffee, but culturally there could be crucial indirect ones.

Compliments and Favors Take compliments. You might start an exchange with one, as small talk to ease into the business at hand: You look nice today. In some speech communities, the polite response might be a mild self-denigrating comment such as, Oh, this ratty old dress? (Boxer xxiii), where a simple Thank you would seem rude. But note that you need to have the same pragmatic playbook as the compliment-giver to know this. What about asking a favor of someone? We talk about ‘face’ in linguistics, in that when we ask something of someone, to avoid being rude we

Instructor Guidance Material 4 for Chapter 9

117

carefully word the request to give that person an ‘out,’ to say no, i.e. to save face. Such linguistic care also allows the person asking the favor to avoid feeling the sting of a rejection. There is thus the chance of ‘refusing with finesse’ (Boxer, 2011: 17; cf. also Brown & Levinson, 1987). Similarly, if someone is complaining to you about his or her bad day or bad boss, a rude response might be, ‘Oh, grow up’ or ‘Too bad,’ since there are no empathy and face-saving opportunities available. Here’s a story. I had lunch a few years back with a famous linguist. True, I invited her and was tapping her for information, so she was doing me a favor and was my guest. When the waiter brought the check, I said, ‘I would like to treat.’ Her reaction? ‘Thanks!’ Now, there is nothing wrong with that exchange, but I was still taken aback. I expected some resistance, even though we both knew I should pay. The pragmatic rules I internalized told me that the game is to reject a favor twice before accepting. My companion’s rules were more straightforward and saved time. I understood all this, but the word rude still popped into my mind.

Listenership Even when we are the listener in a conversation, we have a responsibility to keep the conversation flowing smoothly. We should, for example, supply the right response to our partner when dealing with what are called contingency pairs (Thank you should be followed by something; it used to be followed by You’re welcome but might now be followed by Thank you or Sure)? Do we listen in silence or instead use what is called backchannel, (those ‘I’m listening and with you’ utterances and noises) (Tannen, 2004)? Does the backchannel turn into interruption or is it enthusiastic overlapping of turns? (What a fine distinction!) Do we make encouraging noises to show support and solidarity? Once, a male friend was telling me about the death of his beloved dog and called me out for ‘making those female sounds of sympathy’ during his story. I wasn’t even aware of doing it, but I must have felt it was appropriate. He didn’t and was apparently annoyed. And then I was annoyed!

It’s the Little Things Do you prefer to be addressed by your title and last name? First name? Do you indicate your preference, as in, Oh, please, call me Sue. The study of names is a branch of linguistics called onomastics, and naming (as the rhyme goes) is claiming (or at least socially meaningful). Getting naming wrong can contribute to the perception of rudeness. Research shows that women are more likely to be addressed by their first names than are men (Romaine, 1999). Would you consider a first name

118

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

address to be impertinent? What do your students call you? My colleague and I noticed a rash of Hello, Last Name at one point among our students (Hello, Behrens). It rankled, and when I raised the issue with these students, they were shocked that I had found anything wrong with that form of address; it didn’t seem odd to them at all. What about the opposite end of the formality continuum? Can familiarity be rude? Are you ever addressed as Hon or Sweetie? Maybe not by a student (!) but a colleague or clerk or bus driver? (I have direct experience that the waiter at the Waverly Restaurant in New York’s Greenwich Village calls all women of a certain age ‘Sweetheart.’) How do you feel about those forms of address? Some speech communities may find these acceptable terms of affection, and (in fact) if you fail to add the Sweetie and Dear to your conversation, might actually feel the sting of disrespect. Others are extremely put off by what seems overly-familiar speech from acquaintances or strangers. Recent research explores the phenomenon of ‘elder speak,’ whereby older folks are addressed in a register that can come across as child-like, using we and simplifying sentences: for example, How are we today? or Look, we finished our breakfast! (Mooney & Evans, 2015). While those interacting with geriatric populations might believe they are being polite in these instances, others would consider such talk condescending and infantilizing.

Advanced Linguistic Information: Are We Communicating? Research into cross-cultural pragmatics finds that every conversational exchange has both linguistic and pragmatic rules. With all these rules, are we actually communicating? How can we tell if our conversational partner is following us or is instead in need of clarification? Should we back up and clarify, or should we move ahead (an especially relevant question in the world of education)? Robinson (2014) asks that question, looking at something called self-repair. How does a listener signal that he or she is following the speaker? Robinson finds that people tend to remain silent to indicate understanding. At each next transition-relevance place, if recipients forgo their structurally provided opportunity to initiate repair, if current speakers do not engage in selfrepair, and if current speakers continue speaking by producing a next action, then both current speakers and recipients tacitly orient to recipients as having understood the current speaker’s immediately prior actions. In sum, although recipients’ understandings may be indexed in the course of their next-turn talk, such understandings are also, and more proximately, claimed ex silentio by recipients on (at least) an action-by-action basis, as they forgo each next repairopportunity space. (Robinson, 2014: 123)

Instructor Guidance Material 4 for Chapter 9

119

Robinsons’s findings accord with Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Maxim of Minimization in linguistic expression, summed up as ‘infer understanding if there is no evidence of misunderstanding’ (Robinson, 2014: 123). How does this lesson on conversations apply to our work in education? Are we engaging in successful conversations in and out of the classroom? Behrens, Neeman, and Jablon (2007) interview students after advisement or office hour sessions with professors. Non-native English speaking students rate their conversations as overall successful. Nonetheless, the students also report not believing that their questions were answered fully or that they were fully understood by the professor. Behrens and Jablon (2008) find a disconnect in conversations between students and supervisors in a clinical setting, with students not feeling heard and their questions left unanswered, while (in contrast) supervisors rating the same exchange as a successful teaching moment. Understanding the nature of conversations should be part of our pedagogy.

Conclusion/Going Forward It is actually quite surprising that conversations do go as well as they do, with all these factors that we must consider simultaneously, and on the spot, when we converse. With more mobile interfaces, often devoid of tone of voice, are we becoming ruder? How does computer mediated discourse contribute to levels of (mis)understanding at the conversational level? ‘If you exchange e-mails with a teenager or young adult, you may be bombarded with the likes of brb (be right back), nvm (never mind), lol (laugh out loud), omg (oh, my God) and btw (by the way), among other examples of the dumbing-down of society’ (Carter, 2006: 10). Questions remain: Is texting rude, is it less rude that in 2006, and instead are we perhaps being more efficient in our communication? Time will tell.

Cross-referenced with Lesson 3 on Texting and Lesson 5 on Woman-Speak Extending and Customizing the Lesson • •

Look at etiquette books about how to have ‘good’ conversations. What are the linguistic points that are raised, and which ones are missing from the discussion? Watch some episodes of series with bad conversationalists, such as House (Hugh Laurie’s character), and movies with rude characters, such as the Dursleys from Harry Potter. How would a linguist describe their conversational styles?

120

•

• •

• •

•

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Are we more abrupt online? Read David Crystal’s work on computermediated discourse. YouTube offers many interviews with this linguist. View these links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2XVdDSJHqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h79V_qUp91M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj8VYzDAy8 Connect what Crystal is reporting to your personal experiences. Discussion about textisms can focus on the fine differences conveyed by small punctuation or abbreviation choices. Read this article from The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/style/whenyour-punctuation-says-it-all.html Now, survey your peers to uncover trends in your age group about netiquette. Compare this lesson with issues of gender norms. Use this link from The Washington Post: https://w w w.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sexism-inherent-in-all-that-interrupting/2016/10/07/9ccdd2a0-8c9e-11e6-875e2c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_term=.72a5dbb3e09a Can being too polite wind up being a problem? Consider these two news stories: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/21/whywomen-dont-use-a-certain-rude-word/?postshare=4771461350693445 &tid=ss_tw http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-asianaflight-214-crash-korean-airlines-culture-outliers/

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 5: ‘Do You Speak “Woman”?’

The Stereotype Men are from Planet A and speak A-lish; women are from Planet B and speak B-lish. Communication can only happen with the help of Star Trek’s Universal Translator.

The Learning Objectives By the end of this lesson, students will be able to • • •

Articulate the popular impression of gender differences in language use. Cite linguistic trends found in female speech from current research. Contrast the early research findings of Lakoff to current views.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics As with many of the stereotypes in this book, gender difference in language is a phenomenon more robust in listeners’ minds than borne out in research findings. We will start with a brief look into the history of the search for how men and women might be different linguistically.

121

122

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Robin Lakoff, in 1975, set the scene for research into the intersection of language and gender. In a review of her early work, Hancock, Stutts, and Bass (2015) explain how Lakoff identifies usage differences at various levels of language. Starting with vocabulary, Lakoff claims that women have a wider vocabulary of color terms (Do men know what mauve and ecru are?); use more polite curses (e.g. Oh fudge!), and greater instances of what she calls empty adjectives (e.g. divine, cute) (Hancock et al., 2015: 316). In terms of grammatical structure, women use more tag questions (You know what a tag question is, don’t you?), supposedly to cue uncertainty; and their voice quality contains more examples than male speech of high rising terminal (uptalk) in sentence intonation for declarative sentences. Women also demonstrate a higher degree of politeness in general, avoiding issuing orders via imperatives. Continuing her research, Lakoff adds to this list of woman-speak variables hedges (e.g. sort of, maybe), intensive use of the word so, and a stricter adherence to standard grammar than is found in men’s speech. Note, however, that ‘[Lakoff] provides no empirical research regarding the perception or actual presence of these variables’ (Hancock, 2015: 316, emphasis added). Nonetheless, the question of gender differences in language was now on the table.

The Linguistic Research Why did the linguistics field take up this question of the potential interaction of language and gender? First, the popular impression already existed of a gender divide, and research could thus better explain our real world interactions. Another reason was the need for a counterpoint to such extreme claims as that of authors like John Gray, in his best-seller Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (1992). In an interview in fastcompany.com (2014) about a ‘communication blind spot’ between the genders, Gray (along with ‘gender intelligence specialist’ Barbara Annis) points to ‘biochemical differences,’ such as ‘high testosterone’ levels for men and ‘higher levels of oxytocin’ (the ‘we’ hormone) in women that give rise to interruptions (men) and the need to be ‘invited into the conversation’ (women). Linguists with a special interest in the social aspects of language (sociolinguists) wanted to move beyond the assumption of innate brain differences (https://www. fastcompany.com/3031631/strong-female-lead/are-we-speaking-a-differentlanguage-men-and-womens-communication-blind-s). Linguist Deborah Tannen is a familiar name in this research. She worked with cultural anthropologists as a student and was familiar with the phenomenon of cross-cultural communication differences (Cameron,

Instructor Guidance Material 5 for Chapter 9

123

2008). Tannen’s work has been very influential and gone far to instill in the popular mind a ‘You Just Don’t Understand’ view of gender communication (indeed, that is the title of her 1990 book). Gender and language research examines not just language production but also how each gender is spoken to (language they receive, as in being called by their first name vs. title and last name), as well as language about each gender (e.g. pretty woman, handsome man). Research has also considered additional variables beyond the gender of a speaker, employing methodology to take into account group dynamics, such as who else is present in a speech event (e.g. mixed vs. same-sex conversations); the power differential among the participants (e.g. women as supervisors, peers, or subordinates in a situation); and the reason for the language event (e.g. telling a joke, asking a favor, delivering a report in a business meeting). Not surprisingly, then, data from recent sociolinguistic research calls into question Lakoff’s earlier findings, the interpretation of those findings, and sometimes both. Linguistic markers that originally fell under the category of ‘woman-speak’ are now being found in male speakers too. Studies begin to find that women do not use more hedges (modifiers of uncertainty) than men, in contradiction to Lakoff (Hancock et al., 2015). And – follow the logic – if men are employing such devices as hedges and tag questions, perhaps this linguistic behavior does not necessarily arise from uncertainty. Does this shift in findings reflect an actual change (narrowing) of gender differences, or it is that the research has become more nuanced? Or both? Recent research presents a picture of diminishing gender differences in language use as earlier findings are not replicated and in some cases contradicted; this is possibly due to new contexts or changes over time in societal language norms. Furthermore, results from more context-based analyses indicate that several linguistic variables differ between men and women only in certain contexts, with differences changing between conversation and writing as well as according to the formality of the situation or characteristics of the communication partner. (Hancock et al., 2015: 317) Researchers also find that gender identification by listeners tends to be very inaccurate, a real ‘mismatch between actual and stereotypical gender’ (Hancock et al., 2015: 325). Perhaps there are no actual differences to be found between genders that can be attributed to gender alone.

124

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Conclusion/Going Forward Linguist Deborah Cameron (2008) has baldly stated that ‘[t]he idea that men and women differ fundamentally in the way they use language to communicate is a myth’ (3) and that such beliefs are ‘sweeping, inaccurate, and simplistic’ (125). Differences in gender matter less than those related to other factors such as social status. The intra-group differences in male and female speakers, states Cameraon, are also greater than the inter-group differences. If we notice small gender differences, well, that is how stereotypes work: we focus on what confirms our beliefs. And since identity-creation is in play, men and women may well act on (produce and exaggerate) those differences to ‘be’ more masculine or feminine, reinforcing the stereotype. Every ‘fact’ about how women use language – to cooperate, express feelings, talk (a lot) about family and friends, avoid conflict through politeness and indirect speech – fails to be confirmed by research (Cameron, 2008).

Advanced Linguistic Information Cameron faults the path that past research has placed us on. The Lakoff-type research comes from a deficit point of view (women are lesser in something); the Tannen-type research comes from a culture-clash point of view (different cultures are alien to each other); and the theories that pin gender differences on brain differences are especially specious. All are baseless, not backed up by solid data. Further, they fail to acknowledge the interplay of gender and power dynamics, especially social inequality and opportunities. Finally, Cameron expresses deep concerns about perpetuating a belief that men just do not understand women, and that women need to be more man-like in their speech to bridge the communication gap; and about the real-world consequences of accepting such thinking as science. Why do linguists continue to study the intersection of language and gender at all? And will the focus remain on how women speak differently, the norms continuing to be based on male speech? One reason for such research is that gender differences are still strong in the popular perception. Further, with our ever-growing online presence (especially on social media), and ubiquitous memes and viral postings, stereotypes easily perpetuate.

Advanced Linguistic Information One recent study finds gender differences in Facebook posts. Park, Yaden, Schwartz, Kern, Eichstaedt, Kosinski, Stillwell, Unger, and Seligman (2016) look at Facebook posts and find that male entries include imperatives (e.g. ‘Do this!’) and adjectives that show judgment (e.g. ‘good’ and ‘stupid’); while postings by females include hedges, longer sentences, intensive adverbs (e.g. ‘so’ and ‘really’), and claims

Instructor Guidance Material 5 for Chapter 9

125

tied to emotions (e.g. ‘excited,’ ‘happy,’ and ‘hurt’) (Park et al., 2016: 2). Despite these findings, though, the researchers caution that we have ‘little insight into the psychological meaning of these gender differences’ (1). Another practical reason for continuing this type of research is to be in the service of transgendered individuals who desire a change in their use of voice for their intended identity. Is there something in voice, speech, and language (pitch, articulation, vocabulary, and pragmatics) that would help those transitioning feel more ‘at home’?

Advanced Linguistic Information Male-to-female participants in the Hancock et al. (2015) study demonstrate such linguistic patterns as length of sentence and use of personal pronouns that are closer to the male linguistic behavior than the female mean. Ultimately, the researchers claim that ‘gender-related differences in language use are limited, and that any relationship of language to perceptions of gender and femininity is complex and multivariate. Specific linguistic variables may be relatively more predictive than others, but none emerge as clearly useful for influencing how people perceive gender or femininity’ (2015: 329). As the concept of ‘gender’ itself evolves, so does the linguistic research. The work continues.

Cross-referenced with Lesson 4 on Rudeness, Lesson 8 on Vocal Fry, and Lesson 9 on Gay Voice Extending and Customizing the Lesson •

• •

Summarize the findings in this article http://www.fastcompany.com/3031631/strong-female-lead/are-wespeaking-a-different-language-men-and-womens-communicationblind-s and compare to the linguistic findings in this lesson. View various Internet parodies of gender differences (consider the URLs in Behrens, Catalano et al., 2016, for examples). Critique each clip using the linguistic research findings in this lesson Other gender differences reported in the media include use of like as a filler or quotative (e.g. He was like, ‘I will be right there.’) Read the scholarly article by Odato (2013) and compare the popular perception to the linguistic research. Now critique this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/21/whywomen-dont-use-a-certain-rude-word/?postshare=4771461350693445 &tid=ss_tw Connect its contents to Lesson 9 on rudeness.

126

•

•

•

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Read this article about words used to insult women: http://daily.jstor.org /the-language-of-nasty-women-and-othergendered-insults/ How do the article’s views compare with the current lesson? What does the article say about the ‘gendering of language’? Additional gender-related articles to read and compare/contrast: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/upshot/speaking-while-femaleand-at-a-disadvantage.html?_r=0 https://www.themuse.com/advice/hey-ladiesheres-how-to-ignore-allthe-critics-and-use-upspeak-to-your-advantage Finally, view this clip affirming women’s rights to speak how they want. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me4_QwmaNoQ&t=2s What is the artist saying about woman-speak?

10 Pronunciation/Phonology This chapter covers accents, phonological processes and mishearings.

Phonetics and Phonology The smallest unit of language is the speech sound or phoneme, a consonant or vowel. All languages employ an inventory of consonants and vowels, as well as rules for how they pattern. Phonemes and patterns can both differ and overlap from one language to another. When one studies the particular phonemes of a language, one is studying phonetics. The investigation of the rules of combining phonemes, and ways that phonemes are altered when they occur in different word environments, is called phonology. Phonetics and phonology roughly correspond to pronunciation. When we notice a speaker’s accent, it is phonological patterns at play: how that speaker, or that group of speakers, systematically uses phonemes and how the phonemic patterns differ between speakers or from one group to another. Let’s now turn to the questions that students and teachers have about pronunciation. Question from Student: Do I have an accent? I didn’t think so in high school, but here at college people tell me I do. Question from Teacher: Why are there some accents that do funny things with the letter ‘r’? I often hear both idear (an extra ‘r’) and fouah (four), a missing ‘r’ from the same speaker. Linguistic Context: A noticeable trait in many accents of English involves variation in the production of the speech sound /r/, a phoneme. Note that phonemes, vs. letters, are shown in slash marks with their corresponding symbols from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), a recording system in which each speech sound is represented by one, and only one, symbol. (Figure 10.1 shows the IPA chart of phonemes in English.) Some accents found in the north-east of the USA allow the /r/, when it follows a vowel, to be absent, thus creating a linguistically marked pronunciation (as in fouah). These same accents also allow an

127

Figure 10.1 The IPA chart of the phonemes of English

128 Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Pronunciation/Phonology

129

/r/ to be inserted (when it usually is not present in the unmarked form) after vowels (as in idear). So, a speaker in this accent group might well pronounce the Peter Carey novel (and film) Oscar and Lucinda as Oscah and Lucinder. The recent horror movie ‘Saw Four’ might also sound different when discussed by two different accent groups. The ‘appearance’ or ‘disappearance’ of /r/ isn’t arbitrary; it follows a pattern. A similar pattern of variation from the unmarked form can be found with the consonant /l/; this is not surprising since /r/ and /l/ belong to the same family (manner) of articulation called liquids. Some accents omit /l/ after a vowel, giving us a type of nut called an a-mond, a fish called sa-mon and a wild canine called woof (this last example I hear from my husband, who is from Philadelphia). The Philadelphia area is also known for the pronunciations sawl (for saw) and drawling (for drawing), examples of an intrusive /l/ (compared to the norm) after a vowel. My New Yorker

130

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

brother (with his intrusive /r/ consonants) tells the story of once correcting a Pennsylvania co-worker by saying, ‘It’s not sawl; it’s sore!’. A speaker who produces marked forms of words with liquid consonants might go on to pronounce the /r/ or /l/ phoneme in the standard (unmarked) way when in situations that are formal. In New York City, I notice sales people with ‘correct’ placement of /r/ when they are on script and trying to sell me something; if I engage them in conversation so that they are no longer communicating about predictable, store-related topics, they start to talk more casually, and their New York accent comes through. The phonological patterns of accents, then, are both rule-governed and flexible to adapt to different speaking situations. The bottom line with accents: we all have one, and when we find ourselves in a new speech group, we might notice our accents more. We also have the ability to conform and move along a style continuum, sounding more or less formal (thus more or less standard) in our pronunciations. Question from Teacher: Why is ‘th’ sometimes pronounced as ‘d’ (as in dere for there), as ‘v’ (as in brover for brother) or as ‘t’ (as in tree for three)? Linguistic Context: The consonant ‘th’ is actually two phonemes: the ‘th’ in that /ð/ and the ‘th’ in think /Ɵ/. The former phoneme involves vibration of the vocal folds (is a voiced sound); the latter is pronounced with the vocal folds open and not vibrating (is a voiceless sound). Many accents of English do not use the ‘th’ phonemes; they instead use a consonant that shares close articulation with the ‘th’ sounds, such as /f, v, t/ and /d/ (see Figure 10.1). Such an accent trait is not too surprising: the /Ɵ/ phoneme in general is not commonly found as a phoneme in the world’s languages. So, while the phonemic inventory of standard English does include both ‘th’ sounds, not all accents of English do. The process of replacing one phoneme with another is called, not surprisingly, substitution. What is substituted for what will depend on the voicing quality of the ‘th’ under consideration and its position in the target word. Is the target ‘th’ at the start of the word? Then it might be replaced with a /t/ if voiceless or a /d/ if voiced: three pronounced as tree; there as dere. Is the ‘th’ in the middle of a word, between vowels? It is more likely to be pronounced as /f/ as in aufor (author) or /v/ as in brover (brother). All accents demonstrate regularity, so these substitutions are not random changes. And as we saw above, speakers vary their accents (to certain degrees) to match the speaking style of the situation.

Pronunciation/Phonology

Hard Palate Alveolar Ridge

131

Velum (Soft Palate)

Nasal Cavity

Nostril Lips

Uvula Phar ynx t roo

vity l Ca b Ora front ack tip Tongue

Teeth Glottis Epiglottis Vocal Folds

Larynx

Figure 10.2 The vocal tract

Question from Teacher: Why do some students pronounce street as shtreet? Straight as shtraight? Linguistic Context: The change in pronunciation that this teacher detects has been around for a while, but it is now spreading to a wider population. The consonant /s/ is produced near the alveolar ridge (gum ridge) and the ‘sh’ (IPA symbol is /ʃ/) a bit farther back in the mouth near the hard palate (called post-alveolar or palatal). (See Figure 10.2, which shows the parts of the vocal tract.) When /s/ occurs in a blend involving an /r/, such as ‘str’, the first sound for some speakers is articulated at the palate, making the sound /ʃ/. The likely cause of this substitution is a phonological process called assimilation, due to the neighboring consonant /r/. English /r/ is a palatal sound, and /s/ in blends with /r/ moves closer to the palate so that it becomes /ʃ/. Consonant /s/ assimilates with /r/ by sharing the same place of articulation. This accent trait is a predictable alternation, so if a speaker says shtraight, she or he is likely to also say shtrong (strong). In fact, as this

132

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

type of assimilation spreads, it might well become less noticeable, and less stigmatizing, over time. Question from Teacher: Why do some students seem to drop the ends of words when speaking, such as pronouncing the phrase ‘six months’ as ‘six month’? Linguistic Context: There are a few possible explanations here. First, the speaker might be reducing a consonant cluster. When words have certain consonants in a row, some speakers reduce the cluster by omitting one of the phonemes. Many accent groups do this, such as pronouncing facts as facks (no /t/). Try it. The plural of months includes three consonants in a row and so consonant cluster reduction is happening when the speaker omits the /s/. (See Chapters 3 and 5 for more on consonant cluster reduction.) Another possible explanation has to do with morphemes. Chapter 5 briefly mentions those morphemes, usually suffixes in English, that inflect words with grammatical information – inflectional morphemes – and how they occur at the end of words. Thus, cluster reductions might also result in deletion of grammatical information. A student of mine recently wrote It’s a bias view in a paper; the –ed ending is pronounced as a /t/ and would have resulted in a consonant cluster of /st/. In this case, the student’s spelling seems to stem from her probable pronunciation of the word. Finally, another reason for the consonant cluster reduction of /n + Ɵ + s/ in months might not be a reduction of a cluster blend but a rule in the speaker’s system that units of time need not have overt plural markers. A speaker who says six month might say lengths with all the consonants pronounced. Native language interference might also impact how speakers handle consonant clusters. The word-initial clusters /sk/ and /st/ as in school and state, while common in English, are not initial blends in Spanish. Spanishinfluenced English learners, then, might add an initial vowel, as in eschool and estate, to accommodate their native phonological patterns. Consonant cluster reduction doesn’t only happen by deletion of phonemes. Another phonological process involves not a loss of a segment but an addition. Take the word ‘film’; some speech groups pronounce this word as ‘filem’. The /lm/ cluster is thus reduced by the insertion of a vowel. Pronouncing facts as facks is less linguistically marked than other cluster reductions, such as six month or seeing a filem. Linguistic markedness is a useful concept to share with students to build their meta-awareness of the social reactions of different pronunciations.

