Ebonics: a bad idea becomes a horrible reality

[magellan01]

@Kimstu

You want AAVE to continue to be evaluated solely in comparison with “standard English”, stressing that it is “incorrect”, “lazy”, and inferior.

Whether this indicates anything about your feelings toward black people, I don’t know and I don’t want to inquire.

Please don’t get hung up on the word “lazy” and try to paint it as a racist observation–although it is an effective way to cut off debate. There does in exist in the world something called “lazy” speech. Kids of all culture use it, “Ma. I’m goin’ out now.”, as do some regions.

But most importantly, your preferred approach of continuing to denigrate AAVE as merely “incorrect” English seems pedagogically stupid. Yes, everyone here agrees that all schoolchildren should learn to speak and write “standard English”. But you want to make the task of teaching standard English to dialect speakers harder, by unnecessarily insisting that their native dialect is “wrong” and “lazy”, rather than different.

So far, one implication of racist, one of stupid… When a child’s speech is wrong, TELL HIM, what the heck is so awful about that? When we–all the kids in my class–used “ain’t” or “gonna” we were corrected. No one thought, "Oh my God! Those teachers are so mean ans insensitive. And poor Johnny, what will this do to his self-esteem? Will he ever recover!!!

Take an example: As a native English speaker from the US currently living in the Netherlands and learning Dutch, which is very closely related to English, I often use English structures that are incorrect in Dutch. I might express “Today I’ll go to Leiden” as “Vandaag ik gaa naar Leiden”, which sounds like a perfectly normal and correct word order to me as an English speaker. Bzzzt! Dutch places the verb second in such a sentence: what I should have said was “Vandaag gaa ik naar Leiden”.

If we were talking about different languages I would agree with your point.

Similarly, as the teacher quoted in the excerpt from Zoe’s link described, it is more useful to talk about translating from correct Ebonics to correct English than it is to try to paint Ebonics as intrinsically “incorrect” or “lazy” or “wrong”. If you really care about helping children learn English, rather than just enjoying feeling superior by sneering at their native dialect, ISTM that that’s the approach you should be encouraging.

WHAT THE HECK IS SO WRONG ABOUT TELLING A CHILD THAT THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THEY ARE, IN FACT, DOING SOMETHING WRONG? You want to “translate” for the kid? Tell them you are “translating” from somehting that is wrong into something that is correct? Or is there no longer a “correct”? These kids, often kids at risk, need to be taught, not coddled. I’m not saying to be mean, or insulting, but just let them know that if they want access more of the world when they’re older, that here’s a better way to do that. Oh wait, there’s probably no “better” any more either.

You and I would, I assume, want to see the options for these children improved. And we’d probably agree that education is the way to do that. We both want kids to be proficient in SE. Where we differ is that I think that any approach that attempts to “legitamize” (sorry if the word makes you cringe) what we’re calling ebonics lessens the likelihood that children will feel the need to learn SE. The more you make it acceptable the less necessary SE becomes. And that is flat out bad. Because without that tool, their futures don’t look nearly as bright as they do with it.

[magellan01]

@John Mace

You are simply confusing a non-standard dialect with a “lazy” speach pattern. Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as lazy speech? Or that I mischaracterize somehting else as lazy speech? If it’s the latter, what are some examples that you would consider lazy speech?

[Acsenray]

@magellan01

Please don’t get hung up on the word “lazy” and try to paint it as a racist observation–although it is an effective way to cut off debate. There does in exist in the world something called “lazy” speech.

And how do you know that, exactly? I don’t know of any such linguistic concept.

Kids of all culture use it, “Ma. I’m goin’ out now.”, as do some regions.

Do you know for a fact that juvenile speech patterns are the result of “laziness”?

When a child’s speech is wrong, TELL HIM, what the heck is so awful about that?

Because, as people have been trying to tell you repeatedly … oh hell … just see above.

When we–all the kids in my class–used “ain’t” or “gonna” we were corrected. No one thought, "Oh my God! Those teachers are so mean ans insensitive. And poor Johnny, what will this do to his self-esteem? Will he ever recover!!!

Your own speech patterns might not have been tied up with ideas of personal and group identity. People fight wars over language.

WHAT THE HECK IS SO WRONG ABOUT TELLING A CHILD THAT THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THEY ARE, IN FACT, DOING SOMETHING WRONG?

Fact? There’s a fact in here somewhere?

In what sense is it wrong? – Incorrect, immoral, illegal, inaccurate?

These kids, often kids at risk

Are they at risk because they use a particular speech pattern at home?

I think that any approach that attempts to “legitamize” (sorry if the word makes you cringe) what we’re calling ebonics lessens the likelihood that children will feel the need to learn SE. The more you make it acceptable the less necessary SE becomes.

And you have offered absolutely zero support for these conclusions other than your own STRONG feelings about the matter.

