In an effort to better prepare her college English students for success in the working world, Maxine Hairston asked this question nearly twenty years ago of 101 professional people; for the 84 respondents that returned her questionnaire, the answer was a resounding yes (796). In her survey, Hairston encountered one type of usage error most strongly reacted to -- ones she called "status markers" (796), such as using double negatives or non-standard verb choices. The next level of significant negative responses was mechanical errors such as sentence fragments, run-on sentences, and incorrect subject-verb agreement (797). Apparently, little has changed in the years since Hairston’s survey; contemporary research conducted in the Spring of 1999 by Dr. Johanna Rubba and her Modern English Grammar class has revealed several parallels to Hairston’s work.

Usage still matters. A significant percentage of respondents (approximately two-thirds) are still bothered by mechanical errors, but the highest intolerance once again concurs with Hairston’s work: Of the 208 respondents to Dr. Rubba’s survey, 90 percent reacted strongly to dialect differences, or what Hairston calls "status markers." This number is significantly higher compared to the 68 percent bothered by variations in the standard dialect. Why is one type of usage error more strongly opposed than another? According to Dr. Rubba, at least in this case, the answer is clearly social prejudice (112).

These "status markers" are little more than dialect differences that have come to represent the "out-groups" of society. Speakers of these dialects, speakers of "bad English," are subjected to language-based prejudice not unlike other forms of prejudice our society has worked to free itself from (112). So just who and what decides which is "good" and which is "bad" English? Rubba states:

Educators, being human, are disposed to the same language-based stereotypes and prejudices as the rest of the population; whether these stereotypes are perpetuated or remediated weighs heavily upon the backs of educators. The speakers of non-standard dialects may be perceived as less capable or less intelligent based not on what they say, but on how they say it (Edwards 29). This bias can, and often does, negatively effect the expectations a teacher has for children speaking dialects other than the standard (Delpit 58; Edwards 28). The link between teacher expectations, the dialect spoken, and student achievement has been clearly shown in studies including that of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968); Seligman, Tucker and Lambert (1972); Choy and Dodd (1976); and Granger, Mathews, Quay and Verner (1977) (qtd. in Edwards 28-29). The inherent danger to students is evident: if students’ abilities are incorrectly appraised because of language-based (or other) prejudice, those students may be taught differently, challenged less, and consequently be denied the same educational and life opportunities as their peers who speak the ‘standard dialect’ (Edwards 28; Delpit 58). What can teachers do to prevent this?

The language a student carries through the classroom door is more than just ‘good’ or ‘bad’ English; it is a connection to their community, their family, and their own identity (Delpit 53; Rubba 117). To discredit their language is to discredit their culture (117). It is however, important for these diverse students to learn standard English; according to Lisa Delpit in Other People’s Children: "…students who do not have access to the politically popular dialect form in this country, that is, Standard English, are less likely to succeed economically than their peers who do" (53). Delpit’s assertion here is credible; both Hairston’s and Rubba’s research points to the importance of dialect differences and mechanical errors in business and academic realms. Is it possible then to teach students standard English and still maintain a respect and appreciation for their non-standard dialects? Linguists such as Delpit and Rubba say it is not only possible, it is imperative (Delpit 54; Rubba 119).

Delpit gives many suggestions for teaching standard English to diverse populations. Among the most important aspects of teaching this population is to decrease the chances of a mental shutdown -- a raising of what Krashen calls the "affective filter" (qtd. in Delpit 50). This occurs when a student is repeatedly corrected, does not identify with the speaker, or is nervous about "getting it right"(50). If the students are given the chance to explore this new code of speech in non-threatening, realistic, and exciting ways, the affective filter can be kept down (54). In addition, Delpit suggests the use of writing as a forum for exploring standard English, doing in-class role playing, and having discussions about the origins of ‘standard’ and ‘nonstandard’ dialects (53, 61). Finally, Delpit encourages us to have a "mental set for diversity" (68).

This "mental set for diversity" must be more than simple acceptance of diverse dialects, discourse styles, and ways of learning; it must embrace and celebrate the very people that bring that diversity to our world. Research of English usage errors such as that by Hairston and Rubba can increase our awareness of language-based prejudices in our society and in ourselves. What we do with that awareness is what will truly make the difference.

Usage does matter.

-Delpit, Lisa. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press, 1995.
-Edwards, John R. "Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers." Attitudes
towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. Eds. Ellen Bouchard Ryan and Howard Giles.
Edward Arnold, 1982.
-Hairston, Maxine. "Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage." College English (43) Vol. 8, December 1981: 794-799.
-Rubba, Johanna. "Good and Bad English." True Grammar. San Luis Obispo: El Corral Publications, 1999.