Negotiating African American Language,Identity,and Culture in the Urban Classroom

Historical Context

Black students’ current experiences with using AAVE within their classrooms cannot be critically engaged without aligning it with the collective experiences of Black people during the enslavement period. Throughout the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, Black people grappled with maintaining their language, identity, agency, and culture. White colonizers and enslavers violently forced Black people to renounce their indigenous languages and other cultural traditions to assume Eurocentric cultural, psychological, and linguistic doctrine. White enslavers tortured and murdered Black people to sustain white domination, while also terrorizing Black people into accepting this oppressive violence as a normal and necessary process (Holloway, 2010). Despite this white terrorism and imposed hegemony, Black people managed to retain and utilize a wide range of cultural traditions and expressions such as family patterns, religious belief systems, culinary skills, artistic creativities, and languages (West, 2000). Although many Black people preserved such customs through the enslavement period, many feared the effects of white terrorism and therefore suppressed their cultural and linguistic customs to socially and physically survive in a white supremacist country. This same quandary exists for Black Americans today, but instead of assimilating to Standard American English as a means of physical survival on the plantation, it is a means of academic survival within the classroom.

While Black people have a long history with cultural and linguistic oppression in the United States, many Black people have preserved their cultural and communicative traditions by using AAVE. Linguists and cultural anthropologists have agreed with the ethnolinguistic theory that AAVE is a combination of West African language traditions and English vocabularies (Dillard, 1972; Mufwene, 1998). Since Black people were taken from various regions of the African continent from which different tribes spoke different languages, they developed a language that merged the linguistic structures of West African languages and the English language to effectively communicate with one another within the United States. This merging of languages reflects the process of creolization that many African descendants practiced to create new varieties of culture and communication (Dillard, 1972). Additionally, Black people developed multiple linguistic traditions for private and public discourses as a critical means of resistance. For example, enslaved Black people encoded their language when speaking to other Black people so that white enslavers could not comprehend their messages of solidarity and rebellion (Marable, 2007). Similarly, AAVE is an intentional and culturally specific mode of communication that Black people have adopted to express their sentiments and agency both privately and publicly.

Educational Context

While scholars have studied the historical significance of AAVE, others have studied language and culture more broadly in the context of American classrooms. While many educational reformers agree that schools should be a place of social, academic, and intellectual freedom for students, many Black students are confined and subjugated on cultural grounds (Ladson-Billings, 2005; Morris, 2015). For example, students are often penalized for speaking non-standard English within the classroom, which limits their expression and renders many students’ home language subordinate to their teachers’ language (Ladson-Billings, 2005). This type of linguistic and cultural restriction reinforces a white power structure within American school systems that reduces Black students’ self-concept and agency. One reason that educators have prioritized SAE within their classrooms is because it is a means of unifying each American citizen through a common language regardless of background (Delpit, 1992; Smitherman, 1986). This notion suggests that enforcing SAE is not oppressive, but rather serves as a unifying medium for all American students. However, this justification of SAE is culturally oppressive as it only burdens non-white people with the obligation to divest from their language and culture.

Moreover, many people believe that Black students often use AAVE due to their poor social class and lack of education (Dillard, 1972; Smitherman, 1986). This belief conveys to Black students that the communicative tool that they use to navigate and negotiate the world is broken, wrong, and inferior. This notion reflects a larger racist ideology about Black people’s cognitive capabilities; historically, white people believed that Black people were intellectually inferior to them because of genetic differences. These beliefs laid the foundation for attitudes and policies that denigrated Black people such as segregation laws and under-resourced schools (Prendergast, 2003). Therefore, deducing that Black people speak AAVE because they are uneducated or of a lower social status reproduces the white supremacist ideology that Black people are cognitively and genetically deficient simply because they deviate from white norms and standards.

Similarly, other educators have privileged SAE in American schools by connoting that SAE is an academic language while other non-standard forms of English are merely conversational languages that do not belong in academic settings (Martin & Rose, 2007). The notion that non-SAE languages do not belong in academia reinforces a false narrative that AAVE is not used to engage in intellectual and scholarly discourse. However, Black people’s intellectual engagement is not limited to one form of language, which allows AAVE speakers to be just as academically capable as their counterparts who speak SAE. These Eurocentric ideals about Black people and language do not merely limit Black students’ identity expression, but it also limits the ways in which they understand themselves, their agency, and their social position in school and society.

