“On the Lookout for Language”:Children as Language Detectives

A teacher researcher describes how she invited her students

to be detectives on the lookout for language and

to take a critical perspective on how it varies

with each speaker, purpose, and context.

Language Arts, Vol. 80 No. 3, January 2003

206

On the Lookout for Language

“I sometimes use words or phrases fromcartoons, books, TV, and other people inmy conversations because when I do itgrabs the attention of my friends. They’dgo ‘oh yea’ or ‘I know that.’” (Lauren)

“Personally, I think that people useother people’s voices or quotes to putthemselves on a similar status of thatperson. When Apollo 13 was showing,I noticed that a lot of people weresaying, ‘Houston, we have a problem.’In my opinion, the people were sayingthat to elevate their rank to theactor’s.” (Derek)

“Everyday people use language to getpower by interjecting in a conversationand then talking for long periods oftime. People also use sarcasm to gainpower. Also, you have to use otherpeople’s words and talk about ‘inthings.’” (Mia)

These are just a few entries fromsixth graders’ language-detectivelogs. As a class, we were always onthe lookout for language—exploringhow and why we use language incertain situations and with particu-lar people, investigating how lan-guage is used to confer or denypower, and considering the manyvoices that we adopt as speakersand writers. In the spirit of Heath(1983), we studied “ways withwords” by documenting, discussing,and reflecting on language use inschool, at home, and within the

young adult novels that we readthroughout the year. To conduct oursmall-scale ethnographies of lan-guage, we used a variety of qualita-tive research methods, such as

audiotaping classroom conversa-tions, interviewing peers and par-ents, and writing field notes,observations, and literary responsesin our detective logs.

Mary Beth Monahan

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 206

By instructing sixth graders to beon the lookout for language, andparticularly for how it varies witheach speaker, purpose, and context,I hoped to promote a richer andmore robust view of language diver-sity. In my mind, it was vitally im-portant to spotlight languagevarieties, not simply as colorful al-ternatives to “standard English” andthus as linguistic novelties, but asbasic phenomena of language itself.As Bakhtin (1981) suggests, lan-guage is heteroglossic, or composedof many voices. Moreover, the nu-merous voices or literacies within asingle utterance is a simple fact oflanguage (Bakhtin, 1981). To thisextent, “local literacies,” or lan-guage varieties, are not merelyexotic specialty items for the edu-cated language consumer; they areamong the many linguistic re-sources available to all our students.

APPRECIATING LANGUAGEDIVERSITY: BEING “ON THELOOKOUT FOR LANGUAGE”Hoping to enlarge sixth graders’understanding of language diver-sity, I created an instructionalstrand in my curriculum called “Onthe Lookout for Language.” Al-though I continued to recruit stu-dents as language detectives, I amreporting on only our work fromthe first year, 1995–1996, in thisarticle. Teaching at Rockford UpperElementary School in central NewJersey (names have been changedthroughout to protect studentanonymity), I worked with a heterogeneously grouped class of 25 students. The social, cultural,and racial composition of my class varied from year to year, butin 1995–1996 it reflected the dis-trict’s student population: 76 percent White, 5 percent AfricanAmerican, 18 percent Asian/ Pa-cific Islander, and 1 percent His-panic students. Although this once

rural, agrarian community hasbecome more diverse, it is nonethe-less predominantly white and uppermiddle class.

Given this homogeneity, it was im-portant for me to raise students’awareness that every “utterance isan embodiment of speech diver-sity” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 271). Byurging sixth graders to study theirown behaviors as language users, Ihoped that they would come to un-derstand how local literacies ap-plied to them and not simply to“others” from different socialclasses, races, and ethnicities. Andmuch like Freire and Macedo(1987), I did not want students tothink of local literacies in terms of“linguistic ghettos.” Such a view isnot only grossly inaccurate andpatently offensive; it also balka-nizes language in ways that distort,disfigure, and ultimately compro-mise all students’ voices.

Thus, as language ethnographers,these sixth graders and I investi-gated the “primordial properties” oflanguage and, in so doing, exam-ined instances—both within andbeyond the classroom—where lan-guage was heteroglossic, elastic, andhistorically, politically, and sociallyconstructed, as well as ideologicallycharged (Bakhtin, 1981). What fol-lows is an account of the instruc-tional activities I created for thepurpose of raising sixth graders’critical language awareness and, inturn, their appreciation of languagediversity as a fact of language (Fair-clough, 1989, 1992).

