Ebonics: a bad idea becomes a horrible reality

[QuickSilver]

I understand that AAVE has legitimate cultural roots. I understand the desire of many AA’s to want to hang on to this language because language is such an important part of any given culture. Here’s what I’m confused about…

With the exception of a few select school programs (not even entire schools as I understand it) AAVE has never been traditionally taught to it’s primary users. The language has survived strictly and literally by word of mouth. Linguists may have dug up the various rules and structures governing this language but as far as I’m able to determine, that knowledge remains unapplied in any meaningful way as far as actually teaching the language. SAE or pretty much any other language for that matter that is taught in schools as part of standard curriculum is taught by it’s governing linguistic rules.

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.

[magellan01]

@Mr2001

That’s your interpretation. Clearly would be if they actually wrote “Ebonics is going to be used to teach classes”.

The only evidence that any teachers would be speaking Ebonics is your interpretation of an ambiguous sentence in the article.

Yes, it is my interpretation. I hope I am wrong, but the article states:

"Ebonics is a different language, it’s not slang as many believe,’ Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language.’

Texeira said research has shown that students learn better when they fully comprehend the language they are being taught in."

What is being described here is the approach of bilingual eduation, in which the content of one’s classes are taught in his/her native tongue. I interpret i this way because:

1. it is being classified as a distinct language, not a dialect
2. the model being described is one of bilingual education, not ESL, as I previously and mistakenly characterized it
3. given #2, the last paragraph seems to me to clearly state that kids will be taught in their native primary “language”.
4. it wold make no sense for these words to be uttered an have the meaning be that the intent is to teach the kids in SE

Yes, this is an interpretation of what is largely a poorly written article, but these passages seem to be clear.

The only confusion I CAN see is that the person quoted above, Texeira, was being interviewed as an expert, or supporter. She is not an administer of the program. Further down, the article states:

“Tillman disagreed with Parra, saying programs that help Latinos already exist in the district. He cited the district’s English- as-a-second-language program.”

What we don’t know is whether Tillman intended to imply that his program was just like the one offered to Latinos or if he was making a broader point, countering a detractor’s point, that race-based language programs are not taboo. In context, his intent appears to be the latter.

@Mr2001

What linguistic training do you have that lets you predict how much a dialect can change in a generation?

Well, why don’t you separate it out for us? Explain which parts are a legitimate dialect, and which are lazy speech or poor grammar.

I have no expertise. But–and please correct me if I am wrong–if something is a dialect, wouldn’t someone from two generations ago be able to undestand the new generation? If not, isn’t it merely slang?

So far as separating it out, that’s part of the problem I’m having. The attitude seems to be that whatever comes out of the mouths of these kids is perfectly fine. Is there any of it that people are willing to say is just plain wrong and is not attributed to “dialect”? If someone could separate it out for me I would be grateful. I also think it would help the debate.

[jimpatro]

So I get what the motivation is for training teachers in Ebonics already.
And I understand that AAVE is a dialect of English. And I can see how “lazy” sounds very insulting, but in some cases…

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…

[Gorsnak]

@jimpatro

And I can see how “lazy” sounds very insulting, but in some cases…

Isn’t “axe” easier to say than “ask” ?

You’re from Texas, and you’re suggesting that it’s appropriate to call people lazy based on their pronunciation patterns? :dubious:

Y’all gotta be kiddin’ me.

[jimpatro]

Tell me about it!
But I’m really not wanting to generalize and call people lazy, I meant certain speech patterns. How would you answer the question, Gorsnak ?

[magellan01]

@even sven

What the hell is “lazy speech”? How can speech be lazy? Either you say one thing or you say some other thing. It’s not like time and energy are saved by saying “I be broke.” Why are you using the word “lazy” when it clearly isn’t appropriate.

Given that “lazy” clearly isn’t an appropriate characterization, why do you think that word jumped to your mind?

Because lazy speech does exist. When one drops a consonant, as in “I was talkin to me friend about goin’ to Harvard.”

What did YOU think caused it to jump into my mind? Do you strongly connote “lazy” with something in particular?

@even sven

And no, this is not an impediment. All of us speak differently to our mothers than we do to our boss. All of us use a different set of vocabulary and grammar when we talk to our friends as opposed to when we are writing a paper for school. Heck, go to India (or anywhere else in the world) and you will meet hundreds of people- many with little education- that are able to navigate the world while having four or five languages that they use for different situations. People are perfectly capable of holding different language paradigms in their head and figuring out when to use which ones.

Why do you think African-Americans would be any different?

