Language and Poverty. Perspectives on a Theme

468 Pages·1970·6.444 MB·

by  Frederick Williams (Eds.)

This is a volume in the
Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series
A complete list of titles in this series appears at the end of this volume.
Language and Poverty
Perspectives on a Theme
Edited by
Frederick Williams
University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series
A C A D E M IC P R E SS
A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers
New York London Toronto Sydney San Francisco
This book is one of a series sponsored by the Institute for Research on Poverty
of the University of Wisconsin pursuant to the provisions of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964.
ACADEMIC PRESS INC. (LONDON) LTD.
London NW1
24/23 Oval Road,
United States Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS INC.
111 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Copyright © 1970 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
on behalf of the Institute for Research on Poverty
All Rights Reserved
No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form by print, microfilm,
or any other means without permission from Academic Press
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-111976
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
82 9 X 7 6 5 4 3 2
Preface
A basic aim of the Institute for Research on Poverty is the translation of
knowledge gained through research into bases for policy making in attacking
the problems of poverty in the United States. As a member of the Institute
while preparing this volume, I felt the frustration of sensing the gap between
what exists of research and theory in language behavior and the pressing
practical questions about language raised by many of the persons working in
antipoverty programs, particularly in those programs involving children.
What appears in this volume is an attempt to transit some of this gap.
As the book goes to press, I consider that the practical goal of bringing
together under one cover a range of perspectives pertinent to language and
poverty has been achieved. But as readers of the papers will see, this collection
heightens, rather than lessens, the sense of the gap which separates research
from practice. Too often we have been the victim of the easy answer—e.g., that
the poverty child's language is simply underdeveloped. Too often the research
underlying such answers has taken little advantage of what the scientists of
language—the linguist, psycholinguist, sociolinguist—have had to offer. Too
often we have seen that research in language and poverty is fractionated in a
way that sets an example akin to backyard iron making. Too often all of these
shortcomings have culminated in efforts that have made the disadvantaged
child even more disadvantaged.
Despite this frustration, I feel that a distinguishing mark of this collection
of papers is, indeed, that different perspectives have been juxtaposed. That we
see linguists, psychologists, sociologists, educators, and others exercising vary-
ing definitions of language and language behavior, is important to know. And
that we understand the contrasts and similarities among these definitions is
even more crucial to us.
One benefit of an eclectic collection is that when ideas are culled from
multiple perspectives, they seem all the more worthy of our special considera-
tion in policy making. Such ideas do transcend the papers of this volume. In
capsule form, some of these include:
1. We must avoid confusing language differences with deficiencies. Care-
less interpretation of standardized tests has caused some of the problem on this
point; bias on the part of researchers and their techniques may account for
much of the rest. Children with true deficiencies of language require quite
ν
vi Preface
different programs from those whose language mainly differs from that of the
mainstream society. Moreover, children with language differences fall into a
number of categories (bilingualism, dialect differences, radically different uses
of language), each requiring different types of educational programs.
2. It is a reasonable and desirable goal that all children in the United
States be able to function linguistically in standard English in addition to
whatever language or dialect they have learned in the home. The reasons for
this point are simple and practical—the language of our educational institu-
tions (including its literature), and the language required for most better-
paying occupations in this country, is standard English. But it is important
that standard English be developed parallel, or built upon, the home language,
rather than at the expense of it. It is important to realize also that "to function
linguistically in standard English" means simply to be able to understand and
to be intelligible to other speakers of this form of English. It does not mean
sounding "right" or "white."
3. We must develop new strategies for language instruction, as our existing
ones are largely inadequate for use with children coming from varying language
backgrounds. Promising strategies include such characteristics as: (a) focusing
upon the preschool child, even prior to Head Start age; (b) using instructional
materials of an active and practical nature for the child, stressing communica-
tion development (i.e., how language is used to accomplish things); (c) using
materials which build upon, show contrasts, or both, with what the child has
already learned. The overall attempt is to incorporate the social context of
language acquisition into the instructional context. Such programs would be
different for different groups of children, and this imposes special demands
upon teachers who should probably be as knowledgeable of the child's ver-
nacular (or that of his environment) as they are of standard English. (This
point has obvious implications for recruiting more minority group members
into the teaching profession, and for the increased use of lay assistants.)
