Response to Lupyan and Rickford

            Lupyan described how depending on how instructions were worded to test subjects, the way in which they drew triangles changed. To quote Lupyan, “language is not just a powerful way of communicating a goal state, but is critically involved in eliciting the representation of the goal state in the first place.” In Rickford’s writing, the cognitive consequences from word choice that Lupyan researched are extended to the African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Academics so easily demerit research that is not in line with what is considered traditional, and it turns out that these topics tend to lead to the most exciting discoveries in the field- as it happened with AAVE.

I found it very interesting how some features in AAVE varied across people’s socioeconomic statuses. For example, while constant cluster simplification showed smoother transitions in prevalence across classes, traits such as multiple negations had larger divisions between classes. In previous readings, we learned about the linguistic world’s view on altering languages, which stated that changing language is neither good nor bad, it’s just language in evolution. I’m undecided when it comes to embracing multiple negations because when context clues aren’t obvious enough it is very easy to mistake what someone means, and the cognitive consequences can be great, as you misunderstand one thing for its exact opposite. However, in my opinion, consonant cluster simplification can be viewed as a neutral modification to Standard English, as it is easy to understand this variation of English with enough exposure, and consonant cluster simplification is prevalent in other variations of English, such as American Indian English.

Yet when you look up constant cluster simplification, search results include many speech therapy sites that label it as a speech impediment. While I understand that in more severe cases constant cluster simplification can become an impediment, I can’t help but wonder if prejudice against minorities is also at play here.

Something very important that can go unnoticed in Rickford’s research is that abysmal difference in academic achievement between schools in Palo Alto and those in East Palo Alto. If anything, it is demonstrated that it is not student’s lack of ability that is the cause of this difference, but the inequality that persists in funding for education in poorer neighborhoods. When courses were taught in “Ebonics”, student’s retention improved, but still had a long way to go to compare to students in Palo Alto. The difference won’t be closed by changing dialects, but by making education in these areas comparable to those in school systems like Palo Alto’s.

I believe that the effect of AAVE as a teaching tool is misunderstood and overblown. I don’t think students “learn” better with AAVE but probably have more fun learning when the classroom environment is more relaxed and the language is more relatable. I’m willing to bet that academic performance would improve just as much if the topics taught were more exciting and relevant to students, rather than teaching in a different dialect of a language.