Return to Story of English Index Page

New Respect for Non-Standard English and its Speakers 

Robin Gibson  

Academic Setting 

I teach second grade at Whittier Elementary, a school with an ethnically diverse population.   Sixty percent of our students are Hispanic, twenty-one percent are Caucasian, eight percent are African-American, and seven percent are Native American.  These numbers are not necessarily an accurate reflection of our community’s diversity, because many of my students are racially mixed, but that does not show up in the statistics.  Our students are also very poor.  Eighty-nine percent of our students qualify for free our reduced lunch.   We also have a very high turnover rate, so the students we get are used to hopping from school to school and may be reluctant to invest themselves in one particular classroom when they know they won’t be there for long. 

To overcome these challenges, I try to make my classroom a respectful learning community, where everybody’s contributions are equally valued.  Everyone has a chance to succeed, and students are encouraged to help and learn from each other.  Given the current social attitude towards public education (especially in regard to poor students), it’s not always easy to make my students and their families feel welcome and included in the educational process.  This is especially true when it comes to teaching reading and writing.           

As teachers, we are called upon to teach a certain, standardized curriculum, and it is expected that students will master certain skills before moving on to the next grade.  A student who does not meet these performance benchmarks will be retained.  A large number of these standards deal with written and spoken English; however, I take exception to the idea that what is considered “Standard English” is the only acceptable form of the language. 

            My students’ writing reflects the way they and the people around them talk, and it is not Standard English.  It goes against everything I believe in as a teacher to tell them that even though people talk that way, it’s not okay to write that way.  When children enter my classroom, most of them have never written a word in their lives, and I encourage them to write whatever they want.  As they gain confidence in their own skills, they feel free to experiment with the language and try new techniques, which I consider crucial in the development of a budding author.  But when we get bogged down with “conventions” (spelling, punctuation, grammar), I find myself feeling frustrated because these kids are writing good stories, using their own experiences and novel ideas, and I never want to discourage creative expression. 

Whatever my personal philosophy of education, the fact remains that students are rewarded for using Standard English and punished for variation.  As students progress through school, more and more constraints are placed on their writing, and it seems that I would do them a disservice if I did not begin to teach them the accepted conventions of academic English.  In this paper I will examine how the current form of the language came to be considered “standard” and how it acquired social prestige. 

Context and Background 

Our standards and benchmarks tell us that there is one and only one acceptable form of English and that students must use it.  But language, a living entity, is not static:   

English is changing all the time.  New words are
constantly coming into use, and not only new words,
but also new pronunciations and even new grammatical
forms.  At the same time, old words, old forms, and old
pronunciations are gradually dropping out of use…   .
English… has been changing throughout its history in the
same sorts of ways, and the same is true of every other
living language (Trask 1). 

Why, then, do we insist our students conform to one form of English, when the variations they use are equally understandable, sometimes even adding new layers of emphasis and meaning? 

In this curriculum unit I will discuss the history of English, concentrating on how certain grammatical constructions came into fashion while others have always been considered lower or incorrect forms of the language.  I will address the development of the standard and how its creation caused certain speakers to become isolated and stigmatized.  Finally, I will look at how the standard affects teaching practices and how teachers can support the success of all students, not just speakers of the standard dialect. 

Language Prestige 

Language, like clothing, comes in and out of fashion, and is subject to the whims of the people who use it  (Smith p.c.).   Language and its regular variations become a fundamental way of identifying someone as part of a group or different from the listener.   It stands to reason, therefore, that when multiple languages come in contact one language acquires prestige and marks its speakers as members of the superior class.  Tacitus notes that during the Roman occupation of Britain, “instead of loathing the Latin language, they [the Britons] became eager to speak it effectively.  In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen… The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization,’ when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.”  (Tacitus 73). 