Language as Elastic andHeteroglossic: A Visit with Kate Bloomfield

To begin our language study, I pre-sented Jean Little’s (1990) poem“Today” because it vividly and hu-morously illustrates the two proper-ties of language—elasticity and

heteroglossia—that I wanted stu-dents to explore and understand.The poem is delivered in the voiceof 14-year-old Kate Bloomfield, acharacter from Little’s other novels.Young Kate declares: “Today I willnot live up to my potential. / TodayI will not relate well with my peergroup” (p. 6). When discussingthese lines, students and I first con-sidered why the poem made uslaugh and what was so funny aboutKate’s expressions. We discoveredthat Kate’s declaration was humor-ous mostly because she took adultways with words and used them astools to fashion her own rebellion.With this example, I highlighted the

fact that Kate, a writer close to mystudents’ own age, was actually aningenious tactician when selectingher words for her own subversiveends. She poached adult languageand inhabited those voices that typ-ically encroached upon her (Dia-mondstone, 1999).

This mini-lesson showed sixthgraders that language can be elas-tic, supple, and even responsive totheir touch (Bakhtin, 1981; Hymes,1973). Kate, after all, manipulatedthe seemingly fixed speech codes of adults to achieve humor and creative resistance. Given Kate’s example, I encouraged students toimagine how they too could pinch,

207

On the Lookout for Language

I hoped that theywould come to

understand how localliteracies applied tothem and not simply

to “others” fromdifferent social

classes, races, andethnicities.

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 207

press, and pull language accordingto their own intentions. KateBloomfield’s poem also demon-strated a related property of lan-guage—heteroglossia. I capitalizedon this poem to show students howwe, as speakers and writers, areventriloquists to the extent that wetake on others’ words, expressions,and language forms all of the time(Bakhtin, 1981). I pointed out howeven the phrase “live up to yourpotential” carries the voices ofKate’s parents, teachers, older sib-lings, and Kate herself.

To fully convey this idea, I created ascenario of Kate performing as aventriloquist and asked students toimagine a teacher or parent sittingupon Kate’s lap as a puppet,mouthing the phrases “live up to mypotential” and “relate well with mypeer group.” We dramatized teachertalk and playfully parodied thatspeech style. We brainstormed otheradult phrases and had fun mockingthe various authority figures in ourlives. We also asked ourselves if wehad ever used those same phrases(e.g., “accept responsibility” and “beappropriate”) either jokingly or seri-ously. We then explored why andquestioned our own purposes fordoing so. As students explained,“I’ve seen kids do it in front of theteacher to suck up,” “I would onlysay that stuff to get back at my par-ents,” and “I might write somethinglike that in my progress report be-cause like that’s what we’re likesupposed to be doing, you knowliving up to our potential.”

There were also teachable momentswhen I offered spontaneous lessonson the properties of language. Onesuch moment occurred in late fallwhen a student came charging intohomeroom waving a piece of paperthat he had found hanging on a wallin the hallway. In his hand was aneon yellow flyer announcing the

PTA’s upcoming book fair scheduledfor early November. The flyer statedthe specific dates, times, and loca-tions for the fair. What outraged thestudent, however, were the following

phrases that the flyer’s authors hadused to frame their message: “Phic-tion is phat! Books are the Bomb!Reading Rules!” This student was soirked that he declared, “What is thisworld coming to when teachers usethese words!” Capitalizing on mystudent’s passion, I used the flyer tospringboard into an On the Lookoutfor Language session by asking,“Who wrote this flyer? What werethey trying to accomplish? And whydid they use these expressions?” Werealized that the PTA parents hadmade the announcement for the pur-pose of rallying students to attendthe book fair. As Clare pointed out,“They’re just trying to get in with usby using our words.”

We discussed how parents took onchildren’s ways with words orvoices to manipulate the entire stu-dent body into thinking that read-ing is cool. I again referred to theidea of heteroglossia (but withoutusing that term) and explained howspeakers and writers have multiplevoices at their disposal. In this par-ticular case, the PTA parents hadadopted the voices of 9- to 12-year-olds to recruit children’s interest inthe book fair. Relying on Bakhtin(1981) as I had with the Kate

Bloomfield poem, I used the meta-phor of “ventriloquism” to describehow the flyer’s authors spokethrough children—almost like puppets—to reach the audience. Weenvisioned parents with studentpuppets on their laps doing the talk-ing for them in the voices of fourth,fifth, and sixth graders. Then we ex-plored whether or not the authors’voice projections actually achievedthe intended effect. Given that stu-dents were irritated by being par-roted in this way, we concluded thatthe authors’ plan had actually back-fired, at least with us.