[Gadarene]

is it just me who noticed the lengthy and illuiminating post from the actual, y’know, linguist studying AAVE?

[tomndebb]

@jimpatro

Isn’t “axe” easier to say than “ask” ?
So if one takes the easier route and won’t “work” to pronounce it as is generally done or even as it is spelled…

Nope: From the thread Ebonics (or let me axe you a question) already linked on page 1: Ax for ask is not (only) a black thing. It originated in England, in fact look in the Oxford English Dictionary word history sometime: aks is a dialectal variant form in England that has been traced back to Anglo-Saxon, some 1300 years ago. Before that, it was probably found in Common Germanic on the European mainland before the Angles and Saxons migrated to Britain. It may go back all the way to Proto-Indo-European.

@QuickSilver

So while I’m not discounting AAVE as a proper form of communication in it’s own right, I have to question how anyone can argue its proper/correct usage when virtually nobody is taught its rules & structures from the get go.

Would I be wrong in speculating that part of AAVE’s charm for the primary users is its lack of stictly applied rules and structures and therefore its relative fluidity over a relatively short period of time? To me, there is no denying its lyrical nature and interesting cadence, but the lack of clearly applied rules certainly allows it to be much more adaptable and therefore bastardizeable by each generation. So while SAE (for example) does change slightly with each generation, I’m not convinced that it changes to the same extent.

There are rules and structure in AAVE, otherwise it would not be a true dialect, just as there are rules in whichever dialect you speak that you learned by about the age of 3 without ever taking a course on the subject. The difference is that some grammarian a few hundred years ago looked around at how people he admired spoke and wrote a description, claiming that the description was a set of rules. (Those ancient grammarians also attempted to impose arbitrary rules of their own, for example claiming that one cannot end a sentence with a preposition or insisting that will and shall have separate meanings in the first person or the second or third person or that one may not split an infinitive–despite the fact that the best writers of the language “violated” those rules before they were imposed and have continued to violate them since they were imposed.)

The rules of SAE are determined by listening to and reading the language of some arbitrarily collected sample of people (usually from newscasters or public speakers or writers) and then recording the rules that the linguists determine are being employed by those speakers. The rules of language are not set forth before the language (and are generally silly and ignored when someone attempts to do so).

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

If we were talking about different languages I would agree with your point.

We are and you have not.

[magellan01]

@acsenray

A consonant is not being “dropped.” One consonant sound ([N] - “eng”) is being substituted for another ([n]).

You may choose to characterize it that way, but why. What is the distinction you see?

No, but apparently, to you, it is about labelling a particular dialect as “wrong” or substandard or stigmatising it in some way.

1. The right and wrong answers to questions of language are going to change over time; they do not remain constant.

2. Each person speaks in multiple modes, whether they are very different languages or closely related dialects or merely different social registers. In this respect, it is different from other school subjects, like math, in which the answers are the same no matter what social situation you are in.

3. The whole point of this exercise is to ensure that all students learn the standardised dialect. If you agree that this is the common goal, why should you object so strongly to an exploration of the best way to do that?

4. Labelling a child’s own dialect as “wrong” is not going to help you motivate the student to learn. Why is it so important to you that children be told that their speech is wrong? Because language is a social issue, people develop emotional connections to what they consider their own forms of speech. By denigrating someone’s speech, you provoke resentment and resistance.

1. Would you say then, at any given point time there IS, in fact, speech that is wrong?

2. But within any “situation” there is aprropriate/inappropriate speech? And there exists speech for that situation that is fine, that is questionable, or that is wrong. I just want to make sure the kids have the ability to sitch to “Appropriate IBM Job Interview” mode.

3.I think that’s what we are doing now: exploring whether or not it is a good idea. It is my opinion that the proposal would do more harm than good by “legitamizing” ebonics and thereby creating less of a perceived need to master SE.

4. I do not want to denigrate anyone, particularly these children. I just think the best thing we could do is be honest with them. Education is the ticket out. We shouldnt jeopardize a child’s chance to acquiring it by telling things are one way when they simply aren’t.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

We are and you have not.

I thought the distinction being made throughout the thread, by you and others, was that it was a different “dialect”. Or do you hold the more extreme position that is a whole different “language”? Or are you using the two words interchangeably? I wasn’t.

[Gadarene]

I just want to make sure the kids have the ability to sitch to “Appropriate IBM Job Interview” mode.

But this is the aim of the Ebonics program, as described by posters in this thread. Go reread the many points made about code-switching and how 1) enabling teachers to understand the structure of AAVE and 2) teaching Standard English to AAVE-speakers as one would teach English as a second language can help children become fluent in Standard English as well as AAVE.

Jiminy.

[jimpatro]

It may go back all the way to Proto-Indo-European.