            The same phenomenon can be observed whenever two cultures collide; the language of the ruling class becomes the language of the courts, the church, and the schools.  In short, the people who can speak the dominant language are people of some importance and influence in society, and speakers of the lesser language are considered ignorant, uneducated, and generally inferior.  This can be observed in the Norman occupation of England in the eleventh century.  French was the language of the nobility, while English was spoken by peasants and members of the working class  (Jespersen 79).  Our vocabulary still reflects this: legal and political terms come from French words (crown, govern, power, authority); while more mundane, everyday words remain quite similar to their Old English forms before significant French influence took place (man, him, from, stir)   (Jespersen 79). 

            Although English has been spoken in this country for hundreds of years, the constant influx of foreign-language speakers has ensured the continued growth and development of the language.  Racial and social stratification has created several distinct dialects, which have achieved varying degrees of acceptability within American society.  African American Vernacular English, which has been present since the first slaves were brought from Africa, was not recognized as a distinct dialect until the sociolinguist William Labov and others studied its use in New York in the late 1960’s.  They discovered that AAVE is indeed a regular language, with grammatical rules and predictable forms.   Although AAVE and other variations of English are still generally considered “broken English” or incorrect forms, Labov et alia helped dispel the myth that non-standard English speakers are simply using a degenerate form of the language.  On the contrary, they are simply speaking a different form of English, and value judgements as to the differentness of their language are not linguistically justifiable.

The Development of a Standard 

The history of English, as vast and complex as it is, gives us some insight into why the issue of standard versus non-standard English remains so emotionally charged today.  John Willinsky, citing Richard Foster Jones, says “a sense of linguistic and national inadequacy in the seventeenth century prompted a number of concerned voices to be raised in favour of improving the English tongue… Alas, a standard was fixed at that point, though not for good by any means nor without dissension on what was literate usage.”  (Willinsky 1-2).   Even the language experts called upon to delineate this ideal form of English could not agree on exactly what that form was or should be.

            In the second half of the eighteenth century in England, “adventurous individualism and the spirit of independence characteristic of the previous era gave way to a desire for system and regularity.”  A certain group of writers and scholars became concerned that “English had no grammar.  At any rate its grammar was largely uncodified, unsytematized.”  (Baugh 306-7).  Speakers were using different conjugations of the same verb, shortening words (“rep” for “reputation”) and making up new words as the need arose.   Jonathan Swift, one of the most prolific and outspoken advocates of the creation of a standard, enumerated the usage problems of spoken English in a letter to a newspaper and again in a missive to the king, titled Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue.  He recommended forming an English Language Academy, as the French and Italians had already done, whose job it would be to regulate English grammar and usage. 

            A spirit of independence and an inability to arrive at a consensus ultimately led to the failure of Swift’s Proposal (Baugh 326), but not before attracting the attention of other English academics.  Individuals published grammars of English and suggested rules, but as they were highly subjective and the rules were so vehemently debated, these texts had minimal influence on the way people actually spoke.  They did, however, permanently establish the idea that there should be one correct way of speaking and that educated speakers should strive to follow the rules and eliminate ungrammatical forms and innovations from their dialect.  For example, the words “lie” and “lay” were originally the same word, but confusion about its conjugation led to the two forms being used interchangeably.  This haphazard substitution tormented Swift and his colleagues, so they designated “lie” as intransitive and “lay” as transitive, a rule we still teach, with as much influence on speakers as grammarians had three hundred years ago; the two are still interchangeable for most speakers today.

            Samuel Johnson recognized the impossibility of a group proscribing usage to a multitude of speakers, so he set out on his own to write A Dictionary of the English Language.  Though it took years to complete, and it is not perfect (Baugh 327), it cites the earliest appearances of words in published texts and introduces the idea of a standard spelling.  The benefits of a standard orthography are obvious; the clarity and ease of written communication need not be discussed here.  The same is true for a standard grammar, to some extent, when variation leads to ambiguity or obscurity.   Dieter Stein points out:  

“that a standard in the strict sense
1.      is imposed from above;
2.      involves legislation
3.      contains an ideology of standardization.”  (4).

