Precious. You acknowledge not knowing what my views are, yet you are certain that they lack support.
As for your professed aversion to “slurs,” pal, re-read your earlier posts (e.g., “a failure to recognize the distinctions that linguists have been publicizing for over thirty years may be a sign of true ignorance”). No, you weren’t being insulting to an earlier poster. And, no, you weren’t being smug. Memo to Tommy Boy: Calm yourself.
Rmat writes:
> Taking the earlier posters’ descriptions of all those “linguistic
> studies” at face value (likely an imprudent step in itself, given
> how much of what passes in certain fields these days
> as “research” has less to do with scholarship and more to do
> with promoting some fad-based educational
> technique, “celebrating” some dubious cultural phenomenon, or
> lining the pockets of those who financial self-interests are
> served when school boards buy into such things), they posit
> that when one says “axe” rather than “ask,” “dis” rather
> than “this,” and the like, one is following a pattern sufficiently
> predictable and rule-bound to merit the
> characterization “dialect.”
I don’t know anyone in the field of linguistics, regardless of their political opinions, who thinks that Black English (or any other dialect, for that matter) can be explained by “laziness.” Have you read any linguistics? It’s always astonishing to me how people think they can offer their raw opinions on matters of language and expect that people should take them as being on the same level as that of actual experts in the field. This contrasts strangely with people’s willingness to venture an opinion on mathematical matters. (I have master’s degrees in both math and linguistics.) Most people who don’t know much about math at least have the decency to not offer an opinion about mathematical things that they don’t understand. Bizarrely often, people think that can pontificate about language without having studied anything about it.
Far from choosing their theories because they fit some “fad-based educational technique,” linguists tend to be annoyed by the faddish educators who misunderstand their points. As I pointed out in an earlier post, many linguists were very angry about the way that the Oakland school board statement misunderstood their views about Black English. Linguists have been studying Black English, just like they have been studying other dialects of English, since well before educators got interested in the subject. And they’re not making any money off the subject, incidentally.
Do you have some research that shows that “laziness” explains something about Black English (or any other dialect)? Fine, give us a citation for this research. Or is this your own unpublished data? Fine, then give us the arguments that show that laziness has anything to do with dialects. Otherwise, don’t expect us to be impressed by your raw opinions which don’t agree with the research of anyone, of any political opinion, who’s actually done research on this subject.
Only if one uses an interesting and non-standard definition of “laziness”. If it is lazy to follow the rules of one’s native dialect then we are all lazy. It’s a good thing too, because if we did not follow the rules of our native dialects then communication would be impossible.
Or perhaps you mean that it is lazy to follow a rule that is less difficult to follow than some other potential rule. The rules of AAVE do allow speakers to avoid pronouncing the difficult “th” sound. So do the rules of the majority of dialects on earth. Are they all lazy? Is SEV superior for forcing its speakers to do something difficult? It might be if pronouncing the “th” sound facilitated the verbal expression of ideas in a way that dialects lacking that sound could not, but this is not the case. When it comes to elements of language that actually do facilitate the verbal expression of ideas AAVE is in no way lazy. In fact, the rules of AAVE make it possible to express certain concepts (such as a present-tense action that is habitual or extended) more clearly and more elegantly than does SEV.
Examples, please? I’m not nitpicking, I find this fascinating. But I haven’t a clue (NoClueBoy, si?) about what you mean.
Please clarify.
The classic example is the oft-told story of the administrator who went to a classroom to find a teacher and was met by the statement, “He be gone.” In AAVE, (as in a number of other languages), the verb “to be” can be omitted in many instances and its presence expresses a particular point. In this case, the statement “He be gone” indicated that the teacher was habitually/repeatedly/persistently gone. Had the reply been “He gone.” the meaning would have been simply, “He is currently out of the room.” The construction “He be gone.” indicated that he was, as usual, out of the room.
In SEV, it would require the modifying words or phrases “always,” “as usual,” or some similar addition to convey the same idea.
Now that’s interesting. Thanks for the example, I think I can pick up on other examples myself, now that I know what you meant. And, yeah, it really does work, doesn’t it?
You have expressed views that you believe linguistic research is tainted (the exact statement of yours that I quoted), and you have provided no support for that view. Are you now denying what you have posted?
All right, that’s reasonable. You think certain features of English speech are the result of laziness.
May I see your research that shows how your contrasting examples of lazy speech vs. diligent speech actually have different economies of articulation? What is your basis for measuring “difficulty” in articulation?
