Language & Culture

National Speak in Sentences Day is a holiday that encourages everyone to speak in complete sentences to communicate with their fellow humans. It doesn’t matter if they’re speaking to a person, writing a letter or email, or sending a text. Far too often nowadays, it’s common for people to communicate with one another using interjections, acronyms, and sometimes even emoticons. While there’s nothing wrong with using those examples of written and spoken speech, there are times when it’s proper to use a proper sentence structure to communicate complex feelings and ideas. So on May 31st, let’s all come together and speak to one another properly—at least for the day. Some Interesting Facts About The English Language Since we’re talking about using proper English sentences for this holiday, we thought that it would be fun to list some of the facts that we know about the language. We think that most people will appreciate the following facts. • The shortest complete sentence in the English language is “I am.” • Speaking of “I,” it’s the oldest word in the English language. So are “we” and “two” and “three.” • Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is one of the longest words in the English language. • The word “girl” originally wasn’t tied to gender. Instead, it meant a “young person” or “child” of any gender. • The word “butterfly” used to be “flutterby.” • In the U.S., there are over 24 different English dialects. Observing National Speak In Sentences Day Obviously, the purpose of this holiday is to underline the importance of proper sentence structure—both in interpersonal and professional communication. However, that doesn’t mean that other things can’t be done on this day to celebrate the English language. People can learn more about proper sentence structure by visiting one of the many grammar blogs and websites that are on the Internet, and they can use the hashtag #SpeakInSentencesDay on their social media accounts. Read more here What is the importance of speaking skills? What tips for improving speaking skills do you know of?

“I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself.” (Anzaldúa, 1987) With these words, the noted scholar Gloria Anzaldúa challenges educators to affirm and accept a student’s unique characteristics, to accept the language variety the student brings from home, and to build on and honor their linguistic heritage. These words emphasize that language is at the heart of how we present ourselves and how others see us (Gonzalez, 2005). Yet while the days are long gone when teachers rapped children’s knuckles for speaking Spanish or changed their names from Yu Ling to Linda, the increase in linguistic diversity across the nation requires that educators be particularly sensitive and aware of the benefits and importance of validating student language because it is fundamental to student well-being. Recognizing and Validating Students’ Native Languages Linguistic diversity characterizes the US K–12 population today. In 2018, there were over five million K–12 English learners (ELs) enrolled in every state, ranging from 0.8% in West Virginia to 19.4% in California. Approximately 10% of the nation’s students bring a language other than English to class. While the majority of ELs are Spanish speakers, the top ten languages include Arabic, Chinese, Somali, Russian, Portuguese, Haitian, Hmong, and Vietnamese (NCES, 2021). What are the implications of this linguistic diversity for educators? It wasn’t too long ago that this linguistic diversity was met with sanctions and prohibitions, formal and informal. These practices were illegal and unsound. Nevertheless, linguistic discrimination endured for generations. Today, ELs have inherited a legal framework which maintains their rights to access the core curriculum and to understand the language of instruction, yet depending upon the state in which they reside, teachers may or may not be allowed to use students’ native languages for instruction. Linguicism Linguistic discrimination, linguistic prejudice, and linguicism all refer to practices in which a negative judgement is made of a person based on their language. In 1988, the linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas defined linguicism as discrimination based on language or dialect (1988). Linguistic stereotyping refers to predefined negative perceptions imposed on English speakers based on their race, ethnicity, and nationality (Dovchin, 2020). Linguicism has had a long history in US English-only policy and, despite legal rulings otherwise, continues to underscore anti-immigrant rhetoric. Wiley (2019) has noted that language discrimination is often a proxy for racial animosity against immigrants. Despite the fact that English-only policies have driven instruction for ELs, educators are pivoting to a more asset-based and inclusive perspective. A new generation of research science stresses the importance of validating young children’s native languages and the benefits of multilingualism for the cognitive, economic, and social benefits to bilingualism/multilingualism (Bialystok, 2001). Toward this goal, two recent reports, from the National Academies of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, summarize and underscore the importance of students’ home languages and the benefits of bilingualism for the nation. National Academies Support an Asset-Based Approach to Language There is no support to sustain a deficit perspective on language. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2017 stating that “scientific evidence clearly points to a universal, underlying human capacity to learn two languages as easily as one… Recent evidence also points to cognitive advantages, such as the ability to plan, regulate their behavior, and think flexibly, for children and adults who are competent in two languages… there is no evidence to indicate that two languages in the home or the use of one in the home and another in early care and education confuses DLLs or puts the development of their languages at risk” (p. 3). DLLs benefit from consistent exposure to both their L1 and English in early childhood settings. The scholars at the National Academy of Sciences have proposed a comprehensive set of research-based recommendations toward a national policy which values bilingualism for all. They state that the “culture, language and experiences of English learners are highly diverse and constitute assets for their development, as well as for the nation” (p. 2). Those who become proficient in both a home or a primary language and English are likely to reap benefits in cognitive, social, and emotional development and may also be protected from brain decline at older ages. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences released a report in 2017 calling for a national strategy to improve access to as many languages as possible for people of every region, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background—that is, to value language education as a persistent national need similar to education in math or English and to ensure that a useful level of proficiency is within every student’s reach. Providing access to language education for all means that a national goal should be that all schools “offer meaningful instruction in world and/or Native American languages as part of their standard curricula” (p. 8). America’s Languages underscores the importance of multilingualism in a global society and states that knowledge of English is critical “but not sufficient to meet the nation’s future needs” (p. 6). Both reports stress the importance of understanding the social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds of children as a means to achieve the condition of trust and respect necessary for effective instruction and, most importantly, to view the social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds of English learners as assets. This research base provides the impetus for implementing an asset-based pedagogy for English learners. Asset-Based Linguistic Policy An asset-based approach to teaching requires that educators abandon a focus on the limitations of and weaknesses in students and expand understanding of the strengths, assets, and funds of knowledge that students and their families possess. This requires getting to know the complexity of the EL student and community as well as the values and aspirations that EL parents have for their children. Asset-based pedagogies view the diversity that students bring to the classroom, including culture, language, disability, socioeconomic status, immigration status, and sexuality, as characteristics that add value and strength to classrooms and communities (California Department of Education, 2021). Rather than seeking to overcome this diversity, an asset-based policy requires viewing students in a new light. Asset policy recognizes that the gifts ELs bring with them can be springboards for learning. Toward an Asset-Based Pedagogy Leadership in today’s multilingual/multicultural schools requires a vision of language equity for the school community. Principals, as the instructional leaders, provide the context for parents, students, teachers, and staff to recognize that English and the other community languages deserve equal value, status, and importance. The following provide a few examples of asset-based pedagogy for leadership, teachers, and the curriculum. The Principal as Language Leader It is fundamental that school leadership holds a philosophical stance that views linguistic diversity as an asset. From this stems a series of activities that set the stage for the school to reflect a welcoming linguistic environment for students, parents, and staff. Some features of a welcoming linguistic environment include: • The principal and their team conduct an informal linguistic landscape study to identify through community signage areas where different linguistic communities reside. • The school community’s linguistic landscape can be shared with staff and updated as the community shifts. • The leadership team provides professional development for teachers to develop their asset pedagogy. • The school leadership creates opportunities for parents to engage in school activities and decision making. • Information about the school, its curriculum, report cards, and parent outreach is available in multiple languages. • The school office staff is capable of offering information in various languages. • Information through print, internet, and community meetings is multilingual. • School events offer diverse linguistic communities for spelling bees, plays, and presentations, and guest speakers are offered in diverse languages. • On-site community meetings are translated. Read more here