The Problem of Standardization

Unfortunately, when such a diverse group of speakers like that of the English-speaking world today come together, there is bound to be some disagreement about what constitutes proper speech, as evidenced by the continued use of forms that

            Swift and Johnson publicly abhorred.  The “ideology of standardization,” being a human construction, necessarily entails a value judgment.  If the standard form is the best, then anything different is perceived as “not as good.”  Linguists, although they distinguish between standard and non-standard forms of English, do not proscribe any one form; that is, they do not insist that speakers speak only Standard English (at least outside of the classroom).  Instead, if native English speakers use a certain word or grammatical construction, and it is acceptable to other native speakers, linguists will list the form in a descriptive grammar of English (which describes what speakers actually do, as opposed to prescribing what they should do). 

    If native English speakers continually use certain grammatical forms or certain words and if their meaning is clear, why are educators so opposed to including them in the accepted forms of speaking and writing?  Because, says C.L. Baker, “the non-standard constructions… are stigmatized; that is, the person who writes them or utters them in educated middle-class settings runs the risk of being considered ignorant, uneducated, or even stupid.”  (Baker 29). 

    The non-standard forms to which Baker refers are specific features of certain dialects (e.g. African American Vernacular English); that is, they identify the speaker as being a member of a specific ethnic or socioeconomic group.  Other, less distinctive, innovations are tolerated and even encouraged.   For example, the analytic nature of English allows words to change classes (i.e. go from noun to verb, adjective to verb, etc.) without significant morphological change, which can not happen in many other languages of the world.  Well-educated people have no compunction about saying that a man was ticketed when he totaled his car after a hard night of partying.  If I say, “Well, I enjoyed our little chat, but now I’m going for a jog,” no one even notices that I’m using erstwhile verbs as nouns. 

    Problems arise when speakers use forms that clearly belong to a stigmatized dialect.  AAVE is perhaps the most common example of an easily recognizable, stigmatized dialect.  Its forms are regular and predictable and many are retentions from the English spoken at least four hundred years ago (Poplack 13).  Be-deletion (What you doin’?  I workin’) and be-insertion (I be waitin’) are widespread, and do not cloud the meaning of the utterance (in fact, these forms have shades of meaning that are not grammatically conventionalized in Standard English).  Unfortunately, AAVE is often still considered a simplified (lazy) form of standard English, and its speakers are written off as poorly educated or ignorant. 

Standard English in the Classroom 

Poor, non-white children are frequently identified as at-risk students, meaning they may have problems learning or staying in school.  Consequently, schools receive millions of dollars in federal assistance in order to meet the needs of these children.  Unfortunately, the services offered are designed to help these children fit into the mold of what is considered an ideal student, i.e. a speaker of standard English, with educated parents and a higher-socioeconomic status.  The message at-risk students hear is that their language, culture, and family are not desirable in academic situations. 

    In my classroom, I strive to make my students and their parents feel accepted and included in the educational process.  This includes accepting various dialects of English (and communicating with families who speak little, if any English).  This can be challenging, especially when it comes to writing.  I want my students to feel capable and proud of their work, but I still have to teach them the conventions of written English, which bears very little resemblance to the language they hear spoken all around them. 

    Despite my knowledge of child development, education, and best practices, I am still cowed by the proscriptive rules governing reading, writing, and speaking, especially when it comes to early childhood education.  How can we teach our students the rules they need without discounting the validity of their language?  If students believe that their language is not acceptable in the classroom, they will come to feel that they are not accepted in the classroom, and ultimately they will disassociate themselves from the school community and the whole idea of formal education.  In the article “An Argument for Appreciation of Dialect Differences in the Classroom,” Mary B. Dean and Elaine D. Fowler address the issue of how to respect the language of non-standard English speakers and best support their learning.  

