Language is always changing, (Berry & Hudson, 1997). The factors that influence these changes are diverse and include things like geography, culture, the influences of other languages, and even time. It is these diverse factors that give rise to the vast array of non-standard English dialects that exist throughout the world. (It should be noted that for the purpose of this paper, though there are some who object to the use of the terms "standard" and "non-standard", these terms are intended to indicate in the first case, a variety of English considered acceptable in scholastic and/or professional settings, and in the second to any other variety. Neither term is intended as any sort of value judgment about language varieties, but rather to indicate those varieties’ relative status in society at large). Very few people speak strictly the Standard variety of English, but dialects exist on a continuum of more standard, less standard, or even super-standard, (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998). Even though there has been a number of claims for years that with new mediums of communication, (radio, TV, Internet, etc.), dialect differences would gradually decrease until everyone spoke the standard variety, a great deal of research on the subject actually suggests the opposite. Language distance is in many cases increasing in varieties of English around the world, as are the number of "standard" world Englishes, (e.g. Adger, 1997; Berry & Hudson, 1997; Wolfram, 2000; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998).

Reflecting on one’s own daily life, it is likely that few people can claim that they have never encountered a non-standard variety of English. Given the sheer volume of variation it is almost inevitable that such variations will have to be dealt with at some point in daily interactions with diverse populations. English communication does not exclusively involve Standard English. It also includes slang and regional and ethnic dialects as well. If the goal in educating English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) students is one of facilitating the ability to communicate effectively, this then begs the question, "Does non-standard dialect have a role to play in English-as-a-Second-Language Education?"

There are very real motivations for teachers to teach Standard English (SE) to ESL students, as well as for students to learn it. Some of these include the fact that most, if not all, testing is done through the medium of SE, the ability to fluently read and write SE is instrumental for academic success in all scholastic disciplines, and the ability to effectively communicate orally in SE is an important factor in the student’s future employability (Johnson, 1999). However, ESL students, particularly if they are members of a community that predominantly favors a socially disfavored variety of Non-Standard English dialect, will also likely experience strong motivation to learn to communicate in the variety of English deemed most appropriate by the local community, (whether that community be regional, ethnic, age group, or otherwise) into which they wish to integrate themselves, (e.g. Coleman, 1997; Hooper, 1994; Malcolm & Konigsberg, 2001; Walqui, 2000). This then seemingly creates a conflict of interest within the student and between the school and the community. Language skills that will be vital to the students’ success academically may be utterly useless in interacting socially with members of their surrogate community to any degree of effectiveness. This conflict has therefore necessitated a reevaluation of ESL teaching practices and attitudes as well as the purposes and goals associated with ESL education.

In this paper the issues of dialect and the ESL student will be addressed. It will examine what exactly is meant by the term dialect as well as consider whether or not nonstandard dialects should be discouraged, tolerated, or actively instructed. In addition the responsibility of the ESL teacher in terms of how non-standard dialects of English are presented, (or whether or not they should be presented at all), will be reevaluated.

Before initiating any intelligent discussion regarding issues of dialect, it is necessary to explain exactly what is meant by the term, especially given the long history of misunderstanding and stigmatization of the concept. Wolfram (2000) asserted, "Few facts of life are more misunderstood by the public than those involving language variation…", (p. 279).A number of these misconceptions will be addressed in this section.

Wolfram and Schilling-Estes described the traditional view of dialect in some detail (1998). They listed four popular perceptions of dialect. These included using dialect to mean 1.) anyone who speaks differently from one’s self, 2.) any variety that contains characteristics that are acknowledged and generally regarded as dialect by the native speakers themselves, and 3.) as some kind of corruption of "proper" English.

The forth view about dialects is one held by dialectologists (and consequently the one held by the author of this paper). This view is that dialects are not corruptions, or unsuccessful attempts at reproducing SE, but rather are logical, ordered, and perfectly valid forms of any language in that they are capable of easily conveying information that is readily understood by another speaker of that dialect, (e.g. Birner, 1999; Fasold, 1999; Hazen, 2001;Wolfram & Christian, 1976; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 1998). In this view dialect is a neutral term that refers to any language variety spoken by a given group of speakers, of which SE is only one of many.