So I can verify this, can you provide your list of features in English speech that indicate laziness? Your list of features that indicate diligence?
Next, a tally that shows the count of “lazy” features in Black speakers is significantly higher than the count of “lazy” features in normal English? And the same for “diligent” features… I’d like to see that normal English has a great deal more “diligent” features than “lazy” ones.
Also, since you deny that Black English is a dialect, how are you defining the group you think is being lazy?
Taking another tack, what is your theory of language acquisition? Do you believe we have specialized apparatus in our brain that facilitates it, or is it just another result of our general intelligence?
How do you define the relationship between intelligence and language acquisition in terms of whichever theory you subscribe to? Any examples you’d care to provide would be great.
I ask because I’m wondering if it’s some kind of intrinsic laziness you think we’re dealing with here or if you believe these lazy people actually know perfectly well how to speak diligently, but are just too darn lazy to bother. Or were they too lazy to learn how to speak properly in school, and are now speaking diligently the language they learned lazily? Perhaps both?
-fh
Just my opinion, but I think the OP question has been answered and now the thread has turned into a debate.
But, it has been most enlightening to this confused hitch-hiker from Betelgeuse 7.
[hijack]You got that wrong. The “r” in Brazilian Portuguese is pronounced differently depending on its position in the word. The “r” in “Brasil” resembles a Spanish “r”, but “Rio” sounds more like “Heeoo”.[/hijack]
Well… there is no debate really. Nobody who does actual research on language or dialects believes dialects are the result of laziness or low intelligence. All dialects are functionally equivalent; some of them are accorded higher social status. The combination of this social distinction, human nature, and general ignorance about lingustics means many people will attach negative traits to features of socially nonstandard dialects… stupidity, laziness, etc. But it has nothing to do with anything intrinsic to the dialects… it’s just demonizing groups of people who speak them because they are different.
These are not opinions, and they are not the result of a belief in cultural relativism. They are the best explanations that exist for the facts as observed. Trying to dispute the functional equivalency of dialects with a linguist is like trying to dispute gravity with a physicist… you can try, but don’t expect much effort to be expended disproving your hypothesis until you come up with some truly extraordinary evidence.
-fh
so, what do you feel about this? I certainly was picked on more than average in my class, but not for my grammar skills. In my opinion, I could be wrong, I picked on others less than average. Are you saying that I am probably stupider than others, since I was not learning to be cruel? Perhaps I should have taunted more people when I was a tyke?
I’m sorry, but the only thing I ever learned when I taunted people in school was that it creates an incredible sense of remorse, till it finally passed the breaking point and I never did it again.
to be fair, I do have a lower than average social intelligence, but mainly relating to not knowing the proper thing to say. In terms of observational skills, I can name plenty of outgoing, “winner” people who are more socially clueless than I am. For instance, its embarassing to be around someone who has to say SOMETHING to every little cashier or sales clerk and is too clueless to know that the clerk it annoyed as such up with people behavior. Or maybe they just dont care.
Perhaps I should have been learning not to care how people feel?
Perhaps I should have been learning to not care what type of music is played on corporate radio? Discourse Communities, and all. I should tolerate blantant misogyny from shock-djs just to hear the latest tune from creed! Wooooooodiscoursecommunityhooooo!
This thread has been an excellent read; to the participants, job well done.
Just recently I got in a debate with a friend about this very issue. He maintains that “ebonics” is disgraceful because it is a product of ignorance and laziness, and that educated black folks who use it among themselves only do so because they want to show that they are “down for the cause”. He thinks it is a problem that black people don’t blush and apologize profusely whenever a “be” improperly pops up in a sentence.
WTF, I wanted to scream. But, keeping my cool, I tried to get him to see the issue from a perspective uncontaminated by racism. In fact, one example I used for comparison was the cockney accent, chosen because it is one of the most distinct and (at for least me) difficult to understand mutations of the English language. But of course to him that accent is perfectly acceptable, even though he couldn’t persuasively articulate why he felt that way. It all boiled down to “it just is”.
I couldn’t get him to see or admit that accents are just accents. Most people don’t adopt an accent/dialect just because they want membership into a certain regional or ethnic group, as he was portraying it. Rather, it is because people belong to certain groups that they have certain ways of speaking which sets them apart from other groups. And so placing value judgments on an accent is not only wrong, but silly. It’s like saying its wrong for Asians to have inner eye folds. Accents, just like inner eye folds, are products of evolutionary forces.
Okay, I definitely am not a linguist. But, I know I have some general intelligence. And I think I’m catching on to what the linguists among us are posting.