    Dean and Fowler identify three theories of teaching “disadvantaged” speakers of non-standard English: eradication, bidialectalism, and appreciation of dialect differences.  (Dean and Fowler 302).  Eradication assumes that the non-standard versions of English used by poor (and often non-white) speakers are “a deficient way of expressing themselves.  Therefore, their speech must be totally displaced or eradicated and replaced by standard speech.”  (Dean and Fowler 302).  Replacement is accomplished by repetitive, time-consuming drills.  Besides taking instructional time away from the content areas, this method of instruction is demonstrably ineffective.  If telling people to talk a certain way caused them to talk that way, there would be no debate about standardization, Ebonics, or correct usage.  Even worse, focusing so intently on changing students’ language implies that their language, a fundamental feature of their identity, is inferior and inappropriate.  This way of thinking, while still popular in many classrooms, treats entering students as less than normal, and presumes a need to bring them up to the level of wealthier, usually white, students. 

    Bidialectalism acknowledges the validity of a child’s home language-- up to a point.  The student is taught that different forms of English are appropriate in different situations, but Standard English is the form used in academic settings, the workplace, and other occasions when speaking to an adult one does not know very well.  Teachers who use the bidialectal approach believe that standard English is necessary to get a good job and have people think well of the speaker.  The problem with this philosophy (which I think most teachers, including myself, tend to subscribe to, however subconsciously) is that the appropriate situations for Standard English are prestige situations.   A student is taught that her regular speech is fine for use on the playground, in the cafeteria, or at home, but in the classroom, when writing or speaking with an unfamiliar adult, or when applying for a job, she must use Standard English.  One can easily imagine the conclusions she will draw about her own version of English.  When a bidialectal approach is used, “it is assumed by the students that standard English is the only dialect that has any prestige at all.”   (Dean and Fowler 306). 

    But if we do not teach our students the proper way to speak and write, aren’t we sentencing them to a lifetime of stigmatization and low paying jobs?  Before I answer that, I must note that teaching using either eradication or bidialectalism is not producing the desired result of a generation of Standard English speakers.  “In fact, the complete bidialectal, with undiminished control of his vernacular and a good mastery of the standard language, is apparently as mythical as the unicorn: no authenticated specimens have been reported.”  (Sledd 441).  So despite our best efforts to teach the standard form of our language, our students (and most of the population at large) are still speaking the language that sounds best to them, the language that they hear other people speaking every day. 

    Baker contends that “especially for those members of American society who plan to spend their lives in middle-class occupations or the professions, being able to use standard English is at the very minimum a matter of sheer self-defense.”  (29).  Are we denying our students the tools they need to prevent discrimination and access to high-paying jobs?   Dean and Fowler argue that “the time used in school to teach standard English… must shorten the amount of time available to the student to qualify himself in other ways for a job.”  In addition, they point out, there are “many standard English speakers who do not have jobs of any kind.”  (Dean and Fowler 306).  Furthermore, if we believe that standard English is required to succeed, we will pass this belief along to our students, and this discriminatory, even racist, tenet will continue to be true.  The authors suggest that other social prejudices, such as racism and sexism, have lessened so that non-whites and women can now hold prestigious jobs, but social norms can not change unless educators make a deliberate effort to do so. 

Implementation 

In early childhood education, especially when the children come from disadvantaged backgrounds, exposure to a rich array of language is crucial.  By “disadvantaged” I do not necessarily mean poor and/or non-white.  I refer to children who have no books at home, who live in motels from week to week, who don’t get anything to eat except the school lunch; students who come to school without the foundation upon which more advantaged students build their knowledge.  These students need to feel supported and accepted in the school environment, and if their early work is harshly criticized and edited, they will shut down.  They often feel (even at a very young age) that people like them do not do well in school, and criticism of their language simply proves irrevocably that they are not welcome in the classroom.  My lesson plans emphasize the need to expose students to many different forms of English, modeling, and finally using different forms for different purposes, without imposing a value judgement on any form. 