Saying the word ‘like’ has long been seen as a sign of laziness and stupidity. But its use is actually richly nuanced, goes back to Shakespearean times, and is an indicator of, like, intelligence. I’m listening to BBC Radio 1, where they are interviewing the 26-year-old actor and singer Dove Cameron about her globally successful hit, Boyfriend. The DJ, Melvin Odoom, asks her, “Do you think that your acting career has helped you with, kind of, like, your music career?” “For me they’re, like, the same energy,” replies Cameron. “Which is, like, when people are, like, ‘You have to choose,’ I’m like, ‘They feel the same!’” It’s the most predictable celebrity interview exchange ever uttered, remarkable only for one word that repeats and repeats. “It’s a really funny one,” says Fiona Hanlon, who has worked at the station for more than 10 years, including producing Nick Grimshaw’s breakfast show and Maya Jama’s weekend show. “If a guest says ‘like’ too much, we’d get texts from the listeners. If a DJ says it too much, sometimes a boss might pop in and mention it … It’s just seen as a bit lazy, a bit dumb. I was always very aware of it.” Why do people have such a problem with “like”? Is it because it simply won’t go away? In 1992, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a robust defence of the word and the way it carries “a rich emotional nuance”, responding to what had already been a decade of criticism. This did nothing to settle the debate. Linguists agree that usage of the word has increased every year since then, to the point where in one five-minute exchange on Love Island in 2017, the word was uttered 76 times, once every four seconds. It’s just seen as a bit lazy, a bit dumb By the time I was at secondary school in the early 2000s, “like” was just a natural part of speech. Transcribing the interviews I did for this piece, I say it constantly. When I do, I find it a friendly crutch, signalling to the person I’m talking to that we’re having a spontaneous and unrehearsed conversation, that I’m listening and thinking. But despite its long history and widespread use, for many it remains enraging. Advertisement Politicians, educators and business leaders have complained it makes speakers sound stupid. When Michael Gove was education secretary in 2014, he used an update to the national curriculum to require students to speak in “standard English”, even in informal settings, in all British schools. This reinforced the idea that there was only one right way to speak English. By 2019, one primary school head in Bradford, Christabel Shepherd, said she banned the word because, “When children are giving you an answer and they say, ‘Is it, like, when you’re, like…’ they haven’t actually made a sentence at all. They use the word all the time and we are trying to get rid of it.” Nick Gibb, then schools minister, praised the decision and said others should follow suit. Scores of recruitment specialists and public-speaking coaches have publicly bemoaned the word’s rise and say those who use it prevent themselves from getting opportunities. One law firm in America sent a memo to just its female employees and told them: “Learn hard words,” and “Stop saying ‘like’.” Peter Mertens, an associate at PR firm Burson Cohn & Wolfe, has said: “There is nothing that will [lead you to being] dismissed more quickly than a few too many ‘likes’ during a meeting or on a call.” There’s even an app, LikeSo, recommended by businesses, which listens to your speech and promises it can stop you using the word. There is nothing that will [lead you to being] dismissed more quickly than a few too many ‘likes’ Peter MertensIn the UK, this chorus is made louder by a group of mostly old and white celebrities and Spectator columnists who crusade against its use. In 2010, Emma Thompson complained to the Radio Times that she “went to give a talk at my old school and the girls were all doing their ‘likes’ and ‘innits?’ which drives me insane… I told them ‘Just don’t do it. Because it makes you sound stupid.’” Gyles Brandreth, writing in the Oldie (where else?), complained that “like” was “the lazy linguistic filler of our times” and “very very irritating”. Advertisement Why is it so detested? “Well, humans have an innate tendency to judge. People who are very liberal in other aspects of things, who would never judge someone based on race or sexual orientation or whatever, still have this thing about language,” says Carmen Fought, professor of linguistics at Pitzer College. “They want to freeze it and they want to judge it. I absolutely guarantee you that in Shakespeare’s time, there was some schoolmaster walking around saying, ‘Don’t say “soothe” Portia, that sounds so tacky, say “For soothe.”’” There’s certainly an element of sexism here and the detractors of “like” say it makes you sound girlish and stupid, arguing that this is a newish tic said mostly by women and that it’s a meaningless “filler” word that doesn’t add anything to a sentence’s meaning. But they are, in fact, wrong on every count. The first point is that “like” isn’t just a filler word. It’s actually an incredibly versatile and dynamic word. The linguist Alexandra D’Arcy, who wrote a book on the word, outlined its many uses. There are its traditional uses as a verb, “I like the smell of what’s cooking” and a preposition, “This tastes like it was made in a restaurant”. Then there are the ones that are the subject of scorn. The first of these is the quotative “like”: “He cooked a spag bol for me last night, I was like, that’s delicious.” It allows you to tell a story without promising complete accuracy. Indeed, one of the most enjoyable things about this kind of “like” is that you can tell an anecdote that makes you sound wittier and more erudite than you actually are because you’re not promising exactly what was said but the feeling of what was said. Read more here