“We Can Barely Speak”

While teachers have sought to foster academic achievement, effective communication, and literacy skills within their classrooms, the ways in which they implement and measure these goals differ per teacher. Teachers have individually and collectively designed lesson plans and modified their pedagogies in ways that privilege their respective educational and personal values. One teacher participant, Ms. Davis, is a white, middle-class 11th-grade English literature teacher who has taught at Anderson High School for 4 years. Ms. Davis’ teaching practices represent the ways in which teachers have prioritized SAE in their classrooms. Ms. Davis states,

“I have my students read challenging texts because I don’t want them to just grasp the content, but I want them to adopt the skills and language these writers use to articulate themselves. So I also correct my students when they don’t use standard English and top-tier language” (Field notes, 2019).

Ms. Davis’ assertion that students should focus on the language through which content is delivered rather than the content itself is indicative of the way she values language. As Ms. Davis suggests, students are compelled to consider authors’ language and terminology as they read challenging texts. However, as students reflect on language within their assigned readings, they are also compelled to reflect on their own language as Ms. Davis corrects their AAVE with SAE. By correcting her students’ language to “standard English and top-tier language,” Ms. Davis suggests that AAVE is an improper way of speaking. Ms. Davis’ notion that AAVE is not top-tier language suggests that there are myriad tiers of languages in which SAE is positioned at the top tier, while other forms of language are relegated to lower ranking tiers. This linguistic hierarchy can have significant implications as it relates to Black students’ social and educational experiences. Specifically, this pedagogical practice leaves Black students feeling limited in their expression and in their content knowledge. One of Ms. Davis’ students, James, reveals this sentiment as he shares his experience within the class:

“I don’t like that I feel like I have to correct myself every time I speak. And we can barely speak without her correcting us. Every time somebody say something, she has to fix what they said. . .We spend so much time on language, that we barely get to understand the actual book that we’re supposed to be reading” (Field notes, 2019).

James’ effort to self-regulate his speech before his teacher demonstrates the constant anxiety around language with which Black AAVE speaking students often face. According to James, he is restricted in his self-expression because he feels compelled to filter and adapt his speech to the satisfaction of his teacher. Morrison (1994) acknowledges this connection between language and speaker when she states, “there are certain things that I cannot say without recourse to my language” (Morrison, 1994, p. 27). Morrison’s assertion resonates with James’ narrative as he is restricted from accessing his language and therefore struggles to effectively convey his thoughts and feelings. This contention demonstrates the ways in which Black students who speak AAVE are compelled to alter their speech in a manner that is suitable for their teachers, leaving them with minimal access to cultural expression and autonomy. Furthermore, James also suggests that the excessive class time spent on language denies him the ability to effectively learn the content of the reading materials. With this assertion, James is not only restricted in his speech, but also restricted in his ability to learn class content. Both Ms. Davis and James’ accounts reveal the ways in which teachers’ classroom objectives and practices can generate contention within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom. Ms. Davis’ emphasis on authors’ language is valuable because it enables students to critically think about language, rhetorical strategies, and syntax in literature. However, teachers should also find ways to implement instructional strategies that welcome these educational opportunities without limiting students’ linguistic customs of expression.

“Nothing Wrong With How I Talk”

Although some teachers emphasize SAE to enhance students’ way of speaking, other teachers have privileged SAE over AAVE to prepare students for their futures. For many Black people, the mastery of SAE is a requisite for successful survival and upward mobility in American society (Smitherman, 1986). From this viewpoint, the pressure placed upon Black students to instinctively speak SAE extends beyond the classroom to ensure basic living and navigating within the larger American society. Thus, educators have propagated SAE within their classroom structure, curriculum, and objectives to prepare students for immediate and long-term success. Ms. Jones, a Black 11th-grade U.S history teacher, exemplifies this approach within her classroom. Ms. Jones asserts,

“I push language in my class because the state exams and SATs they have to take don’t have Black vernacular. If they spoke in the way that they talk with their friends they wouldn’t do well. It’s the same thing in the real world. Whether they go to college or go in the workforce, the reality is that that they’re going to have to speak and write in Standard English to be successful at whatever they end up doing” (Field notes, 2019).