Still, we had to admit that not allstudents would have the same reac-tion, and to that extent, the authorsmight have swayed other sixth,fifth, and fourth graders to thinkthat “reading rules.” But as our cri-tique continued, students noted howthe authors hadn’t quite masteredthe voices of children. In writing“books are the bomb,” the authors’statement had traces of adult voicessince they had tidied up the actualphrase—“da bomb.” I pointed outhow in that one phrase there werethree voices—those of parents sani-tizing children’s expressions, thoseof suburban, middle-class adoles-cents taking on the words of MTVhip-hop personalities, and those ofthe MTV personalities themselves.

In subsequent lessons, we were onthe lookout for how we perform asventriloquists by taking words outof other peoples’ mouths and usingthem for our own purposes. For ex-ample, we considered the expres-sions “da bomb” and “phat” moreclosely. I asked students to thinkabout why they used such phrases—to be cool, to gain peer acceptance,or to rebel. On this point Ally of-fered, “I used to use the words ‘phat’and ‘da bomb’ because it was thenew thing and people were justsaying it because it was ‘cool’ and

208

On the Lookout for Language

Language Arts, Vol. 80 No. 3, January 2003

We were on thelookout for how we

perform asventriloquists by

taking words out ofother peoples’ mouths

and using them forour own purposes.

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 208

new. But now it’s old and not socool, just like those PTA people.”

We also explored the idea that stu-dents use expressions from sharedexperiences of popular culture (e.g.,television and movies) to show thatthey are “in the know.” I made apoint of challenging students to findout if they had used others’ voices intheir essays. After mining their textsfor others’ voices, students offeredobservations such as, “I used MartinLuther King, Jr.’s quote because Iliked it a lot. If you don’t use quotesor different voices, something ismissing. I think they just make youressay a complete package of yourthoughts and other people’sthoughts,” and “These kinds ofvoices help you sound grown up andmature so people take you seriously,like in our letter to the principal.”

Park Bench Language Detectives

As part of our language studies, wealso played an impromptu perfor-mance game called Park Benchthroughout the year. The gamestarts with one student sitting on ahypothetical park bench (which inour case was the read-aloud couch),whereupon another student entersthe scene and begins talking,“Please get me a cup of coffee andreport immediately to my office fora dictation.” On cue, the first stu-dent must respond appropriately tothe context created by the secondstudent’s remarks. They continue toplay their roles and alter theirstrategies for participation. In time,a third student enters the scene and,with his or her statement, changesthe whole context and, by exten-sion, the roles and linguistic perfor-mances of the other two actors.

I used Park Bench for fun and forthe express purpose of encouragingsixth graders to be detectives oflanguage (Heath, 1983). After theactual performances, we discussed

the idea that students automaticallyknow how to switch codes and toadjust registers in order to makeeach new scene work. In these de-briefing sessions, I tried to showstudents that they adopted many

voices and varied those voices ac-cording to the different scenariosand the changing relationships withtheir fellow actors. Even more, Iwanted students to realize just howversatile and agile they were as lan-guage users. I encouraged them tosee how they could wield languageeffectively as a means of gainingand maintaining access to the ongo-ing exchange. For example, somestudents adopted the dialect or par-ticular speech styles related to theirroles; others (who entered the scene)created new contexts by changingthe language patterns and initiatingnew discourse. And in response,others then had to take up this newway of talking to stay in the scene.

In these Park Bench conversations, Iencouraged students to make con-nections to their own lives in schooland at home and to consider howthey used language in similar ways.What follows is an excerpt from atranscript of one such conversationthat occurred on April 11, 1996:

Teacher: Ok . . . let me ask you tothink about how in yourown conversations youuh . . . take on a differentvoice or a different styleof speaking. For example,I can only go from myself.I would certainly not talk

to you all the way I talkwith my niece who’s two.I wouldn’t be like ‘oh,lovie, lovie, cutie,’ right?Why not?

Naohiro: ’Cause we’re older.

Teacher: Right . . . what do youthink?

