# Ebonics: a bad idea becomes a horrible reality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062 "2005-07-18T23:15:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![liberty3701](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@liberty3701](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberty3701)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/301 "2005-07-22T02:18:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks. Now I understand why we were both so confused with the other. That link, like many of the others, were borne of the movement in Oakland ten or so years ago. And while it does a good job of both explaining ebonics in general and how it applied to Oakland, I didn’t see it as pertaining to what may or may have not been proposed in San Bernardino in 2006. I was more focused on the methodology they were going to use. And the passage I focused on has since been disclaimed by the School District there. I think it’s safe to say, that if anything is happening in San Bernadoo, it’s similar if not the same as what they were planning to do in Oakland. The day that a school wants to teach in AAE is probably around the same day hell freezes over. No one, to my knowledge, has ever seriously considered teaching in AAE, except maybe in a charter-type school of all AAs. But, I agree, it’s best to have facts before talking of fire and brimstone … ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/302 "2005-07-22T02:38:26Z")
> [@liberty3701](#): > > .Still not clear on what you call sloppiness/laziness. From my rosy linguistic outlook, it’s merely variation in pronounciation … Calling it lazy is a value judgement; it implies the people don’t care or are too stupid or, well, too lazy to speak “right.” I, too, am quite tired of this, so this will be my last comment on this particular topic. I am not making the value judgement. I seems that you are. The laziness I talk about is benign, every bit a part of the human condition as fallibility. It has nothing to do with stupidity, and may or may not be tied to caring, depending on the instance. As far as my “no” turning into “naw”, etc. I do attribute this to "laziness on my part. For one, it takes more work for me to finish the long “o” sound (the mouth has to close and the end as I aspirate). Not so with “naw” or “nah”. Plus, I’m more likely to do this when I am tired. Thanks for your input. Sleep well. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/303 "2005-07-22T03:40:45Z")
> [@](#): > > I would also be curious how they would categorize the inclination of some young African-Americans to use “Ize” instead of “I”, as in “Ize headin’ over to the football game.” or Ize be headin’ to the bank." Is it a modified contraction of “I is”? And is that slang or part of the dialect? Given that the construction (sometimes written “I’se”) has shown up in attempts to transcribe black speech to print going back _at least_ as far as Mark Twain and Joel Chandler Harris, I would say we have pretty good evidence that it is a feature of AAVE. As to its origin, I am not sure. It might be “I is” or it might have come from some other construction. As to your “laziness,” I suspect that if you check among all the people among whom you grew up, they would demonstrate exactly the same “laziness.” On the other hand, someone who grew up in a different area (or class) might say “nope” instead of “naw” and “gwinta” instead of “gonna.” The fact that people from the same region/class are “lazy” in _exactly the same way_ indicates that it is not really laziness. Rather, you were taught SAE in school as the “best” way to speak in a formal setting while learning to speak the familiar dialect of your peers before you ever entered school and you are able to successfully perform code-switching between your native dialect and (your understanding of) the formal dialect. I do not recall John Kennedy ever saying “Cuba” or “car,” using the _Bahston_ pronunciations “Cuber” and “cah” throughout his career. Was a man who exerted as much energy as he obviously did in preparing speeches lazy? Or was his speech, even when intending SAE, shaped by his regional dialect? I suspect, for example, that when you are being “lazy” you do not pronounce “ask” as “aks.” If “aks” is simply lazy pronunciation, then you should probably fall back on that pronunciation, as well. The fact that you do not is an indication that your dialect does not happen to support that pronunciation. These are the reasons that linguists tend to NOT characterize speech as “lazy” (and, I suspect, if you re-read through the links that I first provided, you will find that no proponent of linguistinc theory ever discussed “lazy” speech and that those who did discuss “laziness” were coming from the opposite perspective). ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/304 "2005-07-22T04:00:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Dialect seems to be regional. When I went to school in Wisconsin i was introduced to a “bubbler” (water fountain) and was offered a “pop” (soda). In Hawaii, a coworker “got into a big beef” (fight) in a bar. In Texas, I don’t know how my friends got anything done, as they were always “fixin” to do it. Then there was, of course, “Y’all” and the more formal “You all”. > > Slang, I think points to word or phrase substitution. When we want our group to starting heading to the movie, we might say. “Let’s book.”, “Let’s roll.”, or “Let’s get a move on.” When in highschool, if we had a really cold day we used to say “the hawk was out”. Why? I haven’t a clue, but I think that came from the black kids. IANAL(inguist), but I can comment on this. Most of those examples are word substitution. Bubbler = fountain, pop = soda (though the [American Soda Council](http://www.sodacouncil.org) might disagree! ;)), beef = fight, fixing = planning/going, book = roll = go. Dialect can include changes in grammar, too. For example, in the south you might hear “I might should” instead of “maybe I should” - that dialect allows more than one auxiliary verb. In AAVE, you might hear the various verb forms that have mentioned in the thread, like she be talkin’ on the phone = she is always talking on the phone. Slang seems to me more of a deliberate affectation. You explicitly choose to use slang to identify yourself as part of a group, or to set yourself apart from another group, by using phrases that not everyone will understand. Eventually, they get widespread enough that they aren’t really slang anymore, they’re just words - even the stodgiest boardroom audience knows what “cool” and “joint” mean. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/305 "2005-07-22T04:10:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > (and, I suspect, if you re-read through the links that I first provided, you will find that no proponent of linguistinc theory ever discussed “lazy” speech and that those who did discuss “laziness” were coming from the opposite perspective). I’m sure you will appreciate that I cannot ascribe to the first part of your statement. It may very well be true, but all the proponents of linguistic theory exposed through your threads does not equal all proponents of linguistic theory. I do agree that when they mentioned “laziness” they were discounting the idea–180 degrees away from my position. I brought it up not to support my position, but only to point out to the formidable John Mace, and others, that I did not inject the concept into the debate. I believe a fair look at the exchanges will show that I merely took the opposing side of an issue that was already on the table–in fact, introduced by Mr. Mace. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/306 "2005-07-22T04:21:34Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Because at some point, repeating oneself and repeating what other people have said seems like an abuse of the board and a waste of time. But that’s repeating yourself. You could have done so and answered the question at the same time, but–never mind, I won’t repeat myself. > [@](#): > > Yeah, it’s feel-good PC lefty nonsense that’s responsible for our societal problems. It warms my heart to see that we can disagree on the small issue regarding San Bernardino and still have common ground. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/307 "2005-07-22T04:26:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m sure you will appreciate that I cannot ascribe to the first part of your statement. It may very well be true, but all the proponents of linguistic theory exposed through your threads does not equal all proponents of linguistic theory. Sorry. I thought that my meaning, which agreees with yours, was clear in context. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/308 "2005-07-22T05:02:30Z")
> [@liberty3701](#): > > That’s a great way to put it, and I feel negligent now that I didn’t say it before. It’s almost like we were speaking two different dialects, prescriptivist and descriptivist. As a descriptivist, I don’t believe anybody speaks “incorrectly,” which is different than they way a prescriptivist would use the word “incorrectly.” See how easy it is for two speakers of dialects that sound similar to get confused? > > Of course, in my world view at least, these aren’t dialects because, dammit, prescriptivism is incorrect! But, of course, that’s why I’m a linguist and not an English teacher. In reading some of the posts over, I think much of the problem I’ve been having is given light by this one. The concept of wrong has no place in linguistics, or in liberty3701’s strain of it, because it merely _describes_ what the language is and then ascribes general rules to it based on what is actually spoken. So, even if all the describing up until a certain point creates guidelines A, B, C, D, and E, and then someone’s speech falls outside those guidelines, they just expand the guidelines to include F, G, and H. It’s like a puddle and its boundary. The boundary defines the puddle until more rain falls, which creates a new boundary. And that makes sense, because they are simply trying to define it for the sake of understanding it. If that is right, from my standpoint, it is not fair for this “science” to claim that a certain behavior is either wrong or not wrong. It embraces no concept of correct/incorrect. _Nothing_ can ever be incorrect. That leads me to think the main disagreement I have with many is easily summed up in the question: "Are there any objective criteria for speech other than whether or not one can accurately communicate their intention, or are all judgments outside that criterion purely subjective. No need to respond to any of this. I was just ironing my thinking out on the keyboard. Maybe others will be helped by this observation, as I have. maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/309 "2005-07-22T05:43:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That leads me to think the main disagreement I have with many is easily summed up in the question: "Are there any objective criteria for speech other than whether or not one can accurately communicate their intention, or are all judgments outside that criterion purely subjective. I presume your answer is yes, and if so, I’m curious to see what other objective criteria you believe there are. I think most mispronunciations and grammatical errors actually do make it harder to accurately communicate your intention, because they violate the rules your audience expects speech to follow. Speaking a different dialect–a different set of rules–will make it harder to communicate with people who don’t use those rules, but easier to communicate with people who do; knowing both sets of rules makes it easy to communicate with both audiences. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/310 "2005-07-22T06:24:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The concept of wrong has no place in linguistics, or in liberty3701’s strain of it, because it merely _describes_ what the language is and then ascribes general rules to it based on what is actually spoken. Almost. Descriptivist linguists _do_ describe linguistic rules that speakers of a shared language follow, and it’s perfectly appropriate to say that speech in that language that doesn’t follow those rules is wrong. However, when a group of speakers deviates from a given rule in some systematic way, the descriptivist linguist won’t say that they’re breaking the first rule, but rather that they’re following a second rule. The descriptivist does not think that there is any “wrong” set of rules. But given a particular set of rules that a specified set of people follow, there can be “wrong” utterances. That’s why **liberty3701** can say of white kids who pick up snippits of AAVE that they often get it wrong - it’s not that they aren’t successfully communicating with their peers. They are, and in that sense they’re correctly speaking in their own slang. But they’re not correctly following the rules that most speakers of AAVE follow. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/311 "2005-07-22T06:44:10Z")
> [@](#): > > So, even if all the describing up until a certain point creates guidelines A, B, C, D, and E, and then someone’s speech falls outside those guidelines, they just expand the guidelines to include F, G, and H. It’s like a puddle and its boundary. The boundary defines the puddle until more rain falls, which creates a new boundary. And that makes sense, because they are simply trying to define it for the sake of understanding it. > > If that is right, from my standpoint, it is not fair for this “science” to claim that a certain behavior is either wrong or not wrong. It embraces no concept of correct/incorrect. Nothing can ever be incorrect. Not really. In order to incorporate features F, G, and H, the linguist would have to find a _pattern_ of those features occurring regularly in the dialect. Note that we have already pointed out that suburban kids who use _phrases_ from AAVE do tend to get them “wrong,” not because the kids are from the wrong portion of society, but because they repeat phrases outside the _rules_ for AAVE. Note, also, my earlier example: > [@](#): > > If I were to say to my child, “Go across the room and bring me this pillow.” I am pretty sure the kid would be confused. “This” implies a closer object where the farther object would typically be identified using “that.” By introducing confusion, I would have committed an error. ---
**Author:** ![dps\_reality](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/258eb7/32.png) [@dps\_reality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dps_reality)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/312 "2005-07-22T08:29:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > are all judgments outside that criterion purely subjective. Yes, but said subjectivity does not imply that they are meaningless. All of our laws are decided upon using subjective judgements, but they serve an important purpose. It’s perfectly consistant to say that something is both subjective and useful. That’s why no one is suggesting that we teach Ebonics in place of Formal English. It’s also why one can say that there’s “no wrong English” without implying that there are “no wrong answers”. There are tons of wrong answers, depending on which set of subjective standards you are trying to teach. Picture little johnny, who was raised on Ebonics. His parents and grandparents and friends and folk heroes all speak Ebonics. Johnny is being taught Formal English in a school district that assumes Ebonics to be a legitimate dialect and uses it as a teaching tool where appropriate. He’s taking a multiple choice test. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS CORRECT? A: my grandpa aint got no legs B: my grandpa doesn’t got legs C: my grandpa doesn’t have no legs D: my grandpa has no legs Johnny answers A. "WRONG, JOHNNY. ‘Aint’ is a word common in Ebonics but not in Formal English. In Formal English when we want to say ‘aint’ we use the expression ‘do not’, ‘am not’ or ‘does not’, or a contraction. remember last week when we learned contractions? Johnny’s got this one, answers B. “WRONG, JOHNNY. Both Ebonics and Formal English have a wide variety of acceptable uses of the word ‘got’. The difference is that, in Formal English, we dont use ‘got’ for a condition or posession that’s permanent. You might say that you ‘got a car’ for your birthday, but now you ‘have a car’.” Johnny thinks about it, answers C. “WRONG, JOHNNY. Notice that the ‘nt’ part of ‘doesn’t’ is short for ‘not’, but then you say ‘no legs’. That’s called a double negative. In Ebonics this is often used for emphasis, but you know what? In Formal English it actually means that your grandpa HAS LEGS! allow me to explain …” Three wrong answers, all without having to tell him that he, his family and his peer group are **ALWAYS WRONG ALL THE TIME** when they use Ebonics. Instead, Johnny will learn why and how and when and where Formal English is considered more appropriate than Ebonics and vice-versa. You seem to think that such an approach will embolden Johnny to try using Ebonics in inappropriate situations. I think the opposite. Absent any evidence it would seem that reasonable people can disagree about this but please dont equivocate the legitimization of Ebonics and some supposed liberal-feel-good-kumbaya theory that there is no wrong answer to any question. PS - I always thought Ebonics was a pretty cool-sounding word. Did it get stigmatized while I wasn’t paying attention? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/313 "2005-07-22T09:25:02Z")
**magellan01** , keep in mind that dialect involves not only word choice, but also pronunciation. A Southern drawl and a Maine accent are equal and “standard” English can be spoken in both. Regarding your comment on the interview Carrie Secret: {quote]And while it does a good job of both explaining ebonics in general and how it applied to Oakland, I didn’t see it as pertaining to what may or may have not been proposed in San Bernardino in 2006. I was more focused on the methodology they were going to use. And the passage I focused on has since been disclaimed by the School District there. [/quote] Do you have any reason to think that the basic purpose of teaching Ebonics will change? (Methodology often varies from teacher to teacher. Or even the same teacher will change methods if one is not working well.) I thought that you were interested in the objectives and goals of the program. This interview does speak to your concern about teaching students to use language appropriate for the workplace when their schooling is finished. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/314 "2005-07-22T14:30:47Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Do you have any reason to think that the basic purpose of teaching Ebonics will change? (Methodology often varies from teacher to teacher. Or even the same teacher will change methods if one is not working well.) I thought that you were interested in the objectives and goals of the program. This interview does speak to your concern about teaching students to use language appropriate for the workplace when their schooling is finished. I thought we all were in agreement on the primary goal: to give kids the SE skills they would need as their circle of interaction broadened. My disagreement was more the the methodology, which I took the article to “clearly state” was going to be using AAVE to teach the children their subjects. Evidently this is, at the very least, a reasonable reading of the article, as the school board felt the need to disassociate themselves from the statement in its entirety. You seemed to be somewhat amazed how I cold extract that meaning, especially in light of the interview you supplied. I was simply saying I discounted it because it was not a direct refutation of what was happening ten years later. It seems very likely that the goals cold be identical, but the methodology different. It seems that just as their are differeing methodologies used to teach kids from Mexico, Hungary, and China, that those same methodolgies would be on the table in the desire to teach AAVE kids. Sorry about this lomg-winded explanation. But it’s early. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/315 "2005-07-22T14:35:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Not really. In order to incorporate features F, G, and H, the linguist would have to find a _pattern_ of those features occurring regularly in the dialect. That is my understanding, as well. I must not have communicated it clearly. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/316 "2005-07-22T14:53:13Z")
> [@dps reality](#): > > Johnny answers A. > "WRONG, JOHNNY. ‘Aint’ is a word common in Ebonics but not in Formal English. In Formal English when we want to say ‘aint’ we use the expression ‘do not’, ‘am not’ or ‘does not’, or a contraction. remember last week when we learned contractions? > > Johnny’s got this one, answers B. > “WRONG, JOHNNY. Both Ebonics and Formal English have a wide variety of acceptable uses of the word ‘got’. The difference is that, in Formal English, we dont use ‘got’ for a condition or posession that’s permanent. You might say that you ‘got a car’ for your birthday, but now you ‘have a car’.” > > Johnny thinks about it, answers C. > “WRONG, JOHNNY. Notice that the ‘nt’ part of ‘doesn’t’ is short for ‘not’, but then you say ‘no legs’. That’s called a double negative. In Ebonics this is often used for emphasis, but you know what? In Formal English it actually means that your grandpa HAS LEGS! allow me to explain …” > > Three wrong answers, all without having to tell him that he, his family and his peer group are **ALWAYS WRONG ALL THE TIME** when they use Ebonics. Instead, Johnny will learn why and how and when and where Formal English is considered more appropriate than Ebonics and vice-versa. > > You seem to think that such an approach will embolden Johnny to try using Ebonics in inappropriate situations. I think the opposite. Absent any evidence it would seem that reasonable people can disagree about this but please dont equivocate the legitimization of Ebonics and some supposed liberal-feel-good-kumbaya theory that there is no wrong answer to any question. > > PS - I always thought Ebonics was a pretty cool-sounding word. Did it get stigmatized while I wasn’t paying attention? We are 99.99% in agreement. If I were King I would mandate exactly what you’ve said with the minor exception of omitting the usage of the word “ebonics”. It would accomplish the exact same goals as your method, but wouldn’t move to “legitamize” a dialect as a language. I was taught that “ain’t” might be fine on the playground, but not in school, where we were expected to learn SE. As you say, reasonable people can disagree on this. To your last point, I think that they’re are people out there that believe that there is no "wrong’ when it comes to ebonics, are other topics as well. I think a reread of the read will bare that out. Interestingly, I heard last night on TV that there is a bit of an uproar somewhere over in England. Evidently, a school adminstrator-type wants to abolish the possibility of “Failing” and replace it with “Success Deferred”, I think that’s the phrase they used. There does exist what I would call an over-coddling loony left that believes in this philosophy, and even that kids can’t get math problems “wrong”. I thiink/hope that this is an extreme fringe and didn’t mean to paint all supporters of ebonics with that loopy brush. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/317 "2005-07-22T14:56:11Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > The descriptivist does not think that there is any “wrong” set of rules. But given a particular set of rules that a specified set of people follow, there can be “wrong” utterances. Thank you. I wish this simple, self-evident admission would have been offrered by someone a day or two ago. ---