Someone who says “axe” now is emulating Proto-Indo-Europeans?
They might have never even heard of them.

[QuickSilver]

@John Mace

But that would be true of any language that isn’t written down, no? And, in fact, there are plenty of written examples of AAVE. One of the thing that linguists do is study other languages, even the non-literary ones, to discern the rules of grammar.

Yes, that’s true of many languages. Most native american languages are an example of what happens to language that isn’t written down. Makes it harder to pass along to the next generation when you’ve got to compete with a dominant culture’s language.

So we’ve got an identifiable group of people who use AAVE informally (passed on mostly by word of mouth) without the benefit of a more rigorous and structured approach in accordance to its own rules. We want to reach out to this culture and help it retain it’s mother tongue (I assume) and also adopt the SAE. Meahwhile, a substantial subset of this very culture is not only resistant to conforming to SAE rules, it appears to eschew a formal learning approach to its own language.

And so how are we bridging the gap in having teachers learn AAVE when they clearly have no intention of teaching it?

[Anne_Neville]

@magellan01

But within any “situation” there is aprropriate/inappropriate speech?

And sometimes Standard American English is not the appropriate form of speech.

And there exists speech for that situation that is fine, that is questionable, or that is wrong. I just want to make sure the kids have the ability to sitch to “Appropriate IBM Job Interview” mode.

Yes, but they should also have the ability to switch to “talking to friends/family” mode. They should know that these modes are different, and are appropriate for different situations, but that doesn’t make one better than the other.

[Acsenray]

@magellan01

You may choose to characterize it that way, but why. What is the distinction you see?

One characterisation is wrong and the other is right.

Consonants are sounds, not letters. Moving from “ing” to “in,” you are dropping a letter if you’re writing it. Speaking and writing are two different things. In pronouncing “ing” either way, you have the same number of consonants.

1. Would you say then, at any given point time there IS, in fact, speech that is wrong?

Wrong in what context? By what standard?

2. But within any “situation” there is aprropriate/inappropriate speech? And there exists speech for that situation that is fine, that is questionable, or that is wrong. I just want to make sure the kids have the ability to sitch to “Appropriate IBM Job Interview” mode.

And we are all interested in ensuring that the students learn standard English, the appropriate speech for a job interview. What we do not see as helpful is tossing around the word “wrong,” which gives us no benefit, and, may, indeed act as an impediment to teaching the appropriate speech for a job interview.

[quote]
3.I think that’s what we are doing now: exploring whether or not it is a good idea. It is my opinion that the proposal would do more harm than good by “legitamizing” ebonics

Is this the place to call attention to your spelling?

and thereby creating less of a perceived need to master SE.

IMO this is all in your head. The point is to teach students the importance of learning standard English. The way to do that is to first demonstrate that there are different modes of speech and situations in which one or another mode is appropriate and then pointing out the differences and teaching the rules of standard English. By throwing around the word “wrong” you introduce a spanner into the works.

I do not want to denigrate anyone, particularly these children.

You don’t want to but you are being forced to? People, especially those belonging to identity groups, such as ethnic minorities or juvenile cliques, form attachments to their modes of speech. If you don’t want to denigrate them, then just refrain from telling them that their speech is incorrect. This kind of labelling is superfluous.

I just think the best thing we could do is be honest with them.

Honest? Based on what? Facts of life? Facts of linguistics? Or based on your own personal revulsion against “legitimization”?

Education is the ticket out. We shouldnt jeopardize a child’s chance to acquiring it by telling things are one way when they simply aren’t.

And what is being said that simply isn’t? That there are different dialects? That there are different modes of speech? That some modes are appriate in some situations? That in order to get ahead, one must learn standard English?

All we’re leaving out is the WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG-O, MR. WRONGMEISTER! part. And we’re inserting steps that explicitly illustrate the differences between vernacular speech and formal speech.

[QuickSilver]

@Gadarene

But this is the aim of the Ebonics program, as described by posters in this thread. Go reread the many points made about code-switching and how 1) enabling teachers to understand the structure of AAVE and 2) teaching Standard English to AAVE-speakers as one would teach English as a second language can help children become fluent in Standard English as well as AAVE.

Jiminy.

I see your lips moving, and I recognize the words… but all together like that, they just don’t make sense to me.

I understand about the aim, however, I’m still struggling with the logic behind the approach.

[Gadarene]

I understand about the aim, however, I’m still struggling with the logic behind the approach.

In what respect? Take a look at Kimstu’s post, upthread, about Dutch grammar. Take a look at liberty3701’s post. I’m not sure what people aren’t getting.

[tomndebb]

But there was no ignoring of the verb “to be”, which seems to be a defining “rule”.

Which suggests strongly, to me, that you are listening to the AAVE speakers with a particular filter that ignores the many different forms of “to be” that exist in that dialect. You are right that it is close to being a defining structural point, in that it is easy to identify, but you are wrong in your claim that it does not exist.