Adger (1997) wrote, "…there is no linguistic reason to prefer one dialect to another…" (p.4). The only thing that makes any standard variety of a language "The Standard" is the political and or social power and prestige of its speakers. The speaking patterns of those who are in positions of influence are given a high status and language varieties that are used by those who come from a group with little political and/or social clout are stigmatized and viewed as deficient. The important point is that what makes a particular language variety either standard or stigmatized has nothing to do with the characteristics of a particular variety itself in terms of structure or logic, but rather its status is determined by the status of the speakers who use it, (Hazen, 2001; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998). Taking the view of a dialect as inferior is not an evaluation of the language variety, but instead it is in effect an evaluation of the speaker according to stereotypical perceptions about various characteristics, (negative or otherwise), associated with a listener’s perceptions of that dialect.

However, even given the fact that virtually everyone doing any valid research remotely involving issues of dialect seemed to agree with this forth view of dialects, negative perceptions persisted. In fact, the most damaging of the four views, (the idea that non-standard dialects were in some way a corruption of SE or were in some way inherently deficient), persisted in the public consciousness and even in areas of educational practice, (e.g. Cazden, 1996; Clardy, Cole-Robinson, Jones & Michie; 2001; Fasold, 1999; Hooper, 1994; TuSmith, 1996; Wolfram, 2000). This was particularly disturbing, especially considering the vital social function that non-standard dialects serve for their populations.

Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1998) wrote, "…ethnic dialects are an important component of cultural and individual identity, (p.115). The authors then went on to say that group membership, whether it is voluntary or not, may take on notions of pride or loyalty to the group. These feelings of membership are then often expressed linguistically either superficially or through the adoption of whole language systems. Languages and dialects are culturally based and represent the different worldviews of the people who speak them, (e.g. Cazden, 1996; Johnson, 1999; Malcolm, 2001; TuSmith, 1996; Walqui, 2000). Hooper (1994) stated, "…every time anyone speaks, they locate themselves to some degree, whether regionally, socially, educationally, or whatever, through their accent and dialect; and that this is at least partly a choice you make as to how you want to be identified," (p10). Thus they are an important medium for expressing particular cultural imagery, identity, appreciations, and/or nuances that either cannot be readily expressed in SE (Coleman, 1997; Malcolm, 2001), or would be inappropriate to express that way, (Hooper, 1994).

Taken all together, the portrait that is painted of non-standard dialects is not as negative as popular perception might indicate. "Dialect" is a word used to describe any variation within a particular language system. This definition includes SE, (e.g. Coleman; 1997; Wolfram & Christian, 1976; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998). Non-standard dialects are separate, logical systems from SE, but are in no way deficient or inferior to the standard structurally. The status of a given dialect is determined not on the merits, logic, or organization of the variety itself, but rather is determined by the status of the speakers. Therefore, any non-standard dialect should be considered as being equally valid as SE. However, "that which should be" and "that which is" are not always the same thing.

That which is ideal is not often equivalent to that which is in actuality. Even though most dialectologists, linguists, etc. have stated unequivocally that structurally, dialects are no better or worse than SE, there is still a great gap between predominant theory and social practice. There can be very real social consequences for using a non-standard dialect in an inappropriate situation or the inability to effectively use SE.

Wolfram and Christian (1976) stated, "Subjective reactions to differences appear to be inevitable. It is a well-attested fact that individuals respond to language patterns evaluatively based on their reactions to social characteristics that various language forms may imply for them," (p.131). Hooper (1994) wrote, "There is…a marked tendency to associate non-standard grammatical features with cognitive and social deficit," (p. 6). Adger (1997) also wrote, "A student’s accurate, insightful contribution to classroom discourse may be devalued when she or he uses vernacular dialect features in speaking," (p.2). These unsupported value judgments then lead to the difficulties that non-standard dialect speakers experience in school, finding quality employment, or just general interaction with speakers of other, more prestigious, language varieties, (Johnson, 1999). These suppositions based on language form are usually inaccurate and always unfair, (ESL teachers in particular should realize that a lack of language knowledge does not equal a lack of intelligence), but no less damaging for being untrue.

Also, there are very real consequences associated with the use of non-standard dialect that are independent of perceptions. Rodekohr and Haynes found that speakers of non-standard dialects, (AAVE was their focus), were often misdiagnosed as language impaired, (2001). They also found that minorities who spoke non-standard English scored significantly lower on standardized tests that used the SE model, than white, SE speaking peers. Johnson (1999) pointed out that SE, "…is the language used to communicate in the business world, and it is used on all types of forms and in most written communications," (p.6). Furthermore, Van Sickle and Blake (2000) noted, "…whatever the explanation/rationale, it would appear that [non-standard] dialect usage has not boded well for a student’s reading comprehension and academic achievement," (p.4,). The question of whether or not giving non-standard dialect speakers a SE based test is fair aside, given that most tests of this type, and indeed the majority of scholastic texts, use a SE base, the non-standard speaker is in fact significantly disadvantaged when confronted by these materials. Therefore, given these very real consequences that are often involved with using a non-standard dialect, the question becomes, "Why teach or even encourage the knowledge of, and certainly the usage of, non-standard dialects?"

