Ebonics: a bad idea becomes a horrible reality

[dps_reality]

@Magiver

You can start by conjugating the verb “be” in ebonics and then show me how this was developed over time through scholastic effort.

Is the “developed over time through scholastic effort” part really a prerequisite before a widespread pattern of speach can be considered a language or a legitimate dialect?

@Magiver

“Two plus two equals four” is a simple explanation of a mathematical concept. “Tu an tu ekwals for” means nothing but is phonetically correct.

I forget, is it spelled Labor or Labour?

@Magiver

That may explain a lot of our differences in opinion. My parents insisted I speak English correctly throughout my 12 years of Primary education. I was corrected on a daily basis on grammar, spelling and sentence structure. My friend’s parents would correct me accordingly. We were NOT wealthy and my parents never went to college. My Maternal Grandmother was an immigrant. Although she struggled with English she insisted her children learn it and speak it at home.

Earlier you misconstrued my post as an attempt to equate Ebonics with a foreign language, but here you seem to be doing exactly that. Just to clarify: my post was intended to hilight the differences between foreign languages and Ebonics and the possibility that a switch from Ebonics to SAE is more challenging due to psychological factors. To paraphrase myself, a German speaker will be more comfortable adapting to SAE because he need not first accept that German is an inferior language (or an inferior non-language, as the case may be).

@Magiver

It’s not that I object to slang or variations in dialect, but they cannot be used as a basis for assimilating information presented in Standard English.

Sometimes they can, but you’re right in that they are much less effective.

Can variations in dialect be used as a tool to teach SAE? If so, can variations in dialect be used in such a way while simultaneously holding out that they are not a legitimate way of speaking in and of themselves?

@Magiver

That is not how Standard English should be looked at. It is not culturally bound to any group. In fact, it changes constantly with the introduction of new words (from slang). That is what makes it different from English in the UK and that’s what makes it culturally binding.

Can you elaborate on how it is not culturally bound, but it is culturally binding? Are you saying that SAE adapts to include many cultures, who in turn adapt themselves to it, thus binding the cultures to each other?

@Magiver

The desire to maintain a cultural identity still exists in the African American community. … To this end, ebonics has become the language of the Black Man and any suggestion that it is not Standard English becomes a challenge to cultural identity. And I understand how it would be taken as an insult.

The challenge to cultural identity and the insult can be found in turns of phrase such as “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.” (you) and “it is difficult to see how one could benefit by learning the preferred dialect of illiterates.” (Dave Gibson). I admit the two quotes are miles apart, but they both make the same point. The “language of the Black Man” is no language at all, in fact it’s just a fool’s attempt at speaking the “real” English. I, too, can understand how some might take offense.

@Magiver

But I also believe that learning Standard English from day one will eventually work its way into the scheme of things.

How do you propose to teach SAE from day one when people start learning language long before they ever make it into a classroom?

[Magiver]

@dps reality

Is the “developed over time through scholastic effort” part really a prerequisite before a widespread pattern of speach can be considered a language or a legitimate dialect?

A standard is just that, standard. Dialects are regional variations. All dialects are non-standard and all variations of a standard language are dialects. The article addressed ebonics but it applies to all dialects.

@dps reality

I forget, is it spelled Labor or Labour?

That’s entertainingly dismissive of my point. Its “labor”. Don’t make me use it in a sentence about success in the job market.

@dps reality

Earlier you misconstrued my post as an attempt to equate Ebonics with a foreign language, but here you seem to be doing exactly that. Just to clarify: my post was intended to hilight the differences between foreign languages and Ebonics and the possibility that a switch from Ebonics to SAE is more challenging due to psychological factors. To paraphrase myself, a German speaker will be more comfortable adapting to SAE because he need not first accept that German is an inferior language (or an inferior non-language, as the case may be).

Can variations in dialect be used as a tool to teach SAE? If so, can variations in dialect be used in such a way while simultaneously holding out that they are not a legitimate way of speaking in and of themselves?

I can’t imagine a teacher implying dialect was “inferior” or “not legitimate” when teaching English. It’s either correct or it’s not. It would be the same as saying slang is inferior. Kids should know the difference between standard English and local slang or dialect.

@dps reality

Can you elaborate on how it is not culturally bound, but it is culturally binding? Are you saying that SAE adapts to include many cultures, who in turn adapt themselves to it, thus binding the cultures to each other?