Lesson 1: Modeling
Main New Mexico Standards addressed:
I-A-2.  Recognize repetition and predict repeated phrases.
I-A-3.  Respond and elaborate in answering Who, What, When, Where, and How questions.
I-A-4.  Discuss and explain response to How, Why, and What if questions in sharing narrative and expository texts.
I-A-5.  Self-monitor comprehension by using questions, retelling, and summarizing.
I-A-6.  Follow simple written and oral instructions.
I-A-7.  Increase vocabulary through reading, listening, and interacting. 

Since we know that teaching someone the “proper” way to speak seldom, if ever, changes the way they speak, and correcting a student’s grammar discourages them from talking in class, modeling is perhaps the only way to demonstrate the use of standard English in conversational situations.  When a student says “Is it okay if we lie down?”  I respond “Yes, you may lie down.”  When someone says “He gots my book,” I say, “If he has your book, you need to ask him nicely if you can have it back.”  Anyone who has spent time with very young children knows that they pick up on the speech habits of the speakers around them, especially if they trust and respect that speaker.  In the same way we model appropriate mealtime conversation in the cafeteria, we can model appropriate ways of speaking in the classroom without disparaging students’ natural language. 

Lesson 2: Read-Aloud and Discussion
Main New Mexico Standards Addressed:
I-A-1.  Listen to and retell short stories.
I-A-3.  Respond and elaborate in answering Who, What, When, Where, and How questions.
I-A-4.  Discuss and explain response to How, Why, and What If questions in sharing narrative and expository texts.
I-B-1.  Demonstrate familiarity with a variety of resources.
I-C-1.  Associate target words with prior knowledge and explore an author’s choice of words.
I-C-2.  Predict and explain what will happen next in a story.
I-C-3.  Demonstrate familiarity with a variety of texts.
I-C-4.  Describe differences and similarities between different stories.
I-D-5.  Increase vocabulary through reading, listening, and interacting.
III-A-1.  Increase vocabulary and understand expressions found in appropriate literary works.
III-A-2.  Identify the characters and simple story lines from selected myths and stories from around the world.
III-B-1.  Identify elements of plot and setting in a story.
III-B-2.  Demonstrate understanding of sequence and characterization in a story.

The teacher reads a high-interest book to the class or a small group and leads a discussion about plot, character, setting, and other elements of the author’s style, as appropriate for the age level of the students.  Calling students’ attention to elements such as style or voice, word choice, and details and description not only makes them better readers, it encourages them to consider using these tools in their own writing.  There are many children’s books available that employ different dialects and allow students to think about why people might speak differently if they live in a different time or place.  Bringing students’ attention to the choices an author must make encourages them to think about such decisions in their own writing.  Exposing students to a wide variety of literature enriches their vocabulary, and gives them the tools they need to write interesting and appealing stories. 

Lesson 3: Journal Writing
Main New Mexico Standards Addressed:
II-B-4.  Use phonetic knowledge and basic patterns to spell correctly three- and four-letter words.II-B-5. Apply phonics to write independently, using emergent and/or conventional spelling.
II-B-6.  Write all upper and lower case letters of the alphabet using correct letter formation.
II-B-7.  Use complete sentences to write simple text.
II-B-8.  Use basic capitalization and punctuation.
II-B-9.  Self-monitor composition by using re-reading and peer conferences.
II-C-1.  Write by using an author’s model of language and extending the model.
II-C-2.  Compose a variety of products.
II-C-3.  Write descriptions of familiar persons, places, or objects.
II-C-4.  Compose fairly readable first drafts using appropriate parts of the writing process.
II-C-5.  Begin to utilize conventional spelling.
III-B-2. Use context to resolve ambiguities about word and sentence meaning. 

