In order to debunk the language gap ideology promoted by Hart and Risley (1995), a course of action that differs from the traditional approach in educating children from lower social economic statuses (SES) must be generated. Eric J. Johnson, the author of Debunking the “Language Gap,” outlines the misguided beliefs and assumptions of the word gap that has been expressed by Hart and Risley. The underlying assumption about the word gap is the concept of how a 30 million word gap exists between higher and lower income children. My aim is to provide evidence for why Eric J. Johnson holds this language ideology to be falsifiable. I will provide this evidence through discussing how the view of language in poverty is false, how Hart and Risley’s
…show more content…
In education, teacher and student interactions is needed for language usage and thought processes in a school setting. Language discourse used in a home setting plays a part in how they are utilized in a school setting. Children benefit from integrating their language interaction processes from a home into a school setting where teachers share similar language ideologies in comparison to children who do not share these similar ideologies. Johnson also emphasizes how family interactions with children play a role in developing a language construct for the child. Social expectations are primed into a child when they start to learn more complex language during infancy. Although Johnson focuses on teacher and family-to-child interactions, views on child-to-child communication or nonfamily caregivers are not considered. During infancy, different linguistic influencers may surround a child as they continue to develop. For example, if a child is in daycare more so than being around their biological parents, perhaps a neighbor, nanny or daycare teacher may influence the child’s language capabilities. Being social with other children in a daycare setting can also enhance the way a child views or uses …show more content…
The positive language patterns in lower income families are not given as much attention as unfamiliar language ideologies that are considered “standard.” Different cultures abide by various sets of language constructs. Just as an American may believe in one Standard English, different cultures exhibit various dialects of English. Johnson considers SES challenges that lower income children may face, therefor he opposes the view of those children being labeled as inferior. He also believes that it is vital to take a course of action that differs from the standard approach (Johnson, 2015). I personally agree with Johnson’s view of the language gap ideology as being false. Cultural differences is important in establishing a set princible of how education including language should be taught. There is a difference between an academic environment and a home environment. Children who may not be used to anything but a home environment could be set to face challenges and a language deficiency. However, I do not believe that this is the only problem that we are facing. As stated before, nonfamily member caregivers, nanny’s or daycare teachers also affect a child’s language learning. Making sure that the education systems are aware of the language gap flaw is a
In education, teacher and student interactions is needed for language usage and thought processes in a school setting. Language discourse used in a home setting plays a part in how they are utilized in a school setting. Children benefit from integrating their language interaction processes from a home into a school setting where teachers share similar language ideologies in comparison to children who do not share these similar ideologies. Johnson also emphasizes how family interactions with children play a role in developing a language construct for the child. Social expectations are primed into a child when they start to learn more complex language during infancy. Although Johnson focuses on teacher and family-to-child interactions, views on child-to-child communication or nonfamily caregivers are not considered. During infancy, different linguistic influencers may surround a child as they continue to develop. For example, if a child is in daycare more so than being around their biological parents, perhaps a neighbor, nanny or daycare teacher may influence the child’s language capabilities. Being social with other children in a daycare setting can also enhance the way a child views or uses …show more content…
The positive language patterns in lower income families are not given as much attention as unfamiliar language ideologies that are considered “standard.” Different cultures abide by various sets of language constructs. Just as an American may believe in one Standard English, different cultures exhibit various dialects of English. Johnson considers SES challenges that lower income children may face, therefor he opposes the view of those children being labeled as inferior. He also believes that it is vital to take a course of action that differs from the standard approach (Johnson, 2015). I personally agree with Johnson’s view of the language gap ideology as being false. Cultural differences is important in establishing a set princible of how education including language should be taught. There is a difference between an academic environment and a home environment. Children who may not be used to anything but a home environment could be set to face challenges and a language deficiency. However, I do not believe that this is the only problem that we are facing. As stated before, nonfamily member caregivers, nanny’s or daycare teachers also affect a child’s language learning. Making sure that the education systems are aware of the language gap flaw is a