Shaundrika: People, like, do it all thetime without even notic-ing it. When you’rearound different people. . . like, I could be aroundJustine and talk one way,and then I could bearound you [the teacher]and talk like I’m older.

Teacher: So . . . you’re hanging out,you’re doing the friendkinda’ talk with Justine.Then, all of a sudden, Ms.P. walks in and you shifta little . . .

Shaundrika: To sound mature, youknow.

Adam: Well, in a sense, all of ourspeech is a facade becausefor different people weadjust to what we knowthey can relate to . . .um . . . it’s not just afacade . . . probably just a courtesy or a way ofbeing with other people.

Laura: Well, with my grandpar-ents I talk slow and loudand I can’t use big words.

Teacher: Why do you think you do that?

Laura: Well, it’s polite . . . ithelps them understandwhat I’m saying.

Ricky: Well, my grandmother . . .sometimes it’s hard forher to understand me be-cause she doesn’t speak alotta’ English.

Teacher: Do you speak Spanishwith her then?

Ricky: No . . . inglés. [The stu-dents break into laughterbecause Ricky doesn’tspeak Spanish.]

209

On the Lookout for Language

Students useexpressions from

shared experiences of popular culture to show that they are “in the know.”

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 209

As this conversation and others overthe years have shown me, studentsknow a great deal about how lan-guage works and are generallyeager to discuss their own practicesas language users. Even students asyoung as 11 and 12 years old, in thecontext of a structured inquiry, areaware that they engage in constantcode switching as they strategicallyand selectively deploy their verbalrepertoires in school and at home(Hymes, 1973). These sixth graderssaw local literacies (among friends,family members, and teachers) asdifferent options for achieving cer-tain academic and interpersonalgoals. The voices they adopted, ineffect, were ways of moving in andout of relationships with particularpeople in particular circumstancesand with particular aims in mind.Students can discern these nuancesof language use and can also iden-tify such subtleties of local literaciesif given the opportunity to talkabout talk (Heath, 1983).

How Language Is Shaped by Historical, Social and Political Forces

I created lessons to highlight thefact that language itself is oftenwhat is at stake in power struggles(Fairclough, 1989). Specifically, Iexplained how certain power hold-ers (people or institutions) fight forcontrol over discourse to therebymaintain a social order that privi-leges them and advances their par-ticular interests. As a case in point, Idescribed how in ancient times stu-dents were trained to deliver argu-ments wherein they established theircredibility by invoking noted au-thorities on the subject at hand;their personal opinions werestrongly discouraged because theydidn’t carry the same clout as themaster’s words; and any discoursethat departed from this traditionwas condemned as idle chat or silly

gossip (Connors, 1987). The writer(generally a man at this time) wouldbe dismissed, and as a result, his

chances of gaining respect or pres-tige or of realizing his goals (e.g.,initiating legislation in the city-state) would be lost. I made the casethat language rules and norms wereand still are often promulgated bythose in power (Meyer, 1993).

To make a contemporary connec-tion, we discussed how teachersoften forbid first-person pronounsin formal writing and how thispractice is part of a long-standingtradition. The linguistic conformitythat the ancients demanded, ac-cording to some language theorists,reflected a general distrust of theindividual—of his perceptions andpassions (Rosati, 1990). This suspi-cion of the masses, I explained,often served to uphold the author-ity of rulers. The intrusion of justone little pronoun “I” was consid-ered a sign of disrespect and per-haps even a threat to those inpower. For this reason, it wasstrictly policed and, to this day, re-mains an issue for writers. As anextension of this conversation, stu-dents interviewed their parentsabout the use of “I” in formal writ-ing and reported their findings tothe class.

According to parents, the first-person point of view “makes anessay more of an opinion and not as much of a fact,” “could make students become arrogant,” and“doesn’t sound professional.” Indiscussing these views of using theword I, we analyzed magazine andnewspaper articles where profes-sional, published authors made lib-

eral use of the pronoun in ques-tion. We discovered that essaysseemed to always have some mix

of fact and opinion, that the writ-ers occasionally used I to be ironicor self-deprecating, and that ex-perts made first-person references.The more articles we collected andexamined, the more we realizedthat I was used by many authorsand in many different ways toachieve a wide range of effects. Inthe end, we decided, I was a toolwe’d list on our Essay Tool Boxbulletin board because, as studentspointed out, this little pronoun wasa way to “show you had a similarexperience to back up what you’resaying,” to make sure “your ownopinions aren’t treated like dirt,” to“be myself . . . and to be known forwho I am,” and to “get respect byshowing and not hiding what youreally think.”

