How does one speak Ebonics

Factual Questions
41

While I would not dismiss, as pldennison does, the opinions of english speakers on their own language just because they are not trained linguists, I would say that linguists have a good point when they say that non-standard variants of english, such as Ebonics, Cockney, and Hillbilly-Redneck, are unfairly characterized as broken or substandard english to the extent that they are in fact just as rich and consistently grammatical as the standardized (and I don’t mean standard) english taught in school. If the patois has rules, however different, which the speakers understand and use even if they couldn’t say exactly what the rules are, then there is in fact no rational basis for assuming these english variants inferior.

Having investigated the speech of black Americans, linguists have found that in fact there is a consistent grammar which just as complex as standardized english grammar, but different.

Furthermore, linguists point out that standardization is not a natural phenomenon in language, but an artificial one. It’s a good idea, and one which I surely hope won’t be abandoned by our culture in a fit of multi-cultural self-righteousness, but one that is imposed by grammarians, not by native speakers. Standardization helps smooth out linguistic differences so that a language can effectively communicate more universally, and slows linguistic shifts that could make writing nearly unreadable within a couple of generations. Every English speaker should study standardized English.

But there is nothing inferior about non-standardized english as a language. The concern over Ebonics is nonsense on a purely linguistic level. It is on a social level that the problem arises. Generally, the more educated people are, the more standardized their english will be. The degree to which one’s speech is standardized will be read as the level of one’s intelligence and sophistication.

We know now from research that a child’s early years set speech patterns that are hard to break out of. If standardized english was not spoken in your household, you may have been handicapped in learning it. The fear that prompted the teaching of Ebonics was that if blacks get frustrated trying to learn standard english because they are surrounded by Ebonics, they will give up and will always be viewed by society as inferior and will also have problems communicating, which in turn will impede their progress in many other ways.

Pedagogically, teaching Ebonics wasn’t that terrible an idea. The idea was to teach the grammar of the language the child was already speaking so that they could use that understanding to explain standardized english. The problem I have with it is that they choose to do this for blacks, but hillbillies and white foreigners are assumed to be smart enough to pick up standard english on their own.

So, basically, the problem with teaching Ebonics is not that it’s an inferior language or that it’s not useful to teach, but that ultimately it’s based on the racist assumption that we cannot expect blacks to manage what we expect whites can – to learn standardized english no matter what is spoken at home.

42

OK, so we accept Ebonics as a dialect. Then do kids take English and Ebonics during the course of a day? Or, do they enroll in English as Second Language classes like kids coming from Latin America and overseas? What about spelling bees? If a southern child and an ebonics-taught child went to a spelling bee, and the word was ‘couch’, if the ebonics child was taught it was spelled ‘cowch’, would they get it right? If the southern child spelled it ‘cowch’ would they get it wrong?

If Ebonics does take hold as a recognized dialect, will the government be required to print forms, signs, and the like in Ebonics? If this is a truism, would it be then required to print other regional dialects in their areas to assure fairness? Could people of different non-ebonic dialects sue the government for discrimination?

I’m all for education. But, are we making it easier or harder for ebonics-using youth when we teach them that you can relate an idea in one way using ebonics, and a different, yet similar way in American English? Will they have less trouble or more trouble in areas that do not have ebonics support?

I am a little familiar with languages-having a dad who called a sack a ‘poke’ and a grandmother who called a sack a ‘tashe’, mixed with the slang I have picked up from Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Jewish, and Russian friends, co-workers, and Army buddies makes me realize the value and richness of different languages. However, to recognize all of them, to be fair to all of them, would seem to be a Herculean task for government. The ‘wet floor’ sign at Denny’s would have to be seven feet tall to accomodate all the basic languages spoken in the US, much less the regionalizations and dialects.

I guess my point is, if ebonics is recognized, would it not follow that we would have to recognize all other dialects, or be guilty of discrimination?

Thanks for reading this long post.

-dd

From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee-

43

::::sigh::::

You know, this whole Oakland thing was really more for the benefit of teachers than students. Nobody is proposing teaching children in Ebonics, nobody is proposing teaching both English and Ebonics. They want schoolteachers to understand it as a valid dialect so they can better instruct children in all their classes, but especially in English.

A child who has no grasp of what most of us would consider “standard English,” and speaks in heavy dialect (any dialect), might be considered stupid by teachers, teachers might not give as much effort in instructing them, they might be tracked as “learning disabled,” they may be graded poorly for expressing written ideas in dialect . . . the whole proposal was intended to avoid that sort of thing.