Students write about whatever they want in their journal (in the earliest stages, this may be simply a picture with an attempt at labeling) given only the support they need, with minimum interference from the teacher.  Because they are not told to write about a specific topic, students are free to write about what interests them without worrying if the teacher will like it.  Correct spelling is not emphasized, as students who are too worried about spelling will write almost nothing.  Students are given a chance to share their work with classmates, and time is provided for questions and comments.  Students develop self-esteem and confidence as a writer; the feedback from classmates encourages them to think about their audience as they write and to write appropriately for that audience. 

            After students have gained confidence in their writing skills, the teacher may begin giving prompts several days a week.  These prompts may be related to a text the class has read or a subject they have been studying, or the teacher may pose a question to which students respond.  Squiggle day is a favorite in my classroom, where I draw a squiggle in students’ journal notebooks, and they draw a picture and write a story.  We often tell students they must write first, then draw; forgetting how abstract a concept this is.  Students write better when they have something to look at and talk about. 

Lesson 4: Publication
Main New Mexico Standards Addressed:
II-A-2.  Engage in discussions resulting in written products.
II-A-3.  Select and use new vocabulary and language structures.
II-B-4.  Use phonetic knowledge and basic patterns to spell correctly three- and four-letter words.II-B-5. Apply phonics to write independently, using emergent and/or conventional spelling.
II-B-6.  Write all upper and lower case letters of the alphabet using correct letter formation.
II-B-7.  Use complete sentences to write simple text.
II-B-8.  Use basic capitalization and punctuation.
II-B-9.  Self-monitor composition by using re-reading and peer conferences.
II-C-1.  Write by using an author’s model of language and extending the model.
II-C-2.  Compose a variety of products.
II-C-3.  Write descriptions of familiar persons, places, or objects.
II-C-4.  Compose fairly readable first drafts using appropriate parts of the writing process.
II-C-5.  Begin to utilize conventional spelling.

Students choose a story they’ve already started and prepare it for publication.  They follow the Writer’s Workshop process.  The first step is to write a complete story with a beginning, middle, and an end.  The next step is peer conferencing, where the student reads his story to someone else, and the other student asks questions and offers suggestions.  This ensures that the student’s story makes sense and that the details are clear to the reader.  The next step is a teacher conference, in which the teacher offers suggestions for clarity and also edits for capitalization, spelling, punctuation, and grammar (the writing conventions).   The student carefully rewrites a final draft, observing spelling and punctuation conventions, adds details and expressive illustrations.  Finally, the student takes his turn in the Author’s Chair and shares his work with the class.  The publication is made available to the class for independent reading.  By working and reworking a story, the student learns to consider the reader and add important details that make the author’s intentions clear.  The reward of seeing a final product, in book form, and hearing praise from his classmates motivates the student to conference, edit, and rewrite future stories.  

Lesson 5: Mixed-Up Sentences
Main New Mexico Standards Addressed:
I-A-7.  Increase vocabulary through reading, listening, and interacting.
I-B-1.  Demonstrate familiarity with a variety of resources.
I-C-3.  Demonstrate familiarity with a variety of texts.
I-D-2.  Demonstrate decoding and word recognition strategies and skills by: using phonics knowledge and sound-letter relationships to decode regular one-syllable words; recognizing high frequency and common irregularly spelled words in text. 
I-D-3.  Read aloud with fluency and comprehension grade-level text.
I-D-4.  Use pronunciation, sentence meaning, story meaning, and syntax to confirm accurate decoding or to self-correct errors.
I-D-5.  Increase vocabulary through reading, listening, and interacting.
II-B-2.  Use context to resolve ambiguities about word and sentence meaning.
II-B-9.  Self-monitor composition by using re-reading and peer conferences.

