"Taking Vernaculars Seriously"

In case this shows up in the top spot on my blog, forgive me this was a draft that I had done some time ago and meant to edit it before I published. It may appear out of place.


Okay, I may be about to get myself in trouble. This is a sensitive subject and one that I take very seriously. but I have to say as a "hillbilly" with bad speech skills that I acquired over a lifetime that I have learned to do some code-switching between my academic life and my private life. The question that linguists have argued over for years is: how much leeway should be afforded various groups for language patterns that have developed over decades? Do we treat these vernaculars as separate languages with their unique styles? Should we force students to adopt elitist and standardized forms of language at the risk of wiping out a cultural heritage that dates back for centuries?

My take on the subject is that we should not dismiss oral traditions and speech patterns that are passed down from one generation to the next. Quite the opposite is that we should celebrate the diversity that we enjoy. However, in a world that has essentially adopted a standardized version of English as a global language, where does that leave people who refuse or neglect to adopt the language skills that they need to succeed. We have people from China and India who struggle to master the language in a world that has evolved, maybe unfairly, around them so that they may get a piece of the pie that we call "The Global Economy." For many of these people it is NOT a choice but a necessity to survive and succeed. They are not being asked to forget their heritage or their native tongues, but the choices they make are theirs to make and often makes a difference in their economic success.

If we have people in the United States who cannot, or refuse, to be able to use a standardized form of English to be able to succeed then those groups are woefully misguided into a misconception that it is acceptable to use vernaculars in any situation. This case is simply not true.