As shown through her reasoning, Ms. Jones immerses her students in SAE as a means of preparing them for successful future endeavors and interactions. Ms. Jones equates mastery of SAE with upward mobility, and she identifies a societal reality that warrants Black people to renounce AAVE and subsequently adopt SAE to become successful. However, it is important to consider that this reality that Ms. Jones describes may not be consonant with the reality that her students currently experience. This opposition is shown within a student participants’ response when asked about his perception of AAVE. Malcolm states, “African American Vernacular English is all I know. It’s how I grew up talking” (Field notes, 2019). Malcolm’s response directly challenges Ms. Jones’ assertion that mastering SAE will prepare them for reality. Although a reality exists in which Black people are burdened with the responsibility of linguistic assimilation, it is not the only reality in which Black people live and know. As Malcolm reasons, his reality has always consisted of the free and fluid use of AAVE, the language to which he has been accustomed to his entire life. Thus, both Ms. Jones and Malcolm’s understanding of language produces an ideological contention in which the societal reality that Ms. Jones describes is inconsistent with Malcolm’s cultural and lived reality. Therefore, if the goal of instructors is to prepare students for success in and out of the classroom, it is important for them to evaluate how students define success for themselves, as well as the cultural realities that students bring with them into the classroom. It is also important to consider the reality of systemic racism that functions to restrict African Americans from obtaining success, regardless of what form of speech they use. With this consideration, the high priority on SAE would be reduced, empowering students to impose their realities in the classroom, and on the larger society in which they live.

Moreover, a personal account from another student participant, Tyra, exemplifies the ways in which AAVE speaking students have resisted such SAE imposition. Tyra affirms,

“I just stop talking, because I know that I’m not going to say what I want to say without being interrupted and corrected. It’s not worth going through all that. Plus, there’s nothing wrong with how I talk” (Field notes, 2019).

Tyra’s statement illustrates the ways in which she refuses to accept SAE as her primary mode of communicating, while also placing value on the AAVE in which she feels most comfortable speaking. By asserting that there is nothing wrong with her language, Tyra affirms that AAVE is a valid and suitable mode of communication, rejecting the widely held notion that AAVE is a deficit language (Rickford, 1999). Moreover, Tyra’s decision to remain silent rather than speak SAE exhibits the ways in which she resists the linguistic hegemony of the classroom to ultimately preserve her identity. Through silence, Tyra communicates her disfavor toward the linguistic status quo that her teacher upholds within her classroom. However, by Tyra using her silence as a strategy of protest, she renders herself vulnerable to further repression. Lorde (2017) challenges silence as an effective form of resistance when she states, “In the cause of silence, each of us draws the face of her own fear of contempt, censure, or some judgement. . .” (p. 83). With this reasoning, Tyra’s silence can be viewed as simply a result of feeling afraid of her teacher’s criticism and disapproval. It is with this self-inflicting silence that Hooks (1994) affirms, “It is, in the end, destructive to withhold or hide speech in secrecy or silence” (p. 64). From this viewpoint, it is more dangerous to suppress one’s voice even as a tactic for resistance. Thus, teachers must empower Black students to use language as a device through which they can amplify their voices opposed to concealing them.

“Sounding White”

Another way in which students have rejected the dominant privilege that teachers assign to SAE is through their racial consciousness regarding language. Specifically, students have identified different forms of language with specific racial identities. For example, many Black students have refused to learn or speak SAE because they view the language as “white folk talk” (Labov, 2001, p. 306). In this way, SAE is often associated with whiteness in the same way that AAVE is associated with Blackness; therefore, Black students’ resistance to SAE may derive from their desire to not sound white. One of the student participants exhibits this view as he reflects on his perceptions of SAE. Mathew states, “When people talk about the way I speak, or when teachers try to correct me, it’s because they want me to talk and sound white. And I’m not white, so I shouldn’t be penalized for not trying to fit into the way that white people talk” (Field notes, 2019). Mathew reveals the ways in which racial classifications of language manifests within the classroom. Mathew associates SAE with the common speech of white people, which prompts him to reject the use of SAE and ultimately embrace AAVE. Moreover, Mathew’s overt rejection of sounding white demonstrates the ways in which he aims to actively maintain and convey his own Black identity within school.