Pronunciation/Phonology

133

Question from Teacher: Is saying ax for ask Ebonics? Linguistic Context: Ebonics is the popular name for a dialect of English that most linguists call African American English (AAE). (Note that some linguists use the term African American Vernacular English, AAVE.) Its full linguistic nature is best described by a discussion that encompasses more than pronunciation. However, along with grammar, pronunciation tends to be a very noticeable aspect of dialects. (See also Chapter 7 on the verb to be in AAE.) Instead of saying that the speaker, cited above, is pronouncing the word wrong, or the wrong word, let’s look at it phonologically: /æsk/ is being pronounced as /æks/. Do you notice anything? The consonant blend /sk/ is reversed in the second pronunciation to /ks/. Such reversal of phonemes demonstrates a phonological process called metathesis. We see metathesis in linguistic changes over time; some accounts have the word butterfly being originally flutterby and bird originally being pronounced brid. And we find variations due to metathesis sitting side-by-side today, some examples of which are less stigmatizing or noticeable (less marked) than others; jewelry as jewl –a-ree (vs. jew-al-ree), for example, does not get noticed much (nor does asteriks for asterisk usually). Then again, Marge Simpson’s pronunciation of foilage for foliage was a running joke in one episode of ‘The Simpsons’. The ask story is more complicated than it appears, however, and goes beyond metathesis. Both pronunciations used to be in wide use (just as we currently have often with and without the /t/ being pronounced). At a certain point (starting in the latter half of the 17th century), the /æsk/ pronunciation was elevated to the ‘correct’ form, most likely due to the power status of those who used that variant. Some variants, remember, are linguistically marked and some are unmarked. The pronunciation /æks/ is now a marked form. And its usage is widespread, beyond the AAE-speaking population. (See Wilde [1997] for more on this issue.) (Study Sheet O lists common phonological processes in English; which processes do you make use of in your own accent?) Question from Teacher: My students produce some strange malapropisms. One will say gecko for get-go, for example. Is the problem one of vocabulary or pronunciation? Linguistic Context: Such productions are most likely due to an inaccurate processing of the target phrase. In the example above, the change of getgo to gecko can be explained phonologically. The /t/ in get is assimilated to the same place of articulation as the /g/ that follows it, making it

134

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

a /k/ phoneme instead (same place of articulation – in the back of the mouth at the soft palate/velum). Of course, the target expression get-go might not make a lot of sense to the user, but many expressions don’t make sense anyway. Often, we process them holistically. (See Chapters 1, 2 and 6 for more on idioms.) The student cited in the teacher’s question above probably did not process the target phrase accurately but instead misheard it. Mishearings are called slips of the ear. They are related to slips of the tongue, in which someone misspeaks (‘hissed my mystery lesson’ for ‘missed my history lesson’ – also called spoonerisms). I had a student once write that celebrities live in the lifeline. She meant limelight, but limelight did not make sense to her (and she might have been primed for lifeline by watching ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’). A colleague had a student who complained about a teacher’s favorite in class being a goody tissues (goody two-shoes). Peters (2006) tells how these mishearings are eventually set down in writing as eggcorns (a mishearing of acorns). When his students produce an eggcorn, he now explains its linguistic underpinnings. He says that students learn more that way than simply being corrected, which used to lead to their feeling defensive or defeated. Crovitz (2011) tells a similar story and lists a series of eggcorns (e.g. labtop for laptop; tow the line for toe the line), supplied with possible linguistic reasons why students confuse these expressions. His pedagogical ‘porpoise’ – pun intended – is to use these language errors as the starting point for enlightened discussions with his students, encouraging them to be more self-reflective in their language use. The reasoning here is familiar, then: we should let our students in on the linguistic backstory of the language forms with which they wrestle. Question from Student: I always mix up the spelling of woman and women. Why, and is there a trick to help me keep them straight? Linguistic Context: Having a grounding in phonology helps with spelling ability. I was a poor speller throughout my school years and was especially stymied by words like ladder and latter, which I would alternately spell with a double ‘d’ or ‘t’ hoping to get it right at least half the time. From studying phonology, I now know that both words are actually pronounced the same in American English, with a medial ‘tap’, a consonant that approximates both a ‘d’ and a ‘t’ sound. As for woman and women, I notice most students spell both words as women. If we think about how the second syllables are pronounced, they can sound the same, /Ən/ (with the vowel being a schwa, a relaxed, unstressed

Pronunciation/Phonology

135

sound), despite the difference in spelling. On the other hand, the first syllables are spelled the same but pronounced differently. This inconsistency can throw off a shaky speller. A good ‘trick’ to keeping the spelling clear here is to recognize the singular vs. plural -man and -men in each word and use that as a guide instead of the pronunciation. The strategy of spelling words as they are spoken (as they sound) can also mean students use contractions in their writing. Recently, a colleague was shocked that her student had written we’d in an essay (as opposed to we would). Contractions often give the impression of informality, an incongruity – according to many professors – with the formal style of an academic paper. (See Chapter 7 for more on contractions.) However, this student was perhaps trying to sound natural in his writing to match his speech patterns. Spelling ‘the way it sounds’ leads many students to write could of since the contraction of could have (could’ve) in speech creates that impression. We see once more the way that students are pulled between attempts to rise to the level of college work and simultaneously maintain their own voices in the process. Chapter links to language modalities Accents across English speech communities are systematic, and understanding those systems helps with listening comprehension (and judgment about speakers). For example, once we know that not all English dialects use the two ‘th’ phonemes, but substitute close variations, we can more easily process the speaker’s message, and we have more insight into our own attitudes and reactions to accent differences. Furthermore, speaking and listening skills are improved by an awareness of pronunciation and the phonology of English, and spelling skills are aided by understanding the phoneme-to-letter correspondence of English, which gets a big boost from a lot of reading. Associated sample study sheet in Part 3 O: Phonological Patterns and Processes This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lessons: Lesson 6: Considering the issue of accent in terms of learning a new language (native language-influenced English). Lesson 7: Accent as a trait of one’s native language (New York City English).

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 6: Light or Right? Three or tree? Sheep or Ship? Native language-influenced English

The Stereotype Adults learning English can’t keep some sounds straight. They are too hard for them to say.

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to… • • • •

Explain the linguistic nature of an accent. Discuss certain accent patterns of Asian-language speakers learning English. Apply that lesson to other native language-influenced English types. Connect developmental, articulatory, and phonological information to the stereotypes of this lesson.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

136

Instructor Guidance Material 6 for Chapter 10

137

The Linguistic Basics What we are discussing in this lesson is not the alphabet, not letters. Speech sounds are phonemes. Phonemes are depicted as symbols from the International Phonetic Alphabet and are written with slash marks. When someone learns a new language, especially after a certain age, his or her phonemic habits from the native language tend to carry over. Hence, people have ‘foreign accents.’ In this lesson we look at some English phonemes that can be problems for adult English learners: the phoneme pairs /l/ vs. /r/, /θ / and /δ/ aka ‘th’ sounds, and /i/ vs. /I/. If someone is learning English and his or her native language uses the sounds /l/ and /r/, for example, in a different way from English, those sounds can be more difficult to sort out. This native language interference can happen with consonants or vowels. The problem isn’t in a deficient speech production system; it is in a mismatch between the phonemes of English and the set of phonemes the speaker is used to. When substitutions happen, they are actually very regular and logical. We will start by looking at /l/ and /r/. English makes a linguistic distinction between these two speech sounds, e.g. they are separate phonemes. Other languages might not treat /l/ and /r/ the same way as English. Regardless of how they are classified in a language’s inventory of phonemes, the two sounds are still related in terms of articulation. They are both a manner of articulation called liquids: consonants produced with minimal oral cavity obstruction in the vocal tract. Their articulation difference hinges on the shape that the tongue takes: for /l/, the tongue tip is placed against the roof of the mouth with tongue sides lowered to allow free airflow; for /r/, the tongue takes a bunched-up configuration with the back of the tongue retracted, so placement is a bit further back in the mouth. Due to tongue shape, /l/ is categorized as a lateral liquid and /r/ as a retroflex liquid. It makes sense that a phoneme distinction that requires a complex articulation maneuver might be minimized in some languages. While English phonology treats /l/ and /r/ as distinct (we have minimal pairs, such as light and right, distinguished solely by the phoneme contrast), other languages say ‘No thank you,’ and treat the two sounds in other ways, sometimes whereby one is a non-distinct variant of the other. A phoneme is actually an abstract representation of a speech sound, which can be ‘realized’ (spoken) in varied ways depending on the language. (When spoken, linguists write the symbol surrounded by brackets, as in [l] and [r].) For some languages (and not just in the Asian language family), phonemes /l/ and /r/ are not distinct but instead in what we call allophonic

138

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

variation: one pronunciation (with tongue lateral or retroflex) appears in certain word environments and the other in mutually exclusive, different environments. A native speaker of a language with the liquids in a different state of linguistic distinction from English has to learn the rules of English liquid patterning. And after a certain age, reprogramming those phonological patterns for speakers takes some work. Of course, it can be done, but the point is that, knowing the phonological patterns of the native and target languages allows one (the learner, the teacher, the listener) to predict where the interference spots lie and (more to the point) to understand why there is interference for the speaker. Articulators are not impaired; instead, speakers must learn new phoneme patterns. Another weakness in this lesson’s stereotype is that there is no monolithic Asian language. Japanese and Korean, for example, do not treat /l/ and /r/ the same.

The Linguistic Research Developmental Data Infants, being ‘citizens of the world’ (Kuhl, 2011a), have the potential to learn any human language (and of course more than one). Given such potential means that we technically can process all phonemes as we acquire language. Around 6 months old, babies can pretty accurately discriminate between closely-sounding ones. After all, they might be separate phonemes in the child’s developing language. Japanese and English infants can equally well distinguish /l/ from /r/. What happens after that? By the time they are 12 months, the Japanese children’s abilities have fallen off and the English children’s discriminatory abilities have risen (Kuhl, 2011b). Why is that? The potential to process the /l/-/r/ distinction either weakens or is reinforced by the input the children hear from the adults around them. The Japanese children do not hear the two liquids being used contrastively while the English children do. Liquids are late-developing phonemes in speech regardless of one’s native language. Once speech arrives, the liquids are slow to be incorporated into words for all children. The tongue configurations are more complex than the ‘easier, earlier’ sounds such as /p/, /b/, and /m/. However, the English and Japanese speaking children learn the phonological patterning of /l/ and /r/ appropriate to their own languages.

Instructor Guidance Material 6 for Chapter 10

139

Accent Patterns Teachers of English as a Second or Foreign Language need to anticipate native language interference in their students. Below is a chart of the likely substitutions that adult native speakers of four Asian languages will make when learning to incorporate English liquids into their new language. Common English consonant substitutions for /l/ and /r/ Japanese: [l] for /r/ and [r] for /l/ Cantonese: [l] for /l/ and /r/ Mandarin: [l] for /r/ and [r] for /l/ Korean: [l] for /r/ and [r] for /l/ Small (2016)

Advanced Linguistic Information: We look in more detail below at Japanese and Korean Japanese Phoneticians will predict that an adult Japanese speaker learning English will have trouble with the patterning of the liquid consonants. Complicating the picture for Japanese adults learning English is the fact that the phoneme /r/ is realized differently in Japanese and English. Japanese /r/, when spoken, sounds more like an English-sounding tap (the way ‘t’ or ‘d’ sounds between vowels, as in rider and writer) than an English /r/. Given this lack of correspondence, the Japanese students of English can be found substituting one liquid for another (Aoyama et al., 2004; Carruthers, 2008). Aoyama et al. (2004) also consider what phoneme the listener perceives. In their study, English-speaking listeners identify the Japanese speakers’ /l/ productions as taps and /r/ phonemes as /l/ sounds. Overall, though, Japanese adult ELL speakers are more accurate in their production of English /r/ sounds. Further, they themselves perceive English /r/ more accurately than English /l/, a tidy correspondence of production and perception. Korean The Korean language has the phoneme /l/. However, /l/ is manifested (spoken) as [l] or [r] depending on the word environment, i.e. its neighboring segments. In the case of Korean, /l/ is pronounced [r] when it occurs before a vowel (Yavaş, 2006). Since in English either liquid can occur in that environment (e.g. ‘allow’ and ‘around’), the Korean learner’s ingrained patterns contrast with the target language.

American English Accents: Regional and Social Class Liquids figure in native accents as well. New York City English is known for both a ‘missing r’ (New Yawk), and an intrusive /r/ in some word environments, so

140

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

that saw and sore are both pronounced as the latter. Gick (2002) has documented a similar phenomenon with /l/ in parts of Pennsylvania: ‘missing l’ in woof for wolf and intrusive /l/ in sawl for saw. Even within a language, then, there is variation in the liquid patterns.

Applying the Lesson to Other Accent Groups The ‘th’ sounds of English, written phonetically as /θ/ and /δ/, also pose obstacles for many adult English language learners. These phonemes are actually not common in the world’s languages, so there is a good chance that an English learner would not have had experience with their production. French speakers, for example, might say ‘sink’ for ‘think,’ their native phoneme system having no /θ/, they choose a closely-related speech sound. The consonant /s/ is the same type (manner of articulation) of speech sound, is also produced with the vocal folds open and still, and is produced (place of articulation) very close to the placement of /θ/. Note that even some native English accents do not pronounce /θ/, as in African American English and many dialects in the US and UK. Finally, the two English vowels /i/ as in sheep and /I/ as in ship are separate phonemes, so they make a difference in the meaning of these two words. Not all languages distinguish these sound and, in fact, /i/ is much more common than /I/ (Lieberman, 1984). Finally, the members of this pair differ in a small articulatory way (degree of tension on tongue muscles). A Spanish speaker, for example, might have a difficult time distinguishing between them and pronounce ‘ship’ as ‘sheep,’ using the /i/ vowel instead of the target /I/ sound. Again, as with the other two examples in this lesson, there is no faulty articulatory system; the accent is due to a difference in how the speech sounds are treated in the native and target languages.

Conclusion/Going Forward Our phonology is developed early in life (Lippi-Green, 2012). What we consider to be separate speech sounds (phonemes) vs. variants of a sound (allophones) inform our language learning habits. These ‘problem areas’ are indeed predictable, and they are linguistically logical. English speakers can also have accents when learning a foreign language due to phonemic differences. We have to modify our native habits when producing /t/ in Spanish, for example (how much extra air to give it at the start of a word), or vowels in French (how much nasalization is required and should our ‘ee’ sound be said with rounded or unrounded lips).

Instructor Guidance Material 6 for Chapter 10

141

Perhaps the larger question is, are these accents actually a communication problem? Do they cause lack of comprehension? How much adapting might listeners have to make to accommodate? And which accents are seen as humorous? The British and American pronunciation of banana and lasagna call for different vowels, but as far as I know, there are no restaurant scenes in films playing on this phoneme substitution to humorous effect.

Cross-referenced with Lesson 7 on New York City English Extending and Customizing the Lesson •

•

•

•

•

Look through these two websites. Evaluate the information being conveyed about Asian languages and liquid consonants. What else have you learned? http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8651/is-it-true-that-chinese-speakers-have-troubles-with-rs-and-ls-in-english-wor http://dialectblog.com/2011/12/30/the-east-asian-l-r-mixup/ Read this article about a Fox News reporter in Chinatown. Evaluate both the subjective information and the linguistic information being conveyed. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/business/media/fox-reporteraccused-of-racism-for-chinatown-interviews-on-trump-clinton-andchina.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version =context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending &pgtype=article View this clip from the film My Fair Lady. Describe the native accent of Eliza that is being played for humor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJr9SSJKkII Research the phonological rules of Cockney English to explain her accent. Consider the intersection of region and ethnicity. Wong (2010) investigates a New York City accent among American born Chinese youth. Read Wong’s study. What can you say about speech communities within the same city? What about an actor wanting to master a foreign accent? How much might performers rely on stereotypes or try to steer clear of them when developing a character? Consider this tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YtMC4yUDhc

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 7: ‘New Yawk Tawk’: The New York City ‘R’

The Stereotype New Yorkers are all toity toid floah. New York City has lost its ‘r’s somewhere!

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to… • • • • •

Articulate the popular impression of New York City English (NYCE), specifically as it relates to /r/ productions. Connect the cited material to other regionalisms. Discuss accents related to social class membership. Discuss the regularity of accent patterns. Compare and contrast marked and unmarked linguistic forms.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics Ah, the speech of New York City. Images and examples abound. Check out the t-shirts for sale in Times Square proclaiming that we are in New Yawk (sometimes Zoo Yawk). R-lessness appears to be a salient trait in the 142

Instructor Guidance Material 7 for Chapter 10

143

popular conception of New York City English (NYCE). I used to hear my Brooklyn neighbors complaining about the long lines at ‘Eckid’ (Eckerd, a drug store). Then again, a New Yorker might have a better (bettah?) idear about where to shop instead. (Those r’s are going somewhere!) This lesson deals with speech sounds, not letters. Speech sounds are phonemes, and /r/ is a consonant of the manner of articulation category called liquids. (Liquids are produced with minimal vocal tract constriction, similar to a vowel.) Phonemes are notated as symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and placed in slash marks. And the level of language we are examining here, phonology, means we are focused on an accent, in contrast to a dialect, since grammar, vocabulary, and conversational style do not enter into the discussion (although variation in those areas might well accompany the New York accent). Accents with phonological patterns in which the /r/ tends to be absent, especially after a vowel, e.g. ‘floah’ for ‘floor,’ are called non-rhotic (rhotic is related to /r/), compared to the US standard of rhotic speech. Usually with this accent pattern, and counter-intuitively, an /r/ might be inserted in other words, such as idear for idea, what is termed an intrusive /r/. NYCE exhibits both phenomena.

The Linguistic Research NYCE is one regional American English form that tends to be mocked, even by NYCE speakers. It has been labeled ugly, rough and tough, impatient, uneducated and uncouth (Newman, 2015; Preston, 1998). It is not that NYCE cannot be understood or is unintelligible. In fact, comprehensibility and attractiveness do not always go hand-in-hand. A listener may perfectly well understand someone but still be bothered by the sound of that speaker. Linguists point to an additional factor: the role of the listener, which includes the listener burden (e.g. Carlson & McHenry, 2006). Everyone has a role to play in making communication work. Listener attitudes toward a speaker (what that person represents) can interfere with communication if the listener fails to be an active participant. As we see through many of these lessons, when a critical mass is reached in the popular mind, a social reality can set in. The process of enregisterment takes hold and the perception becomes reality (Wagner, 2014). One could think of enregisterment as a linguistic form of ‘going viral,’ where quantity alone makes something true. A speech variety is created and usually given a name to solidify its existence. It enters into the cultural lore. In a reinforcing cycle, the speech is parodied in spelling (those t-shirts) and

144

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

media clips. Media help both disseminate and reinforce these impressions, thus contributing to the reality of the image (Agha, 2003). Campbell-Kibler (2012) reports that a few US regions are highly known for their speech traits, especially the south, Boston, New York City, and urban areas (cf. also Preston, 1998). While these impressions of such stereotyped speech might seem real to listeners, and it is easy to mock-imitate the speech of that area, people are hard-pressed to give linguistic descriptions or accurate details about the accent. The four most salient traits of New York City English (NYCE), according to researchers, seem to be the lack of /r/ after a vowel, substitution of /d/ or /t/ for ‘th’ sounds, vowel changes so that bag and back have different vowel sounds, and two distinct vowels in the words cot and caught (the latter having the coffee vowel) (Newman, 2015; Wong, 2010). Notice also in toity toid floah (33rd floor) that the ‘oi’ vowel can scream ‘New York!’

What Is It about /r/? All accents have regularity; that includes the habits of /r/ in NYCE. This is not /r/ in just any part of a word (no flower called ‘ose,’ for example); we are discussing a particular word environment, the position after a vowel, which is called the post-vocalic /r/. However, not all New Yorkers sound the same, from one another or even across different interactions on any given day. There is also predictable variation within NYCE. In a famous study, Labov (1966, reported in 2006) examines differences across social economic status and finds that New York City is not one homogenous accent group. Consonant /r/ appears post-vocally (that spot after a vowel) in predictable ways, especially in the speech of those in the higher social class and during more formal speaking styles. All social classes, however, increase production of the /r/ when asked to repeat a phrase with the pertinent vowel + /r/ string (in this experiment, the phrase ‘fourth floor’). The belief is that speakers are switching to a more formal style when asked to repeat themselves, aligned with the more standard production. This phenomenon is called style shifting, something all three social classes demonstrate, but to varying degrees. The middle class speakers in Labov’s study style shift to a greater degree than the upper and working class speakers. They demonstrate the largest increase in rhotic speech when they are asked to repeat the phrase fourth floor, thus switching to a much more formal mode (they believe that they are being listened to more carefully now). Labov labels their corrective behavior hypercorrection: a speaker’s movement toward a more standard form,

Instructor Guidance Material 7 for Chapter 10

145

especially one that is out of proportion to the more casual (informal) production. That is, the middle class speakers produce many more post-vocalic /r/ consonants when they are asked to repeat themselves, and they match or exceed the production of /r/sounds by the upper class speakers. Thus, the degree of /r/-ness in a speaker is conditioned by word environment, social class, and style of speech (formality level). The regional influence of New York, however, is not lost: the highest /r/ values in the entire study are still under 70% rhotic speech for this speech area.

Advanced Linguistic Information NYCE follows patterns and rules; it exhibits regularity. The word bird, for example, is never produced without an ‘r’; the reason is that stressed syllables (a noun like bird tends to be stressed in a sentence) will include an /r/ more often than unstressed syllables. And bird contains a vowel that does not contribute to a nonrhotic pattern. When a schwa (the unstressed, neutral vowel, whose IPA symbol is /Ə/ )is the preceding vowel, the /r/ is more likely to be absent. To add to the complexity, sometimes the speakers of the New York City accent insert an /r/ after a vowel, in instances where the standard pronunciation is nonrhotic. This pattern is also rule governed. This pattern is called intrusive /r/ and is found both after a vowel and at the end of a word that is followed by a new word starting with a vowel. Thus, a New Yorker might say Riter is for Rita is but not Deer is for Dee is (Gick, 2002). Linguists consider the lack of a post-vocalic /r/ to be a marked production, diverging from the US norm, and one that can be stigmatizing. (The ‘normal,’ aka expected, pronunciation is termed unmarked.) However, accents can also function like a badge of pride. Becker (2009) finds that longtime white residents of NYC’s Lower East Side (LES), those with ethnic origins, usually working class and over 50 years of age, use more nonrhotic speech when they are discussing their neighborhood than when talking about other topics. The researcher sees this phenomenon as one of signaling ‘localness and authenticity’ (2009: 634) in an area that at the time of the study is quickly gentrifying. The ‘r-lessness’ quality in this case has social value. ‘[N]on-rhoticity continues to index “New York-ness” today,’ states Becker (644). These LES speakers can certainly produce post-vocalic /r/; they do so more often in topics not about their home area, remember, but also more in reading tasks, both of paragraphs and lists of words, compared to when speaking. There are rules and conditions guiding their speech, some with social conditions, and others with linguistic ones. Overall, the LES speakers display rhotic speech 36% of the time. These speakers are demonstrating

146

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

‘an aspect of agency’ (Becker, 2009: 652) in their choices, more than would be explained by a shift from formal to informal speech alone. They are in control of this accent trait: they can manipulate their /r/ pronunciations to ‘assert their own local meaning of the neighborhood as Lower East Side, not Loisaida, not East Village. They resist what they see as a loss of the “authentic” Lower East Side they once knew’ (2009: 653). Becker’s results are similar to findings of speech in Martha’s Vineyard (Labov, 1963, reported in 2006), in which long-time locals were found to be preserving an older vowel sound in order to, it was speculated, resist the influx of tourists and potential demise of the good old times. The locals could thus distance and distinguish themselves linguistically from the newcomers.

Advanced Linguistic Information Other research has looked at rhotic qualities (/r/ behavior) outside of New York City. Interesting /r/ patterns are found in Boston, New England in general, and the eastern seaboard of the US. Casey (2016) looks at New Orleans English, finding the people most likely to be producing this post-vocalic /r/ to be young and educated. Here we see an increase in rhotic speech, but a slow one, happening over generations. Casey also finds a slower introduction of /r/ in the African American population compared to white speakers. Jones (2015) examines African American English (AAE) in messages posted on Twitter to track /r/ productions across the US by looking at how words are spelled in tweets, with the premise that ‘[p]eople tend to tweet how they speak’ (2015: 409). AAE proves not to be monolithic: Sometimes it is rhotic (in Iowa, for example), and sometimes non-rhotic (in the Northeast). Remember that /r/ is a type of consonant called a liquid. So is /l/. Displaying a type of l-lessness, the area around Philadelphia might be the place to give us woof (for wolf) and cood (for cold) (Gick, 2002). Gick investigates the deletion and insertion of /l/ after vowels (again, only certain vowels). While intrusive /l/ is not common in the US, Gick does find examples in the speech areas of Southeastern Pennsylvania of drawling (for drawing) and sawl (for saw). He also reports research that school children in this area spell the word saw as ‘sal, sall, and sol’ (2002: 172). As with /r/ behavior, /l/ behavior is rule-governed, happening in certain word environments and not others, in both its presence and absence.

New York Ethnicities As New York City’s demographics change, linguists take note. Wong (2010) considers Asian neighborhoods in the city and asks if residents in these speech communities also produce the typical NYCE speech. Wong looks at Chinese-American youth in NYC and does find local dialect traits.

Instructor Guidance Material 7 for Chapter 10

147

Members of Asian American groups who speak English natively are considered by scholars and speakers alike to not have an ethnically distinctive variety of English. Instead, under the prevalent ‘model minority’ stereotype, American-born Asians are often seen as linguistically and culturally assimilated to, and therefore, non-distinct from, middleclass white norms. First-generation immigrants, on the other hand, are assumed to speak English with a foreign accent. (2010: 5) Americans born of Chinese heritage produce some of the typical NYCE vowel traits. The ‘coffee vowel’ was found more often in Chinese American speakers with non-Chinese social networks, in that they ‘appear to show a more unidimensional orientation towards an American lifestyle’ (2010: 8). Wong notes that the general public calls the congruence of these traits a ‘Brooklyn accent,’ whereas it is less about place and more about social belonging.

Conclusion/Going Forward The eastern seaboard in the US in general is becoming more rhotic. NYC is as well, but more slowly than other areas (Becker, 2009). Further, what is considered ‘correct’ pronunciation has shifted over time. Before World War II, the non-rhotic speech of Franklin Roosevelt (a New Yorker!) was considered proper. Linguists find that the pattern switched soon after World War II to the current rhotic standard (McNeil & Cran, 2005). We have seen that it is worth studying the public’s impressions of an accent or dialect group, even (or especially) when that impression might be inaccurate, or worse. Hill (2005) looks at what she calls Mock Spanish in US culture and finds that linguistic examples can easily reproduce racism through stereotypes. Her research uncovers Hispanic stereotypes masked by humor, such as Hasta la vista, baby and the put-off-until-tomorrow mañana. Ronkin and Karn (1999), looking at parodies of Ebonics on the internet soon after the issue made headlines in the US, also find racism, but less veiled in light-hearted humor, instead more overtly vulgar and racist. Here, as with Hill’s data, linguistic inaccuracies abound in the media, evoking and reproducing racist stereotypes. We might mock a NYC accent (have you read Hedder Gabblah?), but understanding the phonology behind the behavior and the systematic nature of the patterns (and overlap with other accent groups) humanizes the speech community.