The question ending the previous section is in fact not rhetorical. Wolfram and Christian (1976) pointed out that assuming negative bias against non-standard dialects is inevitable is a highly questionable justification for discouraging their use. This assumption functions in effect, to perpetuate such bias. However, this is not the only reason to discount social bias based arguments against non-standard dialect instruction. There are in fact situations that do not lend themselves to the use of SE, (e.g. Berry & Hudson, 1997; Fasold, 1999; Hooper, 1994; Malcolm, 2001;). It is from this quarter that the greater purpose of dialect awareness can be understood.

Rather than achieve the universal goal of communication, which is the facilitation of social interaction, the misuse of SE in an inappropriate situation or with an inappropriate audience can in fact lead to greater social distance, (Hooper, 1994). Bell (1984) wrote that speakers construct a given dialog through "Audience Design". Any given speaker will take into account who his or her audience is when speaking. This includes not only the primary addressee, but also auditors, (people about whom the speaker is aware and who are ratified participants), over hearers, (people about whom the speaker is aware but who are not ratified participants), and eavesdroppers, (people about whom the speaker is unaware, but are listening). All of these participants have an affect on how a given speaker modifies their speech to a greater or lesser degree, becoming more formal or less formal, more standard or more non-standard. Carrier also maintained that language choices were influenced by social context, (1999).

Similar claims were made earlier by Grice, as cited by Davies, in the development of his Cooperative Principle of communication in the mid-seventies, (2000). This principle stated that there was a proscribed way of speaking that was generally accepted as standard behavior. He maintained that when speech was heard, there was an assumption that it would be generally true, contain adequate information, be relevant, and would be stated in understandable terms to the listener. If these standards were violated, rather than assume that a given speech act was nonsense, the listener would assume that some sort of meaning could be inferred, (Grice cited in Davies, 2000). This theory is relevant in that it implied that these standards change from group to group because any meaning conveyed by a given utterance or signal is because there is a conventional link between such a signal and its intended meaning. This meaning was what Grice referred to as "nonnatural" in that there is no natural reason any given sound corresponds to any given meaning, and complements Bell’s theory of Audience Design, (1984).

If a speaker knows what standard of meaning will be understood by a given listener, that speaker is likely to tailor his or her speech to that standard. If the standard is unknown, the listener may imply a meaning that is different from the intended meaning of the speaker based on conflicting standards and resulting in various misunderstandings and miscommunications between and among dialects. For example, if it is assumed that dialect speaker A and dialect speaker B are not familiar with the standards of each others’ dialects, when they converse if speaker A makes an utterance that holds a particular implied meaning in dialect A but not in dialect B, listener B will not be wholly successful in deriving speaker A’s intended meaning. Likewise, if speaker A’s utterance holds an implied meaning in dialect B but not in dialect A, then listener B will imply a meaning that speaker A did not intend. This has the potential to lead to unintended conflict, (or at the very least misunderstanding), between speakers A and B. If both A and B instead are familiar with each others’ dialect, such misunderstandings are less likely to occur. Therefore, the skill with which a speaker learns to switch among two or more varieties of speech is in fact the deciding factor on whether or not a person will be successful in communicating in any given situation, choosing a style of discourse appropriate for that particular setting and audience.

The fact of speaking a non-standard dialect is not detrimental to a given speaker in and of itself. The idea of one dialect retarding development in another is simply false, (Romaine, 1995 cited in Youssef & Carter, 1999; Wolfram & Christian, 1976). In addition, Walqui (2000) also asserted, "learning a second language does not mean giving up one’s first language or dialect," (p. 3). The problem that non-standard dialect speakers (as well as SE speakers in given situations), generally experience then is not reduced cognitive prowess from speaking a deficient dialect, but rather an ignorance of other styles, in this case SE, and a lack of clarity about the cutoff point between the standard and the non-standard.

