Language classes in schools should be allowed to use dialects.

Firstly, I do not believe the teaching of dialects in language classes conflicts with the implementation of a standard. In Hong Kong, most schools teach Chinese in Cantonese, but have a separate Putonghua subject. Although the quality of the Putonghua lessons is debatable because of the weight, or lack thereof, allocated, it shows that dialects and the standard can be taught simultaneously.My opponent mentioned that children who were raised to speak both the standard and their native dialect have a linguistic edge over those who don't. I agree with my opponent that there is no doubt as to the benefits which learning the standard variety of a language can bring to many or perhaps most children. However, let us not forget that not all children are gifted with the ability to learn their native dialect and the standard simultaneously. What may be a blessing for some, or most, children can be a curse to others. Many less able children and children with learning problems cannot express themselves in their native dialect, let alone the standard variety.It is necessary to bear in mind that not all children are successful in their learning of the standard variety of their language. In primary school, I learnt Chinese in Putonghua. I had no problems with it, nor did many other students; however, some were incapable even of basic pinyin after six years of constant immersion.It is also important to remember that one's language proficiency in her native dialect deteriorates if she does not formally study her native dialect. A Swedish study shows that bilingual children in Iran did better at school in the beginning, but as they aged, monolingual children overtook the bilingual ones. One of the reasons suggested was that the language which the bilingual children used at home was not used in school, leading to imbalance between the two languages. The children get worse in their native language. (1) If schools cannot teach non-standard dialects, the same situation would occur.I concede the invalidity of my second argument.My opponent also mentioned that the standard language can help build national identity in their citizens. However, the bonds between different people of a country are usually tied ethnically rather than linguistically. For example, the USSR relocated some Koreans in the Russian Far East to Kazakhstan in 1937 and banned the Korean language. Most of these Koreans still identify themselves as Korean even though they do not speak the language. (2) Before the Communist revolution, most non-Northern people in China did not speak the standard variety of Chinese (known by the obsolete term of 'Guoyu' at the time). For example, Liang Qichao's Putonghua was notoriously Cantonese-like. However, this did nothing to prevent the nationalism that arose in China from 1842-1942, which had roots from anti-imperialism.The United States differ from most countries in that the population is composed of people from Europe; they are not natives of America, but European settlers, at the beginning, leading to a greater ethnic diversity, hence the need of a common language to unify them.In fact, pushing the standard language too much can divide the people of a country instead of unifying them. For example, when false rumours spread of the Guangzhou government's intention to abolish Cantonese television channels, many complained that the government was attempting to oppress the Cantonese dialect. This did little to increase harmony in society. Since then, every pro-Putonghua move in Hong Kong has been labelled as anti-Cantonese. (3) This has had, and continues to have, a very negative impact on the relationships between the people of Hong Kong and the Mainland.That also brings me to my third argument: that it is important that the dialects be preserved for the sake of cultural diversity and the preservation of culture. In the above and in Round 2, I have explained how the lack of education about non-standard dialects can have a negative effect on the language proficiency of such dialects. If fewer and fewer people are proficient in a non-standard dialect and the overall level of proficiency among the speakers of that dialect drops, it is only a matter of time before the dialect becomes threatened or even extinct. (4) How would that affect the cultural diversity of a country? Moreover, the preservation of a dialect can assist the study of linguistics and history. Many Southern Chinese dialects are more phonetically conservative than Putonghua is. If they are lost, the reconstruction of older varieties of Chinese would be more difficult. The common phonetic radicals between certain characters would lose their meaning. Some poetry would stop rhyming.The reduction in the number of speakers and the overall level of proficiency also discourages the regulation of dialects. The lack of regulation leads to excessive evolution, and the standard variety may influence the dialects excessively. This may cause the rise of even more dialects.Moreover, while the 'Cantonese oppression' mentioned above was no more than paranoia, what if a standard were really used to oppress the speakers of dialects? What if Hitler had invaded all the Germanic countries, declared the Germanic languages dialects of German, and banned the teaching of Germanic languages (except German) in schools?Finally, I would like to ask my opponent a question. Do northern and eastern Greenlanders do better or worse in written Greenlandic?(1) http://www.thelocal.se...(2) http://lily.wuxinan.net...(3) http://info.wenweipo.com...(4) http://www.cantonese.asia...