148

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

Cross-referenced with Lesson 6 on Native LanguageInfluenced English Extending and Customizing the Lesson • •

•

•

•

•

Look on social media at other traits of NYCE besides the behavior of /r/. Consider the cawfee, terlit, and poipose vowels (of coffee, toilet, and purpose), as well as the ‘th’/’d’ substitution. How is NYCE represented? The presence of a post-vocalic /r/ is the US standard pronunciation, but that was not always the case. Read the article by Dudley Knight (2000) about the accent called Standard Stage Speech. How did a pseudo-English accent, without those /r/ sounds, take hold in educated circles in the early 20th Century, and how might it still be found in the theatre world? Linguist Barbara Johnstone has conducted research on the accent called ‘Pittsburghese.’ Read her 2009 article about souvenir t-shirts in that city and summarize her work. Relate it to commodification of the New York accent. What is the accent area in which you teach? Describe other variables in American English accents. Use the information in these links: http://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/states.html http://robertspage.com/dialects.html Critique this ‘accent quiz’ from The New York Times. What aspects of language does it focus on? How accurate could it be, judging by the questions it asks? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/20/sunday-review/dialect-quiz-map.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource =story-heading&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT. nav=top-stories-below How do listeners’ biases affect real-world situations like a job interview? Read about accents and employability in Carlson, H.K., and McHenry, M.A. (2006). Where else can accent bias have consequences?

11 Voice Quality and Speech Melody/Prosody This chapter covers pitch and volume of voice, speech rate, intonation patterns, word stress and sentence emphasis, and voice quality.

Prosody The melody of speech is called prosody. Prosody includes the placement of stress on syllables in words; the emphasis of words in phrases and clauses; and intonation patterns across larger stretches of speech. A speaker’s pitch, loudness and rate of production are also part of prosody. Some prosodic elements convey emotional information, e.g. a speaker sounds happy or angry, while other elements convey linguistic information, such as the noun vs. verb reading of the words record and object. Below are commonly asked questions about the melody of speech and voice quality. Question from Teacher: How can I help students sound less robotic during oral presentations? Linguistic Context: This teacher’s question brings us to the physics of speech. The main acoustic components of speech are the fundamental (base) frequency of our voices (heard as our pitch); the amplitude (heard as loudness); and the duration of consonants, vowels and the pauses we take, affecting our rate of speech. (There is also a component called the formant frequency, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.) We vary all these parameters when we speak. Frequency and amplitude play a role in how well a speaker is heard. Duration of segments and pauses between words and sentences can influence how fast or slow a speaker seems to a listener. All these acoustic parameters contribute to the natural-sounding quality of speech. When a speaker is nervous, there can be a strain on the muscles that surround the vocal folds (sometimes called vocal cords). Tensing these muscles contributes to a higher pitched voice and prevents the flexibility that usually 149

150

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

allows for natural intonation patterns (changes in pitch across a sentence); this vocal fold tension can then contribute to an unnatural monotone, a robotic-sounding voice. (Note that not all accents of English have the same intonation patterns. English forms vary enough among themselves to prevent generalizations about ‘normal’ English intonation.) When a student is giving an oral report, we need to consider the number one fear: public speaking. Students will most likely be struggling to coordinate all these acoustic activities and calm their nerves during an oral presentation. While there are plenty of ‘How to Give a Speech’ books out there, it is helpful for professors and students to know the acoustic and physiological mechanisms behind voice and speech. (Study Sheet P lists the acoustic parameters of speech, as well as how each parameter is manipulated physically and how it is perceived by listeners.) Question from Teacher: Why do students seem to swallow the end of sentences, both in public speaking and when reading aloud in class? That last syllable or two get lost. Linguistic Context: Whether in speaking or reading, at the end of an utterance we are working with much less air than at the beginning. In addition, exhaling during speech is much more muscularly controlled than exhaling for quiet breathing: we must plan our use of the air in our lungs to last long enough for our purposes. Ordinarily, speakers plan very accurately – albeit at a more automatic, unconscious level – and usually do not run out of breath in the middle of a phrase. A syntactic unit we produce in a single exhalation is called a breath group (Katz, 2013; Ryalls & Behrens, 2000). However, there are instances when a speaker mismanages the use of air. Some pathologies, like Parkinson’s disease, are associated with speech problems related to respiration, such as producing fewer words for each breath group compared to normal control subjects (Solomon & Hixon, 1993). Aside from pathologies, other conditions can contribute to mismanaging airflow. Students giving a presentation do not always account for having to speak more loudly than usual and having to emphasize words, all activities that require extra air. Thus, air reserves can be depleted too quickly. The end of a sentence is a crucial position, though. While sentence-initial words tend to be more salient perceptually (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011), the academic discourse pattern of given/new means that new information is most likely to appear later in the sentence (Hancock, 2005; see also Chapter 9 for more on the given/new pattern), and speakers need to remain audible on that later-occurring information. Speakers can plan

Voice Quality and Speech Melody/Prosody

151

more effectively by knowing more about the connection between respiratory behavior and speech. Question from Student: I never volunteer to read aloud in class. I don’t know what to emphasize, and I just don’t sound fluent. Is there a way to improve these skills? Linguistic Context: We’ve seen that spoken academic English is somewhat formulaic, with predictable lexical bundles and idioms. (See Chapter 2 for more on lexical bundles and Chapter 6 for more on idioms.) Academic words also tend to be longer, consist of more morphemes (prefixes and suffixes, called affixes) than vocabulary in less formal venues, and have roots derived from Greek and Latin (Corson, 1997; Cummins 2008). (See Chapters 2, 5 and 6 for more on morphemes and academic vocabulary.) To be more fluent when reading aloud, it helps to be comfortable with words that are morphologically complex, i.e. have affixes attached to the root, and to understand the function of the affixes, such as a- or un- reversing a meaning, and –ion creating a noun. (See Study Sheet B for more on prefixes and suffixes in academic English.) It also helps to understand how word stress patterns work. Once, a student of mine who was reading aloud came to the word modernity in a reading passage and pronounced it modern-ity. He saw the familiar word modern, pronounced that, and then saw the suffix, so the stress was on the wrong syllable. In English, when a suffix is added, the word stress tends to move to the right. Photograph, with first-syllable stress, becomes photography with second-syllable stress. That’s also what happens to modern when the –ity suffix is added. Similarly, in omnivore Æ omnivorous, the stress shifts to the second syllable. Readers can be thrown off even more since the recognizable part of the word, omni, is now omniv due to a new syllable break. Word stress is a complex phenomenon, both in terms of production and perception. Behrens (1985) finds that speakers employ different combinations of acoustic cues when they stress a syllable. Some use all three acoustic traits, raising their fundamental frequency and amplitude, as well as lengthening the vowel of a stressed syllable. Others use one or two of these cues. Some speakers actually lower the amplitude on the syllable receiving stress. This variability can make word stress difficult for listeners to identify. A percentage of students in my phonetics course are predictably lost when we get to stress placement identification; they cannot hear the difference between a stressed and unstressed syllable. I give credit to my stepdaughter Jenna for inspiring the ‘Weehawken Test’. Passing through that New Jersey

152

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

town when she was a teen, the family was in the slow crawl through the Lincoln Tunnel back to New York City. Jenna amused us (for a while) with variations on the name Weehawken with different stress patterns. WEE haw ken; wee HAW ken; and wee haw KEN (over and over). A tip I give my students trying to identify stress placement is to pronounce a word with stress on the first syllable, then the second and then the third for longer words; listen for the reading that sounds the most natural. (Study Sheet P lists words that change meaning with a change in syllable stress, such as subject functioning as a noun or a verb. Readers can use these words to test their ability to perceive stress placement.) Fluency is also helped by knowing the typical given/new pattern that is common in academic English discourse (discussed above). Listening comprehension gets a boost, too, by knowing what to expect. The speaker first repeats what has already been covered (the given) and then conveys the new information. Speakers tend to stress the new data at the end of the sentence. Hancock (2005) calls this melodic pattern tonic prominence. When speaking or reading aloud, we also need to distinguish between content words and function words. The former include nouns and verbs; the latter are words like conjunctions, prepositions and articles that convey grammatical information. Function words are often not stressed in conversational speech, and they tend to be pronounced with reduced vowels, such as the schwa – the relaxed vowel at the end of sofa or the beginning of around – giving function words what Field (2008: 416) calls ‘low perceptibility’. For example, the word and said in isolation would be pronounced /aend/ but in the phrase salt and pepper might be reduced to /Ənd/ with a schwa (or even just pronounced as /n/ with no vowel). Native speakers seem to easily process both function and content words. Non-native speakers, though, are much less accurate with function words since these words are of ‘weaker quality’ (Field, 2008: 413) acoustically. In fact, English language learner (ELL) students tend to focus too much on content words as a reading and listening strategy, and Field suggests that teachers redirect students’ attention to focus on lexical bundles, not just isolated vocabulary. Since we don’t process language one word at a time, fluency with the academic uses of lexical bundles leads to better overall fluency. (See Chapter 2 for more on lexical bundles.) Question from Teacher: I’ve read that college-age women speak with something called vocal fry. What is that? Should I try to correct it? Linguistic Context: Vocal fry is a type of phonation (vocal fold vibration) whereby the vocal folds start to slow down and beat irregularly before closing, toward the end of an utterance. This behavior causes a

Voice Quality and Speech Melody/Prosody

153

rough voice quality, a lowered voice pitch and sometimes a slower rate of speech. All contribute to make the speaker’s voice sound creaky or raspy. The popular press has described this type of production as ‘lazy’, ‘insecure’ or ‘distant’ (e.g. Quenqua, 2012). (See weblinks for this chapter in Appendix to hear samples of vocal fry.) Linguists who track social correlates to voice and speech find that young women tend to introduce such linguistic innovations. Other linguistic behaviors attributed to this demographic include the frequent use of ‘like’ (although its use as a discourse marker has also been found to be common in the traditional-age student population in general, not just in females; see Chapter 9 for more on ‘like’) and ‘uptalk’: ending a declarative sentence with an interrogative rise in pitch (see the following question). The phenomenon of vocal fry is already spreading to other populations. It is, of course, difficult to tell how long this trend will last. If vocal fry is a linguistic style, we should live with it; if it interferes with performance and comprehension, we should discuss it and make its use more conscious. Question from Teacher: Do all the young women who use that ‘questionvoice’ for declaratives do so because they are insecure? Linguistic Context: The phenomenon of what is called ‘uptalk’ has been reported in the media and seems to be attributed frequently to young women in their teens to mid-twenties. Linguists call the rise in voice pitch at the end of an utterance high rising terminal (HRT); the fundamental frequency (pitch) of one’s voice rises at the end of an utterance. (Note that linguist Mark Liberman [2006], who oversees the resourceful weblog Language Log, believes that ‘uptalk’ is a better term for this phenomenon than is ‘HRT’. See the weblink in the Appendix for more on this distinction.) American English routinely calls for HRT in yes-no questions (e.g. Is it Friday yet?), and sometimes even when the syntax is declarative, as in rhetorical questions (e.g. It’s not Friday yet?). Made popular by southern California ‘Valley Girl’ talk in the 1980s, the tendency to display HRT at the end of utterances, especially declaratives that are not functioning as interrogatives, is what this issue is about. For the most part, HRT is stigmatized, and it is perceived as conveying insecurity when encountered in academic circles. Liberman (2006) offers an informative list of possible uses for uptalk, none of which necessarily involves insecurity, functions such as checking in with the listener, as in ‘Still following me?’.

154

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

And note that if we listen closely to ‘good’ speakers, those used to public speaking, we find a rise in voice pitch when the speaker is either listing items (e.g. A and B and C…) or building to a conclusion. Again, better understanding of voice parameters can lead to more control of our choices and our assumptions about our fellow speakers. Chapter links to language modalities The oral communication (speaking) skills of students can improve when they understand where stress falls in sentences and the semantic/syntactic functions of stress. This metaknowledge also helps students identify the common patterns of academic-style prose. Speakers need to direct listeners to particular parts of sentences (via stress and emphasis), and signal function words (vs. content) that are important. Further, speakers need to be aware of the given/new information pattern, in which we usually place stress on newer information. Knowing about speech acoustics also improves listening skills, for we are better able to process what a speaker is emphasizing, and what is main vs. subordinating information. And we should not rely on listening for isolated vocabulary but instead listen for bundles of words. Associated sample study sheets in Part 3 B: Common Derivational Morphemes P: Acoustic Characteristics of Speech/Word Stress This chapter is enhanced with the following associated lessons: Lesson 8: Examining the phenomenon of vocal fry. Lesson 9: Investigating the associated linguistic correlates of what is called ‘gay voice’.

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 8: ‘That Vocal Fry Says It All’: The Voices of Young Women

The Stereotype Young women are using vocal fry (a) as a manifestation of their self doubts, (b) to express disdain for the world, (c) and are ruining their vocal folds, (d) all of the above.

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to • • •

Articulate the common perceptions of vocal fry. Connect the linguistic research findings cited in this lesson to the social and cultural impressions of vocal fry. Speculate on the future of the phenomenon.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics Vocal fry is a type of phonation, the way we vibrate our vocal folds. The rate at which our vocal folds vibrate (complete an opening/closing cycle) in a second is called our fundamental frequency (F0) and measured in the unit Hz. It is heard as pitch. While F0 and pitch are basically the same in 155

156

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

the day-to-day world, they are not linear, especially in the higher frequency ranges. Many texts, however, use ‘voice pitch’ for F0 since they are concerned with how a speaker is perceived. We will follow suit. An adult male tends to have a deeper voice because his vocal folds vibrate more slowly than an adult woman’s, generally due to a difference in vocal fold mass (less mass can vibrate more quickly). Children’s high pitch voices come from their thinner, smaller vocal folds vibrating very fast. With vocal fry, the vocal folds vibrate much more slowly and irregularly than at their normal rate. In addition, the part of the cycle in which the vocal folds are closed lasts longer than in regular phonation, called a modal register. Fry has also been called creaky voice in the literature and has been equated with a creaking or popping sound quality (Anderson et al., 2014). Our physiology determines (for the most part) the pitch of our voices. An adult male speaker has on average a pitch average of about 125 Hertz, with a range of 71 to 561 Hertz compared to an adult female, who averages 200 Hertz, with a range of 122 to 798 Hertz (Wolk et al., 2012). In addition, since we rarely speak in a monotone voice, our utterances have pitch variation across an utterance, which is called intonation. Fry is another way to vary phonation. The voices of male speakers using vocal fry can fall in the 7 to 78 Hertz range; fry in adult female speakers is in the 2 to 78 Hertz range. Thus, there is less gender distinction in the fry register, more overlap, than in the regular modal register (Wolk et al., 2012). Some use this data to speculate that vocal fry in women is an attempt to sound male. What is the research on vocal fry? Do we know why women use fry?

The Linguistic Research Not Just Female Speakers Vocal fry is currently associated most often with the speech of young women. Yuasa (2010) reports that American females are more than twice as likely as American males to use vocal fry. Vocal fry as a predominantly female vocal behavior, however, is a recent finding. This phonatory behavior was reported almost 40 years ago mostly in ‘high prestige speakers’ in Edinburgh (Podesva, 2007, referencing Esling, 1978); and more commonly in Northern accents of the UK compared to speakers of standard received pronunciation (Podesva, 2007). Thirty years ago, Pittam (1987) found more vocal fry in Australian male than female speakers, but with mixed social ratings by listeners. Australian and American listeners (in this 1987 study)

Instructor Guidance Material 8 for Chapter 11

157

both rate voices with fry as low in solidarity (e.g. group membership, such as friendly and likeable), and an average level of status (such as intelligent, educated, and influential). Further, only the 25–45 year old listeners give higher status marks to males with fry than females with fry. Fry raises issues of gender and identity. In a case study, Podesva (2007) looks at a gay man called ‘Heath’ who uses fry as a stylistic variable, alternating fry with falsetto to widen his intonation range as a way to assert a gay persona. Fry here seems to be a device to convey social identity.

What Does Vocal Fry Convey? Fry can be seen as a linguistic signal, such as cueing listeners that an utterance is coming to a close or is approaching a relevant syntactic boundary (Wolk et al., 2012). The pitch of our voices in general (fry or not) has a direct influence on how listeners perceive us (Klofstad, Anderson, & Nowicki, 2015). Listeners associate a lower pitch in male voices with speakers who are more dominant, attractive, and strong compared to a higher pitch in men. Women with higher pitch voices are found to be more attractive; with a lower pitch, more dominant and more competent. Dominance and strength might be correlated with size (after all, a larger body means larger vocal folds); it is more difficult to see, though, a real physical connection to the trait of competence; the interpretation thus reinforces the social role of our voices (Klostad et al., 2015). The ways listeners interpret vocal fry has actually been found to vary. Sometimes that type of voice comes across as naive and uneducated: ‘Young adult female voices exhibiting vocal fry are perceived as less competent, less educated, less trustworthy, and less hirable,’ according to Anderson et al. (2014). Yuasa (2010), however, finds that female college students label speech samples of their female peers who use fry to sound professional, upwardly mobile, and urban; as well as being educated, genuine, and non-aggressive (329). Anderson et al. (2014) ask listeners of male and female speech with and without fry to make judgments about the speakers in the following traits: education level, degree of competence and trustworthiness, attractiveness and probability of being hired. In general, the impressions of fry are negative. Female fry is judged most harshly on degrees of trustworthiness, competence, education and hirability. In other words, a speaker does not come across as less attractive with fry, but is rated lower in all other qualities. All listeners in the study prefer non-fry voices, but female listeners are more negative than male listeners across all dimensions. Older listeners appear to be even less favorable toward fry than younger ones. ‘[V]ocal fry is universally derided regardless of the sex of the speaker or

158

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

listener’ (Anderson et al., 2014: e4), in contrast to Yuasa’s (2010) study with college age women. Why might vocal fry in general elicit negative reactions? Perhaps we are rejecting an unexpected mismatch of gender and pitch, e.g. low pitch in a female speaker (Anderson et al., 2014). But if this is so, why do we find research that the perception of voices with vocal fry is shifting toward the positive? Much bears on the social meaning that vocal fry conveys to the listener. Yuasa (2010) finds less vocal fry in American compared to Japanese women who live in California. Perhaps the speech communities of the American women place less value on higher pitch as a desirable trait for women than do the speech communities of the Japanese women, even in the same region. Yuasa further speculates that, since California is a hub of media, some residents might be disproportionately influenced by celebrities who use fry, e.g. Reese Witherspoon and the Kardashians. Speech accommodation theory tells us that ‘where a social group is perceived as prestigious, an individual wishing to identify with that group may adopt the vocal features seen as characteristic of that group, or rate voices characterized by these features highly on the adjective associated with the status dimension’ (Pittam, 1987: 11). Yuasa (2010) also rejects the hypothesis that women who demonstrate vocal fry are in fact just imitating men, noting that fry is not just low pitch but is accompanied by a popping, bubbly quality. It is a ‘[f]ascinating combination of attributes’ (2010: 330); ‘creaky voice may provide a growing number of American women with a way to project an image of accomplishment (on par with men) while retaining feminine desirability’ (2010: 332). And in fact, ‘…in America social meanings indexed through creaky voice have shifted from those of masculine authoritativeness to those of educated urban upwardly mobile women with a hint of traditional femininity’ (2010: 333). Another theory, the politeness theory, as discussed by Brown and Levinson (1987), offers this suggestion: fry could be seen as expressing sympathy, projecting a sense of being calm and offering comfort to others. Yuasa (2010) finds that her speakers use it for emphasizing intense feelings (about food, in these cases), not so much empathy. Yuasa finds that her listeners (the female college age Americans) ‘associated creaky voice [fry]…with education/knowledge, intimacy, genuineness, and non-aggression’ (2010: 329) but not with confidence: perhaps the voices are too bubbly.

Is Vocal Fry an Unhealthy Vocal Habit? Many linguists do not see vocal fry as a behavior that should be avoided (a habit that should be broken). Wolk et al. (2012), in a study in which they

Instructor Guidance Material 8 for Chapter 11

159

ask college-aged females to sustain a vowel and also read a passage, find that more than 75% of their speakers use fry for reading but rarely in the sustained vowel production. ‘The fact that vocal fry is frequently detected in the connected speech condition and rarely in the sustained vowel task further supports the notion that vocal fry is a normal register’ (e114), and that speakers can control it. The researchers acknowledge, though, that vocal fry has historically been seen as a voice disorder – after all, we (especially women) are performing out of the modal (normal) register. Yet linguists and speech pathologists also see the behavior in healthy populations. The difference between habit and disorder might be in the extent to which fry is used. If we find it mainly at the end of sentences (the typical placement for fry, which corresponds to lengthening final syllables and a drop in amplitude), the habit might be harmless. It might even be used as a linguistic signal to listeners that the end of a speech unit is approaching. Fry seems to get a ‘pass’ when it is used selectively, even if not so consciously. On the other hand, if a speaker cannot control the extent of vocal fry, then it could very well fall into the category of a pathology (Wolk et al., 2012). Voice experts do not know what the long-term effects might be of frequent fry voice. For example, a speaker with a lot of fry might need more amplitude to be audible and thus experience a type of vocal fatigue (Wolk et al., 2012). Yuasa (2010) quotes speech-language pathologists (SLP) as labeling vocal fry an ineffective use of voice. A fascinating National Public Radio story was aired in 2015: an interview with a group of women comprising a broadcast commentator who has been called out for her vocal fry, a speech-language pathologist, and a linguist. While the first woman expresses the unfairness of public criticism of her voice, the SLP cites reports from ear, nose, and throat doctors that shows the detrimental effects of fry on the vocal folds. The linguist, Penny Eckert, puts the phenomenon in the context of an ongoing policing of young women’s voices and points out parallels with current criticism of so-called uptalk (high rising terminal) and overuse of fillers (especially like) in young women. All views are represented, three different realities.

Conclusion/Going Forward Regardless of the mixed data, vocal fry is on the rise, and not just with young women (Anderson et al., 2014). Aside from the schism between loving and hating fry, finding it unhealthy or stylistic, we also need to distinguish a ‘social use’ of fry from a ‘linguistic use’ (Wolk et al., 2012: e115). Vocal fry might be a fad, a way of using voice that is influenced by peer pressure

160

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

or celebrity. Or it might be a way of using our voices that has always been around until it was associated with young women and then criticized. Keep listening.

Cross-referenced with Lesson 5 on Woman-Speak and Lesson 9 on Gay Voice Extending and Customizing the Lesson •

•

•

• •

Read articles found in this link http://journals.plos.org/plosone/ article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097506 and make a list of the ‘real-world’ implications of negative stereotypes about vocal fry. Research the way uptalk (high rising terminal) has been critiqued in the media and explained by linguists. Do the same with filler ‘like.’ What similarities do you find across phenomena in the way the public might be ‘policing women’s voices’? How else are we judged by our voices? Elbert and Dijkstra (2014) look at the ability we all have to manipulate our voices to persuade. They explain the effects of different intonation contours (variation in pitch: low, moderate, high) on listeners of health public service announcements. Read and summarize the research. What is it about a voice that might be persuasive? Read Squires and Queen (2011) on linguistic stereotypes in the media and conduct some of the research they present. Install the software Praat (http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/), a free download that allows you to analyze voice and speech. Record yourself and look at your intonation contours. Do you think you have a ‘flat’ or ‘sing-song-like’ voice? Also note the Hertz values of your average pitch and compare it to the norms in this lesson. If you are game, try out a fry-sound and measure your pitch average and range, in Hertz.

Instructor Guidance Material

Lesson 9: ‘Do They Sound Gay?’

The Stereotype Some guys just sound ‘gay’; the voice always gives it away; it’s that gay-speech sound.

The Learning Objectives By the end of the lesson, students will be able to • • • •

Define the popular impression of a ‘gay voice’. Discuss relevant linguistic research on sexual orientation and language use. Compare and contrast main points of the cited research with popular impressions. Critique popular impressions of gay-sounding voices by considering intra- and inter-group variation in speech and language.

Engaging Students with Self-Reflective Assessments Before the Lesson: How varied are the notions in the classroom of the ‘truth’ of this linguistic stereotype? After the Lesson: How might students’ thinking have changed? What one or two salient facts, images, or sound-clips resonated with students? What do students now notice about themselves as users of language?

The Linguistic Basics The popular impressions of a ‘gay speech’ sound are rather widespread. How accurate are these assumptions? In linguistic experiments, listeners are accurate to a high degree when identifying sexual orientation from voice samples alone, in male speakers anyway. When asked what ‘gay speech’ sounds like, many people will cite either a high voice pitch (more along the lines of a ‘female’ sound) or a wide pitch range (a ‘sing-song’ melody to the 161

162

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

voice) or both (Levon, 2006; Podesva, 2007). Sometimes people will point to a so-called ‘gay lisp’ as a marker, involving the pronunciation of the phoneme (speech sound) /s/ (Levon, 2006; Zimman, 2013). Perhaps surprisingly, then, when researchers search for the acoustic traits that listeners identify, no particular correlates (or constellation of variables) arise in the speech associated with speakers who self-identify as gay (Podesva, 2007). (It should be noted that lesbian speech is not similarly stereotyped by listeners, and few studies have been conducted on lesbian speech by linguists.) Podesva, in his 2007 research, points out that ‘even though in many English-speaking communities the lay person commonly identifies high pitch as a property of gay-sounding voices, the link between the phonetic feature and the identity category has not been established empirically in any community, not even in the speech of a single individual’ (480). Research continues in this field.

The Linguistic Research Physiology and Learned Behaviors Our speech patterns involve both the configuration of our vocal anatomy and how we use our physiology (a type of nature-and-nurture package) (Munson, 2011; Zimman, 2013). The pitch of our voice (also called our fundamental frequency) corresponds to the vibration rate of our vocal folds. More vibrations (one vibration comprises one opening and closing of the folds) per second give us a higher pitch sound. Women tend to have higher pitches than men because of smaller (hence faster vibrating) vocal folds. We all have a natural pitch range that can be manipulated, up to a point, through various maneuvers. Our behavior, in other words, can override ‘nature’ to a certain extent, sometimes guided by linguistic demands, such as a rise in pitch at the end of a question; sometimes by cultural norms. Japanese women, for example, are reported to speak with higher pitch ranges than would be expected by anatomy alone (Karpf, 2006; Yuasa, 2010). Significant differences have also been found in pitch averages between Dutch and American women (Karpf, 2006). These differences cannot be due to any consequential distinctions in vocal fold mass alone. Clearly, a cultural norm is guiding the way we employ our vocal equipment. So too with gay speech, reflecting various cultural norms among gay male speech communities.

