Oh, and to prove the Linguistic Society of America is not some crack-pot organization, but really just the “umbrella professional organization” of linguists…
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
I’m glad that you’ve finally managed to grasp this point, but it’s not as though Gorsnak was the first one to make it.
FisherQueen
Interesting point, however, I grew up in a prodominantly poor, Slovak, Welsh, German area and was constantly told by my elementary school teachers not to use the words “ain’t”, “hainna” etc. or to pronounce the letter “H” as “haych”, that my grandparents and aunts and uncles used and never once thought that the teachers were calling my relatives stupid, but yes they were telling us it was incorect “WRONG”.
In fact my relatives would also correct the children and enforce their use of proper speaking English.
To infer that a certain part of the population would test better if the tests they took were geared more towards a certain dialect, I find extremely condescending. I assure you that my ancestors in this country had their own dialect yet we were always expected to learn and test using proper English.
At this stage, you are the only one inferring that point. It has been pretty clear throughout this discussion that the majority of people who wish to incorporate AAVE in some facet of education do not wish to include it as a subject taught (or tested), but as something which the teachers should be taught so that they are better equipped to help AAVE speakers learn the appropraite code-switching.
I doubt that we’re in agreement at all. What would you replace “Ebonics” with?
If you simply mean that you would prefer something like AAVE or “American Black English” or even something regional like Urban/Southern English, then I suppose we’re in agreement. But if you want to take my example and simply replace each instance of “Ebonics” with “Wrong English” then you’ve missed the point entirely. In my example the teacher was treating Ebonics and Formal English as linguistic equals, and was using the former (which Johnny is comfortable with) to teach the latter.
This is not to say that the entire education system treats the two dialects as equal. There is no class to teach Ebonics to the suburban white kids who grew up speaking Formal English at home. Nor does this suggest that the dialects are equal in all ways. Johnny will learn that Formal English is the accepted language of commerce, industry, politics, media, etc. He might even come to the conclusion that it is “better” than Ebonics, but not because some teacher pounded that idea into his head.
Your ideal methods might seem similar to my example, but if you’re not starting from the baseline assumption that Eboncs is a dialect worthy of respect then I humbly submit that you’ll get nothing but attitude from lil’ Johnny.
Appropriate word choice, syntax and standard grammar are only part of the mastery of the use of the English language. Good listening skills and finely tuned reading comprehension are also a requirement. And there is still more.
What seemed “clearly stated” to magellan01 was not clearly stated to others here. There was more than one way to interprete what was said. When that is true, the statement is ambiguous and its true intent unclear no matter what interpretation is brought to it. It is like this old chestnut:
“The son of Pharoah’s daughter is the daughter of Pharoah’s son.”
Did Pharoah have a son or a daughter?
Amen.
I still think that if you read the passgae in the article and had to decipher it, without any preconceived notions or kowledge about the issue in general, my interpretation was the only one you could logically come away with. If you think otherwise, I would love to hear your reasoning. Seriously. Even so, maybe “clear” is too strong of a word.
The major difference is that German is accepted as a legitimate language with a distinct history and culture backing it up. You were WRONG in that you were using German in an English class, not because German is inhernetly wrong. Let me ask you, did your teachers ever describe your family’s native tounge as “That very poor attempt at English that they speak overseas”?
Another very important difference. I actually think this is related to the above. Your relatives, recognizing that their own language is distinct and equal to English, encouraged their children to learn both. People raised with Ebonics arent afforded that level of respect. They’re taught that their dialect is nothing more than a lazy attmept at Formal English. Imagine lil’ Johnny coming home to his family, “grandpa, my teacher says the way you talk is wrong because you have no grasp of proper grammar and pronunciation.” That might not be met with very much encouragement.
I suspect that 100% of posters to this thread would agree.
Actually, dps reality, I suspect that the issue was never “German.” Unless the “1123” in Gregd1123’s username indicates that he was born in November, 1923, it is unlikely that the dialect in which he was raised was substantially different than SAE. It probably had a few local terms and pronunciations, but it was not a dialect with a very strong alternative grammar.