We then examined other languageforms—dialects and slang, for exam-ple—that are also carefully moni-tored in formal, school-basedspeaking and writing. When wewere studying contractions, I raisedthe issue that amn’t, a once popularand acceptable word, has sincefallen out of favor and is no longerused. Likewise, I explained howain’t is heavily policed and widelydenounced as inappropriate. In dis-cussing these two terms, we ex-plored how and why they had metsuch fates. I asked students, “Whomakes up the rules of the languagegame and decides which words liveand die?” Students responded thattheir parents, teachers, and theboard of education established theselaws in order to “keep kids in their

210

On the Lookout for Language

Language Arts, Vol. 80 No. 3, January 2003

I asked students, “Who makes up the rules of the language game and decides

which words live and die?”

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 210

place.” I reminded them that wewould need to consult the OxfordEnglish Dictionary to find out aboutthe life story of these words. Afterdoing so, we realized that local au-thority figures (e.g., our teachers,parents, and board members) werefollowing, rather than creating,these language conventions. Theystood in a long line of people whoagreed to accept and maintain thestatus of amn’t and ain’t.

In the context of this study of con-tractions, we also explored thesocial purposes behind languageforms, noting that speakers contractwords for efficiency’s sake and thatwriters might put contractions intheir texts to establish a more infor-mal and conversational tone. Wefocused again on the ain’t taboo,discussing how this controversiallittle word often accomplishes anumber of social goals—irking ourparents, establishing insider statuswithin our peer groups, or showingthat we just don’t care about“proper” language.

With this line of inquiry, I hoped toraise students’ awareness that lan-guage forms are historically, so-cially, and ideologically constituted.Too often students are led to believethat language is just a given—afixed, finite, and value-free systemof rules. It is important for studentsto appreciate how language prac-tices, conventions, and even wordscome into existence; to see that lan-guage is in a continual process ofcreation, forever shaped by social,historical, and political forces andeven by people like themselves.

Andrew Clements’s (1996) novelFrindle illustrates this very point bydramatizing how linguistic formsdon’t just magically materialize butare in fact created and later adoptedbecause of social convention. In thisstory, fifth-grader Nick decides totest the idea that “every person who

has ever spoken or written in En-glish has had a hand in making” thedictionary (p. 20). So one day hecoins a new word for pen, frindle,and mobilizes all of his classmatesand every student in his school touse this new term. Mrs. Granger, histeacher (the high priestess of dictio-naries large and small), mounts acampaign against frindle, pittingstudents and teachers against oneanother in a bitter contest that gainsnational attention. Nick even goeson the David Letterman Show topromote his cause, while local op-portunists mass-produce frindle

paraphernalia for nationwide distri-bution. In time, all of the fanfaresubsides, Mrs. Granger relents, andthe students at Lincoln Elementarybecome so accustomed to usingfrindle that the word becomes analmost natural part of their speak-ing and writing vocabulary.

The story concludes when Nick is ajunior in college and his word is of-ficially added to the dictionary. Thatyear, he receives a letter that Mrs.Granger has written in the midst ofthe controversy years earlier. In theletter, she writes:

The word frindle has existed for lessthan three weeks. I now see that thisis the kind of chance that a teacherhopes and dreams about—a chance tosee bright young students take anidea they have learned in a boringold classroom and put it to a real testin their own world. I confess that Iam very excited to see how it allturns out. I am mostly here to watch

it happen. But somehow I think Ihave a small part to play in thisdrama, and I have chosen to be thevillain. Every good story needs a badguy, don’t you think? So someday, Iwill be asking you to forgive me, andI hope you will. (p. 99)

I asked students what it takes fornew words or new rules to beformed. We discussed the idea thatmany people have to agree to use theword or rule in the first place. It is byconvention or social agreement, Iexplained, that some words or ruleslive and others die. I also pressedstudents to consider what role Mrs.Granger played throughout the wholeprocess. As a villain, she fueled Nick’sdrive and thereby kept frindle’s mo-mentum going. Students then wrotein response to the following prompt:“What did Nick’s experience teachyou about language—words or rules—in general?”