Yes, that sums it up pretty well. A standard language allows everybody to understand each other. It is added to over time with the codification of slang (usually in the form of new words or expressions).

@dps reality

The challenge to cultural identity and the insult can be found in turns of phrase such as “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.” (you) and “it is difficult to see how one could benefit by learning the preferred dialect of illiterates.” (Dave Gibson). I admit the two quotes are miles apart, but they both make the same point. The “language of the Black Man” is no language at all, in fact it’s just a fool’s attempt at speaking the “real” English. I, too, can understand how some might take offense.

I understand what you’re saying and I’m not sure if it can be avoided entirely. There has to be some intellectual honesty when dealing with educational issues. Poor children are not taught their dialect as a written, structured discipline. They learn it through mimicking their parents. Ebonics is one of many non-standard dialects spoken in the US. The issue we discuss involves them all and I’m addressing it from that point of view. I should probably say “ebonics (and all other dialects)” in every sentence just to maintain my POV. If you go back and insert that in my responses it will better reflect what I’m trying to say.

@dps reality

How do you propose to teach SAE from day one when people start learning language long before they ever make it into a classroom?

I can vividly remember my days in 1st grade. I was amazed at the huge gap in reading ability among my peers. This was a relatively homogenous group of family backgrounds so the gap was profound in its existence. Fast forward a couple of years and all the kids were up to speed, relative to their grade. I’ve thought about this all my life because it represents the core in educational problems. A number of things happened in this time frame: kids were held to the level of proficiency demanded of them. Kids were held back until this level was reached. Parents actively intervened either with home schooling or the insistence their child work after school if necessary to catch up.

[liberty3701]

@Magiver

You can start by conjugating the verb “be” in ebonics and then show me how this was developed over time through scholastic effort.

What does scholastic effort have to do with language change? (almost) diddly-squat.

If anything, it is the lack of formal education that created this form of speech.

That and slavery and living in the south and on and on. So? Just because uneducated people tend to speak it doesn’t make it any less legitimate as a form of language.

That in itself is not a bad thing (as a dialect) but it is educationally detrimental. It poses a barrier to understanding virtually everything that is taught in school (which is the point of the program we are debating).

I think “virtually everything” is a bit of a stretch. I think it’s educationally detrimental because hardly anyone has taken the time to really understand these kids and reach out to them in a way that is effective.

Spelling has everything to do with language.

I’m going to get off the spelling kick, but just for the record, spelling wasn’t standardized until around the time of the American Revolution…

It’s not that I object to slang or variations in dialect, but they cannot be used as a basis for assimilating information presented in Standard English.

And I’m arguing just the opposite. If these kids are led to believe that their dialect is logical, has these patterns that make just as much sense as standard English, that can be used as a stepping block towards learning standard English. Or did I just misunderstand you again? I think I still disagree if you mean that these kids can’t understand any standard English… I’m so confused.

The printed word lacks voice inflection so adjectives/adverbs carry the tone. When you use words like “true language” it conjures up images of someone talking about their religion as the “true religion”. That is not how Standard English should be looked at. It is not culturally bound to any group. In fact, it changes constantly with the introduction of new words (from slang). That is what makes it different from English in the UK and that’s what makes it culturally binding.

First, for the record, I used “true language” sarcastically. People put up standard English as the “true langauge” and “dialects” as “perversions” of that. I agree; standard English should not be looked at as a “true lanuage.” Which leads me to believe we’re both totally misunderstanding each other.

That being said: It is so culturally bound. It is the dialect I speak, as a white, middle class, well-educated American. It is bound to that culture. And all language changes over time. That’s part of the definition of language.

The desire to maintain a cultural identity still exists in the African American community.

The desire to maintain a cultural identity still exists in every community, I would say.

To this end, ebonics has become the language of the Black Man and any suggestion that it is not Standard English becomes a challenge to cultural identity.

I don’t follow you here. I think it’s quite the opposite. I think people want to maintain a dialect that is not standard in order to maintain a cultural identity.

A standard is just that, standard. Dialects are regional variations. All dialects are non-standard and all variations of a standard language are dialects. The article addressed ebonics but it applies to all dialects.

Dialects are not variations of the standard. The standard is just another dialect. And dialects can be regional, ethnic, class related, etc.

Poor children are not taught their dialect as a written, structured discipline. They learn it through mimicking their parents.