Note that he grew up in an area with at least three separate ethnic groups. Leaving aside the Welsh, the German and Slovak would have interfered with each other enough that some variant of SAE would have become the lingua franca of the neighborhood. Calling grandma busha or ending an occasional sentence with a verb does not present quite the same change to a speaker as the already wrangled over “to be” construction. The language taught in school would have been a matter of dropping a few "ain’t"s and modifying a few phonemes, not a matter of having a dialect that could seriously interfere with the learning of a separate dialect.
“Clear” is too strong a word? Well, aren’t you just bending over backward?
The sociologist in question–not affiliated in any way with the San Bernardino City Unified School District–says “these students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language” as part of the process of ensuring that the students fully understand the language they are being taught in. Which is English.
I don’t need to use much reasoning to understand that. It’s quite clear.
Most likely, but do you think that the psychological reaction of Gregb and his peers, who “never once thought that the teachers were calling my relatives stupid”, would be a function of the degree of divergence from SAE? I suspect that it has more to do with the fact that their point of divergence (a foregn language) was treated as a legitimate alternative to English, rather than some lazy cultural slang.
I used German for brevity’s sake only. Apologies to Gregb if that came off as presumptious.
and Gregd, too.
However, my point was that Gregd1123 and his parents grew up speaking American English (unless he is ancient). It is probably true that nothing a teacher said implied stupidity on the part of the parents, but that is probably because the language actually spoken was simply an close version of SAE, not a dialect with 300 year old roots (and corresponding divergence).
You might want to bend over backwards and pick up a book on logic or reading comprehension. But, baby steps. Start with this sentence, the one you omitted from your quote:
“Texeira said research has shown that students learn better when they fully comprehend the language they are being taught in.”
If you conclude that Ms. Texeira is trying to convey that the language that these kids should be taught in is English, try again.
You keep pointing to that sentence, but you still aren’t any more convincing.
Read it again, very slowly. Notice that the word “Ebonics” doesn’t appear in that sentence, nor does “AAVE” or any other synonym. It says nothing at all about which language students are or should be taught in. It only says that they learn better when they understand the language they’re being taught in.
And right now, in just about every classroom in America, students are taught in English. No one has managed to find an example of students being taught in Ebonics. I know you think it’s ridiculous for students to be taught in Ebonics… guess what, everyone else agrees. That’s why they don’t do it.
Comparing ebonics to German requires a broad definition of the word “language”. German can be broken down into its root structure. If someone were to codify ebonics then it would be possible to conjugate the verbs so that they apply to all regions of the United States. Words would be spelled a specific way and their meaning would be universally understood. I don’t think its possible to make this case.
Ebonics represents a fractured form of language found in every country. All societies have impoverished regions where the population speaks a degraded form of the official language. It is a combination of local slang and the language skills passed down by parents. To classify these as formal languages requires the recognition of every fractured version of each specific language. The number of unique languages in the US alone would be substantial.
With that said I think this discussion can progress without the quantification of ebonics. It exists as a form of communication and therefore can be used as a tool for translating knowledge. The purpose of the program is to reach impoverished kids through a better understanding of their linguistic background. Teachers are faced with all types of obstacles in their profession and any tool that helps them bridge the gap should be considered. Any objections I have with the program revolve around legitimizing fractured language skills in place of the hard science of English. All other course work revolves around the ability to comprehend the information presented and it is presented in English. It is not an understatement to say language is the key to all learning.
If I were putting together a school budget I would concentrate funds on the weakest link. In this case, I would increase the percentage spent on English for the lower grades until established goals were met. Any money allocated to an untested program would be on a trial basis until it proves cost effective. Because that is what we are ultimately talking about, the most cost effective method of educating our young.
OK, sorry if this is a sidetrack, but I gotta ask. If the focus of linguistics is descriptive in nature–what’s if for? The pragmatist in me is wondering what practical good it does.
Someone up thread asked why the language of the upper white classes is the one that is considered optimal. Historically, that was the literate class–and the one who dominated culturally, politically and financially.
Why wouldn’t the language of such a group be held as the standard?
