Ebonics: a bad idea becomes a horrible reality

Great Debates
501

Hmm. Point taken. How about: colloquial speech tends to default to whatever’s easier over time and mass dissemination? New technologies certainly tend to become abbreviated and shortened as they become more accepted; celebrities from politicians to performers retain their uniqueness and identity by parading nicknames instead of their full names.

Well, it does within reason, acceptance and standard practices within a language and whatever’s also verbally/aurally appealling. “NAACP” is often pronounced “N-double A-CP.” Saying the letters N-A-A-C-P is actually fewer syllables but doesn’t have the rhythmic appeal of throwing the two syllable word “double” in there. My name is “Askia” but no one ever shortens it to “As” because that comes off rude.

502

Still don’t buy it, Askia. Different cultures find different rhythms to be appealing, not to mention what one culture finds to be polite, another finds to be rude.

Here’s a fun exercise: Check out the Cycle of Negation. Part of that cycle includes adding a word. There’s no default in it. A language goes through the cycle over and over and over.

503

You say you still don’t buy it, but then you parroted back the essence of what what I typed. Aaaaand you did it shorter and in a different rhythm.

504

Try not to dream when you’re typing. I did not type the essence of what you said. Consider for a moment that your thesis (or the thesis you’ve adopted) is that language is changed to whatever’s easier on the mouth. Incontrovertible evidence exists that there is more than one language. Are you now saying that speakers of different languages, as a people, have different construction of the organs of speech?

I also don’t buy that “appealing” equals “lazy” which is what you seem to be asserting also.

505

I’ve been out of the loop for a few days, but I’m just catching up here, and I wanted to clarify a few points, if that’s even possible at this point:

All dialects/languages have rules, and those rules can be broken. However, I don’t know what this has to do with anything.

Language change occurs in a precarious balance of making things “easier” to say while still maintaining the distinctions a language needs. It’s easy to say everything “bobobobobobo” but that’s not keeping the distinctions, and communication breaks down.

All languages and dialects change. The rate of change differs, of course, but I don’t think we can say whether a dialect/language still in use is changing faster/slower than another. Slang changes fast, and AAVE’s slang is no different. I would suggest, though, that standard English grammar and phonology are changing at about the same speed as AAVE’s. That’s one of the things I’m studying, the change of AAVE over time, but I certainly don’t have the answers yet.

The idea of colloquial versus mother language is misleading. The so-called mother language is no longer spoken; it broke down into dialects long ago. I think more appropriate to this discussion is written versus spoken language. Written language changes more slowly and is more restricted in it’s rules.

Precision is also a misleading term, since it could be argued that AAVE has a more presice aspectual system than standard English.

I hope this clears stuff up a little bit, and I really hope I didn’t just make things worse.

506

No, Monty. I’m saying that most certainly speakers of Romantic languages tend to use verbal shortcuts when communicating colloquially, and that ofttimes they employ diction that’s not standard to the language, and this combination of shortening words and using less precise diction is easier on the mouth. You’re the one assuming biological differences.

“Appealing” equals “lazy” in the sense that many people aren’t hung up in adhering to more formal, standard language patterns when speaking colloquially.

But as it happens, yes, some speakers of different languages, as a people, have different constructions of the organs of speech.

liberty3701. I’m not sure if it’s true that the mother language ideal is completely broken… certainly Standard American English as practiced by, say, national news broadcasters, with its deemphasis on regional pronounciation, approximates something very much like an American mother tongue. While I see your point regarding written versus spoken language, certainly it can be said that some spoken dialects adhere more closely to the written word than other dialects in the same language? The vernacular studied by Zora Neale Hurston and Noel Chandler Harris is not the same “English” of Thoreau, and all are pretty far from Shakespeare.

507

But calling standard English the mother tongue would insinuate that it is the precursor to the other dialects, which just isn’t true. And, yes, standard English does adhere more closely to written English, but it’s still not the same by a long shot.

508

Oops. I tped the wrong thing, I meant to say SAE. It should have read Is the failure restricted to teaching these kids AAVE, or is the failure more general. I mean, they aren’t doing well across the board." Sorry, it was late.

I do not think there is, and I hope I have not implied that there is, any correlation between intelligence and the speaking of AAVE, or any other language or dialect.

509

Agreed. I suppose it’s enough to call a preferred dialect “standard” and leave it at that.

510

It strikes me that a lot of the discussion of the implementation here has centered on how teachers will correct students, with little discussion about actual instruction, and I think considering how instruction could be carried out will help clear up some people’s objections.

Mr2001 earlier brought up the example of the habitual verb form, so I’ll start from there: if a teacher is attempting to explain the habitual verb form to a classroom full of students who are accustomed to using SAE in their home life, then s/he can say “An example of the habitual form is ‘John drives the bus.’ do you understand?” Obviously I’m oversimplifying, but the main point is that the students should have little difficulty understanding the habitual form based on that example. A teacher using the same example in a class full of students accustomed to speaking AAVE at home, on the other hand, will be met with confused head scratching. A better way to explain here would be “An example of the habitual form is ‘John be driving the bus.’ Do you understand? Okay. Now, in Standard American English, the equivalent form is ‘John drives the bus.’ Is the difference clear here?” Having explained that, I would have no objection to the teacher telling students that they are wrong, incorrect, mistaken, etc., if they fail to use the appropriate verb form in school work in the future. I just wanted to point out that it’s not just about how and when the students will be corrected, but about using the rules of grammar with which they’re familiar to explain rules of SAE grammar.

511

Neither of those pictures you provided is relevant to your assertion as those individuals most likely learned their languages prior to the modification of their bodies.