Although Mathew contends that his AAVE is met with opposition and correction, he rejects the expectation of conformity and assimilation that are imposed on Black youth within the classroom and the wider society. This rejection of SAE as a means of rejecting a white identity confirms the notion that when one uses AAVE, one shows a direct connection to a Black identity and experience. Therefore, Mathew’s use of AAVE to express his racial pride correlates with the notion that “speech is more than mere utterances, rather it is also performative in that to say something is to do something” (Austin, 1962, p. 157). In other words, language can function as a social action based on the disposition and intention of the speaker. For Mathew, his use of AAVE is a significant part of how he performs his Blackness. Therefore, Mathew’s intentional decision to communicate in AAVE to proclaim his Black subjectivity highlights AAVE as a cultural and linguistic representation of Blackness. In this way, Mathew’s speech is an illocutionary act in which to speak in AAVE is to exhibit pride in Black identity and culture. Thus, if AAVE is a critical part of Black identity expression as Mathew illustrates, then teachers must recognize AAVE as a cultural device rather than a social impediment. In this way, students such as Matthew can feel socially valued and culturally affirmed without feeling the need to reciprocate contempt for other languages and ways of speaking.

“In My Own Words”

While some Black students have fully resisted their teachers’ SAE imposition, others have reconciled both AAVE and SAE in their classrooms through the process of code-switching. Code-switching is the modification of one’s behavior, language, or appearance to adapt to different social norms and cultures (Krichevsky, 2015). Black students who speak AAVE practice code-switching by alternating between AAVE and SAE depending on the social norms of their environment. Within the classroom, teachers have espoused cultures that privilege Eurocentric ideals of literacy and discourse, which compel Black students to code-switch from AAVE to SAE. However, some teachers grasp the cultural significance of languages and subsequently attempt to teach students SAE by integrating students’ customary ways of speaking. This form of instruction is exemplified through the classroom practices of Ms. Bailey, a Black 11th-grade English Language teacher at Parker High School. Ms. Bailey maintains,

“Something that I really push for my students is expanding their vocabulary. I distribute a list of terms and phrases every week with the informal term or phrase that they may be familiar with on the left-hand side, and the formal version of the term or phrase on the right-hand side. We go over it together in class and discuss the differences in meaning and context” (Field notes, 2019).

Ms. Bailey’s weekly practice of teaching students SAE demonstrates the ways in which she incorporates her students’ most familiar language as a method of teaching. Opposed to other pedagogies of teaching SAE that reject the use of AAVE, this pedagogy makes room for AAVE into the classroom. Ms. Bailey instructs her students to juxtapose the terms and phrases that are used in AAVE with their SAE versions. Instead of using expressions such as correct or incorrect to classify the two languages, Ms. Bailey uses the terms “formal” and “informal” to indicate the contexts in which the juxtaposed languages may be accepted or discouraged. By teaching students to shift their language according to formal or informal settings, Ms. Bailey teaches her students the fundamental practice of code-switching. In this way, Ms. Bailey uses code-switching as an academic tool to equip Black students with the ability to alternate between AAVE and SAE.

Additionally, Ms. Bailey’s students can view their speech as equally important to SAE, which positively shapes their academic experience and self-concept. This sentiment is shown through a personal account of one of Ms. Bailey’s students. John states,

“I like that we get to see how the things we say all the time have other versions that sound more formal but mean the same thing. We all know the meaning of the terms; we just use different words for them. . . It helps me because when I try to use big words in my essays, I think about it in my own words first, and then I remember what the formal version of it is” (Field notes, 2019).

While Ms. Bailey still teaches SAE, John is less resistant toward learning because he can maintain and utilize his language throughout his learning process. John states that when he writes essays, he first considers his primary language, which then helps him to remember the SAE variations. In this way, John could use his own voice and linguistic understandings before adopting SAE. John’s personal account provides insight on how students can possess positive attitudes toward not only their language, but also their overall educational experience when their home language is integrated within the curriculum. Ms. Bailey’s pedagogical choices of teaching language provide students the capacity to expand their knowledge in ways that prompt them to value their voice, culture, and identity in and out of the classroom.