Every morning when the students come in, they expect to see a sentence which the teacher has cut up and put in the pocket chart all mixed up.  Students take turns rearranging the sentence; trying to put the words in the right order, and asking for help from their classmates if they need it.  Once the class agrees that the sentence is right, the student who fixed it reads the sentence, first alone and then leading the class.  Students increase their sight word vocabulary, learn to recognize capitalization at the beginning of a sentence and punctuation at the end.  Reading the sentence aloud improves fluency.  This activity can be extended into an independent learning center, using cookie sheets or a magnetic chalkboard, and magnetic words or letters.  During free time, students may use the magnets to form words and sentences.  The other students love to read their classmates’ creations, so students practice both reading and writing skills in a high-interest setting which requires almost no teacher supervision. 

Lesson 6: Dramatization
Main New Mexico Standards Addressed: 
I-A-1.  Listen to and retell short stories.
I-B-3.  Select an appropriate format to locate, gather, access, record, organize, and present information.
I-C-3.  Demonstrate familiarity with a variety of texts.
I-D-5.  Increase vocabulary through reading, listening, and interacting.
II-A-3.  Select and use new vocabulary and language structures.
III-A-1.  Increase vocabulary and understand expressions found in appropriate literary works.III-A-3.   Describe events related to other nations and/or cultures.
III-B-2.  Demonstrate understanding (e.g., act out, draw, write, talk) of sequence and characterization in a story.

Dramatization (role-playing) is an integral part of any teacher’s guided reading program.   Acting out the story helps students understand and appreciate character, plot, and sequence, and fosters their comprehension of texts read in class.  Role-playing can also help students learn to solve problems with their peers without the teacher’s help.   If the teacher uses scripts with characters whose voices the students can easily imagine, students practice using different forms of speech and gain an understanding of the varied uses of language.  Also, when students use a form of speech, they learn it more deeply than if they simply heard it.

Final Words 

Appreciating non-standard dialects in the classroom is probably easier to talk about than to do; radical social change is a daunting task.  If, however, a teacher honestly values her students and their life experiences, she will make an effort to find a place for their language in her classroom.  She need not worry that she is neglecting an aspect of their education; as long as children are exposed to a wide variety of quality literature, students will gain an appreciation for the intricacies of the English language.  A teacher’s willingness and ability to encourage and enable students’ personal expression will empower them to make the English language their own, not the language of their oppressors. 

Documentation 

Bibliography 

Baker, C.L.   English Syntax.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996. 

Baugh, Albert C.  A History of the English Language.  New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts,              1957. 

Cheshire, Jenny.  Variation in an English Dialect.  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University              Press, 1982.

Crowley, Tony.  Proper English?  Readings in Language, History and Cultural Identity.              London, England: Routledge, 1991. 

Dean, Mary B. and Elaine D. Fowler.  “An Argument for Appreciation of Dialect Differences in the              Classroom.”  The Journal of Negro Education. Summer 1974: 302-309. 

Jespersen, Otto.  Growth and Structure of the English Language.  Chicago, Illinois: University              Press, 1982. 

Poplack, Shana, Gerard Van Herk and Dawn Harvie.  “Deformed in the Dialects: An Alternative              History of Non-Standard English.”  Alternative Histories of English.  London, Routledge,              2000. 

Rissanen, Matti.  “Standardisation and the language of early statutes.”  The Development of              Standard English 1300- 1800.  Ed.  Laura Wright.   Cambridge, England: Cambridge              University Press, 2000. 

Sledd, James.  “Doublespeak: Dialectology in the Service of Big Brother.”  College English
            January 1972: 441. 

Smith, K. Aaron.  History of the English Language.  Albuquerque Teachers Institute: University of              New Mexico, Summer 2002.

Stein, Dieter.  “Standardization and Social Factors.”  Towards a Standard English 1600-1800.              New York, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994. 

Tacitus.   The Agricola and the Germania.  New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1970. 

Trask, R.L.   Historical Linguistics.  New York, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996. 

Willinsky, John.  The Well-Tempered Tongue: The Politics of Standard English in the High School.  New York, New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1984.