4. We must increase our research efforts in the study of language differ-
ences in the United States, and the interrelation of these with different social and
family structures. Currently, we lack the necessary knowledge of the varieties
of nonstandard English encountered in the kinds of needed program strategies
described above. This knowledge can be gained by increasing our commitment
to sociolinguistic field studies and to studies of the role of language in child
socialization. Such research should not overlook the language habits and
attitudes of the majority populations, particularly in how these attitudes are
manifested in our institutions (by teachers, for example) and in how they affect
the life and opportunities of the minority populations. We cannot expect the
members of a single discipline to carry out such research; it requires large scale,
centrally coordinated projects involving (even at their sometimes-mutual dis-
trust) linguists, sociologists, psychologists, specialists in speech, and educators,
to name a few.
Preface vii
5. Language programs for the poor should incorporate research and
evaluation components. What we have seemed to lack the most in projects
already undertaken on large scale bases are the objective indices and criteria
for evaluating their effects. Our recent large-scale evaluations have mainly
involved use of teacher-questionnaire and picture-vocabulary indices, which
have left us with little more than nothing regarding the effects of educational
intervention programs upon language. Programs proposed to have some effect
upon the language development of children should devote as much emphasis
to methods for research and evaluation as they typically do to the promises
of effects. We need to concentrate upon the research and development of
instructional strategies for different types of children, and upon the use of
unified and objective criteria for evaluation of their effects. Only when given
the benefits of such research should we dare to undertake new large-scale
efforts, or at least to expect positive results from them.
I clearly recognize that these ideas move quite directly to the call for
research. But rather than simply a call for more research, they call for better
research and for more coordination of efforts. In a larger respect, they ask of
our efforts in social technology the standards and coordination demanded of
our research in the other sciences. As a technological society, we have paid the
price of crowded cities, of depressed rural areas, and of the inverse correlation
between economic opportunity and minority group membership. We should
bring this same technology to bear upon a debt to the human element in our
society.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this book was supported by funds granted to the Institute
for Research on Poverty by the Office of Economic Opportunity pursuant to
the provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The conclusions are
the sole responsibility of the authors.
As the editor, I am indebted to many people for their assistance on this
volume. Professor Harold Watts and my colleagues in the Institute and in the
Office of Economic Opportunity provided the encouragement and conditions
for undertaking the project. Manuscript preparation, final editing, and publica-
tion would never have progressed on schedule without the assistance of the
Institute editor, Jeanne DeRose; my research associate, Dr. Rita C. Naremore;
the final draft typist, Lorraine Laufenberg (College Printing and Typing Co.);
and, of course, the special help of my wife, Joan Williams. I must also thank
the three evaluators of the final manuscript—Mrs. Franc Balzer of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare; Dr. Susan Ervin-Tripp of the Univer-
sity of Calfornia-Berkeley, and Dr. Roger Shuy of the Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Above all, the greatest credit must be given to the authors who con-
tributed papers for the volume. Deadlines were set and met, and this, coupled
with the quality of the papers, is testimony to the caliber of the people whose
ideas appear on the pages that follow.
FREDERICK WILLIAMS
ix
Chapter 1
SOME PRELIMINARIES AND
PROSPECTS
Frederick Williams*
Although language and poverty may seem a small fragment of a much broader
problem, it is a theme that offers a wide range of perspectives associated with
certain assumptions about poverty and its remediation in the United States.
As the papers for this volume were gathered and their perspectives compared
and contrasted, a most basic issue was revealed. Defined abstractly, this issue
asks: In dealing with the language of the poverty child, are we essentially
dealing with language which is deficient, or with language which is different?