In an ESL context no one would ever suggest teaching non-standard dialects of English instead of SE. Both standard and non-standard varieties are important to different situations. TuSmith (1996) asserted, "…readers can learn to move from one linguistic field to another…", (p.51). Recent research has even suggested that command of an increased number of varieties of English correlates positively with overall, increased language ability and communicative awareness, (Adger, 1997; Hooper, 1994; Youssef & Carter, 1999). Being able to understand that which is said is a vital skill in communication (Carrier, 1999), and understanding multiple methods of expressing a given utterance improves that ability to comprehend what has been said. Additionally, (perhaps to belabor the point) if a first attempt at communication is unsuccessful it is likely that no further attempts will follow, thus reiterating the importance of multiple communication varieties. Given these findings, it then suggests that studying English language varieties other than just the standard would in fact benefit ESL students.

Dialect awareness has been prominently advocated as an avenue to greater cultural awareness as well, (e.g. TuSmith, 1996; Wolfram, 2000; Youssef & Carter, 1999). A great deal of research has already shown that awareness of popular culture is an important knowledge component for ESL students to acquire that facilitates better communication abilities. Duff (2002) asserted that ESL students must master, "the unfamiliar but pervasive pop-culture symbols and scripts," (p.482) to communicate effectively in social situations. She claimed that an ignorance about pop-culture by such students complicated communication because conversations (particularly among high school students) were heavily laden with pop-culture references. Even though a given ESL student might understand the grammar and vocabulary of any given sentence, comprehension and participation were limited because of a lack of cultural base knowledge.

Non-standard dialects also often function in the same way to complicate communication. They are more than simply a one-for-one translation of SE into another form. Although in this situation the difficulty is not simply subject matter but unfamiliar grammatical, syntactical, and/or lexical items as well, there is also an aspect of cultural base knowledge to certain dialects that may hinder communication irrespective of the language’s structural elements. Although the theory is still somewhat controversial, the Wharf-Sapir Hypothesis may come into play.

As described by Easton (2001) this hypothesis (first espoused by Edward Wharf-Sapir in 1939), basically stated that, "language does not just express thought, but also shapes or influences it to some extent," (p.3). If this is in fact the case, by extension, thought affecting culture, language will also affect culture. Whether or not this assertion is accepted as valid or not, however, there can be little doubt that at the very least the way that certain cultures think about and react to the world is in fact expressed in (if not directly influenced by) their particular unique methods of communication, (Malcolm, 2001; Malcolm & Konigsberg, 2001).

Davis (1999) noted, "…different groups of speakers, although speaking the same language, have different ways of using that language," (p.707). Malcolm (2001) later asserted, "both language and culture derive from a common base in imagery," (p.3). In his research about the difficulties of teaching aboriginal children standard English in Australia, this author went on to describe how the aboriginal variety of English embodied certain values, world view, and imagery that cannot be adequately conveyed with SE. Therefore, in certain uniquely aboriginal social situations, SE is a totally inappropriate means of communication and certain cultural ideas and appreciations, which are clearly evident to the aboriginal speaker, are lost in translation into SE. This view is then reiterated by Malcolm and Konigsberg (2001), in a later paper of a similar vein when they stated, "…the acquisition of a second dialect…involves more than the acquisition of a linguistic system," (p.22). Davies (2000), in her description of Grice’s Cooperative Principle, supported this view in having stated, "…what may seem explicit and obviously clear to the speaker may not be so for the hearer…", (p.6).

Wolfram and his various associates confirmed the idea of the potential value of non-standard dialects in a great number of their works. In Wolfram and Christian’s 1976 work entitled "Appalachian Speech", they warned against what they called a "paternalistic tolerance" of non-standard dialects (p. 133) and claimed that the most important benefit of a knowledge of such dialects was in terms of attitude and learning not to regard speakers of a given variety as inferior in any way. This view later evolved into the proponence of dialect awareness education, (Wolfram, 2000; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998), whereby, students are taught non-standard varieties of English, not necessarily so they become proficient in those varieties, but rather so that they understand that all non-standard dialects have rules, order, structure, and social significance to their speakers. It is hoped that through this sort of education, students will become more culturally aware and sensitive and dispel a number of the popular misconceptions about non-standard dialect mentioned earlier in this paper. These benefits, especially in regard to cultural awareness, need not be limited to traditional, native English speaking students.

As mentioned previously, dialect is often a prominent marker of group affiliation. The inability or unwillingness of an individual to conform to in-group norms, particularly in terms of language, may very likely result in ostracism from that group, (Hooper, 1994). ESL students who then seek to become integrated into this sort of peer group should then be encouraged to use the dialect of that particular group or community to facilitate better social integration… or so it would seem. There are in fact other pitfalls in terms of non-standard dialect usage that must be addressed before a wholehearted endorsement of non-standard dialect education for ESL students can be espoused. These come, rather than from the greater SE speaking community as a whole, instead from the non-standard dialect speaking community itself.