I am a step away from feeling like I have to be an English (SAE) apologist and am feeling somewhat defensive about it. Og knows that terrible things were done for the sake of common speech–the Native American tribes and their experience springs to mind.
I guess it comes down to that I just don’t see the terrible need for AAVE in schools. Certainly, any thinking person would be against any student being mocked in class or publicly humiliated–that should end, if and when it occurs.
I work with alot of African-Americans(in fact, I am the only white nurse in my unit)–from only finished 8th grade to Master’s prepared. And not a one of them shows “difficulty” in switching from “work speech” to casual, social speech. Are there variances within each category? Of course. A Certified Nurse’s Assistant is more likely to speak in a pattern more like her social speech than the VP of Nursing is. This is a function of class and education, to my mind. But I understand both perfectly well, as they do me.
I am sure that there are kids that struggle. But I cannot see how they are not exposed to SAE on a daily basis, via mass media, interactions with teachers and other authority figures and just walking around. I think that the switching occurs almost automatically. For those who don’t-support in the classroom by enhanced teacher awareness is desirable. Making AAVE an excuse as to why Jamal does not enjoy the SES of other ethnic groups and races is going too far for me. (not saying that anyone here has taking that view, just saying).
Again, IMO, AAVE should feature in some teacher education and some specific classroom instruction, but I think it is wrong to treat is as a foreign language equivalent. I don’t think that is a racist stance. I think giving special treatment because AA kids “can’t get SAE” is.
And put me with the dummies: I thought Gorsnak’s pithy summation was spot on.
I do like Liberty’s posts as well–I hope you’re not too broke to join us!
Where to start, oh, where to start …
AAE or Ebonics is NOT a “fractured for of language,” NOR is it a "fractured version of a language, and it’s definitely NOT a “degraded form” of English, it’s a dialect. It can be “broken down into its root structure,” as linguists have been doing since the 1960s. While it has regional variation, it does have a core set of features that seem to be constant throughout the country, at least as much as standared English is constant. Verb conjugation doesn’t really vary that much; I’m not sure where you got this idea.
I’m not sure what spelling has to do with anything, and I don’t think AAE spelling differs all that much region to region, though I don’t know of any study being done on that.
All dialects are a combination of local slang and language skills passed down, though, in reality, but the time we’re 4 or 5, our parents have little influence on the way most of us speak.
Now, calling AAE a language, to most people, is a bit of a stretch. It is a dialect though, and the US has thousands of different dialects; the number varies as to how you split up a dialect. And, you know what, we all speak at least one.
Variation is the nature of language, and we’re really just gonna have to accept that fact.
What’s funny, though, is that I agree with most of the conclusions you come to. And I don’t mean to rant at you or anything, I just think we all need to get the idea that Ebonics is some sort of sublanguage out of our heads.
We say “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” but that’s a lie. Language is incredibly powerful; if it weren’t we wouldn’t be having this debate. Calling a dialect merely a perverted form of the “true” language, no matter your intentions, is just flat out wrong and self-defeating. And expecting an entire group of people to give up their way of speaking, whether it be a separate language or a dialect, is insulting and, well, just wrong. I’m not feeling very eloquent tonight, but, goddamn it, I feel passionately about this stuff, and it’s disheartening to hear this kind of language.
I’m not sure what you mean here. You don’t think Ebonics has conjugated verbs, or words whose meanings are universally understood by those who speak it?
If those “fractured” forms of language have consistent rules and are spoken by large populations, then why shouldn’t they be recognized?
By identifying rules in the language spoken by a group, you can make it easier for outsiders to communicate with that group, and vice versa. If you’re printing a car maintenance manual for the UK, you’ll probably want to use terms like “bonnet” and “boot”, not necessarily because they’re “right”, but because your audience will have an easier time if you use the words they’re familiar with; on the flip side, if you’re reading a UK car manual, you’ll need to know what those words mean in British English if you want to understand it.
And if you’re trying to teach American English to British students, it’ll be easier if you can point to the specific rules in their dialect that are different from ours (e.g. “I should” vs. “I would”), instead of leaving them wondering if the differences they notice are errors in their speech or yours, or thinking you mean something you really don’t.