The Nine Lives of "Linguistic Deficiency"

[Alexandre Enkerli]

Speaking of social inequality and language proficiency as described by media...

Seems very tangential but there's a BBC documentary on Omega-3 that
ran here in Quebec recently. They did an experimental study on the
influence of increased Omega-3 diets on the abilities of school
children. Language skills were an important part of the positive
results they wanted to put forth and, IIRC, they quoted figures on
memorised vocabulary. One would assume that better diet is a more
common feature of wealthier families. Genes may not count but maybe
diet does! ;-)

Larger point:
Is it just me or is there a tendency to equate language proficiency
(especially passive vocabularies and other quantitative measures) with
educational success?
What I mean is, isn't it possible that a kind of "verbal bias" might
affect the perception of students who could be really good in, say.
mathematics but need to wade through normative language from which
their vernacular may be relatively far?

I'm mostly thinking about a student my father had, a number of years
ago (7th grade class for students with learning disabilities, tough
environment in a suburb of Montreal). Officially labeled as having
some intellectual deficiencies (actually, like myself, at birth).
Deemed to be doomed. Came from a nurturing, peaceful, working-class
environment. Had been sheltered all his life. Somehow, my father
(trained in dyslexia) noticed that his main problem had to do with
reading skills. He could read but didn't understand much of what he
was reading. Turns out, his skills in maths were well above par. But
because many math problems were spelled out as "practical exercises,"
he couldn't shine. So my father took it upon himself to make sure this
student would improve his reading skills, which was relatively easy,
with a few simple methods. In the end, this student became a college
professor after having done some training in forestry and finished
graduate school in Fine Arts.

Sure, anecdotal. Statistically insignificant. Blatant plug for
dedicated teachers in tougher neighbourhoods. But the point is: are
education-minded people (journalists, parents, government officials,
teachers) counting on language too much?
To me, the point goes well with all those discussions (in the United
States) about schools using Spanish or Ebonics versus the whole "if
only they knew how to read and write English" side.
Might be going too far, here. Yet, since Labov, Eckert, and even
Pullum, seems to me like things haven't changed that much.

I'd *love* to be proven wrong!

On 2/7/07, phaney at mail.utexas.edu <phaney at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> People interested in the relationship between language and social inequality as
> well as those interested in language socialization, should check out an article
> in today's New York Times on preschools in Oklahoma.  The article highlights an
> interesting feature of the current political landscape.  Although the elite in
> the U.S. has generally been pulling the state away from providing social
> services, there is a faction that is solidly behind early education.  In
> relatively "conservative" (whatever that means) Oklahoma, according to this
> article, there is government-funded preschool for all starting at the age of
> four.
>
> The "money" passage for those interested in the social life of language is here:
> ____________
> This combination of quality and scale makes the Oklahoma program one of the most
> serious attempts to deal with economic inequality anywhere in the country. Long
> before children turn 5, there are already enormous gaps in their abilities. One
> study found that 3-year-olds with professional parents know about 1,100 words on
> average, while 3-year-olds whose parents are on welfare know only 525. Much of
> the gap is caused by environment rather than genes, according to a wide body of
> research.
> ____________
>
> Well that (environment, not genes), at least, is a relief.  The online editionof
> the story links to an excerpt from a 1995 book by Profs. Betty Hart (Human
> Development, U Kansas) and Todd Risley (Psychology, U Alaska) reproduced by the
> American Federation of Teachers.  This (old) study sought to quantify the verbal
> input that kids in four different socioeconomic strata got over a two year
> period.  Researchers observed and recorded kids' interactions with their
> parents in the home for an hour per month.  They found that upper- and
> middle-class kids had larger vocabularies, experienced more verbal interactions
> with parents, and enjoyed more encouraging feedback than working-class kids and
> kids "on welfare."  The Times didn't seek input from critics of the "culture of
> poverty as linguistic deficiency" thesis or those who wonder if "more words" are
> really always better.
>
> The newspaper article is here:
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/education/07leonhardt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
>
> The excerpt from the Hart/Risley book is here:
> http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html
>
>
>
>


-- 
Alexandre
http://enkerli.wordpress.com/