We discussed these written re-sponses, and students made the fol-lowing conclusions:

• Language rules are really just madeup by people and like I wanna’create a new punctuation mark thatyou can throw in to show you knowit’s probably a run-on sentence butyou’re not sure why.

• I think you might be able to make upstuff in poetry but you can’t do whatNick did in essays really.

• Well, that lady who wrote that mag-azine article about learning how tofly airplanes . . . she um . . . used afragment in her essay to show howscared she was.

• You gotta’ want things to change,though, and you sort of have to goagainst other people like your teach-ers. Your parents and your friendswould have to be on your side likewith Nick, you know.

From the novel itself and their con-versations with classmates, these

211

On the Lookout for Language

Too often students areled to believe thatlanguage is just a

given—a fixed, finite,and value-free system

of rules.

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 211

sixth graders had begun to developan understanding of the inner work-ings of language and of what itmight mean for them to risk whatNick did.

Extending our investigation of theseparticular language issues, we wenton the lookout for etymologies whilereading Evslin’s (1969) version ofUlysses. I relied on Kaye’s (1985)Word Works, which explicitly ad-dresses the idea that many wordsfrom Greece and Rome have beenadopted by the English language.Kaye (1985) offers examples of bi-ographies of several words; however,I found that students enjoyed creat-ing their own stories about how cer-tain words came to be and latercomparing their versions with thoseoffered in Word Works. Moreover,such an exercise revealed students’understanding of etymologies and ofthe various forces and factors thatinfluence a given word’s trajectory.Specifically, we talked about theword clue, and students composedaccounts of how this term hadevolved. Then, I presented the actualtale that clue comes from the MiddleEnglish word clewe, which refers tothe silk string that Theseus used tofind his way out of the Minotaur’slabyrinth. Interestingly, studentspreferred their own etymologies, ar-guing that these life stories wereoften more interesting, funny, anddramatic. With these word-study ex-ercises, I tried to make the point thatlanguage is living, changing, and re-sponsive rather than fixed, finite,and immutable.

Language as a Site of Strugglefor Power

Finally, we investigated the politicaldimensions of language throughoutour author study of Mildred D.Taylor. During our read-aloud ofTaylor’s shorter pieces, The GoldCadillac (1987) and The Friendship

(1987), we noted how people uselanguage to subordinate others andthereby to maintain social in-equities. In The Friendship, racialtensions brought on by segregationescalate when Mr. Tom Bee, a spir-ited but aged African American, ad-dresses longtime friend and whitestoreowner John Wallace by his first

name. Although Bee saved Wallace’slife many years ago, and the twomen share a special bond, Wallaceinsists that Bee only use his firstname during private conversations.However, Bee ignores Wallace’sconditions and yells “John! John!John! Till the judgment day! John!”in the owner’s crowded general

212

On the Lookout for Language

Language Arts, Vol. 80 No. 3, January 2003

The following books contain specific ideas for students who want to takeaction and make a difference in the world:

• Editors of Fairview Press. How We Made the World a Better Place: Kidsand Teens Write on How They Changed Their Corner of the World. Min-neapolis: Fairview Press, 1998. Students describe the work they do to makea difference in the world. Several selections are by students who were in-spired by their teachers or are about groups within school contexts.

• Barbara A. Lewis and Pamela Espeland. The Kid’s Guide to Service Projects:Over 500 Service Ideas for Young People Who Want to Make a Difference.Minneapolis: Free Spirit, 1995. This book offers many concrete ideas for stu-dent service projects. The publisher has a Web site that features books writ-ten by and for students on a variety of topics: www.freespirit.com

• Charles Kroloff. 54 Ways You Can Help the Homeless. New York: Macmil-lan, 1993. This book contains specific ideas for helping the homeless, in-cluding many activities children can do themselves.

• Jason Dorsey. Can Students End School Violence? Solutions for Amer-ica’s Youth. Nashville: Archstone Press, 1999. Many specific ideas are of-fered to encourage students to think about and take action on issuesrelated to school violence.

• Patricia O. Giggan & Barrie Levy. 50 Ways to a Safer World: Everyday Ac-tions You Can Take to Prevent Violence in Neighborhoods, Schools, andCommunities. Seattle: Seal Press, 1997. This guide provides suggested ac-tions for personal safety, safety in homes and communities, and safety onthe streets, some of which are appropriate for students.

