Casey Fichtner

Article Analysis - Ways With Words by Shirley Brice Heath

Social groups approach how children are socialized with language, in different

ways. The expectations of the American academic educational system align with some

of these socialized language choices better than others. Because of this, teachers need

to be aware of, but not categorical, of the ways in which different social groups engage

with and use language to socialize children.

Language differences can be analyzed within the confines of social groups that

speak the same language. Shirley Brice Heath does this in Ways With Words,

comparing the language interaction between adults and children from different socio-

economic and racial backgrounds. Roadville children, who are white and working class,

were socialized to answer questions correctly based on the knowledge adults sought to

teach. This language socialization focused on literal interpretation and correctness. This

resulted in a preference for factual recall of information that can be categorized as right

or wrong. Children from Roadville performed well in lower elementary tasks that

mirrored this language preference. Trackton children, who are black and working class,

were socialized to use language metaphorically, focusing on word play and

performance. Much of their language socialization conflicted with expectations in the

educational setting. Children from Trackton were not familiar with answering questions

that had a predetermined answer. In contrast to both of these social groups, children

labeled as the Townspeople, who were both white and black and from middle class

backgrounds, were socialized to hypothesize and interpret teachable information. They

were asked questions by adults in order to analyze and infer. This provided
Townspeople children with a set of language tools that aligned well with the

expectations of the educational setting.

Differences in language socialization can also be observed among different

language groups. Working class Mexican families, who have immigrated to the United

States, have been observed by researchers to use language as a means for teaching

behavior as it pertains to relationships and roles in the family. Children learn by imitation

with language used to correct rather than to ask and answer questions. Parents use

language to teach by asking questions about behaviors within social contexts. This is

usually not meant to produce a recall of known information. In contrast, Chinese families

socialize children by using language that emphasizes social roles. This use of language

focuses on factual questions and attribution of learning to experts rather than

individuals. Independence is pushed aside to promote a set of adhered to social norms

and ideals.

All descriptions of the different language social groups provide an interesting

analysis into how language is used to shape perspective. It is important to note these

different perspectives in order to understand that the language expectations in a

Western academic setting have their own specific socialized norms. These norms can

conflict with those from other language social groups. This article suggests that

language socialization affects interpretation and understanding of educational language

use. The focus is less on the language itself and more on the socialization through

language, pushing the Weak Sapir Whorf Hypothesis of linguistic relativity into more of

an idea of sociolinguistic relativity. This would suggest that language and culture work

together to affect the way in which students interpret and produce in a second
language. Though no sociolinguistic group should be confined to a specific set of traits,

this insight is relevant to the ways in which we teach language, especially in the context

of the classroom where CALPS mastery is deemed the goal of fluent English-speaking

students.