Why Study Gay Speech? Raters in research experiments are very willing to make judgments about a male speaker’s sexual orientation when presented with only a small

Instructor Guidance Material 9 for Chapter 11

163

amount of linguistic data. And these listeners’ impressions of a gay sound remain accurate and robust. What are listeners cuing into, if not pitch averages and range? Perhaps it is a combination of cues, or individual differences that defy measurement. Linguists want to describe the science behind the impressions. Another reason for such research is the work done by speech experts (speech-language pathologists, voice coaches) with transgender individuals, to better understand the perceptual phenomenon of gender and sexual orientation. To fit into cultural norms, we all use our internal knowledge of how a speech community works linguistically and pragmatically, i.e., our communicative competence (Hymes, 1974). ‘One way in which sociolinguistic competence develops is in learning language ideologies through which communities or cultures impose order on the objectively very complex evidence of language variation’ (Cameron, 2011: 99). People transitioning from one gender to another may benefit from gaining a desired, ‘authentic’ voice, and they (as well as speech-language pathologists) look to linguistic findings for information (Zimman, 2013: 32). A third reason to study the phenomenon of gay speech or gay voice is to widen what is considered the range of normal variation in the human voice, for its own sake and to address the phenomenon of homophobia and stereotypes about sexual orientation (Munson, 2011). An association between gayness and effeminacy (vs. straightness and masculinity), says Podesva (2007), needs to be unpacked. By acknowledging the ‘plurality of gay ways of speaking’ (Levon, 2006: 497), ‘we can begin to develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between ideology and practice and of what is ultimately behind the sociolinguistic perception of sexuality’ (Levon, 2006: 73). Finally, the question itself – Is there a ‘gay voice’? – could be far too simplistic, failing to acknowledge gender fluidity, as well as the normal variation within individuals that allows us to alter our voices by context and intent. Research can help us move away from a static image of individual speech communities. The popular image still exists, however, of a gay-sound associated with a gay identity. We have evolved from the older assumptions that a gay-sound was simply an imitation of a female voice, with a high pitch and pitch range (Zimman, 2013). What are the current research findings?

Advanced Linguistic Information: Speech Correlates Examined Targeting the stereotyped traits of a gay sound, Levon (2006) uses computer manipulation of acoustics on the voice of a speaker who self-identifies as gay and is perceived as such by listeners. Levon manipulates the pitch range and the length

164

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

of the consonant phonemes /s/ and /z/ (called sibilants) via a computer. The results show that ‘listeners judged the speaker as having the same sexuality whether his pitch range was wide or narrow or whether his sibilants were long or short’ (68). In contrast, Munson (2011) finds some correlation between elongated /s/ and /z/ consonants and ratings of gayness in the speech of gay men. Vowel production has also been targeted. Research looking at vowel articulation finds that gay men produce vowels in a larger articulatory space (reflecting the placement of the articulators in the oral cavity), perhaps due to what the researchers call hyperarticulation (Pierrehumbert et al., 2004). Podesva (2011) explores the way gay speech might overlap with regional speech, focusing on the adoption of a regional vowel pattern called the California Vowel Shift (CVS). This ‘California speak’ (mimicked in Saturday Night Live skits) involves taking the General American English tongue articulation position of certain vowels and either placing the tongue higher, more front, or more back in the mouth. Podesva’s case study is an examination of ‘Regan,’ a gay male living in California. Regan is recorded speaking in various situations with different speech communities, in different contexts. ‘[A]ll four components of the CVS are realized differently depending on the speaking situation, and in the same way’ (2011: 40). The researcher urges us to look not just at ‘isolated variables, but…the ways in which variables are combined and packaged’ (2011: 41). In Podesva’s 2007 case study, ‘Heath’ shows a sensitivity to speech community as well. He manipulates voice quality, using falsetto for expressing surprise and excitement, especially with the speech community identifying as gay. Heath utilizes both falsetto and vocal fry across contexts. Falsetto is an activation of the vocal folds when they are tensed and lengthened, so that the pitch is higher than what would be the norm for that speaker. For an adult male, the average pitch is about 125 Hz, whereas with falsetto, pitch can rise from 240 to 634 (Podesva, 2007: 480). Vocal fry is the mode of vocal fold use when the folds are vibrating more slowly than normal, at 7-78 Hertz for men and 2-78 Hertz for women (Wolk et al., 2012). Thus, there is more gender overlap in the fry mode.

Trans Men The transgender population can help linguistic researchers explore the intersection of gender identification and sexual orientation. In other words, research in this area can ‘highlight the intertwined relationship between gender and sexuality’ (Zimman, 2013: 9). Zimman finds more vocal fry (creaky voice) in gay and transgender men than in straight men, and no difference between the gay and trans speakers in vocal fry or voice pitch. Yet gay men in the study are closer to straight male speakers in other acoustic traits related to the production of /s/. ‘The trans speakers, then, pattern with the gay speakers in some cases (creak), the straight speakers in other cases [acoustic properties

Instructor Guidance Material 9 for Chapter 11

165

of /s/]… and in other cases still fall somewhere in between the straight and gay cis men [properties of /s/ and pitch]… point[ing] to the diversity that exists among gay-sounding phonetic styles’ (26). Levon (2006) also raises the issue of sexual orientation as distinct from gender identification. For listeners in his study, the trait ‘effeminate’ is strongly correlated with gay ratings and ‘masculine’ with straight ratings. In other words, his listeners do not differentiate between gender and sexuality. However, Smyth et al. (2003) find that if a voice pitch is low enough, listeners identify the speaker as gay and not a feminine male speaker. In a rare study of lesbian speech, Levon (2011) looks at two categories of lesbians, which he labels mainstream and radical. Speakers in both groups have higher pitch when discussing gay topics compared to other topics; and both groups, he claims, attach different meanings to higher voice pitch.

Conclusion/Going Forward Researchers are not finding THE correlate(s) to gay-sounding speech. Yet listeners are pretty good at identifying sexual orientation through voice samples, or think that they are. And most research uses speakers who selfidentify as gay or straight, a limiting sample. ‘A speaker’s orientation to gendered language socialization may be related to his sexuality, but a speaker need not be gay nor have exposure to men who are gay or have gay-sounding voices in order to acquire this type of gay-sounding voice’ (Zimman, 2013: 30). Further, there is overlap in what listeners might be homing in on when someone sounds gay. The California Vowel Shift is associated with a certain social type, and when appropriate it can be employed to fit the social identity desired. Gay men also ‘participate in different subcultures, leading to a range of linguistic performances that may be recognizable as gay, but also as young or old, mainstream or rebellious, and many other qualities’ (Campbell-Kibler, 2011: 54). What is happening in the impression of a gay-sounding voice thus might be overlapping with regionalisms, and/or with style (e.g. Campbell-Kibler (2011) found the more casual sounding in’ compared to ing suffixes in the speech of gay men), and/or with context/topic of discussion. ‘Heath’ (the case study subject) uses both falsetto and creaky voice to maximize pitch range, but not in every situation. All these results point to the phenomenon of intersectionality – that none of us resides in a single category. Podesva (2007) raises the issue of ‘bricolage’ – speakers use subsets of linguistic behavior to create an identity. So there is no single variable that is a gay sound, but

166

Part 2: The Linguistic Conversations

instead there might be a constellation of variables. Since what sounds masculine exists in such a narrow range (what Zimman (2013) calls hegemonic masculinity), any deviation might be labeled ‘gay.’ What have we learned? We again see the process of enregisterment in effect. Certain acoustic traits signal sexual orientation for many listeners. Images and sounds in the popular press help spread this impression, strengthening the stereotype (Agha, 2003). The fact remains, though, that listeners are very willing and able to identify sexual orientation based on speech samples. In a world of indexing, researchers need to look not only at the linguistic variables they measure but also how they use labels (what is ‘gay’ or ‘straight’), how they choose speakers and raters, and examine what assumptions we all hold.

Cross referenced with Lesson 4 on Rude Talkers, Lesson 5 on Woman Speak, Lesson 7 New York City English, and Lesson 8 on Vocal Fry Extending and Customizing the Lesson • • • •

Read Squires and Queen (2011) and try the lessons they report on media impressions of gay speech. Find other depictions of gay speech in movies and television shows, especially over time. What differences do you notice from mid to late 20th century and in the recent decades? Find images of gay speech on Pinterest and other social media sites. Critique them in terms of the linguistic information in this lesson. How does the search for a gay voice apply to the transgender population? Speech-language pathologist Christie Block works with transitioning individuals. Watch this video. http://www.nyspeechandvoicelab.net/about/ Summarize Block’s work. Now connect it to the information covered in this lesson.

Part 3 Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Parts 1 and 2 of this book introduced you to the educational value of a heightened meta-awareness of language forms and differences. Part 3 continues the conversations and allows you to start your own discussions of language, to continue to learn how language is structured and used. Below you will find sample study sheets for use in your own classrooms. The topics covered are chosen to correspond to the questions posed and answered in Chapters 5 through 11. This book cannot review all aspects of language, but working with the concept of the ‘top five to seven issues’ in each language area, these study sheets extend the linguistic ‘backstory’ given in Part 2 in a hands-on way. Some study sheets in this section work as summaries of information covered in the conversations in Part 2. They can be used as review sheets for students and study groups, or as material in the classroom for lessons on language structure and use. Other study sheets allow you to quiz yourself on certain aspects of language or to survey your own usage and attitudes about linguistically marked and unmarked forms, thus extending your study of language. Answer keys follow where appropriate. Each study sheet also invites you to note down new linguistic forms as you encounter them, along with their degree of acceptability. Finally, these study sheets serve as templates for you to create your own testing material and discussion prompts for classroom activities. You can customize the material to your own needs. (See lists of associated study sheets at the end of Chapters 5 through 11.) I hope you continue to enjoy the exploration.

167

168

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet A: Backformations Backformation is a process whereby new words are formed by deleting prefixes, suffixes or other parts of a word. The resulting shortened forms usually have different, but related, meanings compared to an established word, often with a change in the part of speech. In the past, for example, the noun intuition underwent backformation to give us the verb to intuit. For some, this is now a mainstream verb; for others it is considered a slang term. Some backformations enter the mainstream, and some do not. For each example below, rate how acceptable the backformation seems to you, on a scale of 1–5 (5 being most acceptable). Original Word

Backformation

Aggression

Aggress

Attrition

Attrite

Burglar

Burgle

Connotation

Connote

Connotation

Connotate

Conversation

Conversate

Emotion

Emote

Enthusiasm

Enthuse

Liaison

Liaise

Orientation

Orientate

Surveillance

Surveil

1–5 Acceptability Level

Acceptance of the above forms will vary across readers. Do you use a more ‘acceptable’ backformation than any of the ones listed? Check out Garner’s (2009) Modern American Usage for acceptability ratings for such words as these. He uses a 1–5 scale from (1) rejected to (5) fully accepted. The ratings in between show a language in flux: widely shunned, widespread but… and ubiquitous but.... Garner also notes forms that are invariably inferior, in that (to him) they are downright unacceptable. Notice that all the examples in this study sheet show nouns becoming verbs. Add your own examples.

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

169

Study Sheet B: Common Derivational Morphemes Prefixes and suffixes (group term, affix) that derive (create) new words when added to existing words or roots are called derivational morphemes. Their addition results in a change in the root’s original meaning and in some instances in its part of speech. Below are common derivational prefixes and suffixes that students encounter in academic English. There are many more. See if you can add to the list. Derivational Affix

Example

Alteration

Ab-

duct/abduct

moving away

Ad-

duct/adduct

moving toward

Prefixes

Dys-

function/dysfunction

deviate from norm

Ir-

regular/irregular

negates original meaning

Pre-

face/preface

occurring before

Re-

vise/revise

occurring again

slip/slippage

verb to noun

Suffixes –age –ical

hierarchy/hierarchical

noun to adjective

–ion

reduce/reduction

verb to noun

–ism

true/truism

adjective to noun

–ist

descriptive/ descriptivist

adjective to noun

–ity

linear/linearity

adjective to noun

–ive

describe/descriptive

verb to adjective

–ment

establish/ establishment

verb to noun

Notice that the prefixes in this study sheet function to alter the meaning of a root or word to which they are added. The suffixes function more to alter the part of speech. Can you think of examples in which a suffix alters meaning without changing the part of speech?

170

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet C: Common Word Conversions Conversion is a morphological process whereby a word changes its part of speech without changing its form. The process itself is very old, but new examples arise all the time. Notice the examples below. Rate the acceptability of each on a scale of 1–5 (5 being most acceptable). Conversion Direction

Example

1-5 Acceptability Level

Noun → Verb Disrespect

Don’t disrespect your elders.

Key

Key in your password.

Party

They party too much during the week.

Verb → Noun Ask

When is the next ask?

Reveal

The reveal came at the end of the mystery novel.

Save

Nice save, Raffa.

Take away

What is the lecture’s take-away?

Walk in

Walk-ins welcome at this salon.

Noun → Adjective Fun

That was a fun movie.

Woman

I went to a woman doctor

Adjective → Noun Creative

He’s one of the creatives living in Brooklyn.

While these conversions are not ‘wrong’, many are still considered too informal for academic English. Add your own instances of conversion as you encounter them.

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

171

Study Sheet D: Jargon/Words with Special Meanings Jargon is a type of vocabulary specific to a profession or other activity. Some jargon can have both discipline-specific meanings and general meanings. Below are examples taken from a survey of college professors at one small college; in other words, a sampling. They are organized by field of study, with the technical meaning listed first and then the non-specific common usage. How many of these terms do you recognize as having distinct meanings? Example

Technical Meaning

Common Meaning

Babbling

stage of child language development

excessive talking

Inflection

grammatical prefix/suffix

melodic speech quality

Periodic

occurring at regular intervals

occasionally

Pragmatics

aspect of social use of language

good behavior

Online

processed in real time

on the internet

Ironic

meaning opposite of the apparent one

unexpected

Rhetoric

art of persuasion

empty verbiage

Romantic

of the Romantic era (18th to 19th century)

related to love

Tragedy

genre of play

sad/devastating event

Field: Linguistics

Field: Humanities

Field: Medieval Studies Autograph

something written in author’s own hand

celebrity signature

Catch Word/ Phrase

publisher’s mark at bottom of page to signal organization

utterance associated with a person or product

Lay

non-religious, not taken vows

not an expert

Manuscript

handwritten document

draft of a text

Field: Mathematics, Science and Engineering Tree

a set of vertices and edges (a graph) that are connected

part of a forest

Degenerate (verb)

having the same energy (as in atomic orbitals)

debased, corrupt

Excite

increase chemical activity

stir emotions

Significantly

statistically different

important, noticeable

True

to line up

real, adhering to facts

Add your own examples.

172

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet E: Idiomatic Use of Prepositions Prepositions can be related to time (as in the prepositional phrase during the afternoon) and location (as in the phrase on the desk). They can also function more idiomatically (as in the phrase in a hurry). This third category of prepositions is undergoing change in English, potentially due to an analogous merging with similar-sounding prepositions. Listed below are some new constructions encountered in native Englishspeaking college students’ writing, and analogous forms that are possible causes of the changes. The answer key supplies the more traditional wording. How many new constructions seem well formed to you? New Constructions

Possible Analogy Merger

(i)

Warn of

Alert someone of

(ii) Based off of

Emerge out of

(iii) Bored of

Tired of

(iv) Conviction was of

Convicted of

(v)

Expected from

Due from

(vi) Exposure with

Familiar with

(vii) Indifferent with

Unconcerned with

(viii) Look forward for

Wait for

(ix) Receive news on something

Read a book/article on something

(x)

The reason for

The purpose for

Answer key: Original structures: (i) alert someone to (ii) based on (iii) bored with (iv) conviction was for (v) due to (vi) exposure to (vii) indifferent to (viii) look forward to (ix) receive news of (x) the purpose of

(Data from Behrens & Mercer, 2007)

Original Structure (see answer key)

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

173

The prevalence of such structures as based off of, which is also solidly defended as natural sounding by my students, again calls into question the very nature of correctness in a language that is alive. What do you think?

174

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet F: Pronouns and the Case System Case is the linguistic designation for a word’s syntactic function in a sentence. Think ‘Who did what to whom?’ Case on English nouns has been lost, except for the possessive marker, e.g. Tony’s. The English pronoun system, however, requires case markings. Below is a review sheet of pronoun forms by case. When a pronoun is the subject of the sentence: Nominative Case (also called Subjective Case) I, you, she, he, it, we, you, they: ___ went to the store. When a pronoun is the object of the sentence or a prepositional phrase: Objective Case me, you, her, him, it, us, you, them: Meg gave ___ a receipt. A letter arrived for ___ . When a pronoun is possessive and followed by a noun: Possessive Case (also called Genitive Case) (Possessive pronouns that are followed by nouns are adjectival possessive pronouns) my, your, her, his, its, our, your, their: ___ cat has a loud purr. When a pronoun is possessive and not followed by a noun (Possessive pronouns that are not followed by nouns are nominal possessive pronouns) mine, yours, hers, his, its, ours, yours, theirs: The next move is ___ . Also note that when an entity is referenced twice in a clause, the second pronoun is reflexive (reflexive pronouns). For example: myself, yourself, herself, himself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves: I went to the movie myself; She went to the movie herself, etc. Below are a few exercises to test your awareness of pronoun forms. Choose the appropriate pronouns to complete each sentence, and identify their case. (i) Please keep this secret between you and ___ . (I/me/myself ) (ii) Does ___ Jack Russell jump as high as ___ ? (you’re…her/your…her’s/ your…hers) (iii) ___ and ___ ride the bus every weekend. (Him and me; Me and him; I and him; He and I) (iv) We can do the job ___ . (us/ourself/ourselves/myself ) (v) ___ did you see yesterday? (whom/who) (vi) Jane and ___ were treated to dinner by ___ . (I…themselves/me… them/I…them/us…them)

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

175

(vii) The cats love Sheila and ___ . (he/himself/hisself/him) (viii) The seat on the left is ___ and the one on right is ___ . (mine…yours/ my…your/mines…yours/mine…your’s) Answer key: (i) me (objective; object in a prepositional phrase) (ii) your…hers (possessive…possessive; note no apostrophe with possessive pronouns; see Study Sheet H for more on apostrophe use) (iii) He and I (nominative; compound subject of the sentence) (iv) ourselves (reflexive in objective case; note the plural –selves, not –self ) (v) Whom (objective; object of sentence even though it has moved to the front; of course using who for whom is very acceptable these days) (vi) I…them (nominative and objective; subject of sentence and object of preposition) (vii) him (objective; part of compound object of sentence) (viii) mine…yours (both possessives) While we can say that the distinction between I and me is in flux, perhaps stemming from people’s general lack of confidence about the ‘right’ form, the who/whom distinction has largely fallen away for most speakers. A hypercorrection such as Whom is it? would be rejected by everyone. However, Who did you see? would be rated by many as acceptable, even correct. What pronoun distinctions do you think are worth preserving?

176

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet G: Ambiguous, Vague and Inconsistent Pronouns The noun (or noun phrase) that gives a pronoun meaning is called the antecedent. A pronoun should match its antecedent in number (singular or plural), gender (feminine, masculine or neuter) and case (nominative, objective or possessive). Further, a pronoun needs to convey a single, clear meaning and remain consistent throughout the sentence. When the pair is somehow not aligned, the result is a sentence that is either ambiguous (has more than one possible meaning), vague (has no clear meaning) or inconsistent (and potentially distracting to a reader). Each sentence below has one of those problems: a pronoun/antecedent pairing that is either ambiguous, vague or inconsistent. Identify the problem and correct the mismatch. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

One needs to register for 15 credits or else you can’t graduate on time. In the article ‘Big Science’, they state that the results are inconclusive. In Smith’s article, she says that the results are conclusive. Many linguists argue that children are born with the potential for language. This was controversial at first. (v) The researchers studied the utterances of three-year-olds; they were numerous.

Answer key: (i) Inconsistent. Change so sentence continues with use of either one or generic you throughout. (ii) Vague. There is no antecedent for they. Possible change: In the article ‘Big Science’, the researchers state that the results are inconclusive. (iii) Vague. Smith’s and she do not match up. Possible change: Smith says in her article that the results are conclusive. (iv) Vague. What is this? Possible change: This argument was controversial at first. (v) Ambiguous. They could mean utterances or three-year-olds (or researchers). Possible change: The researchers studied numerous utterances by three-year-olds.

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

177

Study Sheet H: Punctuation/Apostrophes and Commas

The Apostrophe The apostrophe is a punctuation mark that can be easily misused. The confusion about this mark can be attributed to both the various functions it has in English, and to the exceptions to the rules. ‘Apostrophe –s’ is often used as the shorthand phrase for the possessive marker. The apostrophe can also be used to signal missing letters in contractions and (less often) to signal plurals. And there are exceptions to the use of the apostrophe to mark possession, seen in the English pronoun system, e.g. theirs instead of their’s. Other high-alert areas, where we should scrutinize our apostrophe usage, include words that already end in –s, are plural or both. Is the apostrophe used correctly in the sentences below? Correct any errors and name the function of the apostrophe in each case. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

It’s premise is well-accepted. If your late with an assignment, email the professors’ immediately. The familie’s of current students visit in late October. The professors’ mailboxes are located in the basement. The countries flag has a long history. The flag was designed in the 1760s.

Answer key: (i) Incorrect. Its, not it’s; possessive pronoun (ii) Incorrect. You’re, not your; contraction of you + are. Also incorrect is professors’; no apostrophe needed for this plural (iii) Incorrect. Families; should be plural but not marked with an apostrophe (iv) Correct. Plural possessive (v) Incorrect. Country’s is needed for possessive case on a singular word. Plural possessive would be countries’ (vi) Correct. The plural of 1760 does not need an apostrophe

The Comma Commas work with two types of clauses. The independent clause is a clause that can stand alone, as its own sentence. When independent clauses are joined by a coordinating conjunction – but, or, yet, so, for, and, nor (useful mnemonic: BOYSFAN) – a comma precedes the conjunction. A dependent clause cannot stand alone as its own sentence. Dependent clauses can be joined to independent clauses with a subordinating conjunction, e.g. although, because, since. The clause that contains the conjunction is the dependent clause. When the dependent clause comes first, the

178

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

full clause is followed by a comma, e.g. Because the rain stopped, we ventured outside. When the independent clause comes first, there is usually no need for a comma, e.g. We ventured outside because the rain stopped. Each sentence below needs revision because of a punctuation problem. Match each sentence with one of the descriptions about clause structure and punctuation needs; then correct the sentence. (Some description choices are used more than once.)

Sentences (i) The books arrived yesterday Michael can’t wait to read them. (ii) The books arrived yesterday, however Michael will have to find time to read them. (iii) Because the books arrived quickly Michael didn’t have a chance to make room for them. (iv) The concert is tonight so we should print out our tickets. (v) We are going to see my favorite band but, the lead singer has laryngitis. (vi) Since there are no refunds we will attend and make the best of it. (vii) We purchased tickets early, because we didn’t want to wait until the last minute.

Descriptions (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Dependent clause + independent clause, needs comma Independent clause + dependent clause, does not need a comma Needs comma before coordinating conjunction Needs conjunction and comma Conjunctive adverb being treated as a conjunction

Answer key: (i) Matched with (d). Needs conjunction and comma between yesterday and Michael (at the boundary of two independent clauses); also possible is a period or semicolon at that clause boundary. (ii) Matched with (e). Conjunctive adverb however being treated as a conjunction; needs period or semicolon before however and comma after the word. (iii) Matched with (a). Dependent + independent clause, needs comma between quickly and Michael (between the two clauses). (iv) Matched with (c). Needs comma before coordinating conjunction so. (v) Matched with (c). Needs comma before (not after) coordinating conjunction but. (vi) Matched with (a). Dependent + independent clause, needs comma between refunds and we (between the two clauses). (vii) Matched with (b). Independent + dependent clause, does not need comma.

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

179

Study Sheet I: Subject-Verb Agreement Issues Subjects and verbs must agree in a sentence. Some problem areas that writers encounter with agreement include (1) a prepositional phrase that interrupts the subject and the verb so that they are not adjacent; (2) a subject of the sentence that is ambiguous in number (is it singular or plural?); and (3) a subject of the sentence that ‘defers’ to a later-occurring noun in terms of agreement with the verb. Look at the following examples and identify the reasons for the subject and the verb not agreeing. Note that not all sentences contain errors. (i) The literature of many Victorian writers are often assigned in college English courses. (ii) There’s two novels that I should read for Wednesday. (iii) Some of the chapters require all my concentration. (iv) Some of the final chapter is beautifully written. (v) Neither of the books are very long. (vi) Each of the assignments demands my full attention. Answer key: (i) Incorrect. The literature [of many Victorian writers] is… prepositional phrase is interrupting the subject-verb alignment. The singular subject literature should be matched with singular verb is. (ii) Incorrect. There are two novels… the word there, although in the subject slot, does not need to agree with the verb. The plural noun novels agrees with the plural verb are. Notice that there is no ‘easy’ contraction of there + are, while there + is as there’s is quite common. (NB to cartoon fans: There’s 104 days of summer vacation.) (iii) Correct. Some is a word that defers to the following noun, so plural chapters pairs up with plural verb require. (iv) Correct. Some here defers to singular chapter, matched with singular verb is. (v) Incorrect. Neither [of the books] is… Besides including a prepositional phrase interrupting the subject and verb, this sentence also contains the subject neither, which can be mistaken as plural. It functions, however, as a singular word, meaning not one or the other and should be paired with singular is. (vi) Correct. Each is the singular subject; it does not defer to a later noun and thus agrees with the singular verb demands.

180

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet J: Modifier Problems Adjectives and adverbs are both modifiers. What an adjective does: modifies a noun or pronoun (or a group of words functioning as a noun) Comparative: when comparing two entities, adjectives use markers to show this comparison, usually with the suffix –er. Superlative: when comparing three or more entities, adjectives use markers to show the wider comparison, usually with the suffix –est. Example: tall, taller than another, tallest of the whole group If the adjective is more than two syllables, it might instead be preceded by the words more and (the) most, respectively, and then no suffix is used. (Some two-syllable adjectives also follow this pattern.) Example: intelligent, more intelligent than the other, (the) most intelligent of the whole group Note some common irregular forms: good, better, best; bad, worse, worst What an adverb does: modifies a verb, adjective or another adverb (or a group of words functioning as one of these) Adverbs also have comparative and superlative forms. They are marked by the separate words more and (the) most: Example: loudly, more loudly than another, the most loudly of all Flat adverbs are those that do not take the –ly suffix (e.g. fast, very) And some adjectives take the –ly ending, usually when the root is a noun, e.g. friendly. Fill in the following blanks with the adjective or adverb form of the modifier supplied; also decide if the sentence requires a comparative or superlative form. Modifier: deep (i) Of the two holes, this one is ___ . (ii) The construction crew is going to dig

___ than they did the day before.

Modifier: sentimental (iii) The graduates (iv) Peter’s was the Modifier: purple (v) Buy me the

said their goodbyes to their teachers. of the speeches. socks you can find.

Modifier: free (vi) She was relatively free yesterday, but now she is

than before.

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

181

Answer key:

Deep (i) Of the two holes, this one is deeper. (Comparative form of adjective) (ii) The construction crew is going to dig more deeply than they did the day before. (Comparative form of adverb; note that ‘dig deeper’ is very commonly used in such situations.)