From the first page of this thread:

@Mr2001

Provide Standard English equivalents for the following sentences, each similar but subtly different:

I was eatin’ waffles before school.
I be eatin’ waffles before school.
I eatin’ waffles before school.

I bought this shirt.
I been bought this shirt.

This range of verb usage is greater than that found in SAE.

Here is one brief overview of the verb “to be” in AAVE. Here is another snippet that addresses “to be” in the first and last examples.

That I am aware, a comprehensive set of rules regarding AAVE can only be found in print, and not in the internet. Here is a brief list:

Salient Linguistic Features of AAVE

Here is an article, by a linguist, published by the Center For Applied Linguistics discussing the original Oakland foofaraw: A Linguist Looks at the Ebonics Debate, including the following observation:

(1) Some participants in this debate think that AAVE is merely an imperfectly learned approximation to real English, differing from it because the speakers are careless and lazy and don’t follow “the rules.” It is “dialect,” in the deprecating use of that word, or “slang.”

(2) To most linguists AAVE is one of the dialects of American English, historically most closely related to forms of Southern speech but with differences attributable both to the linguistic history of slaves and to generations of social isolation. (For a linguist, to describe something as a dialect is not to say that it is inferior; everybody speaks a dialect.)

(3) And some people say that while AAVE has the superficial trappings of English, at its structural core it is a continuation or amalgam of one or more west African languages. The views summarized in (1) are simply wrong. The difference between the views identified in (2) and (3) is irrelevant to the issue the board is trying to face.

[Acsenray]

@magellan01

I thought the distinction being made throughout the thread, by you and others, was that it was a different “dialect”. Or do you hold the more extreme position that is a whole different “language”? Or are you using the two words interchangeably? I wasn’t.

Whether it’s a different language or a different dialect is essentially an inconsequential distinction for these purposes. When you want to teach someone a different mode of speech, it is helpful if you can touch base with a person’s usual form of speech. It’s easier for me to teach you about the ways that yse if ye/you/thee/thou evolved in various forms of English if I first teach you what second-person pronouns are in the context of your habitual form of English.

So far as I understand, a key characteristic of AAVE is the way in which different verb forms are used to indicate slightly different states of being. If a child first is taught to recognise how he or she is making such distinctions in his or her own speech, it then becomes easier to transfer understanding of those concepts to teaching verb forms in standard English.

@jimpatro

Someone who says “axe” now is emulating Proto-Indo-Europeans?
They might have never even heard of them.

Assuming you’re not just trying to be a wiseacre – Of course they’re not “emulating” proto-Indo-European speech. The point is that the “axe” pronunciation has as long a pedigree as the “ask” pronunciation, so there’s no basis for the conclusion that it’s “lazy” speech. It’s just that one pronunciation is preferred in standard English and the other might be preferred in other dialects. The point is to point out the difference and impart which is appropriate when.

[QuickSilver]

@acsenray

All we’re leaving out is the WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG-O, MR. WRONGMEISTER! part. And we’re inserting steps that explicitly illustrate the differences between vernacular speech and formal speech.

I think these kids/teens know very well the difference between their own speach patterns and the ones they feel are being foisted on them. Isn’t that why they resist them? When I was taught English Lit, we read Robert Burns and Shakespear and some Newfie poet whose name I can’t recall right now. They all illustrated different speach patterns and I got that. We all got that. I think these kids get it too.

So while I agree that shouting “WRONG!” at them isn’t the solution, neither I fear are luke warm attempts to adopt AAVE. They’ll see right through that as an attempt to talk down to them.

[liberty3701]

@QuickSilver

So while I agree that shouting “WRONG!” at them isn’t the solution, neither I fear are luke warm attempts to adopt AAVE. They’ll see right through that as an attempt to talk down to them.

I have to disagree with the idea that kids will see it as an attempt to talk down to them. I’ve seen little kids lap it up, whether it’s explaining AAE or regional dialects. If the teaching is done right and is done in a fun way and respectfully (emphasis on the respect part), the kids not only love it, they understand it.

I’m telling you, watch “Do You Speak American?” and you’ll see kids just loving learning about their dialect and how it’s different from Standard English.

[Gadarene]

I think these kids/teens know very well the difference between their own speach patterns and the ones they feel are being foisted on them.

There’s an important distinction to be made between saying “these speech patterns are different” (well, duh) and “this is how these speech patterns are different.”

So while I agree that shouting “WRONG!” at them isn’t the solution, neither I fear are luke warm attempts to adopt AAVE. They’ll see right through that as an attempt to talk down to them.

What do you understand to be “luke warm attempts to adopt AAVE”? It just doesn’t seem like you’re seeing the same proposed program I’m seeing.