512

Monty. Language acquisition continues throughout one’s lifetime. WHEN they modified them is irrelevent. The modifications clearly altered their speech organs.

513

I think that’s the crux of this issue. The prestige dialect is the so-called standard and thus is, essentially, merely one of a number of dialects no better and no worse than any other dialect. The big issue (well, complaint some of us have) is that a fair number of people condemn and castigate a particular dialect (in this case, AAVE) and by implication, its speakers, while at the same time operating in their own non-standard dialect.

I can see how being told my family’s speech is lazy or stupid would turn me off of learning in school. [Personal anecdote]When I attended school for one year in Pennsylvania, my English teacher informed me that my use of y’all isn’t part of SAE and that, in her class, even in speech, I need to use what I considered to be the 2nd person singular pronoun even for the plural. She did not voice a judgment on my dialect.[/anecdote]

514

As I’ve stated previously, that is how I am defining “wrong”. I’ve been using it in the sense of “utility”. I think that everyone who has participated in the thread would agree that it is so important that kids learn SAE because SAE is the tool best suited to help them take full advantage of the society in which they live.

As far as the tool analogy, I wish I hadn’t offered it. Maybe it wasn’t a good one to begin with, but it is becoming increasingly tortured. But to address your question. For any given task, there exists a best tool. Even among the small world of claw hammers, you have one for nailing, one for ripping, one for finishing. If you define the task as I have in the paragraph above, I don’t know how you can say that SAE is not the best tool.

515

  1. The term has been used throughout the thread, not introduced by me. Please be so kind as to read the thread from page 1, where the term was first used. In the thread you will also see how I’ve defined it.

  2. I was saying that a dialect, any dialect, is more colloquial than the mother language, formal language, or standard language. This should go without saying, as dialects tend to be more oral in nature, and thereby, more colloquial.

  3. If people are going to deviate from the standard language, do you really think that they will unconciously make it "more difficult on the mouth? Slang would be an exception to this, as it is an invention used to define a group.

  4. Please restate in SAE.

Regarding your last sentence, see #1.

516

My last sentence is in that posting is in SAE, magellan. You and Askia are now posting in a disingenuous manner. I will continue this discussion with you if, and only if, you two agree to do so in a manner at least resembling honest discourse.

517

?? Perhaps I’m simply not explaining myself well, but an honest difference of opinion is hardly called for me being disingenuous, Monty. You’re free to leave if you think I’m being less than forthright in honest discourse. Ultimatums of any sort tap into my “orney” button, and if you really feel like that, go. There’s other topics, other people to talk to.

518

Your little stunt with the pictures and the comment about language acquisition did call for that, IMHO. But perhaps you’re just confused by what a phonetic inventory is and that it’s certainly not the same thing as language acquisition.

As it is, it certainly looks like you were reaching for something–no matter how tenuous–to back up an assertion you seemed to have been making earlier. Those photos do not prove what you said, or at least appear to believe, they do.

So, what is your opinion, really? Is there such a thing as a good or bad dialect? What constitutes good or bad? How can a dialect be lazy? And where does that leave SAE in comparison to RP?

We can leave magellan’s assertions out of it as that poster is merely talking in circles, apparently not listening to a word that anyone else has said here.

519

Ah, but a tenuous connection is not the same as being disingenuous. I’ll cop to the former since I do it all the time (hell, I celebrate it), but not the latter.

The pictures were linked in response to your (implied) assertion that there weren’t peoples who speak different languages than I do with differently constructed organs of speech (throat, tongue and lips.) Nothing judgmental about my “stunt” – just that body modification wasn’t on your radar when you typed that statement, but I thought of it immediately. To your credit, you tried to dismiss it by pointing out they may have already learned their language before their modifications – a good point, actually – I just wanted to point out that language acquisition goes on longer than that, and it still doesn’t matter – the point was their speech organs are, in fact, different.

Anyway, you can find “Good” and “Bad” in anything, depending on your POV. Doesn’t mean that’s the best way to categorize a given problem, or that it’s valid, but – there ya go. I think in America, damn near every other dialect has more socioeconomic benefit to students than speaking the patios of AAVE, Geechie/Gullah Sea Islands or the urban ghetto unless you happen to be a successful rapper – and even that has limits. (Will Smith has more endorsements than Eminem and 50 Cent for a reason.) So, yeah, some dialects can be considered bad. Granted it’s a very narrow judgemental point of view, but a common one. Me personally, dialects are different with no particular inherent superiority as long as you can communicate.

Also in my opinion – a dialect can be considered lazy if certain words are spoken with less clear diction than their “standard” counterparts, particularly if these words have no particular ethnic or linguistic basis for being pronounced the way they are. Maybe there’s a better term for it, but for now let’s just call it slurring. The easiest examples I can suggest is the contractions of words like: Gimme, Gonna, Finna (fixing to), Wanna, Mighta, Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda, Nonna, Witta, Howya, Whyya, Thereya, etc. This is pretty common in vernacular speech no matter where you lie on the ethnic socioeconomic ladder and it’s just wrong in formal speech. It’s easily correctable, and a failure to do so past a certain working age has (in my opinion – frustrated educator speaking here) less to do because of an ethnic speech pattern but more likely a complete disdain and halfass attitude towards improving your diction. Laziness.

Now, I would never actually say to a student, “That’s lazy, you can talk better that,” etc. – but I can and have gotten plenty frustrated when students leave my classroom not speaking any clearer after my example and guidance.

I see where magellan01’s coming from even if I don’t agree with his conclusions or examples.

520

And this statement is fundamentally false is every possible way. What you are calling “mother language/formal language/standard language” is a dialect. The statement that dialects “tend to be more oral in nature” is absolutely nonsensical.