Sentimental (iii) The graduates sentimentally said their goodbyes to their teachers. (Adverb form) (iv) Peter’s was the most sentimental of the speeches. (Superlative form of adjective)

Purple (v) Buy me the most purple/purplest* socks you can find. (Superlative form of adjective)

Free (vi) She was relatively free yesterday, but now she is more free/freer* than before. (Comparative form of adjective) *Note that the last two answers can vary across speakers. My spell checker is flagging purplest as a typo. Which forms would you use?

182

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet K: Tense vs. Voice What tense means: a verb form that conveys time information What voice means: a sentence construction that emphasizes the agent (active voice) or object (passive voice) of the sentence; the passive also entails a particular verb construction made of a finite form of to be and the past participle of the main verb. (Note that linguists also often distinguish between verb tense and something called aspect, the latter relating to whether an event is in progress, has been completed, etc. In this book, I fold aspect into discussions of tense.) Convert the active sentences below into their passive counterparts, and the passive sentences into their active forms. NB: not all sentences can be passivized; can you explain why? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The exam is being graded by Melissa. Final exams send Nicci into a panic. The professor seems very serious today. Students were allowed to leave early because of the weather. The students’ hands were frozen.

Answer key: (i) Passive. Active counterpart = Melissa is grading the exam. (ii) Active. Passive counterpart = Nicci is sent into a panic by final exams. (iii) Active. Cannot be passivized. Verbs that cannot be passivized usually express an inner state. We cannot say Very serious is seemed by the professor today. Notice also that there is no object to move to the front of the sentence. (iv) Passive. Active counterpart = [Someone] allowed the students to leave early because of the weather. This passive sentence is called agentless (or truncated) since the agent/doer of the action is not explicitly stated (although we would assume it is a school official). (v) Active. Cannot be passivized. In this sentence, frozen is an adjective (although it derives from the verb to freeze). In contrast, note the passive sentence The fish was frozen by the chef until the big dinner, where frozen is a past participle verb. Why use the passive voice? The passive construction is useful if you want to de-emphasize the agent, or if you do not know the agent. For example, in The report was read by the committee, the report is being highlighted over the committee. In Mysteriously, the report was shredded overnight, we either do not know or will not tell who

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

183

did the shredding. Academic writing tends to use the passive voice to take the focus away from the doer, perhaps to sound more objective and detached (Biber, 2006a; Zwiers, 2008). Notice how often, and in what contexts, you encounter the passive voice, in speech and in writing.

184

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet L: Texting Features Texting is often blamed for a decline in writing skills. Some linguists, however, defend it as another type of language use, one that users know how to restrict to its appropriate domains so that it does not interfere with academic writing. How is your language use influenced by texting? Take the following survey. Linguistic Feature

I use this in… Academic English (Y/N)

Email (Y/N)

Taking Notes (Y/N)

Acronyms Lower-case spelling throughout Lack of apostrophes Lack of periods, quotation marks, commas Extra use of punctuation marks: exclamation points, question marks Optional subjects Sentence fragments More content than function words (telegraphic quality) Pronouns without antecedents No introduction or conclusion No name of recipient No name in signature

List the acronyms that you no longer use. Crystal (2006) is a good source of ‘netspeak’ acronyms such as CID, WE and SMTOE*. Are these ‘old’ terms from 2006 still in use? (* Consider it done; Whatever; and Sets my teeth on edge.)

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

185

Study Sheet M: Formality Continuum/Style Style is a dimension of language that moves along a formality continuum, between very formal and very casual. Academic English is more formal than other types of English, and it is more formal in written than in spoken form. Construct sentences for each of the three functions listed below that would be stylistically suitable for each of the three different situations given.

Function: Greeting someone Asking someone for help Telling someone to hurry

Situation: A letter to a professional organization An email to a professor or chairperson A conversation with a close friend Note any changes you might have made, across situations, to the following levels of language: • • • • •

grammar vocabulary politeness markings forms of address accent: reduced vowels, contractions, fragments

Answer key (answers will vary): From formal to informal Greeting: • Dear Sir or Madam • It is very nice to meet you • What’s up? or ‘Sup? Asking for help: • I am hoping that you can be of assistance to me • Could you help me? • Gimme a hand! Telling someone to hurry: • Timeliness is crucial; thank you in advance for your consideration • I am just checking again on your progress • Hey, you; move it!

186

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

In these examples, notice changes in the various levels of language: syntax (interrogatives vs. imperatives); word choice (assistance vs. help); politeness (could you, I am hoping); forms of address (Sir, Madam, you); and pronunciation (gimme vs. give me).

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

187

Study Sheet N: Transitional Expressions Transitional expressions are linguistic devices that signal the direction in the flow of information in discourse (written or spoken). Below are lists of common transitions. How many do you make use of in academic English? Which might you only use in writing? Add any additional ones you employ. Signaling a beginning: First, to start off, for a start Signaling the closure of a section: Thus, so, then, in sum, in conclusion Introducing a new argument: another, in addition Signaling a contradiction: but, yet, however, on the other hand, nevertheless Embellishing: also, in addition, as well, more specifically Signaling cause and effect: because, due to, since, thus Zwiers (2008) supplies a fuller list of common discourse markers in academic English and discusses how they are useful for students in processing lecture material.

188

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

Study Sheet O: Phonological Patterns and Processes An accent is a systematic pattern to someone’s use of phonemes. We all have accents. Linguists describe not only the phonemes of different accent groups but also how the phonemes interact, called phonological processes. Below are some common processes, with examples. Understanding these changes from one accent group to another can help speaking, listening and spelling abilities; it can also contribute to our tolerance for speakers who sound different from us. How many processes are present in your own accent? (Examples below are not in the symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet.) Addition of a Phoneme Hamster → hampster Idea → idear Deletion of a Phoneme Parade → prade Family → famly Interesting → intresting Consonant Cluster Reduction Facts → facks Film → filem (first by deletion; second by addition) Metathesis: Here, two phonemes switch places Jewelry → jewlery Animal → aminal Substitution: Here, one phoneme is used instead of another Beige → beidge Business → bidness Variable Pronunciations: The pronunciation of the following words can differ across speakers; sometimes an individual will even alternate between productions in a single narrative. Try it out. Adult Almond Aunt Caramel Insurance Neither Pecan Vase

Understanding Language Use in the Classroom

189

Study Sheet P: Acoustic Characteristics of Speech/Word Stress Understanding the physics of speech allows us to better control our production and perception of connected speech. Below is a list of the acoustic components of spoken language. Physical Component

Perceived As

Unit of Measurement

Fundamental frequency

Pitch (high, low, sing-song) Hertz (Hz)

Amplitude

Loudness (loud, quiet)

Decibels (dB)

Duration

Length (long, short)

Milliseconds (ms) or seconds

Fundamental frequency is the rate at which one’s vocal folds vibrate in a second. Adult males and females have a fundamental frequency of about 125 and 200 Hz, respectively. Children’s fundamental frequencies can be in the 300–500 Hz range. Fundamental frequency is perceived as a speaker’s pitch. The change in fundamental frequency across an utterance creates an intonation pattern. Stress on a syllable is associated with an increase in pitch, loudness and/or duration. Speakers use different combinations of these acoustic components to signal a stressed syllable. Stress mainly resides in changes to the vowel of a syllable. Try saying these words in two different stress patterns: with stress on the first syllable and then with stress on the second syllable. Admit Combat Compact Compound Conduct Contrast Desert Object Permit Rebel Record Subject Notice that these words change their parts of speech when the stress patterns change. The noun forms have first-syllable stress; the verb forms have second-syllable stress. These noun-verb pairs are different from morphological conversions (see Study Sheet C), whereby a noun can also function as a verb but without a pronunciation change (e.g. the page, to page). Can

190

Part 3: Study Sheets: Review Materials for More Conversations

you name more noun-verb pairs that differ only in stress placement? Are there any words on the list above that you would only use as a noun? Only use as a verb? For example, admit as a noun might be limited to a technical meaning in university settings. Are there any that you pronounce with the same stress pattern for both noun and verb meanings?

Appendix

The appendix offers additional resources so that you can continue your linguistic explorations, applying language knowledge to pedagogy. The resources you will find here are: Websites and weblinks (a mix of scholarly and popular media sources) for each chapter in Parts 1 and 2 Texts by theme Other media Professional organizations

Useful Websites and Weblinks by Chapter Related to Chapter 1: Linguistic Obstacles to Better Teaching and Learning. Articles from Stanford University on linguistics: ‘Philosophy of Linguistics’: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/ ‘Innateness and language’: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness -language/ ‘The distinction between innate and acquired characteristics’: http://plato. stanford.edu/entries/innate-acquired/ TED Talk: John McWhorter: ‘Txtng is killing language. JK!!!’: http://www. ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk.html Related to Chapter 2: Examining Academic English: Form and Function Position statements from the Linguistic Society of America on standard English issues: ‘English language education for immigrant children’: http://www. linguisticsociety.org/about/what-we-do/resolutions-statements-guides/ lsa-res-unz 191

192

Appendix

‘Resolution on the “Ebonics” issue’: http://www.linguisticsociety.org/about/ what-we-do/resolutions-statements-guides/lsa-res-ebonics Teaching grammar in Singapore article from Academic Weekly (13 July 2013): http://academia.edu/3856551/_Teaching_grammar Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar resolution: http://ateg.org/ pdf/resolution.pdf Related to Chapter 3: Linguistics and Pedagogy Steven Pinker: ‘Linguistics as a window to understanding the brain’: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-B_ONJIEcE TeachLing website: Lesson plans to teach linguistics: http://www.teachling. wwu.edu/view/lessonplans [email protected] Modules from the University of Florida to teach students tools for academic writing: http://infolit.ucf.edu/faculty/ TED Talk: Alan Siegel: ‘Let’s simplify legal jargon!’: http://www.ted.com/ talks/alan_siegel_let_s_simplify_legal_jargon.html Parody of academese: http://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html Steven Pinker on African American English: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn. edu/nll/?p=5161 Related to Chapter 4: Introducing the Conversations: Linguistic Principles Linguist List: Website that covers many topics in linguistics and enables people to ask questions to linguists on a forum: http://linguistlist.org/ Related to Chapter 5: Word Formation/Morphology TED Talk: Deb Roy: ‘The Birth of a Word’: http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=RE4ce4mexrU&noredirect=1 TED Talk: Patricia Kuhl: ‘The linguistic genius of babies’: http://www.ted. com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies.html Related to Chapter 6: Word Meaning/Semantics World Loanword Database: Tracing the origins of words from languages around the world: http://wold.livingsources.org TED Talk: Erez Lieberman Aiden and Jean-Baptiste Michel: ‘What we learned from 5 million books’: http://www.ted.com/talks/what_we_ learned_from_5_million_books.html

Appendix

193

‘Spoken Academic English Formulas’: http://micase.elicorpora.info/esl/ formulaic-expressions/definition.htm Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/ Vocabulary Builder: https://www.vocabulary.com/ The Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE): http://dare.wisc.edu/ Related to Chapter 7: Grammatical Markers/Morphosyntax Dictionary of Affixes (Prefixes and Suffixes): http://www.affixes.org/ Zombie Nouns, Op-Ed Piece in The New York Times by Helen Sword: http:// opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/zombie-nouns/?pagewanted=print Related to Chapter 8: Grammar and Punctuation/Syntax Grammar Girl blog: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ Grammar Diva blog: http://bigwords101.com/ Related to Chapter 9: Narrative Structure/Discourse Deborah Tannen article on discourse analysis: http://www.linguisticsociety. org/content/discourse-analysis Related to Chapter 10: Pronunciation/Phonology Accents Website of Accents in English from around the world: http://www. dialectsarchive.com/ International Corpus of English: Comparisons of English accents around the world: http://ice-corpora.net/ice/ The Speech Accent Archive: ‘The speech accent archive uniformly presents a large set of speech samples from a variety of language backgrounds. Native and non-native speakers of English read the same paragraph and are carefully transcribed. The archive is used by people who wish to compare and analyze the accents of different English speakers’. http://accent.gmu.edu Visual Accent and Dialect Archive: This website shows videos of people from around the world speaking in English. It can be used to analyze and hear various accents. http://visualaccentdialectarchive.com Voices of North Carolina Dialect Awareness Curriculum, Jeffrey Reaser and Walt Wolfram: http://ncsu.edu/linguistics/dialectcurriculum.php Sociolinguistic Artifacts: http://www.reed.edu/slx-artifacts/ National Public Radio Blog (USA), ‘Code-Switching’: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ codeswitch/2013/04/08/176064688/how-code-switching-explains-the-world

194

Appendix

Detailed map of the USA organized by accents: http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2013/05/09/dialect-map-of-the-us-region-aschmann_n_3245496. html?utm_hp_ref=technology ‘22 Maps That Show How Americans Speak English Totally Differently From Each Other’: http://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-showthe-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6?op=1#ixzz2WNsb12bZ Take a quiz to find out what American accent you have: http://gotoquiz. com/what_american_accent_do_you_have Accents and Dialects for Stage and Screen (Accent and Dialect Coach): http://www.paulmeier.com Phonetics and the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA and related vocal tract movements for each phoneme: http://www. uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html IPA charts with spoken examples of the phoneme as an initial phoneme, middle phoneme or final phoneme: http://www.paulmeier.com/ipacharts/ IPA symbols charts as well as spoken examples for each symbol: http:// www.yorku.ca/earmstro/ipa/ Using the phonetic characteristics to describe ‘the annoying sounds teenagers make’ in a funny video: http://theweek.com/article/index/244460/alinguistic-dissection-of-7-annoying-teenage-sounds#bottom Benjamin Franklin and his phonetic alphabet: http://blogs.smithsonianmag. com/design/2013/05/benjamin-franklins-phonetic-alphabet/#.UaOKx_ leDwM.email Related to Chapter 11: Voice Quality and Speech Melody/Prosody Language Log, a Weblog about Linguistics, on Vocal Fry: Posted by Josef Fruehwald, 17 December 2011: http://val-systems.blogspot.com/2011/12/ on-vocal-fry.html Language Log, a Weblog about Linguistics, on Uptalk: Posted by Mark Liberman, 28 March 2006: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/ archives/002967.html The National Center for Voice and Speech: Research and teaching center for the human voice: www.ncvs.org The Voice and Speech Trainers Association: ‘An international organization whose mission is to advance the art, research, and visibility of the voice and speech profession’. www.vasta.org Video of vocal fold vibration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Drns_ eV9wWg

Appendix

195

Texts by Theme Texts introducing linguistics Bauer, L. (2012) Beginning Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Behrens, S.J. and Parker, J.A. (eds) (2010) Language in the Real World: An Introduction to Linguistics. New York and Oxon: Routledge. Bloomer, A., Griffiths, P. and Merrison, A.J. (2005) Introducing Language in Use: A Coursebook. Abingdon: Routledge. Crystal, D. (2010) A Little Book of Language. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Curzan, A. and Adams, M. (2006) How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Pearson. Denham, K. and Lobeck, A. (2010) Linguistics for Everyone: An Introduction. Boston: Wadsworth. Katz, W.F. (2013) Phonetics for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rickerson, E.M. and Hilton, B. (eds) (2006) The 5-Minute Linguist: Bite-sized Essays on Language and Languages (2nd edn). Sheffield: Equinox.

Texts reviewing English grammar Altenberg, E. and Vago, R. (2010) English Grammar: Understanding the Basics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Behrens, S.J. (2010) Grammar: A Pocket Guide. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Clark, R.P. (2010) The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Lobeck, A. and Denham, K. (2013) Navigating English Grammar: A Guide to Analyzing Real Language. Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

Texts about teaching English language learners Birch, B.M. (2014) English Grammar Pedagogy: A Global Perspective. New York and Oxon: Routledge. Hafernik, J.J. and Wiant, F.M. (2012) Integrating Multilingual Students into College Classrooms: Practical Advice for Faculty. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2011) Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. New York: Routledge. Shatz, M. and Wilkinson, L.C. (2013) Understanding Language in Diverse Classrooms: A Primer for All Teachers. New York: Routledge.

Texts about language policy Cameron, D. (1995, 2012) Verbal Hygiene. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Crystal, D. (2006, 2007) The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lippi-Green, R. (2012) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States (2nd edn). Oxon and New York: Routledge. Locke, T. (ed.) (2010) Beyond the Grammar Wars. New York and Oxon: Routledge.

196

Appendix

Lynch, J. (2009) The Lexicographer’s Dilemma. New York: Walker & Company. Mulroy, D. (2003) The War against Grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Ravitch, D. (2003, 2004) The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. New York: Vintage.

Texts about the secondary to post-secondary language transitions Hansen, K. and Farris, C.R. (eds) (2010) College Credit for Writing in High School: The ‘Taking Care of’ Business. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Karp, M.M. and Hughes, K.L. (2008) Study: Dual enrollment can benefit a broad range of students. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers 83 (7), 14–17. Pirie, B. (1997) Reshaping High School English. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Smith, D. (2007) Why expand dual-credit programs? Community College Journal of Research and Practice 31, 371–387. Thompson, T.C. (ed.) (2002) Teaching Writing in High School and College: Conversations and Collaborations. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Media Do You Speak American? (2005) Director: W. Cran. MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. DVD. See http://www.pbs.org/speak/education/ (accessed December 2013). The Linguists (2008) Directors: S. Kramer, D.A. Miller and J. Newberger. Ironbound Films. DVD. See http://www.thelinguists.com/ (accessed December 2013). The Three Rs: Representation, Reality, Realignment (2013) Director: S.J. Behrens. Plaster Bear Productions. YouTube Links. (1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_fmhE_mV0Q (Good Grammar) (accessed December 2013). (2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wXzIX64M08 (Representation of Language in College: Gatekeeping) (accessed December 2013). (3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAckKXnjrsc (Accents and Dialects) (accessed December 2013). (4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7_IUNMGI (Introduction to Linguistics) (accessed December 2013). (5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkIkMHvv5oY (Academic Language) (accessed December 2013).

Relevant Organizations American Speech Language & Hearing Association (ASHA) The National Association for Speech Language Pathologists and Audiologists: www. asha.org The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) The National Linguistics Society: www.lsadc.org Linguistics in Higher Education Committee (LSA): http://www.linguisticsociety.org/ about/who-we-are/committees/linguistics-higher-education National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE): http://www.ncte.org/ The Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar (NCTE): http://www.ateg.org/

Glossary

Abbreviation: (also called ‘clipping’) A shortened form of a word (or phrase) that keeps the same meaning and part of speech, e.g. application becomes app. Accent: Systematic variation of a speaker’s phonological patterns. Acronym: A word formed from the initials of a sequence of words and pronounced as a full word, e.g. ASAP (As Soon As Possible) pronounced as A-SAP. (See Initialism) Adjective: A part of speech that modifies a noun, noun phrase or pronoun. Adverb: A part of speech that modifies a verb, adjective or other adverb. Most adverbs are derived from adjectives with –ly suffixes, e.g. quickly. African American English (AAE): A term that describes a variety of related dialects of English that vary systematically from standard English at all levels of language, for example semantics, syntax, phonology. AAE is largely spoken within African American urban communities. (See Ebonics) Agent: The entity (noun or pronoun) in a sentence that carries out the action; label for a semantic function. Allophone (Allophonic Variation): Particular realization of a phoneme, varying systematically with one or more other realizations of the same phoneme. Variation usually due to word context. Ambiguity: Having two or more meanings. A lexical ambiguity is a word with more than one word meaning. Amplitude: The magnitude of sound resulting in what we perceive as loudness. (See Loudness) Antecedent: A noun, noun phrase or clause that represents the referent of a pronoun; usually occurring before the pronoun. (See Pronoun) Assimilation: A process in which one phoneme takes on the phonetic features of a neighboring phoneme, e.g. Istanbul pronounced Istambul, in which the /n/ consonant becomes /m/ because of the bilabial quality of the adjacent /b/. 197

198

Glossary

Backchannel: The sounds and utterances from a listener during a speaker’s conversational turn. Backformation: A process whereby a new word is formed by deleting a prefix, suffix or other part of the word. The resulting shortened form usually has a different, but related, meaning from the original, often with a change in the part of speech. For example, the verb to intuit is a backformation of the noun intuition. Blend: Word derived from a semantic word formation process whereby parts of words are combined into a new word, e.g., frenemy (friend and enemy), bromance (brotherhood and romance). Blending: The combination of two words to form a new word, a blend. For example, the word Spanglish is a blend of Spanish + English. Breath Group: The syntactic unit we produce in a single exhalation. Case: The grammatical role of a pronoun (and to a limited extent, a noun) in a sentence. The case can be nominative (the subject, e.g. I), objective (the object, e.g. me) or possessive (indicating possession, e.g. my, Nancy’s). Clause: A group of words that contains at least one subject-finite verb pair. (See Independent Clause and Dependent Clause) Communicative Competence: Internalized set of rules guiding the pragmatic use of language for a particular speech community. Conjunctive Adverb: An adverb that joins two independent clauses and conveys the relationship between the two clauses, e.g. however, therefore. A semicolon or a period is usually required before the conjunctive adverb. Connotation: The implicit cultural or affective meaning of a term, as opposed to its explicit meaning. (See Denotation) Consonant Cluster: Two or more consonants occurring in a row in a syllable. Consonant Cluster Reduction: The unintentional or purposeful omission of one or more phonemes in a consonant cluster. For example, omitting the /t/ in facts; also by insertion of a vowel between two consonants, as in filem. Content Word: A word with a substantial semantic meaning. Typical content words are nouns, verbs and adjectives. Conversion: The transformation a word undergoes when it changes its syntactic category (part of speech) without altering its shape. For example, page (the noun) becoming the verb to page. Conversational Maxims: Statements that reflect the assumptions conversationalists hold to when they cooperate in communicating ideas during a conversation: Maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner.

Glossary

199

Coordinating Conjunction: A part of speech that joins two independent clauses; there are seven coordinating conjunctions in English: but, or, yet, so, for, and, nor. Copula Verb: The verb to be. Deixis: (also called ‘Deictic Term’) A part of language that takes on a meaning in accordance with the context of the conversation or the speaker, e.g. this, that, here, there, you, me, now, then. The three categories of deixis are location, person and time. Deliberate Repetition: (also called ‘Meaningful Repetition’) The conscious choice to repeat a word or phrase to elaborate on a point. Denotation: The explicit meaning of a term; its dictionary definition. (See Connotation) Dependent Clause: A clause that cannot stand alone and must be linked to an independent clause, usually by a subordinating conjunction, e.g. because. Derivational Morpheme: A morpheme that can be used to derive a new word; for example, a- in atypical and –ly in wisely. Descriptivism: View of language as a flexible, evolving human facility; focuses on the description of language use and its variation. Dialect: A form of language that varies systematically from related forms in the same family. The variation exists at two or more levels of language, e.g. pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary. Discourse: The structure of language above the sentence level. Discourse includes both speech and writing. Discourse Marker: Overt items that signal (among other functions) transitions, e.g. on the other hand, moreover; and conclusions, e.g. in sum, thus. Dummy Subject: (also called ‘Expletive’) A word that fills in the subject slot in a sentence but has no semantic value, for example There is a time for everything and It is time to act. Ebonics: The informal term for African American English. (See African American English) Elaborated Register: A register of language in which all of the information is overtly expressed, based on the assumption that the audience has no previous knowledge of the basic information; often required in academic English. (See Restricted Register) Enregisterment: A linguistic phenomenon whereby folk-impressions of language use gather enough momentum to create a critical mass and consequently a type of psychological reality.

200

Glossary

Filler: (also called ‘Filled Pause’) An utterance that speakers tend to use when they are searching for a word or next thought but want to signal that they are not yet finished speaking, e.g. like, um. Finite Verb: The form of a verb that is conjugated for information about number, time and person; as opposed to a nonfinite verb (infinitive, present participle and past participle), which is not inflected with number, time and person information. Formality: A dimension of language that moves along a continuum, between formal and casual style. Formality can be conveyed at all levels of language, e.g. pronunciation, vocabulary selection and grammatical structure. (See Style) Fragment: A group of words that is not a full sentence, missing a subjectverb pair (in which the subject and verb agree and the verb is finite); in the case of a dependent clause, not resolving the relationship expressed by the initial subordinating conjunction. Frequency: The number of vibratory cycles per second of a sound wave. Function Word: A word that conveys grammatical information, such as a conjunction, preposition and article. Fundamental Frequency: The prominent frequency perceived in a speaker’s voice, corresponding to the number of times the vocal folds vibrate (open and close) in a second. Adult males and females have a fundamental frequency of about 125 and 200 Hertz (Hz), respectively. Children’s fundamental frequencies are in the 300–500 Hz range. (See Pitch). Garden Path Sentence: A sentence that is processed incorrectly on first encounter, usually because of a bias in English for a particular grammatical alignment, e.g. the sentence The old man the boat is difficult to parse due to an assumption that old + man are working as adjective + noun. Given/New Pattern: A pattern in academic discourse whereby previously stated information is presented at the beginning of the sentence, and new information appears later in the sentence. Grammar (Also Syntax): Organizational structure of units of language. For syntax, the structure at the phrase, clause, and sentence levels. Hedge: Linguistic device that is used to soften a message or mitigate the impact of being rejected or found to be wrong, e.g. sort of. High Rising Terminal: (Also called ‘Uptalk’) The rise in fundamental frequency at the end of an utterance, whether in a declarative or interrogative sentence.

Glossary

201

Hypercorrection: The overuse of a perceived prestigious form of language, usually due to linguistic insecurity about standard usage, e.g. between you and I. Idiom: A culturally bound phrase the meaning of which cannot be understood from the meanings of the individual words that it comprises, e.g. It takes two to tango; figure of speech. Idioms tend to be ‘frozen’ syntactically, i.e. they cannot be reworded without losing meaning. Independent Clause: A clause that can stand alone as a complete sentence. (See Clause). Inflectional Morpheme: A morpheme that conveys grammatical information. For example, the plural –s, possessive –’s and past tense –ed. Initialism: A word formed from the initials of a sequence of words in which each initial letter is pronounced separately. For example, LMK (Let Me Know) is pronounced L-M-K. Some linguists do not differentiate between initialisms and acronyms. (See Acronym) International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA): A written system of symbols that describes a speaker’s use of phonemes; an alphabet consisting of one invariant symbol for each of the consonants and vowels in all human languages. Intonation: The changes in a speaker’s fundamental frequency across an utterance. Jargon: Specialized vocabulary associated with a field of study or occupation. Lateral Liquid: The phonetic description of the phoneme /l/, a consonant with a manner of articulation (liquid) with little vocal tract constriction and a tongue shape of lowered sides. Lexical Ambiguity: A lexical item (word) with two or more meanings, e.g. I saw a bat in the field, referring to either a baseball bat or the animal. Lexical Bundle: (also called ‘Collocation’ or ‘Word Bundle’) A combination of words that often co-occur; certain lexical bundles commonly occur in academic English, e.g. It can be observed that. Lexicography: Area of linguistics involved in the compiling of dictionaries. Linguistic Markedness: The degree to which a linguistic form deviates from what is considered to be the standard form or usage. Forms in standard English are relatively unmarked. (See Marked, Unmarked and Standard English.) Liquid Consonant: A phoneme with the manner of articulation with little vocal tract constriction. In English, the liquid phonemes are /l/ and /r/.