It seems that place of origin, surrounding culture, and upbringing have much to do with dialect acquisition. (Unless I’ve totally missed it.) So I have to ask, where did AAVE originate?
Because, though I have a distinct accent and can fit right back into speaking what I called Texican when around family and old neighborhood friends, I can (and often have to) speak SEV at any time. In fact, it’s probably what I’m speaking now. I notice that even my body language changes when I switch back and forth. I guess my point is, outside of my old haunts, I don’t ever hear my childhood speech patterns, from people of any color. But what you guys are calling AAVE (ebonics?) seems to be as assimilated into the whole North American continent as SEV.
Where did it originate?
By the way, I’m having immense fun reading and (maybe) learning from all this. If I made any wrong assumptions leading to this latest question, please feel free to enlighten me. And, no I’m not being sarcastic. This is interesting.
I’ve also been enjoying this thread. I love it when Doper PhD’s discuss their field.
BTW I recommend Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Jorge Luis Borges. IIRC the story gives examples of two invented languages, one of which contains no nouns.
Obrigado for setting me straight. It was just that when I learned that boa tarde is pronounced “boa takhji,” I realized Brazilian pronunciation is not what it appears to be. (Of course I should talk, right? English is much worse than Brazilian in that regard. Icelandic is worse than even English — but Tibetan is the undisputed world champion of spelling-pronunciation mismatches).
my favorite is the word “cent.” whenever i get change at a business, usually a fast food restaurant, a black person invariably says “sixteen cent,” or however much it is.
they use the singular “cent,” instead of the plural. why?
The linguists are still fighting over that one.
Basically, there are elements, in black speech, that are common to regions of the Southern U.S. and there are elements that appear to have been brought over from various African tongues. If there has been a recent publication that claims to have unraveled the whole skein, I have not yet encountered it.
Regarding your first (quoted) point of its distribution across the whole of the U.S., there are two aspects of that to remember. The first is that AAVE, while itself a dialect, also has its own accents so that there are regional differences, it is not as uniform as those who do not speak it might perceive. The second is that it had around 280 years to develop its basic patterns, but it has only begun to be diffused for around 80 years. The first serious migrations out of the South only began in the 1920s. As late as the 1940s and 1950s, blacks were still moving to the North. When they arrived in the North, they were usually limited to specific areas to live until the 1970s or later, so their speech (especially in the home) was not diluted by intermingling with native speakers of the U.S. Northern dialect or accent. In addition, family ties kept a steady stream of people visiting back to their Southern roots, so the original speech was reinforced in that way, as well. (Whites have done the same thing, where large communities around Akron, OH and Ypsilanti, MI still maintain an accent that is very close to the West Virginia or Kentucky accents of the people who migrated north for jobs during WWII and made homes and raised kids. Similarly, European immigrant communities maintained German or Polish or Italian accents, sometimes for several generations until they were fully assimilated.)
As more blacks live in more diverse communities, I would expect that AAVE will fracture somewhat, but it may take another generation.
**
Well, we’re really only talking about the US here, not all of North America. Canada has its own English dialects, and of course most Mexicans speak Spanish dialects. But you are right that AAVE is widespread within the US. It even has some regional variations of its own, and so may be considered a family of closely-related dialects rather than a single dialect.
This is a matter of some scholarly debate. I will admit here that I am not a real linguist (my school does not offer a linguistics major, so I am making do with a double in Communication and Philosophy), but here’s the rundown as best I understand it. If I make any mistakes I’m sure someone will correct me. 
Two major theories about the roots of AAVE hold that AAVE originated among American slaves. Creolists believe AAVE is a creole of English and several African languages, and Anglicist believe it is a true English dialect relatively uninfluenced by other languages and closely related to the English dialects spoken by British (including Scottish and Irish) settlers and native-born American Southern whites. The Divergence Hypothesis suggests that AAVE arose in the 1930s and was the result of the isolation of African-American communities in large Northern cities.
I tend to hold with the Angliscist Hypothesis, although I think there can be little doubt that the economic factors that forced many African-Americans to leave the South also led to the spread AAVE throughout the country, and that segregation helped to preserve it as a distinct dialect.
Can we agree that we are safe in discounting the linguistic opinions of those who were, apparently, unable to read the foregoing? Luckily we got some factual answers in the meantime. If you want to continue this debate or have a nice comforting rant, you know where to go. This thread is closed.
Let’s try to keep the tone civil in here. You don’t have to like each other, but would it kill you to pretend?
bibliophage
moderator GQ