**Author:** ![liberty3701](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@liberty3701](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberty3701)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/318 "2005-07-22T15:13:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m sure you will appreciate that I cannot ascribe to the first part of your statement. It may very well be true, but all the proponents of linguistic theory exposed through your threads does not equal all proponents of linguistic theory. Yes, yes it does. I’m really not some crazy extreme linguist when I say the things I do. No, I don’t speak for all linguists, but I’m pretty sure every linguist would agree with most of what I said. One of the first things you learn in any linguistics class are the same things I’ve been saying here: Everyone speaks a dialect. No dialect is “better” than another. No language is “better” than another. All human language is inherently logical and consistent. Here is a statement from the Linguistic Society of America (which is not some left wing loony bin) about the Oakland ebonics controversy: > [@](#): > > ``` > a. The variety known as "Ebonics," "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE), and "Vernacular Black English" and by other names is systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties. In fact, all human linguistic systems--spoken, signed, and written--are fundamentally regular. The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years.Characterizations of Ebonics as "slang," "mutant,""lazy," "defective," "ungrammatical," or"broken English" are incorrect and demeaning. > > b. The distinctionbetween "languages" and "dialects" is usually made more on social and political grounds than on purely linguistic ones. Forexample, different varieties of Chinese are popularly regarded as "dialects,"though their speakers cannot understand each other, but speakers of Swedishand Norwegian, which are regarded as separate "languages," generally understand each other. What is important from a linguistic and educational point of view is not whether AAVE is called a "language" or a"dialect" but rather that its systematicity be recognized. > > c. As affirmed in the LSA Statement of Language Rights (June 1996), there are individual and group benefits to maintaining vernacular speech varieties and there are scientific and human advantages to linguistic diversity.For those living in the United States there are also benefits in acquiring Standard English and resources should be made available to all who aspire to mastery of Standard English. The Oakland School Board's commitment to helping students master Standard English is commendable. > > d. There is evidence from Sweden, the U.S., and other countries that speakers of other varieties can be aided in their learning of the standard variety by pedagogical approaches which recognize the legitimacy of the other varieties of a language. Fromthis perspective, the Oakland School Board's decision to recognize the vernacular of African American students in teaching them Standard Englishis linguistically and pedagogically sound. > > ``` > > Chicago, Illinois > January 1997 from [http://www.cal.org/ebonics/wolfram.html](http://www.cal.org/ebonics/wolfram.html) ---
**Author:** ![liberty3701](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@liberty3701](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberty3701)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/319 "2005-07-22T15:14:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thank you. I wish this simple, self-evident admission would have been offrered by someone a day or two ago. I thought I did say that. Maybe it wasn’t self-evident. \ ---
**Author:** ![liberty3701](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@liberty3701](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberty3701)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/320 "2005-07-22T15:21:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > My disagreement was more the the methodology, which I took the article to “clearly state” was going to be using AAVE to teach the children their subjects. Well, in a way they are going to use AAE. Not as the classroom language, but as a basis for better understanding standard English. I think I said this awhile ago, but people learn a second language better if they understand the workings of their own language first. This is the theory about teaching kids from, say, Mexico how to read in Spanish first, then teaching them how to read in English. All these school boards have proposed to do is use this model with a dialect. Immersing these kids in standard English isn’t working, so why not try something new? The only reason, I think, that AAE was ever called a language was in defense of people who didn’t understand the issue calling it lazy or bad grammar or wrong. The thought was, “Hey, if we call it a language, maybe people would respect it!” Of course, that backfired. I don’t think there’s anything inherently better in calling something a language rather than a dialect, but I know that’s not how your average Joe feels. Part of what I want to do with my life is help people gain a better understanding of linguistics so they know that speaking a dialect ain’t a bad thing, to have pride in the way they speak and not dis the way other people speak. Anyway, I gotta get to class… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062.md?page=17)