202

Glossary

Listener Burden: The active role played by the listener to work toward a successful conversation. Loudness: The perception of amplitude; how loud or quiet a sound seems. Manner of Articulation: Classification of a phoneme by how (vs. where) the sound is produced in the vocal tract. Marked: A noticeable degree of deviation from forms or usage found in standard English. (See Linguistic Markedness) Markedness: Degree of deviation from a linguistic norm. Those forms close to a standard are unmarked; further from the standard have varying degrees of markedness. Metaphor: A figure of speech that implies a possible comparison between two unrelated objects, without using the words ‘as’ or ‘like’, e.g. Time is money. Metathesis: A phonological process whereby the speaker produces a word with a different order of phonemes from the unmarked form, e.g. jewelry pronounced as jewl –a-ree. Minimal Pair: A pair of words that differs by a single phoneme in the same word environment (e.g., initial or final sound is different); further, that change makes a difference in the word meaning. Usually a test of phonemic status. Minor Sentence: A deliberate sentence fragment or truncated sentence used for stylistic effect. Morpheme: The smallest unit of language that conveys meaning. The morphemes of English include roots, prefixes and suffixes. Morphology: The study of word formation; how morphemes combine to form words. Morphosyntax: The level of language dealing with inflectional morphemes, those units of meaning (often suffixes in English) that convey grammatical information, e.g. the suffixes plural –s, past tense –ed and superlative –est. Nominal/Nominalization: To have the function of a noun. Nominalization is the process of transforming a verb or adjective into a noun, usually with the addition of one of the following suffixes: –ance, –ence, –ism, –ment, –ness and –ion. Nominative Case: Form of a pronoun indicating that it is functioning as the subject of a clause, e.g. She owns a house. (See Case) Nonfinite Verb: (see Finite Verb) Non-standard English: Range of dialects deviating from the standard forms, manifested at two or more levels of language.

Glossary

203

Objective Case: Form of a pronoun indicating that it is functioning as an object, either a direct object, an indirect object or the object in a prepositional phrase, e.g. We saw her; We sent her a gift; The house means a lot to her. (See Case) Parallelism: A stylistic device whereby a linguistic pattern (lexical or grammatical) is established and repeated, e.g. She enjoys running, swimming and reading fiction. Paraphrase: A phrase that keeps the semantic meaning of an original text constant but varies the syntax (grammar) and word choice. Parsing: The process of analyzing and characterizing parts of speech (whether consciously or unconsciously) with the aid of relevant syntactic, semantic and discourse information. Passive Voice: A sentence construction that places the semantic object of the sentence in the subject slot and thus de-emphasizes the semantic agent; also carries a verb form composed of the helping verb ‘to be’ and the past participle main verb. An example of a passive sentence is The work was done by the committee. (See Finite Verb and Past Participle) Past Participle: A non-finite verb that functions as an adjective (e.g. The frozen lake), as a main verb in the perfect verb form with the helping verb to have (e.g. He has frozen the leftovers) and as a main verb in the passive voice construction when paired with the helping verb to be (e.g. The vegetables were frozen by the chef). Phonation: The vibration of the vocal folds to produce a sound. Phoneme: The smallest unit of language; a consonant or vowel. A contrastive linguistic unit within a language that is distinguishable by the language’s speakers. A single phonemic change can alter the meaning of a word, e.g. /b/ vs. /m/ in bat vs. mat. Phonetics: The scientific study of speech sounds. Phonology: The study of the systematic interaction of phonemes, including their organization, patterning and possible combinations when forming words. Pitch: The perception of fundamental frequency; how high or low a sound seems. Possessive Case: Form of a noun or pronoun (the possessor) that describes its relationship with another entity that it possesses, e.g. their home. This case is usually signaled with –’s on nouns, e.g. Sara’s car. Pragmatics: The social rules of language use; often varies by speech community. Prefix: Part of a word that conveys meaning and can be placed in front of a root or stem; does not usually exist as its own word, i.e., is dependent.

204

Glossary

Preposition: A function word or phrase that links two nouns, pronouns or noun phrases, and defines their relationship of location, time or other idiomatic (non-literal) connections, e.g. on, at, until, before. Prepositional Phrase: A group of words consisting (minimally) of a preposition and its object (a noun, noun phrase or pronoun), which can include any words that modify the object, e.g. on the new wooden deck. Prescriptivism: View of language as a system of rules that are codified and, if not followed, will lead to incorrect or improper language use. Present Participle: A non-finite verb form that usually consists of the root of a verb and the suffix –ing. It can function as a gerund (e.g. Helping is a tradition), an adjective (e.g. a helping hand) or a main verb when paired with the verb to be in the progressive verb form (e.g. They are helping the neighbor). (See Finite Verb) Pronoun: A part of speech that relates to an antecedent in the same sentence or larger discourse; pronouns are anchored to such antecedents as nouns, noun phrases and clauses. (See Antecedent) Prosody: The melodic patterns of speech, including variations in pitch, loudness, rhythm and syllable length across an utterance. Quotative Like: The use of the word like to signal a direct quotation; usually paired with the verb to be, as in I was like, ‘What are you doing?’. Reflexive Pronoun: A pronoun that refers to an antecedent within the same clause; usually formed with –self or –selves, e.g. She saw herself on television. Register: A form of language that varies by use or in particular domains, e.g. the language of medicine or law. Restricted Register: A register of language in which some of the information is not overtly expressed, based on the assumption that the audience possesses the basic knowledge, e.g. language forms one uses with family members. (See Elaborated Register) Retroflex Liquid: The phonetic description of the phoneme /r/, a consonant with a manner of articulation (liquid) with little vocal tract constriction and a tongue shape that is contracted and retracted toward the back of the oral cavity. Rhoticity: Related to the retroflex liquid consonant phoneme /r/. Run-on Sentence: In writing, a sentence composed of two independent clauses that are not separated by the correct punctuation mark, resulting in either a fused sentence (no punctuation at the clause boundary) or a comma splice (mistaken placement of a comma at the clause boundary).

Glossary

205

Selectional Restriction: Conditions that have to be attained to use a word, given the semantic value of that word. For example, we generally eat food and drink liquids. Semantics: The study of the meaning of words, phrases, clauses and sentences. Singular They: The third person plural pronoun they used as a genderneutral third person singular pronoun, e.g. For everyone to succeed, they need to work together. Slang: Vocabulary or expressions associated with an informal style of language use; usually easily outdated, as in groovy (from the 1960s) and bad (for good, in the 1980s). Speech Community: Group of language users who share the communicative competence that guides their pragmatic linguistic behavior in social realms. Standard English: The dialect of English considered to be the language of educated speakers; it is not associated with any particular geographical area and contains mainly unmarked forms. It is often considered the prestigious variety of English. (See Linguistic Markedness) Stress: Emphasis on a syllable or word in speech; in English, manifested in acoustic changes to the vowel, usually as a rise in voice pitch, loudness and/ or duration of the vowel. Structural Ambiguity: A sentence that can be interpreted in more than one way due to its syntactic structure. For example in the sentence She told me she made the phone call yesterday, either the telling or the phoning happened the day before. Style: Language variety or way of speaking with various social meanings that moves along a continuum of formality. (See Formality) Style Shifting: Moving toward a more standard use of language with a more formal style. Subcategorization: Co-occurrence restriction in syntax; governs the structures in which specific words, especially verbs, can occur. For example the verb to put requires an entity and a location to follow in a sentence. (See Transitivity) Subordinating Conjunction: A conjunction that creates a dependent clause and indicates time, place or cause and effect relationships, e.g. When I return; Wherever you go; Because it was Friday. Substitution: The phonological process of replacing one phoneme with another, e.g. pronouncing three as tree. Syntax: The structure of words organized into larger units of language; grammar.

206

Glossary

Tag Question: Grammatical structure that contains an interrogative word order, found at the end of a declarative sentence, e.g., It rained last night, didn’t it? Tense: The form of the verb that locates a situation in time, e.g. present, past, future. Transitional Expression: A discourse marker that signals a transition from one idea to the next, e.g. however, in addition, in conclusion. Transitivity: A property of verbs; a verb can be transitive or intransitive. A transitive verb is one that requires a direct object, e.g. to find. An intransitive verb is one that does not allow a direct object to follow, e.g. to appear. Some verbs can be both transitive and intransitive, e.g. to read. Unmarked: In linguistics, forms and usage of language that are considered normal by mainstream users, or that minimally deviate from standard forms. (See Linguistic Markedness) Vocal Folds: (also called ‘Vocal Cords’) The two folds of tough yet flexible tissue in the larynx extending horizontally from front to back. They produce sound when vibrating (phonating). Vocal Fry: A type of phonation whereby vocal fold vibration becomes slower and more irregular toward the end of an utterance; also known as ‘creaky voice’. (See Phonation) Vocal Tract: Part of the human anatomy that is involved in the production of phonemes; consists of three cavities (oral, nasal and pharyngeal) and a series of articulators, such as the tongue, lips and hard palate. Voice: A sentence construction that conveys the relationship between the receiver of some action (object) and the doer of the action (agent), and highlights one over the other. Voice can be active (the subject is the agent, doing the action, as in Cindy feeds the cats) or passive (the subject is not the agent but is instead receiving the action, as in The cats are fed by Cindy). (See Passive Voice) Voicing: A phonetic feature dependent upon whether the vocal folds are vibrating (voiced) or parted and stationary (voiceless) during production of a phoneme. For example, the phoneme /z/ is voiced and the phoneme /s/ is voiceless.

References

ACT (2006) Reading between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals about College Readiness in Reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT (2012) The Reality of College Readiness. See http://www.act.org/readinessreality/12/ index.html (accessed 14 April 2013). Adger, C.T., Wolfram, W. and Christian, D. (2007) Dialects in Schools and Communities (2nd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Agha, A. (2003) The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication 23, 231–273. See https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00012-0 (accessed 1 March 2018). Alsup, J. and Bernard-Donals, M. (2002) The fantasy of the ‘seamless transition’. In T.C. Thompson (ed.) Teaching Writing in High School and College: Conversations and Collaborations (pp. 115–135). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Anderson, R.C., Klofstad, C.A., Mayew, W.J. and Venkatachalam, M. (2014) Vocal fry may undermine the success of young women in the labor market. PLoS ONE 9 (5), e97506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097506. Andrews, L. (2006) Language Exploration and Awareness: A Resource Book for Teachers (3rd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Aoyama, K., Flege, J.E., Guion, S.G., Akahane-Yamada, R. and Yamada, T. (2004) Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics 32, 233–250. doi: 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00036-6. Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011) Academically Adrift. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2011) The LEAP Vision for Learning: Outcomes, Practices, Impact, and Employers’ Views. Washington, DC: AAC&U. Baider, F. (2013) Cultural stereotypes and linguistic clichés: Their usefulness in intercultural competency. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE) 4 (2), 1166–1171. See http://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/uploads/ ijcdse/published-papers/voulme-4-2013/Cultural-Stereotypes-and-LinguisticClichés-Usefulness-in-Intercultural-Competency.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Baron, D. (2003) Teaching grammar doesn’t lead to better writing. Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (36), B20. Baron, N. (2008) Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baron, N.S. (2002) Who sets e-mail style? Prescriptivism, coping strategies, and democratizing communication access. The Information Society 18, 403–413. doi: 10.1080/01972240290108203.

207

208

References

Bartholomae, D. (1993) The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. Journal of Basic Writing 12 (1), 4–21. Beck, S.W. (2004) Context, text, and tests: Issues in English assessment in the United States. In B.R.C. Barrell, R.F. Hammett, J.S. Mayher and G.M. Pradl (eds) Teaching English Today: Advocating Change in the Secondary Curriculum (pp. 132–145). New York: Teachers College Press. Becker, K. (2009) /r/ and the construction of place identity on New York City’s Lower East Side. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (5), 634–658. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00426.x. Behrens, S.J. (1985) The perception of stress and lateralization of prosody. Brain and Language 26, 332–348. Behrens, S.J. (2010) Grammar: A Pocket Guide. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Behrens, S.J. and Kandel, M. (2006) Thoughts on teaching and writing from an accomplished author and teacher: Interview with Phillip Lopate. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 22 (2), 80–89. Behrens, S. and Jablon, A. (2008) Speaker perceptions of communicative effectiveness: Conversational analysis of student–teacher talk. Journal of College Science Teaching 37 (3), 40–44. Behrens, S.J. and Mercer, C. (2011) The ambiguous nature of bilingualism and its ramifications for writing instruction. NADE Digest 5 (2), 11–22. Behrens, S.J. and Mercer, C. (2007) The style of which this is written: Neutralization of prepositions in English. NADE Digest 3 (2), 45–56. Behrens, S.J. and Sperling, R. (2010) Language variation: Students and teachers reflect on accents and dialects. In S.J. Behrens and J.A. Parker (eds) Language in the Real World: An Introduction to Linguistics (pp. 11–26). London: Routledge. Behrens, S.J., Neeman, A. and Jablon, A. (2007) A linguistic examination of student– teacher talk: Implications for communication across dyads. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 23 (2), 3–14. Behrens, S.J., Catalano, R., Perez, J., Clark, K. and Chisholm, L. (Spring 2016) Challenging linguistic stereotypes on the Internet. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 32 (2), 62–72. Behrens, S.J., Chirinos, Y., Spencer, M. and Spradley, S. (2016) Academic English and language-related technology. NADE Digest 8 (1), 28–34. See https://thenade.org/ resources/Pictures/Digest/NADE_Digest_Fall_2016.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Behrens, S., Johnson, A., Allard, M. and Caroli, A. (2016). I know it when I see it: Uncovering college student-educator expectations about academic writing. Writing & Pedagogy 8 (2), 309–332. Benjamin, A. (2012) President’s Message – Keynote Address 2011 ATEG Conference. Journal of the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 22 (1), ii–ix. Benjamin, A. and Oliva, T. (2007) Engaging Grammar: Practical Advice for Real Classrooms. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Berger, J. (2006) Transforming writers through grammar study. English Journal 95 (5), 53–59. Bernstein, K. (2013) Warnings from the trenches. Academe 99 (1), 33–36. Berrett, D. (2014) Students come to college thinking they’ve mastered writing. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60 (28). Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve. do?sgHitCountType=Noneandsort=DA-SORTanddocType=A22writing&Pedagog yrticleandprodId=AONEandtabID=T002andsearchId=R4andresultListType=RES ULT_LISTandsearchType=AdvancedSearchFormandcontentSegment=andcurrent Position=1andsearchResultsType=SingleTabandinPS=trueanduserGroupNam

References

209

e=nysl_me_mmclanddocId=GALE%7CA364442679andcontentSet=GALE% 7CA364442679 Biber, D. (2006a) University Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biber, D. (2006b) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5, 97–116. Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortes, V. (2004) If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25 (3), 371–405. Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2016) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.23. See http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 12 December 2016). Boldt, M. and Roncero, E. (2010) Text translation: Approaching otherness. In S.J. Behrens and J.A. Parker (eds) Language in the Real World: An Introduction to Linguistics (pp. 89–106). New York and Oxon: Routledge. Boxer, D. (2011) The Lost Art of the Good Schmooze: Building Rapport and Defusing Conflict in Everyday and Public Talk. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Brown, D.W. (2009) In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-switching, and Academic Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Budden, H., Nicolini, M.B., Fox, S.L. and Greene, S. (2002) What we talk about when we talk about college writing. In T.C. Thompson (ed.) Teaching Writing in High School and College: Conversations and Collaborations (pp. 73–93). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Calderonello, A., Martin, V.S. and Blair, K.L. (2003) Grammar for Language Arts Teachers. New York: Longman. Cameron, D. (2011) Sociophonetics and sexuality: Discussion. American Speech 86 (1), 98–103. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1277537. Cameron, D. (2008) The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cameron, D. (2007) The Teacher’s Guide to Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cameron, D. (1995, 2006) Verbal Hygiene. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2012) Contestation and enregisterment in Ohio’s imagined dialects. Journal of English Linguistics 40 (3), 281–305. doi: 10.1177/0075424211427911. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2011) Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech 86 (1), 52–68. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1277510. Canagarajah, A.S. (2006) The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication 57 (4), 586–619. Carlson, H.K. and McHenry, M.A. (2006) Effect of accent and dialect on employability. Journal of Employment Counseling 43 (2), 70–83. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1920.2006. tb00008.x. Carruthers, S.W. (2006) Pronunciation difficulties of Japanese speakers of English: Predictions based on a contrastive analysis. TESOL Working Paper Series 4 (2), 17–24. See https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4a7/5ad46653d4e43877201a24c84f8 e90a40ec6.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Carter, M. (2007) Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication 58 (3), 385–418. Carter, R. (2006, August 17–23) Rudeness is running rampant in today’s high-tech society. The New Amsterdam News, pp. 10, 41. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

210

References

Casey, C.S. (2016) Ya heard me? Rhoticity in post-Katrina New Orleans English. American Speech 91 (2), 166–199. See https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-3633107 (accessed 1 March 2018). Cazden, C. (2008) Reflections on the study of classroom talk. In N. Mercer and S. Hodgkinson (eds) Exploring Talk in Schools (pp. 151–166). Los Angeles: Sage. Charity Hudley, A.H. and Mallinson, C. (2011) Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Chrisomalis, S. (2016) Umpteen reflections on indefinite hyperbolic numerals. American Speech 91 (1), 3–33. doi: 10.1215/00031283-3509480. Cingel, D.P. and Sundar, S.S. (2012) Texting, techspeak, and tweens: The relationship between text messaging and English grammar skills. New Media & Society 14 (8), 1304–1320. doi: 10.1177/1461444812442927. Clark, U. (2013) Language and Identity in Englishes. London and New York: Routledge. Cook, S.E. (2004) New technologies and language change: Toward an anthropology of linguistic frontiers. Annual Review of Anthropology 33, 103–115. doi: 10.1146/annurev. anthro.33.070203.143921. Corson, D. (1997) The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning 47 (4), 671–718. Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, and National Writing Project (2011) Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. See http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf (accessed 23 February 2013). Cox, R.D. (2009) The College Fear Factor: How Students and Professors Misunderstand One Another. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coxhead, A. (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34 (2), 213–238. Crovitz, D. (2011) Sudden possibilities: Porpoises, eggcorns, and error. English Journal 100 (4), 31–38. Crystal, D. (2004) The Stories of English. Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press. Crystal, D. (2006) Language and the Internet (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008) Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cummins, J. (2008) Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to critiques of the conversational/academic language distinction. See http://www.iteachilearn. org/cummins/converacademlangdisti.html (accessed 10 February 2013). Curzan, A. (2014) Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danzak, R.L., Wilkinson, L.C. and Silliman, E.R. (2012) Cultural-linguistic diversity and inclusion. In J. Arthur and A. Peterson (eds) Routledge Companion to Education (pp. 263–273). New York: Routledge. Davison, J. (2011) Literacy and social class. In J. Davison, C. Daly and J. Moss (eds) Debates in English Teaching (pp. 169–187). London: Routledge. De Jonge, S. and Kemp, N. (2012) Text-message abbreviations and language skills in high school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading 35 (1), 49–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1467.9817.2010.01466.x. Delbanco, A. (2012) College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Delpit, L. (2006) Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.

References

211

Denham, K. and Lobeck, A. (2010) Linguistics at School: Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deumert, A. (2014) Sociolinguistics and Mobile Communication. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Dewey, M. (2012) Beyond labels and categories in English language teaching: Critical reflections on popular conceptualizations. In C. Leung and B.V. Street (eds) English: A Changing Medium for Education (pp. 59–78). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dickar, M. (2004) ‘Words is changin’ every day’: Language and literacy in the urban contact zone. In B.R.C. Barrell, R.F. Hammett, J.S. Mayher and G.M. Pradl (eds) Teaching English Today: Advocating Change in the Secondary Curriculum (pp. 68–80). New York: Teachers College Press. Doll, J. (2013, March) Why drag it out: An investigation into what inspires soooo many people to toss extra letters into their text messages. The Atlantic, p. 228. Drouin, M. and Driver, B. (2014) Texting, textese and literacy abilities: A naturalistic study. Journal of Research in Reading 37 (3), 250–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01532.x. Dunn, P.A. and Lindblom, K. (2011) Grammar Rants: How a Backstage Tour of Writing Complaints Can Help Students Make Informed, Savvy Choices about Their Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Ehrenworth, M. and Vinton, V. (2005) The Power of Grammar: Unconventional Approaches to the Conventions of Language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Elbert, S.P. and Dijkstra, A. (2014) An experimental test of the relationship between voice intonation and persuasion in the domain of health. Psychology & Health 29 (9), 1014–1031. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2014.903482. Elbow, P. (2002) Vernacular Englishes in the writing classroom? Probing the culture of literacy. In C. Schroeder, H. Fox and P. Bizzell (eds) Alt Dis: Alternative Discourses and the Academy (pp. 126–138). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc. Ellis, R. (2006) Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 83–107. Epstein, E.H. (2011) Writing with authority: Pitfalls and pit stops. In T.S. Rocco and T. Hatcher (eds) The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing (pp. 91–101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Erickson, B.L., Peters, C.B. and Strommer, D.W. (2006) Teaching First Year College Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Evans, B.E. (2013) ‘Everybody sounds the same’: Otherwise overlooked ideology in perceptual dialectology. American Speech 88 (1), 63–80. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2322637. Field, J. (2008) Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL Quarterly 42 (3), 411–432. Fink, L.D. (2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Flowerdew, J. (2013) Discourse in English Language Education. Oxon: Routledge. Fogel, H. and Ehri, L.C. (2006) Teaching African American English forms to Standard American English-speaking teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 57 (5), 464–480. French, R. (2010) Primary school children learning grammar: Rethinking the possibilities. In T. Locke (ed.) The Grammar Wars (pp. 206–229). New York and Oxon: Routledge. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. and Hyams, N. (2014) An Introduction to Language (10th edn). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

212

References

Garner, B.A. (2009) Garner’s Modern American Usage (3rd edn). New York: Oxford University Press. Gee, J.P. (1992) The Social Mind: Language, Ideology, and Social Practice. New York: Bergin and Macedo. Gee, J.P. (2005) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (3rd edn). New York: Routledge. Gick, B. (2002) The American intrusive l. American Speech 77 (2), 167–183. doi: 10.1215/00031283-77-2-167. Giora, R. (2002) Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34, 487–506. See http://www.tau.ac.il/~giorar/files/Giora2002-Literal%20_vs_ figurative%20language.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Godley, A.J., Reaser, J. and Moore, K.G. (2015) Pre-service English language arts teachers’ development of critical language awareness for teaching. Linguistics and Education 42 (1), 100–131. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.1.4. Graff, G. (2003) Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Graff, G., Birkenstein, C. and Durst, R. (2009) They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. New York: Norton. Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007) Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York: Carnegie Corporation. Grammar Girl Blog. See http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-similesmetaphors.aspx (accessed 29 January 2013). Gray, J. (1992) Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: Harper Collins. Green, D.A. (2009) New academics’ perceptions of the language of teaching and learning: Identifying and overcoming linguistic barriers. International Journal for Academic Development 14 (1), 33–45. Green, J. (2007) Intrtxtlty. Critical Quarterly 49 (3), 124–128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8705. 2007.00792.x. Green, J. (2016) Slang: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greene, J.P. and Winters, M.A. (2005) Public high school graduation and college-readiness rates: 1991–2002. Education Working Paper 8, i–28. Grice, H.P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. See http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/ uploads/1424893182.9735Gricean%20Maxims.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Grieve, J., Asnaghi, C. and Ruette, T. (2013) Site-restricted web searches for data collection in regional dialectology. American Speech 88 (4), 413–440. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2691424. Hacker, A. and Dreifus, C. (2011) Higher Education?: How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids – and What We Can Do About It. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. Hall, J.K. (2012) Teaching and Researching Language and Culture (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman. Hancock, A.B., Stutts, H.W. and Bass, A. (2015) Perceptions of gender and femininity based on language: Implications for transgender communication therapy. Language and Speech 58 (3), 315–333. doi: 10.1177/0023830914549084. Hancock, C. (2005) Meaning-Centered Grammar: An Introductory Text. Oakville, CT: Equinox. Hansen, K. and Farris, C.R. (2010) Introduction: The ‘taking care of’ business. In K. Hansen and C.R. Farris (eds) College Credit for Writing in High School: The ‘Taking Care of’ Business (pp. xvii–xxxiii). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

References

213

Hartwell, P. (1985) Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar. College English 47 (2), 105–127. Hayati, A., Jalilifar, A. and Mashhadi, A. (2013) Using short message service (SMS) to teach English idioms to EFL students. British Journal of Educational Technology 44 (1), 66–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01260.x. Hewings, A. and Coffin, C. (2004) Grammar in the construction of online discussion messages. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings and K. O’Halloran (eds) Applying English Grammar (pp. 137–143). London: Arnold. Hewings, M. and Hewings, A. (2002) ‘It is interesting to note that…’: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21, 367–383. Hill, J.H. (2005) Intertextuality as source and evidence for indirect indexical meanings. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1), 113–124. Hillocks, G. (1984) What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education 93 (1), 133–170. Hoeft, M.E. (2012) Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 6 (2), 1–19. Horner, B. (2001) ‘Students’ right’, English only, and re-imagining the politics of language. College English 63 (6), 741–758. Horner, B. and Trimbur, J. (2002) English Only and U.S. college composition. College Composition and Communication 53 (4), 594–630. Horner, B., Lu, M-Z., Royster, J.J. and Trimbur, J. (2011) Opinion: Language differences in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English 73 (3), 303–321. Hudson, R. (2004) Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40, 105–130. Hudson, R. and Walmsley, J. (2005) The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics 41 (3), 593–622. Hyland, K. (2001) Humble servants to the disciplines? Self-mention in research articles. English for Special Purposes 20, 207–226. Hyland, K. (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27, 4–21. Hyland, K. (2009) Academic Discourse. London: Continuum Discourse Series. Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2), 156–177. Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2007) Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’? TESOL Quarterly 41 (2), 235–253. Hymes, D. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Israel, M. (2002) Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 423–432. See https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~israel/Israel-JoP-Literally.pdf. Jackendoff, R. (2007) A whole lot of challenges for linguistics. Journal of English Linguistics 35 (3), 253–262. Jackson, L.M., Pancer, M.W. and Hunsberger, B.E. (2000) Great expectations: The relation between expectancies and adjustment during the transition to university. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 (10), 2100–2125. Janks, H. (2005) Language and the design of texts. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 4 (3), 97–110. Johnstone, B. (2009) Pittsburghese shirts: Commodification and the enregisterment of an urban dialect. American Speech 84 (2), 157–175. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2009-013.