Cooper, in his paper about the use of slang by non-native speakers of English, pointed out that one of the most difficult tasks in becoming proficient in the use of such nonstandard varieties is in determining the appropriateness of the use thereof in various communication situations (2001). (It should be noted that where slang and dialect are not synonymous, they are related in that both are non-standard varieties of language and share some of the same negative perceptions and controversies of usage, and that both have the power to denote group identity.) He noted, "If ESL students learn only formal English, they will have difficulty understanding everyday informal conversation, but the subtleties of using slang in a foreign language are fraught with difficulties…," (pp.62-63). His study went on to find that native speakers, in general, had a more negative impression of foreigners’ usage of non-standard English than the comparable usage by native speakers. Berry and Hudson similarly found that aboriginals were leery about teaching Aboriginal English to SE speaking, white, Australian teachers, (1997), and Malcolm and Konigsberg (2001) maintained that a non-aboriginal using aboriginal English amounted to an "imposition" and that the speaker appeared, "patronizing or imposing," (p.19,).

This all suggested that at least sometimes, an attempt by a perceived outsider to use an in-group form may, rather than mark an attempt at closer integration into the group, constitute an unwanted intrusion. Therefore, care must be exercised in proscribing the actual use of non-standard dialect by ESL students. It should be noted, however, that Youssef and Carter claimed that EFL participants in their particular program eventually acquired an appreciation for the nuances of non-standard dialect through long term emersion, (10 or more years), (1999). However, this still dictates care in the proscription to encourage ESL students to actively use these forms, particularly at the beginner to intermediate levels.

Adger (1997) pointed out that, " The persistent myth of a singular English…", (p.1), has hampered teachers’ abilities to deal with the issues of language variation in the very language that they teach. The prominent research in the area of dialect study advocated the view that dialects were perfectly valid, alternate forms of communication that were different from, but not in any way inferior to SE, with virtual uniformity. The differences in status among dialects were not based on an objective evaluation of any structural element of the variety, but rather on the relative status of the speaker of that dialect in terms of the greater, mainstream society. Dialects were markers of social status and group membership and there were in fact cases where it was inappropriate to use SE, either because of the relative informality of a given situation or because certain ideas and cultural appreciations could not be effectively communicated through that medium. In addition, research has shown that an increased knowledge and awareness of other language varieties correlated positively with overall increased language ability and communicative awareness. All of these factors taken together, it provided a very strong justification to teach non-standard dialects to ESL students, which they might encounter in their daily lives, in addition to SE.

However, there were in fact very real social consequences for the use of socially stigmatized language varieties. These could emanate not only from the SE speaking community but also from the non-standard dialect speaking community as well. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this paper that where express dialect instruction may have the potential to increase an ESL student’s overall English communication ability, especially in terms of increased cultural awareness, teachers should still be careful about proscribing that students actually use these non-standard forms until they reach a level of competency with the English language such that they could begin to appreciate both the nuances of meaning that these forms convey as well as the appropriateness of their usage in a given situation.

This does not imply the discouragement of dialect use however, just not the active proscription of such usage. Adger (1997) also wrote, "…because ESL students interact with vernacular U.S. dialect speakers, they are likely to acquire vernacular dialect features," (p.6). This may be instrumental for these students to integrate themselves with their community. Neither the knowledge nor usage of non-standard forms should be in any way discouraged. Rather, their appropriateness or inappropriateness to given situations should be pointed out as such varieties are encountered.

This paper has made no claims as to the effectiveness of express dialect training with ESL populations in terms of increasing their English communication ability. There is just not enough data as of yet to confidently make such a claim. (It should be noted that where Youssef and Carter reported such findings with ESL students, their study was severely limited by a lack of a control group [1999]). However, the research suggested that such interventions, in addition to traditional SE instruction, have the potential to provide valuable cultural insight to ESL students as well as the ability to function more adeptly in casual situations. Adger (1997) noted, "Language awareness instruction can be particularly beneficial to ESL students in helping them make sense of the variability they hear around them," (p.19). Given this potential, more research on the effects of express, non-standard dialect training on the overall English communication ability of ESL students should be explored as a viable avenue toward greater language competence and sophistication as well as increased cultural awareness.