Examining 'Living Language' in the Classroom?

A few years back, I watched a series of video lectures on the history of language.  Call me an English dork if you will, but I found it fascinating.  I loved the concept of language as a living, evolving entity rather than a set of iron-clas rules.  It gave me such a better understanding of the development of alternate forms of Standard English such a African American Vernacular.

I was therefore very excited when David West Brown references the evolution Standard English in his book In Other Words: Lessons on Grammar, Code-Switching and Academic Writing.  The fact that there was a period of time when scholars found Standard English to be "insufficient to communicate the profound ideas of the day" (xvii) was fascinating.  Introducing this concept of language as an adaptive, evolving entity cold possibly help them avoid feelings of inferiority surrounding their own natural vernaculars when making corrections to Standard English.

My excitement was slightly dampened by a line of thinking that occurred in today's class, though.  Would the fact that the CCSS are so focused on products and skills rather than mental and developmental exercises would make it difficult to justify a study of outdated and irrelevant forms of the language.

Upon taking a closer look at the Standards, I searched for a standard that could be used to justify such an examination of linguistic history.  The closest I was able to come was Language standard 3, which states:
3. Apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts, to make effective choices for meaning or style, and to comprehend more fully when reading or listening.

Then, when taking a look at the more specific tasks, it did not seem to relate at all.  The 9-10 grade level band states that the standard is:
a. Write and edit work so that it conforms to the guidelines in a style manual (e.g., MLA Handbook, Turabian’s Manual for Writers) appropriate for the discipline and writing type.

The 11-12 grade level band describes the standard as the following:

a. Vary syntax for effect, consulting references (e.g., Tufte’s Artful Sentences) for guidance as needed; apply an understanding of syntax to the study of complex texts when reading.


Both specific standards are clearly geared toward the production of a writing component, rather than an understanding of language.  Indeed, the focus of the CCSS on production rather than understanding, while admirable in many ways, does limit certain academic pursuits such as a study of the history of language, if only be not placing a clear priority on the matter.  This does not mean that the Standards movement has not improved Reading and Writing Instruction overall, but it is something to consider that while prioritizing essential skills, certain non-essential knowledge that is valuable nonetheless will inevitably fall by the wayside.