214

References

Jones, T. (2015) Toward a description of African American Vernacular English dialect regions using ‘Black Twitter’. American Speech 90 (4), 403–440. doi: 10.1215/00031283-3442117. Karpf, A. (2006) The Human Voice. New York: Bloomsbury. Katz, W.F. (2013) Phonetics for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kieffer, M.J. and Lesaux, N.K. (2012) Effects of academic language instruction on relational and syntactic aspects of morphological awareness for sixth graders from linguistically diverse backgrounds. The Elementary School Journal 112 (3), 519–545. Kline, C.R. and Memering, W.D. (1977) Formal fragments: The English minor sentence. Research in the Teaching of English 11 (2), 97–110. Klofstad, C.A., Anderson, R.C. and Nowicki, S. (2015) Perceptions of competence, strength, and age influence voters to select leaders with lower-pitched voices. PLoS ONE 10 (8), e0133779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133779. Knight, D. (2000) Reprint standard speech: The ongoing debate. Voice and Speech Review 1 (1), 31–54. doi: 10.1080/23268263.2000.10761385. Kolln, M. (2006) What is your most compelling reason for teaching grammar? In A. Benjamin, C. Jago, M. Kolln, H.R. Noden, N. Patterson, J. Penha, M.W. Smith, J.D. Wilhelm, C. Weaver, and R.S. Wheeler, (2006) Teacher to teacher: What is your most compelling reason for teaching grammar? The English Journal 95 (5), 18–21 Kramsch, C. (2003) The privilege of the nonnative speaker. In S.S. Magnan (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language Classrooms (pp. 251–262). Boston, MA: Heinle. Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kuhl, P. (2011a) The linguistic genius of babies. TED Talk. See https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=G2XBIkHW954 (accessed 1 March 2018). Kuhl, P. (2011b) Early language learning and literacy: Neuroscience implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education 5 (3), 128–142. Kutz, E. (2004) From outsider to insider: Studying academic discourse communities across the curriculum. In Y. Zamel and R. Spack (eds) Crossing the Curriculum: Multilingual Learners in College (pp. 75–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kynard, C. (2004) ‘Trying to bend the tree when it is already grown’: Spanning the spectrum of African diaspora Englishes in the college writing classroom. In B.R.C. Barrell, R.F. Hammett, J.S. Mayher and G.M. Pradl (eds) Teaching English Today: Advocating Change in the Secondary Curriculum (pp. 92–105). New York: Teachers College Press. Labov, W. (2006) The Social Stratification of English in New York City (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lafer, S., Gardner, L., Hoadley, R., DeBarger, T. and Sawyer, A. (2002) Productively contentious discussions: Teachers talk about the teaching of writing. In T.C. Thompson (ed.) Teaching Writing in High School and College: Conversations and Collaborations (pp. 94–112). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row. Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2011) Literacies: Social, Cultural and Historical Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang. Lapp, D. (2009) Culture of collaboration: The Writing Project’s role across the segments. California English 15 (2), 21–22. LaScotte, D.K. (2016) Singular they: An empirical study of generic pronoun use. American Speech 91 (1), 62–80. doi: 10.1215/00031283-3509469.

References

215

Lazere, D. (1992) Back to basics: A force for oppression or liberation? College English 54 (1), 7–21. Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V. (1998) Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23 (2), 157–172. Leamnson, R. (1999) Thinking About Teaching and Learning: Developing Habits of Learning with First Year College and University Students. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Lee, A. and Aitchison, C. (2011) Working with tensions: Writing for publication during your doctorate. In T.S. Rocco and T. Hatcher (eds) The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing (pp. 62–74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lee, M. (2011) Finding voice: Appreciating audience. In T.S. Rocco and T. Hatcher (eds) The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing (pp. 102–114). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lems, K., Miller, L.D. and Soro, T.M. (2010) Teaching Reading to English Language Learners: Insights from Linguistics. New York: Guilford Press. Lenhart, A.S., Arafeh, S., Smith, A. and Macgill, A.R. (2008) Writing, Technology and Teens. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Leung, C. and Street, B. (2012a) Preface. In C. Leung and B.V. Street (eds) English: A Changing Medium for Education (pp. xi–xxii). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Leung, C. and Street, B. (2012b) Introduction: English in the curriculum—norms and practices. In C. Leung and B.V. Street (eds) English: A Changing Medium for Education (pp. 1–21). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Levon, E. (2006) Hearing ‘gay’: Prosody, interpretation, and the affective judgments of men’s speech. American Speech 81 (1), 56–78. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2006-003. Levon, E. (2011) Teasing apart to bring together: Gender and sexuality in variationist research. American Speech 86 (1), 69–84. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1277517. Liberman, M. (2006) Uptalk is not HRT. Language Log March 28, 2006. See http://itre.cis. upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002967.html (accessed 30 September 2013). Lieberman, P. (1984) The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lin, A. (2012) Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogical approaches to L2 English content classrooms. In C. Leung and B.V. Street (eds) English: A Changing Medium for Education (pp. 79–103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lindblom, K. (2006) Teaching English in the world. English Journal 95 (5), 93–97. Lippi-Green, R. (2012) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States (2nd edn). Oxon and New York: Routledge. Litty, S., Natvig, D., Funtanilla, J., Lockwood, H., Maedke, J., Tabisz, C. and Salmons, J. (2016) Anything goes: Extreme polysemy in lexical-semantic change. American Speech 91 (2), 139–165. doi: 10.1215/00031283-3633096. Lobeck, A. and Denham, K. (2014) Navigating English Grammar: A Guide to Analyzing Real Language. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. Lotherington, H. and Ronda, N.S. (2012) Multimodal literacies and assessment: Uncharted challenges in the English classroom. In C. Leung and B.V. Street (eds) English: A Changing Medium for Education (pp. 104–128). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lu, M-Z. (1994) Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition and Communication 45 (4), 442–458. Lunsford, A.A. and Lunsford, K.J. (2008) ‘Mistakes are a fact of life’: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication 59 (4), 781–806. See https://www. csudh.edu/ccauthen/575s12/lunsford.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018).

216

References

MacNeil, R. and Cran, W. (2005) Do You Speak American? New York: Penguin Books. Massengill Shaw, D., Carlson, C. and Waxman, M. (2007) An exploratory investigation into the relationship between text messaging and spelling. New England Reading Association Journal 43, 57–62. McGee, T. and Ericsson, P. (2002) The politics of the program: MS Word as the invisible grammarian. Computers and Composition 19, 453–470. McWhorter, J. (2013, June 27) The grumpy grammarian: Surely, actually the scolds have lost their minds. New Republic. See https://newrepublic.com/article/113481/grumpygrammarian-joe-biden-misusing-literally (accessed 1 March 2018). Milroy, J. (1998) Children can’t speak or write properly anymore. In L. Bauer and P. Trudgill (eds) Language Myths (pp. 58–65). London: Penguin Books. Milsom, A. and Dietz, L. (2009) Defining college readiness for students with learning disabilities: A Delphi study. Professional School Counseling 12 (4), 315–323. Mooney, A. and Evans, B. (2015) Language, Society, and Power: An Introduction (4th edn). Abingdon: Routledge. Mullin, J. (1995) The use of grammar texts: A call for pedagogical inquiry. In S. Hunter and R. Wallace (eds) The Place of Grammar in Writing Instruction: Past, Present, Future (pp. 103–113). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Munson, B. (2011) Lavender lessons learned; or, what sexuality can teach us about phonetic variation. American Speech 86 (1), 14–31. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1277492. Myhill, D. (2005) Ways of knowing: Writing with grammar in mind. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 4 (3), 77–96. Myhill, D. (2011) Living language, live debates: Grammar and Standard English. In J. Davison, C. Daly and J. Moss (eds) Debates in English Teaching (pp. 63–77). New York: Routledge. Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2011) Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. New York: Routledge. Nathan, R. (2005) My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student. New York: Penguin. Nathan, M.J. and Petrosino, A. (2003) Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal 40 (4), 905–928. National Center for Literacy Education (2013) Remodeling Literacy Learning: Making Room for What Works. Urbana, IL: NCLE. National Center on Education and the Economy (2013) What Does it Mean to be College and Work Ready? The English Literacy Required of First Year Community College Students. Washington, DC: Author. National Council of Teachers of English (1985) Position Statement: Resolution on Grammar Exercises to Teach Speaking and Writing. Urbana, IL: Authors. See http://www.ncte. org/positions/statements/grammarexercises (accessed 6 June 2013). National Council of Teachers of English (2002a) Guideline: Guideline on Some Questions and Answers about Grammar. Urbana, IL: Authors. See http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/qandaaboutgrammar (accessed 6 June 2013). National Council of Teachers of English (2002b) Guideline: Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language. Urbana, IL: Authors. See http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/ genderfairuseoflang (accessed 6 June 2013). Newman, M. (2015) New York City English. Boston, MA: De Gruyter. Nilson, L.B. (2010) Teaching at its Best: A Research-based Resource for College Instructors (3rd edn). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

References

217

NPR (2015, July 23) From Upspeak to Vocal Fry: Are We ‘Policing’ Young Women’s Voices? [Interview]. See http://www.npr.org/2015/07/23/425608745/from-upspeakto-vocal-fry-are-we-policing-young-womens-voices (accessed 1 March 2018). Odato, C.V. (2013) The development of children’s use of discourse like in peer interaction. American Speech 88 (2), 117–143. Paraskevas, C. (2006) Grammar apprenticeship. English Journal 95 (5), 65–70. Park, G., Yaden, D.B., Schwartz, H.A., Kern, M.L., Eichstaedt, J.C., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Ungar, L.H. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2016) Women are warmer but no less assertive than men: Gender and language on Facebook. PLoS ONE 11 (5), 1–26 e0155885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155885. Pearson, P.D. (2007) An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research 39, 145–162. Perin, D. (2006) Can community colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of remediation. Teachers College Record 108 (3), 339–373. Peters, M. (2006) Like a bowl in a China shop. The Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (49), C2–C3. The Phrontistery. See http://phrontistery.info (accessed 1 March 2018). Pierce, M. (2014) The further degrammaticalization of -ish. American Speech 89 (1), 115–118. doi: 10.1215/00031283-272643. Pierrehumbert, J.B., Bent, T., Munson, B., Bradlow, A.R. and Bailey, J.M. (2004) The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116 (4), 1905–1908. See https://quote.ucsd.edu/cogs101b/files/2013/01/ PierrehumbertGLB_vowels.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Pittam, J. (1987) Listeners’ evaluations of voice quality in Australian English speakers. Language and Speech 30 (2), 99–113. Podesva, R.J. (2007) Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (4), 478–504. See http://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/podesva2007.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Podesva, R.J. (2011) The California vowel shift and gay identity. American Speech 86 (1), 32–51. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1277501. Popovic, C. and Green, D.A. (2012) Understanding Undergraduates: Challenging Our Preconceptions of Student Success. New York: Routledge. Pradl, G.M. and Mayher, J.S. (2004) Chat room musings: English teaching in a changing world. In B.R.C. Barrell, R.F. Hammett, J.S. Mayher and G.M. Pradl (eds) Teaching English Today: Advocating Change in the Secondary Curriculum (pp. 11–23). New York: Teachers College Press. Preston, D.R. (1998) They speak really bad English down south and in New York City. In L. Bauer and P. Trudgill (eds) Language Myths (pp. 139–149). London: Penguin Books. Prinsloo, M. (2012) What counts as English? In C. Leung and B.V. Street (eds) English: A Changing Medium for Education (pp. 22–40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Queen, R. (2015) Vox Popular: The Surprising Life of Language in the Media. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Quenqua, D. (2012) They’re, like, way ahead of the linguistic currrrve. The New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/science/young-women-oftentrendsetters-in-vocal-patterns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed 6 June 2013). Quible, Z.K. and Griffin, F. (2007) Are writing deficiencies creating a lost generation of business writers? Journal of Education for Business 83 (1), 32–36. Reaser, J. (2010) Using media to teach about language. Language and Linguistics Compass 4 (9), 782–792. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00237.x.

218

References

Reyes, A. (2005) Appropriation of African American slang by Asian American youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (4), 509–532. See http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/english/ angela-reyes/repository/files/18942789.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018). Robinson, J.D. (2014) What ‘what?’ tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (2), 109–129. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2014.900214. Rocco, T.S. (2011) Reasons to write, writing opportunities, and other considerations. In T.S. Rocco and T. Hatcher (eds) The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Romaine, S. (1999) Communicating Gender. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ronkin, M. and Karn, H.E. (1999) Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racism in parodies of Ebonics on the internet. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (3), 360–380. Ross, K. (2007) Teachers say text messages r ruining kids’ riting skills. American Teacher 92, 4. Ryalls, J. and Behrens, S.J. (2000) Introduction to Speech Science: From Basic Theories to Clinical Applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2012) Academic language in teaching and learning. The Elementary School Journal 112 (3), 409–418. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2013) The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. [Supplement 1] Language Learning 63 (1), 153–170. Schuster, E.H. (2006) A fresh look at sentence fragments. English Journal 95 (5), 78–83. Sclafani, J. (2008) The intertextual origins of public opinion: Constructing Ebonics in The New York Times. Discourse & Society 19 (4), 507–527. doi: 10.1177/0957926508089941. Sereno, J.A. and Jongman, A. (1995) Acoustic correlates of grammatical class. Language and Speech 38 (1), 57–76. Shatz, M. and Wilkinson, L.C. (2013) Understanding Language in Diverse Classrooms: A Primer for All Teachers. New York: Routledge. Smagorinsky, P., Wright, L., Augustine, S.M., O’Donnell-Allen, C. and Konopak, B. (2007) Student engagement in the teaching and learning of grammar: A case study of an early-career secondary school English teacher. Journal of Teacher Education 58 (1), 76–90. Smagorinsky, P., Wilson, A.A. and Moore, C. (2011) Teaching grammar and writing: A beginning teacher’s dilemma. English Education 43 (3), 262–292. Small, L. (2016) Fundamentals of Phonetics (4th edn). Boston, MA: Pearson. Smyth, R., Jacobs, G. and Rogers, H. (2003) Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society 32, 329–350. Snow, C.E. and Uccelli, P. (2009) The challenge of academic language. In D.R. Olson and N. Torrance (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 112–133). New York: Cambridge University Press. Snyder, C.R., Shorey, H.S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K.M., Adams III, V.H. and Wiklund, C. (2002) Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (4), 820–826. Solomon, N.P. and Hixon, T.J. (1993) Speech breathing in Parkinson’s Disease. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 294–310. Sparks, S.D. (2012, August 8) Duz txting hurt kidz gramr? Education Week. See https://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/08/08/37blogs.h31.html?qs=Duz+texting+hurt (accessed 1 March 2018). Squires, L. and Queen, R. (2011) Media clips collection: Creation and application for the linguistics classroom. American Speech 86 (2), 220–234. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1337028. Stanford, B. (2006) ‘Somebody died?’ Using grammar to construct meaning in adolescent literature. English Journal 95 (5), 60–64.

References

219

Strachan, W. (2002) Talking about the transition: Dialogues between high school and university teachers. In T.C. Thompson (ed.) Teaching Writing in High School and College: Conversations and Collaborations (pp. 136–149). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Swales, J.M. (2001) Metatalk in American academic talk: The cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics 29 (1), 34–54. Sword, H. (2012) Stylish Academic Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tagliamonte, S.A. and Brooke, J. (2014) A weird (language) tale: Variation and change in the adjectives of strangeness. American Speech 89 (1), 4–41. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2726386. Tannen, D. (2004) That’s Not What I Meant! Language, Culture, and Meaning. Into the Classroom Media, prod. Robert DeNozzi. Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York: HarperCollins. Tannen, D. (2006) You’re Wearing That? New York: Random House. Thompson, T.C. (2002) Preface. In T.C. Thompson (ed.) Teaching Writing in High School and College: Conversations and Collaborations (pp. ix–x). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Thurlow, C. (2006) From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 667–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00031.x. Torrado, U.K. (2012) Development of SMS language from 2000 to 2010. Lingvisticae Investigationes 35 (2), 218–236. doi: 10.1075/li.35.2.06kir. Trimbur, J. (2008) The Dartmouth conference and the geohistory of the native speaker. College English 71 (2), 142–169. Tse, P. and Hyland, K. (2008) ‘Robot Kung Fu’: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1232–1248. Tyler, I. (2008) ‘Chav mum chav scum’: Class disgust in contemporary Britain. Feminist Media Studies 8 (1), 17–34. Urban Dictionary. See http://www.urbandictionary.com (accessed 1 March 2018). Van Dijk, C.H., van Witteloostujin, M., Vasić, N, Avrutin, S. and Blom, E. (2016) The influence of texting language on grammar and executive functions in primary school children. PLoS One 11 (3), 1–22, e0152409. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152409. Van Gelderen, A. (2006) What we know without knowing it: Sense and nonsense in respect of linguistic reflection for students in elementary and secondary education. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 5 (1), 44–54. Verdi, G.G. and Eisenstein Ebsworth, M. (2009) Working-class women academics: Four socio-linguistic journeys. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4 (2), 183-204. Verheijen, L. (2013) The effects of text messaging and instant messaging on literacy. English Studies 94 (5), 582–602. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2013.795737. Vernon, A. (2000) Computerized grammar checkers 2000: Capabilities, limitations, and pedagogical possibilities. Computers and Composition 17, 329–349. Vuocolo, L. (2012) Setting sets the rules: Using nonfiction writing in a creative way. Field Notes VIII (2), 25–26. Wagner, S.E. (2014) Pinning down enregisterment: Using Pinterest to teach students about dialect awareness. American Speech 89 (2), 208–218. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2772077. Wardle, E. (2007) Understanding ‘transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. WPA: Writing Program Administration 31 (1–2), 65–85. Retrieved from http://www.wpacouncil.org/journal/index.html Wareing, S. (2004a) It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it: An analysis of the language of educational development. Educational Developments 5 (2), 9–11.

220

References

Wareing, S. (2004b) It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it: An analysis of the language of educational development. English Language Subject Centre Newsletter (7). See http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/publications/newsletters/newsissue7/ wareing.htm (accessed 22 October 2013). Waring, H.Z. (2009) Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning 59 (4), 796–824. Weaver, C. (1996) Teaching Grammar in Context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Weimer, M. (2010) Inspired College Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wheeler, R.S. and Swords, R. (2006) Code-switching: Teaching Standard English in Urban Classrooms. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Wilde, S. (1997) What’s a Schwa Sound Anyway? A Holistic Guide to Phonetics, Phonics, and Spelling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wilde, S. (2012) Funner Grammar: Fresh Ways to Teach Usage, Language, and Writing Conventions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wilkinson, L.C. and Silliman, E.R. (2012) Language. In J. Arthur and A. Peterson (eds) The Routledge Companion to Education (pp. 125–135). Oxon and New York: Routledge. Wolk, L., Abdelli-Beruh, N.B. and Slavin, D. (2012) Habitual use of vocal fry in young adult female speakers. Journal of Voice 26 (3), e111–e116. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.04.007. Wong, A.W-M. (2010) New York City English and second generation Chinese Americans. English Today 26 (3), 3–11. See https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078410000167 (accessed 1 March 2018). Wood, C., Kemp, N. and Waldron, S. (2014) Exploring the longitudinal relationships between the use of grammar in text messaging and performance on grammatical tasks. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 32, 415–429. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12049. Wyse, D. (2006) Pupils’ word choices and the teaching of grammar. Cambridge Journal of Education 36 (1), 31–47. Yavaş, M. (2006) Applied English Phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Yuasa, I.P. (2010) Creaky voice: A new feminine voice quality for young urban-oriented upwardly mobile American women? American Speech 85 (3), 315–337. Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M. and Espenshade, T.J. (2005) Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education 46 (6), 677–706. Zipke, M. (2008) Teaching metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension with riddles. The Reading Teacher 62 (2), 128–137. Zimman, L. (2013) Hegemonic masculinity and the variability of gay-sounding speech: The perceived sexuality of transgender men. Journal of Language and Sexuality 2 (1), 1–39. doi: 10.1075/jls.2.1.01zim. Zimmer, B., Solomon, J. and Carson, C.E. (2016) Among the new words. American Speech 91 (2), 200–225. doi: 10.1215/00031283-3633118. Zuber, S. and Reed, A.M. (1993) The politics of grammar handbooks: Generic he and singular they. College English 55 (5), 515–530. Zuidema, L.A. (2005) Myth education: Rationale and strategies for teaching against linguistic prejudice. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 48 (8), 666–675. doi: 10.1598/ JAAL.48.8.4. Zwiers, J. (2007) Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(1), 93–116. Zwiers, J. (2008) Building Academic Language: Essential Practices for Content Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Index Note: Terms in bold are found in the glossary starting on page 197 AAC&U (Association of American Colleges and Universities) xiv, xvi, 24 abbreviation (clipping) 58, 61 abstraction –abstract nouns as ‘irritant’ in academic writing 7 –academic English used to communicate 19 –general lack of student skills in xiv– xv ‘academese’ 6, 7 academic English –definitions of academic English xv, 5–6, 17–20 –as a dialect 5, 32, 48, 54 –need for overt instruction xv–xvi, xvii, 5, 13, 20, 23, 30–31, 38–42 –not the same as standard English 32–36 –obstacles to mastering academic English 5–16 –as a register 54 –tends to be formal in style 55 –varies across modalities 29–32 accents –intonation 150 –meta-awareness 10 –phonology of 127, 130, 188 –as rule-governed 53 –teachers must understand accent differences 38 acoustics of speech 149, 151, 189 acronyms 60–61, 88 active verbs 87 Adger, C.T. 39 adjectives 20, 62, 94–95, 170, 180 Advanced Placement Exams 23 adverbs 94–95, 109, 180

affective factors –anxiety 7 –nervousness 149–150 –stress 28 affixes see prefixes; suffixes African American English (AAE) 33–34, 39, 41, 88–89, 133 African American Vernacular English (AAVE) 133 agents –agency of students in education 33 –syntactic agency 28, 95, 182 Agha, A. xxiv, 144, 166 agreement, subject-verb 87, 91, 93, 98, 179 Aitchison, C. 111 ALIAS (Academic Language Instruction for All Students) 40 Allard, M. 26 Alsup, J. 23 alveolar consonants 131 ambiguity –ambiguous word meanings 40, 97, 179 –lexical ambiguity 97 –from sentence construction 84 –structural ambiguity 97–98 American College Testing Board report 24, 27 American Psychological Association (APA) 30 amplitude 149, 151, 189 and, starting a sentence with 22 Andrews, L. 11, 45 antecedents 84, 176 anticipatory ‘it’ 84 anxiety 7, 149–150 apostrophe use 86, 177

221

222

Index

argumentation xv, 4–5, 8, 21–22, 23 see also given/new pattern; thesis vs supporting data Arum, R. xiv, 3, 4, 5, 9 ask/aks 40, 53, 133 aspect 90, 91, 96 see also tense Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar (ATEG) 44 assimilation (phonological) 97–98 Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) xiv, xv, 24 author presence 30 see also first person voice backformations 57–58, 168 ‘backronyms’ 60 Baron, D. 46, 110 Baron, N. 11, 61, 99 Bartholomae, D. 31 based off of 71, 172–173 to be (copula verb) 87, 96 because, starting a sentence with 22 Beck, S.W. 22 Behrens, S.J. xvii, 3, 7, 9, 71, 150, 151–152, 172 beliefs of teachers about students 13 Benjamin, A. 44, 46, 49, 99, 110 Berger, J. 40, 41 Bernard-Donals, M. 23 Bernstein, K. 22, 24 Berrett, D. 25 Biber, D. 29, 30, 31, 70 bibliographic reference formatting 30 ‘blah verbs’ 87 blending 62–63 Boldt, M. 69 book reviews 30 Boxer, D. 116–117 BOYSFAN (but, or, yet, so, for, and, nor) 177 breath group 150 British vs American usages 68, 70 Brown, D.W. 41 Budden, H. 24, 48 Cameron, D. 38, 67, 122, 124, 163 Canagarajah, A.S. 10, 48, 49 Carnegie Corporation Report 4 Caroli, A. 26

Carter, M. 26, 31 case –case markers 82–83 –possessive case 57, 82, 86, 174, 177 –study sheet 174 Cazden, C. 47 change, language see language change Charity Hudley, A.H. 38, 39 Chicago Manual of Style 30 citations 30–31 clarity –academic English criticized for opaqueness 6 –academic English supposed to be clear 6, 83–84 –non-use of academic English implies non-clarity 19 –teachers’ expectations of students not always clear 13 class issues 35 clauses 18–19, 91–92, 177–178 clichés 70 clipping (abbreviation) 58 code words see also specialist terms –disciplines have their own ‘codes’ xvi –and identity 8 –upper classes more immersed in elaborated codes 35 code-switching 41 Coffin, C. 12 cognitive skills –general lack of in college students xiv –linked to language skills xv, 4 college readiness, role of language in 24–29 collocations see lexical bundles colloquial English 54 see also non-standard English users comma usage 90, 92, 177–178 communication –between secondary and college educators 24 –between students and teachers 33 communities of practice 40 see also disciplines community colleges –blamed for poor learning skills 13 –and writing courses 26

Index

comparative adjectives 81, 122 complexity –academic English seen as complex 7 –academic English used to communicate complexity 19 –complex reasoning linked to language skills 4–5 –complex thoughts don’t need complex language 7, 19 –complex words 59, 69–70 –and in-depth reading 27 –intellectual rigour can still be maintained by simpler language 7 –and nominalizations 88 –overcomplication in attempt to sound academic 7–8 –using complex structures is harder than understanding 41 composition classes (first-year) 26, 30–33 comprehension –need for sophisticated reading comprehension 27 –spoken language as a modality of academic English 29–32 computer-mediated communication (CMC) 10–12, 45–4698 see also texting concision 6 conjunctions 92, 109, 152, 198 conjunctive adverbs 92 connotation vs denotation 69 consistency 110, 176 consonant cluster reduction 39, 59, 132, 188 content words 152 contractions 87–88, 135 conversate 57–58 conversational analysis 49 conversions 61–62, 170 co-occurring structures 97 coordinating conjunctions 92, 109, 177–178 copula verb 87, 96 Corson, D. 18 Council of Writing Program Administrators 25 course switching 32 Cox, R.D.xvi, 6, 12, 13–14, 25, 27, 31, 32 creaky voice 153