I’m not a language aqcuisition expert, but I can tell you it’s much more complicated than this; peers factor in way more than parents when it comes to dialects. And no one is taught their dialect as writing, because written language has to do only peripherally with spoken language.

I guess at this point I should just admit I really have no clue what you’re talking about. I don’t know if it’s in my head or what, but I’m really, really baffled. I’ve been trying to write clearly, and I know I’m not the best debater, but have I really been so incomprehensible that we can’t get it through our heads that everyone speaks a dialect? that standard English is just another dialect?

[Monty]

Just out of idle curiosity, Magiver, not to mention my training in Linguistics, I’m compelled to ask, how much actual training do you have in said field?

[liberty3701]

sorry about the little meltdown at the end of my last post – very unprofessional. I just feel like I’m repeating myself ad naseum, and it may very well be my own fault. Anyway, I apologize, won’t happen again…

[Magiver]

@Monty

Just out of idle curiosity, Magiver, not to mention my training in Linguistics, I’m compelled to ask, how much actual training do you have in said field?

You’ll have to use your linguistic training to show me where I said I have training in said field.

[Magiver]

@liberty3701

sorry about the little meltdown at the end of my last post – very unprofessional. I just feel like I’m repeating myself ad naseum, and it may very well be my own fault. Anyway, I apologize, won’t happen again…

Not taken as a rant. You put forth some interesting things to discuss. I took the day off work and I’m not getting enough vitamin D so I’ll respond later.

Please note that I often take hours to respond to many of the posts. I don’t have the “gift of gab” and have always taken any failure to understand me as a personal failure in my writing skills. I find education an interesting topic and I’m passionate about wanting kids to learn all that they can be taught. I glommed onto this discussion because it’s the only one directed at poor communities. Please also note that MS Word thinks “glommed” is a word.
.

[liberty3701]

I use “glom” all the time…

[Monty]

@Magiver

You’ll have to use your linguistic training to show me where I said I have training in said field.

Ah, so you’re admitting that your erroneous assertions about language in this thread are merely WAGs and you’re just arguing against another poster for the sheer joy of arguing?

[Monty]

@Magiver

Please also note that MS Word thinks “glommed” is a word.

It’s in good company.

[Monty]

Here’s an interesting article on prestige dialect.

Here are notes from a Linguistics 101 course offered by the University of Delaware. This site mentions the Oakland School Board’s proposal regarding “Ebonics.”

[Monty]

To be fair, Magiver seems to be a prescriptivist whereas at least two others of us in this thread are [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=descriptivist]descriptivists.

[Monty]

Ah! I’m cursed with bad coding!

Let’s try that again.

To be fair, Magiver seems to be a prescriptivist whereas at least two others of us in this thread are descriptivists.

[Magiver]

@Monty

Ah, so you’re admitting that your erroneous assertions about language in this thread are merely WAGs and you’re just arguing against another poster for the sheer joy of arguing?

Ha ha ha ha ha… man…

Yah, right after you admit you’re a pompous debate snob. Up to this point you’ve said nothing in this debate and now you hold your degree in linguistics above me without a single shred of useful material to talk about. That is incredibly arrogant on your part.

If you check the debate site rules you will NOT find a requirement for a degree to discuss a topic. It would be great if you expounded on something you’ve learned but that didn’t happen. And I would like to point out that although I’m not a contractor/carpenter/plumber/mechanic/teacher I’ve managed to pour foundations, build a garage, re-plumb a house, restore an airplane, build a hot rod, and teach computer courses at work. I did this outside of my college degree in Business because I can read and comprehend Standard English. If I want to do learn something I’m never farther away than the library (now the Internet) from learning how to do it. Which is directly relevant to the discussion of how to read and understand information taught in school.

If you’re comfortable with the thought that you’ve learned everything about linguistics in school than your really full of yourself. Which makes you naked to the concept of learning something new. Bring something to the debate or change your name to The Full Monty so I can remember you in the future.

My hair’s dry and the day is waning so I’m off. I notice you’ve posted a few things since your first post so I’ll glance at them later, so good day.

[Magiver]

That would be “If I want to do something”. Got to learn to proof read the final version.

[Monty]

Learn to read before you speak, Magiver. Not only did I post stuff relevant to this discussion (stuff you admit you haven’t bothered to check), but I did not imply, assert, nor insinuate what you say I did.