I don’t–as long as they can call on the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. This is not about banning the ebonics “dialect” or slang or anything else. It is about what should be taught in schools. And that used to mean TEACHING kids that there are right and wrong answers in math and right and wrong ways to speak. They are kids. They look to adults for the answers to these things because we supposedly have them. We are remiss in our obligation as the wiser generation if we do not pass on what we have learned, if we do not arm these children with the tools they will need to navigate the world.

[jimpatro]

Which maybe also brings up a point. Teachers in Texas don’t need to be trained in “country.”

[Gorsnak]

@jimpatro

Tell me about it!
But I’m really not wanting to generalize and call people lazy, I meant certain speech patterns. How would you answer the question, Gorsnak ?

I would say it makes no sense to descibe AAVE as “lazier” than Standard English than it does to describe Plattdietsch as “lazier” than High German. I would further say that all spoken English vernaculars that I’ve ever elide huge swaths of enunciation from formally correct Standard English, even if they’re scarcely different from Standard English in terms of grammar and vocabulary. I guess that makes all spoken English “lazy.”

[Gorsnak]

@jimpatro

Which maybe also brings up a point. Teachers in Texas don’t need to be trained in “country.”

But “country” doesn’t differ significantly from Standard English in grammar or vocabulary. Just pronunciation. It’s not a dialect, it’s an accent.

[Gorsnak]

@Gorsnak

I would say it makes no sense to descibe AAVE…

makes no more sense to describe

Back to remedial English classes for me.

[jimpatro]

Which is easier to say, “axe” or “ask”?

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

I suspect, however, that you are not actually comparing AAVE across 40 years, but youth slang across 40 years–and those are different…If you can show me a study by a linguist that demonstrates a clear change in grammar and syntax (as opposed to a change in buzzwords) in AAVE between 1965 and 2005, I will back off my position, but I really think you are confusing street speech with the dialect, itself. Based on that impression, I really believe that you are starting from a fundamental error in your position.

Not being in the filed I can point to no study, nor do I know if one exists. I am speaking from just my personal experience. The kids I grew up with did say “axe” and “breakfas” and some did drop the “g” form the gerund (as did many of us whites). Some had southern accents. But there was no ignoring of the verb “to be”, which seems to be a defining “rule”.

Speaking of which, I’ve been searching the web for a comprehensive list of these rules. Can anyone provide a link? Thanks.

[Gorsnak]

@jimpatro

Which is easier to say, “axe” or “ask”?

After repeated experimentation, I can’t determine that either is easier for me to say. Not a very good example. I’m sure there are other bits of AAVE that have far more relaxed pronunciation relative to formal Standard English.

[jimpatro]

Gorsnak

But “country” doesn’t differ significantly from Standard English in grammar or vocabulary. Just pronunciation. It’s not a dialect, it’s an accent.

See, similarly, I just don’t see AAVE as being so mysterious as to need translation. Maybe it’s just my exposure to it, I don’t know.

[John_Mace]

@QuickSilve

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.

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.

@magellan

Because lazy speech does exist. When one drops a consonant, as in “I was talkin to me friend about goin’ to Harvard.”

What did YOU think caused it to jump into my mind? Do you strongly connote “lazy” with something in particular?

Standard English is filled with words that retain letters we no longer pronounce but which were pronounced in earlier times (eg, knight). Do we all speak “Lazy Middle English”? What about words as common as “Wednesday”? Are you lazy if you don’t say Wed-nes-day?

Langauges change all the time. English lost most of the case endings that it had at one time. Are we all now “lazy” speakers because we use the same word for “book” in these two sentences:

The book fell off the table.
The story is in the book.

What’s the plural of forum: Is it fora or forums? How about index: indexes or indeces?

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

[Acsenray]

@magellan01

Because lazy speech does exist. When one drops a consonant, as in “I was talkin to me friend about goin’ to Harvard.”

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

I don’t–as long as they can call on the appropriate speech at the appropriate time.

I don’t think anyone here disagrees with this.

This is not about banning the ebonics “dialect” or slang or anything else. It is about what should be taught in schools.

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.

[jimpatro]

What would an example of a “lazy” speech pattern be?

[jimpatro]

acsenray

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.

Are you saying that if it were wrong, we should lie to them?

[Acsenray]

@jimpatro

Are you saying that if it were wrong, we should lie to them?

I’m telling you that to them it’s not wrong and they’re not going to accept it if you say it’s wrong and your judgment that it’s wrong is questionable. It’s simply not on the same level as 1+1=2. And you’re not going to further your stated goal of teaching standard English by insisting it’s wrong.

[jimpatro]

It’s a passive thing though, or should be. Even back when I was a kid just starting out in school, I can’t remember ever being told I was speaking wrong. But I could tell the difference between what I heard at home and what I was learning.