223

credit transfer 23 critical thinking –college students unprepared for 22–23 –and learning grammar 43 –linked to language skills 4, 16 –and use of social media 11 cross-disciplinarity of skills 30–32 Crovitz, D. 60, 134 Crystal, D. 9, 11, 61, 99, 184 culture –academic culture xvi –British vs American usages 68, 70 –and connotations of words 69 –‘culture of collaboration’ 24 –culture-specific constructions 9 –differing cultural norms for writing 18 –multicultural voices on reading lists 34 –supposed ‘superiority’ of standard English 32–33 –teachers must recognize errors vs cultural differences 14–15, 38, 39, 85 Cummins, J. 4, 9, 17, 18 Curzan, A. xxi, xxii, xxiv, 78, 79, 80, 105 Danzak, R.L. 49 Davison, J. 15–16 declarative vs procedural knowledge 48 definitions of academic English xv, 5–7, 17–21 deixis 84–86 delayed definitions of words, as hallmark of academic English 18 delayed subject introduction 97 Delbanco, A. xv, 13, 14 deliberate repetition 70, 110–111 Delpit, L. 18, 48 Denham, K. 38, 39 denotation vs connotation 69 dependent clauses 91–92, 177 derivational morphemes 58–59, 169 dialect –academic English as a dialect form 5, 32, 48, 54 –and code-switching 41

224

Index

–dialect-users and problems in mastering academic English 9–10 –errors vs dialectal differences 15–16, 53, 85 –everyone masters many dialects and registers 7, 34 –and first-year writing 25–26 –multicultural voices on reading lists 34–35 –standard English as a dialect form 32, 53 –students bring a variety of home dialects 7 –teachers responsive to 39, 49 Dickar, M. 33–34 Dietz, L. 28 diphthongs 129 direct quotations 111 disciplines –academic English varies across 30–31, 40, 96 –having their own ‘codes’ xvi, 31 –vary on use of first person voice 31, 110 –words have special meanings within disciplines 66, 171 discourse –as linguistic principle 107–112 –discourse analysis 107 –discourse markers 107–108, 153, 187 –discourse skills as part of learning process 8 –IRE/IRF (initiation-responseevaluation/-feedback) 9, 49, 111–112 –shared knowledge, assumptions of 85 –and stance 30 –students must learn new 28–29 –teachers need to understand classroom discourse patterns 14–15 –turn-taking 9, 49, 109 Dreifus, C. xiv–xv, 3 dropping-out 28 dual meaning terms, as hallmark of academic English 18–19 dummy subjects 84 Dunn, P.A. 49 duration (of phonemes) 149, 189

Ebonics 33, 133 education policies (government) 23–24 eggcorns 134 egocentric effect 15 Ehrenworth, M. 13, 45 Ehri, L.C. 14 Eisenstein Ebswoth, M. 25 elaborated registers 85 elementary education –blamed for poor learning skills 12–13 –essential to start linguistics early xv –linguistics in 38–42 Ellis, R. 46 ELLs (English Language Learners) –and anxiety 7 –attention must be paid to type of target language 35 –and formulaic phrases 72 –and function/content words 152 –further to catch up than native speakers 20 –and linguistic pedagogy 41 –lower academic bar 9 –may have received more overt instruction in English 9 –native language interference in pronunciation 132 –and the need for teachers with overt linguistic knowledge 16 –and problems in mastering academic English 8–10 embedded clauses 18–20 Enregisterment xix, xxii, 143, 166, 199 Epstein, E.H. 96, 111 Erickson, B.I. 21, 31 Ericsson, P. 45 errors vs dialectal differences 14–15, 38, 53, 85 essays –first-year assigned short essays only 5 –the five-paragraph essay 22–24 Evans, B.E. xxi–xxiv, 118 expectations –and the secondary-college transition 27–29 –teachers of students 13–16, 21 expert blind spots 15–16

Index

explicit instruction see overt instruction, need for explicitness –academic English requires overt information 85 –and deliberate repetition 110–111 –given/new pattern 110, 150, 152 –as middle-class Western norm 18 falsetto 157, 164, 165 Farris, C.R. 16 feedback –based on metaknowledge 37–38 –IRE/IRF (initiation-responseevaluation/-feedback) 9, 49, 111–112 –on students’ mishearings 134 female students 152–154 Field, J. 152 figurative language –as hallmark of academic English 18 –hedges 30, 31, 107–108 –idioms 9, 19, 32, 65, 67–68, 70, 134, 151, 201 –as ‘irritant’ in academic writing 7 –metaphors 65, 67–68, 72 fillers 107 finite verbs 91, 182 first person voice 22, 31, 83–84, 109–110 first-year college students –first year writing course 25 –and the ‘new linguistic game’ xvi –opportunities to practice necessary skills limited 5 –and poor reading/note-taking skills 21 –and relationship to language 7–8 First Year Composition (FYC) 25–27 flat adverbs 94 Flowerdew, J. 111 Fogel, H. 14 folk linguistics xxi foreign accents 137 ‘foreign language,’ academic English likened to 6 foreign language, English as see ELLs (English Language Learners) formality 54–55, 59, 87, 108, 185 Fotos, S. 9, 150

225

fragments, sentence 91–93 free-writing instruction 22 frequencies, in acoustics 149 function words 152 fundamental frequencies 149, 151, 189 garden path sentences 98 Garner, B.A. 168 Gay speech (gay voice, gay sound) 161–164, 166 Gee, J.P.28, 48 gender differences 115, 121–125 gender-neutral language 66–67 generational language differences 7 genitive case see possessive case genres –and different grammar constructions 40–41 –students need experience of writing in many 23 given/new pattern 110, 150, 152 Graff, G. 6, 18, 19, 23, 110 Graham, S. 22 grammar –academic English grammatically distinct 18–19 –and college education 46 –explicit vs implicit 46 –grammar handbooks 45–46 –grammar wars 14, 42–45 –grammar-checkers 45–46 –grammar-in-context approach 43, 48 –and markedness 53–54 –morphosyntax 82–89 –still controversial 45–47 –syntactic skills as part of learning process 8 –syntax 90–99 Green, D.A. 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, 28, 30 Green, J. 78–80, 100 Greene, J.P. 3, 12 Grice, P. 114 Griffin, F. xvi Hacker, A. xiv, 14 Hall, J.K. 112 Hancock, C. 110, 150, 152 Hansen, K. 16 Hartwell, P. 43 hedges 30, 31, 107–108

226

Index

help, students seeking 12, 28 see also feedback Hewings, A. 12, 20, 84 Hewings, M. 20, 84 hidden curriculum 15–16 see also invisible criteria high rising terminal (HRT) pitch 153–154 high-alert words 92, 177 higher-order thinking –academic English needed for 19, 20 –general lack of skills in xiv –linked to language skills xv –not tested in multiple choice tests 23 –and old-fashioned grammar teaching 43 Hillocks, G. 42, 43 Hoeft, M.E. 27 holistic approaches to writing instruction 22 homonyms 40 hope 28 Horner, B. 9, 26, 33, 34, 35 however - as high alert word 92 Hudson, R. 31, 45, 47, 49 Hyland, K. 30, 31, 47, 70, 109 hypercorrection 82–83, 95, 175 I, use of in formal writing 22, 31, 83–84, 109–110 I vs me distinction 82–83, 175 identity, and language use 8 idioms –in academic English 9, 19, 32, 151 –holistic processing of 134 –idiomatic use of prepositions 172 –lexical bundles 19, 29, 70, 151, 152, 154 –semantics 65, 67–68, 70 imitations of academic writing, students produce poor 7–8, 20, 70–71, 110, 111 immigrants 9–10 see also ELLs (English Language Learners) impersonality, not necessarily a part of academic English 22, 30 see also first person voice independent clauses 91–92, 177–178 inflectional morphemes 59, 66, 82–83, 132

informal styles –carry-over into formal writing 11–12, 193 –formality and style 57–58 –restricted registers 85 –and slang 69–70 –texting 63 initialisms 60–61 inquiry-based instruction 45 International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) 127–129 intonation 66, 149–154, 189 intransitive verbs 97 invisible criteria 5–7, 15, 28, 29, 37 IRE/IRF (initiation-response-evaluation/ -feedback) 9, 92 irregular forms 85, 87, 93, 180 Israel, M. 75 it, use of 84 it-clauses 20, 84, 96, 108 its/it’s 86 Jackendoff, R. xvii, 38–39, 48 Janks, H. 47 jargon see also specialist terms –academic English seen as full of 6, 65–66 –study sheet 171 –vs slang 65 Johnson, A. 26 Johnstone, B 148 Jongman, A. 62 K-12 education xv, 38 see also primary education; secondary education Katz, W.F. 150 Kieffer, M.J. 40 Knobel, M. 4, 28 Kolln, M. 35–36 Krashen, S. 7 Kutz, E. 5, 18, 26 Kynard, C. 10, 17 /l/ phoneme 129–130 Labov, W. 144 Lafer, S. 21 Lakoff, R. 121, 122–123 language change –acronyms and initialisms 61

Index

–case-marking pronouns 83 –conversions 61–62 –and electronic communication see also texting –and ‘errors’ 54 –evolution of word meanings 68–69 –gender-neutral language 67 –grammar 45–46 –loss of the -ly ending 95 –prepositional phrases 71 –pronunciation 133 –slang 66 –and ‘standards’ 33 Language of Wider Communication 33 Lankshear, C. 4, 28 Lapp, D. 24 Lazere, D. 35 laziness –dialectal differences seen as 39 –and passive constructions 96 –use of informal linguistic devices 60–61 –and the use of ‘to be’ 87 –and ‘vocal fry’ 152–153 Lea, M.R. 32, 37–38 Leamnson, R. 4, 66, 111 learner, seeing oneself as 28, 34 learning disabilities 28 learning styles 28 Levon, E. 163, 165 Lee, M. 6, 111 Lems, K. xvii, 12, 25 Lenhart, A.S. 11, 12 Lesaux, N.K. 40 Leung, C. 38, 61 lexical ambiguity 97 lexical bundles 19, 29, 70, 151, 152, 154 Liberman, M. 153 like - in speech 107, 153 Lin, A. 20, 31 Lindblom, K. 32, 49 linguistic capital 17–20 linguistic grammar 44 linguistics-pedagogy connection xvii, 14, 38–40, 49 linking verbs 87, 94 liquids (phonemes) 129–130 listener burden 143

227

listenership 107, 117 listening –as a modality of academic English 29–32 –prosody and voice quality 142–154 literacy –and electronic communication see also texting –to include academic English 4 –students learning new literacies 37 literally xxvi, 64, 67, 72–76 Lobeck, A. 38, 39 Lotherington, H. 11 loudness 149, 189 Lu, M-Z. 34, 46 -ly endings 94–95 malapropisms 133 Mallinson, C. 38, 39 markedness 53–54, 127, 132, 133 mass nouns 62 Mayher, J.S. 47 McGee, T. 45 McWhorter, J. 61 meaning-making see also word meanings –and the need for grammatical understanding 41, 47–48 –semantics 65–72 –in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 42 melody, speech 149–154 Mercer, C. 71, 172 metacognition 41 metaknowledge –benefits of learning morphology xiii–xiv –and the egocentric effect 15 –and grammar 44 –in K-12 education 38–42 –teachers’ xvii, xviii, 1, 14, 37, 49 –vs prescriptive grammar 47–50 metaphors 65, 67–68, 72 metathesis 133 middle schools 38–42 see also elementary education; secondary education Milsom, A. 28 ‘mines’ (possessive) 85 minor sentences 92–93 misplaced modifiers 97

228

Index

mixed metaphors 67–68, 72 Mock Spanish 147 modalities, academic English varies across 29–32 modeling –strategies for learning 13 –students need models of good academic English 23 Modern American Usage (Garner, 2009) 168 Modern Language Association (MLA) 30 modifiers see adjectives; adverbs morphology –as linguistic principle 57–64 –derivational morphemes 58–59, 169 –and dropping of word endings (in speech) 132 –essential for mastery of academic English 40 –‘morpiphany’ 40 –morphosyntax 82–89 –and reading aloud 151–152 –root words 40, 57, 59, 69 –and semantics 69 –study sheets 168–170 Mullin, J. 46 multiple choice testing 23 Myhill, D. 45, 48 myself, use of 82–83 narrative structure 107–112 Nassaji, H. 9, 150 Nathan, M.J. 15 Nathan, R. xvi, 3, 8 National Center on Education and the Economy report 13, 27 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) 33, 43, 44, 66 ‘native’ speakers –definitions 9 –still need to learn academic English 10 naturalness 19–20 neologisms see new word creation nervousness and oral presentations 149–150 new word creation –acronyms 60–61 –blending 63

–idiomatic use of prepositions 172 –morphology 57–63 New York City English (NYCE) 142–148 No Child Left Behind 23 nominative case 83, 174 none - and subject-verb agreement 93 non-standard English users –errors vs dialectal differences 15, 38, 53, 85 –and first-year writing 25 –and the grammar-in-context approach 43 –as marked variants 57–58 –meta-awareness 10 –problems in mastering academic English 9–12 –teachers responsive to 39 –and the teaching of standard English 32–33 –usefulness of teachers’ overt knowledge 15 note-taking –in secondary vs post-secondary education 21 –varies by discipline 31 nouns –antecedent/ pronoun pairs 84, 176 –as content words 152 –different pronunciations for noun/ verb meanings of same word 62, 149, 189 –nominalizations 18, 82, 88 –noun phrases in spoken academic English 30 –noun-adjective conversions 62, 170 –noun-verb conversions 61–62, 170 –pluralization of mass nouns 62 –zombie nouns 88 objective case 83 obstacles to mastering academic English 5–16 Odato, C.V. 107 offensive language 66–67 older students 8 Oliva, T. 44, 46, 49, 99, 110 one - use of instead of ‘I’ 110 opinion-based material see also first person voice

Index

–in book reviews 30 –opinion-based questions in secondary vs post-secondary education 22 –in textbooks 30 oral communication skills –discourse 107–108 –IRE/IRF (initiation-responseevaluation/-feedback) 9, 112 –as a modality of academic English 29–32 –prosody and voice quality 149–154 –reading aloud in class 151 –robotic oral presentations 149–150 –swallowing sentence endings 150 –writing should not be based on speech 71 overt instruction, need for xv, xvii, 7, 13, 20, 23, 30–31, 41–42 parallelism 111 paraphrases 111 Paraskevas, C. 43–44 parenthetical interjections 18 parsing 98 passive reading 21 passive voice –and grammar checkers 45 –as hallmark of academic English 7, 19, 96 –as hedges 108 –as part of syntax 90 –passive constructions 95–96 –study sheet 182 –and the use of ‘to be’ 87 past participles 91, 95, 182 Pearson, P.D. 14 pedagogy, not taught to professors 3 peers –as audience for college writing 23 –professors writing for their own 6 Perin, D. 6, 13, 22 personal preferences, teachers need to ‘own’ 32, 69, 84 personal pronouns 7, 12, 30 Peters, M. 134 Petrosino, A. xvi, 15 Pew Internet and American Life Project 12 PhD programs

229

–need to train students as teachers 3 –no assistance on language needs 16 philosophy 31 phonation (vocal fold vibration) 130, 149–150, 152–153, 189 phonemes 127–135, 188 phonetic spelling 135 phonetics 127–135 phonology 127–135, 188 pitch 149, 153, 189 plagiarism 33, 97, 111 pluralization –and apostrophes 86 –of mass nouns 62 –plural markers 57, 82, 132 –SAMAN (some, all, most, any and none) 93 –singular they 110 –of ‘you’ 67 Podesva, R.J. 157, 162–164, 165 politeness markers 39 political correctness 66–67 Popovic, C. 10, 13, 28, 30 ‘portmanteau’ words 63 possessive case 57, 82, 85, 86, 174, 177 power, language as 34, 35, 48 practice opportunities, college students need more 5 Pradl, G.M. 47 pragmatics 8 see also discourse; prosody prefixes 40, 57, 59, 151, 169 prepositional phrases 29, 71, 93, 97, 172, 179 prepositions 152, 172 primary education –blamed for poor learning skills 12–13 –essential to start linguistics early xv –linguistics in 38–42 –teaching of academic English 4 Prinsloo, M. xvi processing load of academic English 18–19 professors see also teachers –failing to communicate with secondary schools 12 –linguistic assumptions of 5 –need to be teachers as well as subject specialists 13–16

230

Index

–need to understand language systems are in transition 8 –students must learn individual’s preferences 32 –teachers’ expectations of students not always clear 13 –use of language themselves 6 pronouns –as linguistic principle 82–84 –and adjectives 94 –antecedent/ pronoun pairs 84, 176 –case distinctions 83 –gender-neutral language 67 –personal pronouns 7, 12, 30 –possessive pronouns 85, 73 –reflexive pronouns 83, 174 –study sheet 174 –use of I (first person voice) in academic writing 23, 31, 83–84, 109–110 pronunciation –as linguistic principle 127–135 –consonant cluster reduction 39, 59, 132, 188 –different pronunciations for noun/ verb meanings of same word 63, 149, 189 –of morphologically complex words 59 –study sheet 188 proof-reading 97 prosody 66, 149–154 proximity errors 93 public speaking 150 punctuation –as linguistic principle 90–99 –apostrophe use 86 –as hallmark of academic English 25 –misplaced punctuation 98–99 –non-standard punctuation as ‘irritant’ in academic writing 7 –study sheet 177 Queen, R. 160, 166 question-style speech 153 Quible, Z.K. xv quizzes 27 quotative like 107, 153

quotes, direct (vs paraphrase) 111 /r/ phoneme 127, 129–130, 131–132 reading –and college readiness 25–27 –comprehension improved by metalinguistic awareness 39 –focus on quality of reading not quantity 40 –as a modality of academic English 9–12 –passive reading 21 –in secondary vs post-secondary education 21 –students’ lack of reading strategies 8, 21 reasoning and arguing xv, 4–5, 8, 22, 23 see also given/new pattern; thesis vs supporting data redundancy –in acronyms 60 –balance between explicitness and redundancy 85 –over-reliance on formulaic structures 70 reflective practice –professors’ interest in 3 –self-reflective learning 112, 132 reflexive pronouns 83, 174 Regional accents 56 register –academic English as register 54, 85 –elaborated vs restricted registers 85 –electronic communication as a different register 11 –mastery of many dialects and registers 7, 34 Reed, A.M. 45 remedial courses 5 repetition, deliberate 70, 110–111 respiration and speech 150–151 rhetorical skills 16 Rocco, T.S. 16 Roncero, E. 69 Ronda, N.S. 11 root words 40, 57, 59, 69 Roksa, J. xiv, 3, 4, 5, 9 run-on sentences 90–91

Index

Ryalls, J. 150 salience 75 SAMAN (some, all, most, any and none) 93 says vs writes 32 Schleppegrell, M.J. xv, 9, 41–42 schwa 152 secondary education –blamed for poor learning skills 3, 12–14 –the five-paragraph essay 22–24 –linguistics in 38–42 –secondary vs post-secondary language demands 20–24 –teaching of academic English 4 selectional restrictions (semantic) 70 self-citation 31 self-efficacy, sense of 28 semantics –as linguistic principle 65–72 –markedness 54 –and passive voice 95 sentences –ambiguity from sentence construction 84, 97–98 –fragments 90–93 –garden path sentences 98 –long sentences as hallmark of academic English 19 –long sentences in students’ attempts to sound academic 8 –minor sentences 92–93 –run-on sentences 90–91 –sentence combining 43–44 –sentence subjects 84, 91, 97, 179 –starting with and or but 22 –swallowing sentence endings in speech 103 Sereno, J.A. 62 set expressions see lexical bundles sexist language 66–67 SFL (systemic functional linguistics) 41–42 ‘sh’ pronunciation 131 shared knowledge, assumptions of 85 Shatz, M. 4, 15 Silliman, E.R. 18, 85 similes 67

231

simpler language, calls for 6–7 singular they 110 skill gaps, highlighted in literature 3–4 slang 65–66 slips of the tongue/ ear 134 Smagorinsky, P. 22, 43 Snow, C.E. 10, 17, 18, 85, 88, 108 Snyder, C.R. 28 so - over-use of 109 Social Class 139, 142, 144, 145 social media language –first-year college students used to 7 –and problems in mastering academic English 10–12 social power 35 sociocultural issues see culture specialist terms –as hallmark of academic English 18 –need for explanation 7 –words have special meanings within disciplines 66, 171 speech melody 149–154 spelling –benefits of learning morphology 60 –effect of texting on 12 –phonetic spelling 135 –phonology helps with 134–135 spoken communication –discourse 107–108 –IRE/IRF (initiation-responseevaluation/-feedback) 9, 49, 111 –as a modality of academic English 29–32 –prosody and voice quality 149–154 –reading aloud in class 151 –robotic oral presentations 149–150 –swallowing sentence endings 150 –writing should not be based on speech 71 spoonerisms 134 stance 30, 31 standard English –covers a variety of styles 55 –as dialect 10, 53 –and grammar instruction 46–47 –and the grammar-in-context approach 43 –limitations of 10

232

Index

–not the same as academic English 32–36 –as unmarked variants 53–54 –views of non-standard speakers about 33–34 standardized English 32, 39 Stanford, B. 40, 41 stereotypes xix, xxi–xxv, xxvii, 33, 113, 121, 124, 136, 141, 147, 160, 163 stereotyping 6, 15, 22, 33 Strachan, W. 31 Street, B.V. 32, 37–38, 61 stress (syllabic) 149, 151–152, 189 structural ambiguity 84, 97–98 study habits, need to learn new 13, 24 style 54–55, 92–93, 108, 130, 185 subcategorization 97 subject, sentence 84, 91, 97, 179 subjective case see nominative case subject-verb agreement 87, 91, 93, 98, 179 subordinating conjunctions 177–178 substitution (phonemic) 130, 188 suffixes 40, 57–58, 82–88, 151, 169 superlative adjectives 94, 180 supporting data vs thesis 22–23 Swales, J.M. 18, 29, 32 Sword, H. 88 Swords, R. 41 syllabic stress 149, 151–152, 189 synonyms 70, 90 syntax 90–99 systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 41–42 Tannen, D. 115, 116, 122, 123, 124 teachers –attitudes toward non-standard English users 10, 33 –beliefs of teachers about students 13 –college professors as scholars rather than teachers 3 –expectations of students 13–16 –and expert blind spots 15 –need for metalinguistically aware teachers xv–xvi, xvii, xviii, 1, 14, 37, 40, 41, 42, 49 –need to ‘own’ their personal preferences 32, 69, 84

–weak in grammar skills 44 tense 57, 90, 95–96, 182 terminology (linguistic), benefits of learning 44–45 testing 23 textbooks, academic English in 29–30 texting xxi, xxvi, 11, 12, 38, 56, 60, 61, 63, 80, 89, 90, 98, 99, 100–106, 119, 184 –blamed for poor writing 60, 98 –as linguistic feat 61 –and problems in mastering academic English 10–12 –study sheet 184 textisms 101, 102, 103 ‘th’ pronunciation 130 that - superfluous 98 their/they’re 86 theirs/their’s 177 thesaurus use 69 thesis vs supporting data 21–22 they, singular 110 thinking skills see critical thinking; higher-order thinking Thompson, T.C. 21 Three R’s, The 32 time management 8, 21 to be 87, 96 tonic prominence 152 Transgender population 164, 166 transition –high-school to college 7–8, 12–14, 20–29 –undergraduate to graduate 15–16 transitional expressions 108, 109, 187 transitive verbs 97 translingual approaches 34–35 Trimbur, J. 9, 26, 35 Tse, P. 30 turn-taking 9, 49, 109 Uccelli, P. 10, 17, 18, 85, 88, 108 uptalk 153 US National Center for Literacy Education report 4, 16 US vs UK usages 68, 70 Valley Girl talk 153 van Gelderen, A. 46

Index

varieties of English see also dialect; register –electronic communication as a different variety/ dialect 11 –students need to master many 10 verbs –‘blah verbs’ 87 –as content words 152 –different pronunciations for noun/ verb meanings of same word 62, 149, 189 –exciting vs boring 87–88 –finite verbs 91, 182 –linking verbs 87, 94 –nominalizations 18, 40, 88 –subject-verb agreement 87, 91, 93, 98, 121 –transitive verbs 97 –verb-noun conversions 61–62, 170 Verdi, G.G. 25 vernacular English 54 see also non-standard English users Vinton, V. 13, 45 vocabulary –‘advanced’ vocabulary of academic English 18 –semantics 65–72 –and thesaurus use 70 vocal fold vibration 130, 149–150, 152–153, 189 vocal fry 152–153 vocal tract diagram 131 voice 90, 95–96, 182 see also passive voice voicing (phonetics) 130 vowel insertion 132 vowel length 149, 151 vowels (IPA) 129 Vuocolo, L. 22 Walmsley, J. 47, 49 Wardle, E. 26 Wareing, S. xvi, 6–7, 19 Waring, H.Z. 49, 112 ‘Weehawken Test’ 151–152 Wheeler, R.S. 41 which - as high alert word 91–92 who/whom 83, 175 Wilde, S. 41

233

Wilkinson, L.C. 4, 15, 18, 72 Winters, M.A. 3, 12 women –as linguistic innovators 153 –and ‘uptalk’ 153–154 –and vocal fry 152–153 word bundles see lexical bundles word creation –acronyms 60–61 –blending 62–63 –idiomatic use of prepositions 172 –morphology 57–58 word endings –dropping of (in speech) 132 –morphological see suffixes –syntactical see case; pluralization; tense word formation see morphology word meanings –ambiguous word meanings 40, 97–98, 176 –dual meaning terms, as hallmark of academic English 19 –lexical bundles 19, 29–30, 70, 151, 152, 154 –markedness 54 –and passive voice 95–96 –semantics 65–72 –specialist terms 7, 18–19, 66, 171 word order –adverb placement 94 –mistakes in 97 –and structural ambiguity 97–98 –word order variation 88 world English 10 writing –and CMC 11–12 –and college readiness 25–28 –first year writing course 25–26, 31–32 –high school assigns little writing 13–14 –and the limitations of a one semester writing course 25–26 –linked to language skills 4–5 –as a modality of academic English 29–32

234

Index

–pathologize as skills problem not communication 38 –in secondary vs post-secondary education 21–25 Writing-Across-the-Curriculum movement 26 Wyse, D. 43 you - use of in place of ‘one’ 110 your/you’re 86

Yuasa, I.P. 156–159 Zajacova, A. 28 Zimman, L. 162–166 Zipke, M. 40 zombie nouns 88 Zuber, S. 45 Zuidema, L.A. xxiii, xxv Zwiers, J. xv, xvi, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 40, 49, 61, 70, 99, 187