From here, it seems you’re the one full of yourself. Speaking of rules, you might want to save your asinine insults for the appropriate forum.

[magellan01]

@liberty3701

I’m going to get off the spelling kick, but just for the record, spelling wasn’t standardized until around the time of the American Revolution…

And why do you think that was? They recognized that for all of the society to be able to communicate evffectively, that they would need to agree on some rules of communication.

First, for the record, I used “true language” sarcastically. People put up standard English as the “true langauge” and “dialects” as “perversions” of that. I agree; standard English should not be looked at as a “true lanuage.” Which leads me to believe we’re both totally misunderstanding each other.

Dialects are not variations of the standard. The standard is just another dialect. And dialects can be regional, ethnic, class related, etc.

but have I really been so incomprehensible that we can’t get it through our heads that everyone speaks a dialect? that standard English is just another dialect?

Yet, in a previous exchange, you (liberty3701, who knows more about this subject than most of us) seemed to say that SAE was the “language” and the AAVE was a subset of the language, a “dialect”.

magellan01Thanks for clearing that up. Can you tell me, isn’t one a subset of the other? Isn’t it common to speak of one language having many dialects?

liberal3701Yes, very common.

I don’t point this out to niggle or to play “gotcha”, but one of the problems in this thread is that there is no consistent defintion of “language” and how it relates to “dialect”. It appears “Language” can mean something that is formally codified, as SAE, or from a sociological’anthropological point of view, anything that allows to groups to communicate effectively. Or many things in between.

Can a linguist out there (liberal3701?) provide a series of definitons that would enable the posters to communicate more “cleanly”?

[liberty3701]

@magellan01

And why do you think that was? They recognized that for all of the society to be able to communicate evffectively, that they would need to agree on some rules of communication.

To communicate effectively IN WRITING! NOT IN SPEAKING! But, I promised to stop the spelling debate…

Yet, in a previous exchange, you (liberty3701, who knows more about this subject than most of us) seemed to say that SAE was the “language” and the AAVE was a subset of the language, a “dialect”.

Then you grossly misunderstood me. I NEVER said standard English was THE langauge and AAE merely a dialect of it. In the exchange you quoted, I mean that DIALECTS were subsets of LANGUAGES (more or less). Maybe I misunderstood you’re question, or maybe you’re twisting my words, but I never, ever, ever, ever said that standard English was a language any more than AAE is a language.

Can a linguist out there (liberal3701?) provide a series of definitons that would enable the posters to communicate more “cleanly”?

As I’ve said possibly a dozen times in this discussion, there is no “clean” definition of a language or of a dialect. They are fuzzy terms used only to facilitate conversations, which is funny that they’re (apparently) causing all this trouble.

Have you read this thread from the begining? Because you keep bringing up stuff we already went over.

[John_Mace]

@magellan01

I don’t point this out to niggle or to play “gotcha”, but one of the problems in this thread is that there is no consistent defintion of “language” and how it relates to “dialect”. It appears “Language” can mean something that is formally codified, as SAE, or from a sociological’anthropological point of view, anything that allows to groups to communicate effectively. Or many things in between.

Can a linguist out there (liberal3701?) provide a series of definitons that would enable the posters to communicate more “cleanly”?

If you want to talk about the “official” language of a coutnry, then you might say the regional varients are dialects. But that’s just a convention. There is no reason to say that the “official” language is better, it’s just the language of the government.

Someone said earlier that a language is a dialect with an army. That’s as good a defintion as you’re going to to get. Pick up any linguistics book and you will find that the definitions of a “language” and a “dialect” are completely arbitrary.

Before the break-up of Yugoslavia, it was common to speak of the Serbo-Croatian languange, the main difference between the two dialects being the alphabets used. Now, though, we speak of the Serbian language and the Croatian language because those two political entities are different countries.

If China were to split apart into different provences, we would soon start calling Cantonese a language instead of a dialect of Chinese. If Norway and Denmark were to merge politically, we might speak of Dano-Norwegian. If that entity were to merge with Sweden, we might say they all speak dialects of Scandinavian.

What we call a language and what we call a dialect is a just a naming convention, an approximation we make for the purpose of imposing order on chaos. But that doesn’t turn the chaos into order-- it just makes it easier to talk about it without having to say that every single person speaks a unique dialect.

[liberty3701]

Oh, crud, I got magellan and magpie confused … my appologies…