• Westridge Young Writers Workshop. Kids Explore America’s HispanicHeritage. New York: Norton, 1992. Eighty-two students wrote a book aboutHispanic culture from their point of view. The book can be used to encour-age students to take action by inquiring into their own heritage and bysharing what they learn through publication.

—Roxanne Henkin

Students Making a Difference

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 212

store (p. 45), to which Wallacereplies: “But this here disrespectin’me gotta stop and I mean to stop itnow. You gotta learn to address meproper. You hear me, Tom?” (p. 45).

To back up his words with force,Wallace then shoots Bee in the leg.

Horrified by the bloody outcome ofthe men’s dispute, students weremystified as to why Wallace wouldresort to such extreme measures. Imade the point that language playedan invisible role throughout thebook to maintain the supposed supe-riority of whites. We noted, for ex-ample, how many African Americanmen were belittled by the term boy.The system of segregation, I ex-plained, gave rise to such demeaningexpressions, which, in turn, rein-forced those prejudicial attitudes.

After tracking down similar in-stances in the novel in which whitesused language to undermine AfricanAmerican characters, we returned toBee, who deployed language as ameans of resisting segregation andthe subordinate role that such asystem had assigned him. With each“John!” that he fired from his lungs,Bee condemned Wallace and thesocial order until “there was noother sound” in the store or on thestreet (p. 47). I thought it was sig-nificant that the story ended withonly Bee’s voice ringing loud andclear. I asked students to address thefollowing question in their readingjournals: “What does this storyteach you about how language isused in the world?”

I also challenged students to explainany situations where they or others

used language to gain or fightagainst power. Karim, for example,offered, “The last time I recall usinglanguage to show power was duringmy I-Search presentation. I said that

I was Mr. K. because I wanted themto think of me as their teacher whowas there to teach them.” Anthonyread from his paper, “Also in schoolthe teacher being you controls theconversation. If we get off the sub-ject you will bring us back.” Corinnewrote, “When you call a rich man sir,it shows that he has a higher statusthan you. That’s probably whypeople in Egypt never know thepharaoh’s real name.” And to comefull circle, Ned invoked Kate Bloom-field by declaring with mock earnest-ness, “I’m not going to listen duringclass. I will not pay attention to theteacher. I’ll daydream all I want.”

By focusing on the power plays thatare often at work within and behindlanguage, I wanted these sixthgraders to realize that their lan-guage choices in conversations andin writing often reflect their ownfeelings of power or powerlessnessin an exchange. We talked aboutwhat it means to control the floorduring classroom and home interac-tions. We also thought about howwe use certain words (e.g., modaladjuncts such as might and maybeor hedging devices such as just)when we are not sure or lack confi-dence when speaking or writing. Weconsidered the audience and howour relationship with those listenersand readers affects our sense ofpower as speakers or writers. Thiswas one issue of language thatreally stirred students and that, in

turn, affirmed my commitment toethnographic inquiries based onmore general theories of language.

CONCLUSIONS

Honoring local literacies and valuingall students’ funds of language re-sources can prove problematic, par-ticularly if all we have to guide usare good intentions. Without abroader view of language diversity,we run some of the same risks thatmany multicultural education pro-grams have over the years. That is,we may find ourselves hosting a lit-eracy fair of sorts and spotlighting agiven language variety as the featurepresentation of the day. Althoughsuch an approach seems to be farbetter than ignoring or dismissinglanguage diversity altogether, it canhave the unintended effect of castinglocal literacies as spectacles or sideshows—detours from our main in-struction. We need to be carefulabout how we present language vari-eties so that our students appreciatethem as more than quaint artifactsfrom a cultural bazaar.

Alternatively, we would do well todraw on those theories of languagethat afford more inclusive views oflanguage diversity itself. There isgreat power and possibility, for ex-ample, in Bakhtin’s (1981) claimthat a single utterance holds multi-ple voices—multiple ways of acting,interacting, valuing, knowing, andbeing. Finding real-world illustra-tions of this or other related proper-ties of language (e.g., in JeanLittle’s poem, the Park Bench game,or young adult novels such asFrindle and The Friendship) is asmall step in the direction of broad-ening and deepening our study ofthe literacies within and beyond ourschools’ walls.

Still, such investigations—into how we adopt and adapt differentvoices to accomplish certain social,

213

On the Lookout for Language

We need to be careful about how we presentlanguage varieties so that our students

appreciate them as more than quaint artifacts from a cultural bazaar.