Obviously, such a question elicits contrasting perspectives on the definition of
terms, on the interpretation of data, and even on the philosophic attitudes one
has toward the proper workings of a society. Different perspectives on this
issue constitute the papers of this volume.
In this introductory paper a sketch is first presented of the larger frame-
work within which the deficit-difference issue can be seen relative to considera-
tions of the causes of, and cures for, poverty. Next, some of the relations among
the perspectives on the basic issue are outlined. Finally, it is proposed that the
deficit-difference issue is one of the most fundamental questions challenging
our society.
THE POVERTY CYCLE
As the War on Poverty has continued in the United States, it has become
increasingly evident that the boundaries of poverty are often subcultural ones.
*Center for Communication Research, University of Texas
1
2 Some Preliminaries and Prospects
Individuals in a poverty group can be defined by their common socioeconomic
problems, and these, in turn, are typically associated with an equally common
range of sociocultural features—ways of life, education, attitudes, desires, and
above all, language and the ways of using it. Much of the attention given to
the sociocultural aspects of poverty can be seen in the kinds of causes and cures
for poverty which are often linked as parts of an overall poverty cycle (Figure
1). In this cycle, the old and familiar, and less euphemistic, label of being poor
is at the point which we now usually call being economically disadvantaged.
This simple picture is broadened slightly, and a first part of the cycle recog-
nized, when the causes of economic disadvantage are sought in some type of
employment disadvantage. Backtracking from this point in the cycle was one
of the key marks of the War on Poverty. Just as employment disadvantages
underlay economic disadvantages, it was reasoned that educational disadvan-
tages underlay those of employment. And when causes for educational disad-
vantage were explored, speculation led to a kind of developmental
disadvantage associated with being reared in a home suffering from economic
Figure 1. Poverty Cycle
Frederick Williams 3
disadvantage. Thus a cycle was fully defined—one which seemed logical and
replete with interventional implications.
But this cycle also represents one account of the origin of the deficit-
difference controversy—that is, where the concept of economic disadvantage
was extended, by analogy, to create a concept of cultural disadvantage. Im-
plicit in the concept of economic disadvantage are the ideas of "lack of neces-
sary resources," "deficient," "underdeveloped," and the like. It is the extension
of such ideas to include the concept of culture or subculture, or more properly
to the people within it, that has given so much cause for concern. The contrast
is captured in the following question: Are we talking about groups of individu-
als whose backgrounds, attitudes, and general capabilities have failed to equip
them adequately for a life of opportunities or are we talking about minority
cultures of a country where the attitudes of the majority have inhibited the
participation of the minorities in these opportunities? The first version yields
the definition of a disadvantaged culture, and the second, of a culture at a
disadvantage. As we interpret evidence for purposes of assessing these alterna-
tives, and as we may find ourselves faced with an interpretative blend of their
extremes, we must cope theoretically and practically with what they imply
about the nature of poverty in the United States. Moreover, we must consider
what they imply about the ways in which we have chosen to fight poverty.
Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in the contrasts between the
deficit and the difference positions taken on the language of the poverty child.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE POOR
The Deficit Argument
When reviewing the research on the sociocultural aspects of poverty
published in the mid-1960s (Plumer, Chapter 14), one is immediately struck
with the apparent coalescence of interpretations about the language of the
poverty child. There are numerous individual reports, ranging from impres-
sionistic descriptions to the use of standardized tests (Severson and Guest,
Chapter 15), which point to shortcomings in the language capabilities of
poverty children. Such evidence is usually gained by contrasting poverty chil-
dren with their middle-class counterparts, and interpretations move from such
contrasts to generalizations about the appearance of "developmental lags" in
the language of the poverty child. All this fits quite well into the position that
a poor home is an environment which retards a child's overall development,
leading to his disadvantage in school. Failure in school leads in turn to lack
of employment opportunities, and this sets the stage for economic disadvan-
tage to perpetuate the cycle.