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 213

214

On the Lookout for Language

Language Arts, Vol. 80 No. 3, January 2003

emotional, political, and academicgoals; into whose voices we ventril-oquize and why; and into howvoices serve as resources for achiev-ing a certain status or identity, forarguing against certain values andworld views, or for participating incertain communities—are potentialinroads for students to both valueand learn from the inherent diver-sity of language. Such an approachmight cultivate in students a morecritical and reflective disposition aslanguage users, a disposition that,in my mind, is ultimately necessaryfor overturning deficit approachesto linguistic differences (NewLondon Group, 1996).

Moreover, if we can enrich students’understanding of language itself,then we are that much closer to al-tering their views of what it meansto be competent as language users.For how we define communicativecompetence is ultimately how weposition students’ voices within thecontext of instruction and, in effect,how we treat language diversity.This view of competence is one of-fered by Hymes (1973) and laterelaborated by Cazden (1996). Ac-cording to Cazden, competence in-volves being apPROpriate (e.g.,knowing and producing languagethat is grammatically acceptableand appropriate to the situation), aswell as being able to appropriATE—to adopt and adapt language, selec-tively and strategically, for one’sparticular communicative purposes.As detectives of language studyingthe various historical, political, andsocial forces that shape and areshaped by language, students cometo see the tensions of tradition/invention and constraint/choice thatare always at play in any instanceof language use. The pronoun I, forexample, is both taboo and a re-source. Likewise, the voices of au-

thority figures can be appropriatedand ventriloquized for subversiveends. Moreover, a single word suchas John can be an act of resistanceand self-edification.

For Hymes (1973), competence ismore than grammatical know-how;it involves some degree of resource-fulness and even gameness—beingaware of the rules of the game butalso being plucky enough to re-imagine such obligations as optionsand to deploy those resources, bethey single words, grammatical con-structions, speech codes, or others’voices. Competence, then, assumeslanguage diversity. Committed tosuch views of language and lan-guage competence, teachers mightfind ways to celebrate local litera-cies without privileging standardforms or “restrict[ing] students totheir own vernacular” (Freire andMacedo, 1987, p. 151).

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in thenovel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogicimagination: Four essays by M. M.Bakhtin (pp. 259–422). Austin: Univer-sity of Texas Press. (Original work pub-lished in 1935.)

Cazden, C. B. (1996, March). Communica-tive competence: 1966–1996. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Association of Applied Linguis-tics, Chicago.

Clements, A. (1996). Frindle. New York: Aladdin.

Connors, R. J. (1987). Personal writing as-signments. College, Composition andCommunication, 38(2), 166–183.

Diamondstone, J. V. (1999). Tactics of resis-tance in student-student interaction. Lin-guistics and Education, 10(1), 107–137.

Evslin, B. (1969). The adventures of Ulysses.New York: Scholastic.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power.London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Language awareness:Critical and non-critical approaches. In N.

Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language aware-ness (pp. 31–56). London: Longman.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy:Reading the word and the world. SouthHadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Lan-guage, life, and work in communities andclassrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Hymes, D. (1973). Toward linguistic competence. Texas working papers insociolinguistics, no. 16. Austin: Univer-sity of Texas.

Kaye, C. B. (1985). Word works. New York:Little, Brown.

Little, J. (1990). Today. Hey world, here I am!New York: Harper Trophy.

Meyer, S. L. (1993). Refusing to play theconfidence game: The illusion of reading/writing of texts. College English, 55(1),46–53.

Monahan, M. B. (2001). Raising voices:How sixth graders construct authorityand knowledge in argumentative essays.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rut-gers University.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy ofmultiliteracies: Designing social futures.Harvard Educational Review, 66(1),60–92.

Rosati, A. C. (1990, July). (Dis)placement ofcurrent-traditional rhetoric’s approach ina composition class. Paper presented atthe Conference on Rhetoric and theTeaching of Writing, Indiana, PA.

Taylor, M. D. (1987). The friendship. NewYork: Bantam.

Taylor, M. D. (1987). The gold Cadillac. NewYork: Bantam.

Mary Beth Monahan is an assistant professor of literacy in the Department of Undergraduate Education at Rider University.

Author Biography

LA-JAN2.QXD 11/22/2002 2:23 PM Page 214