“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather

44

dennison, I have a question for you.

I read through a few of the links you posted in the ‘deliberate ignorance’ thread over in GD. I understood before I started reading that ebonics is simply a dialect; my opinion hasn’t changed.

My question is this (and maybe I just missed it in going through those links): What, exactly, is it that they want to do with ebonics in the schools in Oakland (and eventually, I would assume, elsewhere)?

I think there is a unique angle here in that there is a situation here where the teachers generally do not have the same background, or come from the same communities, as the students. In other areas, say in the rural south where strong dialects might also be spoken, the teachers probably (and this is pure speculation) come from the same area and speak the local dialects because they were raised there. This is not the case in many of the poor black neighborhoods, because many of the teachers are white, coming from white communities, so they have no background with the language.

Is that a fair assesment?

I am still curious about what they plan to do in the schools, though.

45

sixseatport, your assessment does match the published reports from Oakland.

The proposal was to train teachers to understand some of the language that they heard without judging the kids as either developmentally handicapped or as “lazy” speakers. Apparently, the attempt was also to provide enough training to the teachers that they actually understood the kids.

In the wake of the initial hoopla, a few more cynical ideas have been put forth, including: that the Oakland school board basically cooked up this “program” (that they knew would never work) to get Federal money.

I do not know that this was ever their intention. (At this point so many people have invested so much emotion in accusations and counter-charges that we may never know the real truth of the matter.)
There are so many people that got worked up over the proposal to “teach Ebonics” that the point is often lost that Oakland never proposed teaching the children Ebonics (or even in Ebonics). People that would prefer to be mad also tend to take this rather isolated case and turn it into the accusation that the nebulous “They” want to teach inner city kids Ebonics. Oakland was, by far, the largest city to contemplate such a program and very few school districts have even considered any similar program.

Basically, the people who do the most screaming about this are simply people who prefer to rant about things they want to hate rather than finding out the Straight Dope.

Tom~

46

As to general approaches in schools: if there was any merit to the Oakland proposal, we’ll never know it, now, since no school board would dare to propose it after the Oakland firestorm.

I have heard that there is an elementary school in a seriously disadvantaged neighborhood in Houston that has gone back to core-presentation phonics as was taught in the 1950’s and that their students are among the top kids in the U.S. for reading scores at their age levels. I don’t have all the details on it, though. (Most of my info has come from phonics-fanatics and, since I am one, I don’t trust the message as being too close to what I’d like to believe.)

Tom~

47

Thanks for the reply, Tom, but maybe I’m just having a really bad day understanding things (it is Friday…).

Let me rephrase the question:

Did they want to:
A> Teach a class on how to speak Ebonics?

B> Teach other subjects in Ebonics?

C> Drop any other subject (like maybe plain English) in favor of Ebonics?

D> Institute any kind of testing for or in Ebonics?

E> Have the teachers learn it, to communicate with the kids, but not teach it, per se?

Honestly, and maybe I’m showing my white-suburban-middle-america prejudice here, the only proposals I find acceptable are E and to a much lesser extent B.

48

The Oakland proposal was E. No kids were to be taught Ebonics (so no class replacing another) and no class was to be taught in Ebonics. The point was to make sure that the teachers and the kids communicatred (and that the teachers didn’t disparage the kids). The course work was all to be in Standard English.

Tom~

49

It has been stated that the coursework for all the kids would be non-Ebonic english. What about oral reports, debate, speech, drama, et. al.? Would ebonics youth be required to present their oral report of the American Revolution in ‘regular english’ or localized (Ebonics) english? I don’t know if “busting a cap in the Redcoats’ ass” would be appropriate or not. (grinning)

From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee-

50

It’s somewhat of a moot point since the whole proposal in Oakland was hooted down in the national press and I don’t know any other school district that was messing with the idea.

I would guess that by junior high or middle school oral reports should have been in standard, but first graders might not have had enough exposure to standard to get through show-and-tell without AAVE.

All of this is rampant speculation, anyway.

51

It seems to me that Ebonics is often a dialect of a dialect. While in the Army, I heard some black guys from the south say that they couldn’t understand black guys from the northeast.

I could understand them easily enough. It was the white people from Nebraska that I couldn’t decipher.

52

Ummm, just to clarify, a cockney accent (AFAIK) refers to someone who grew up within the ear shot of hearing the Bells of St. Mary(?) ring within London. Think Eliza Doolittle.

Ebonics, AFAIK, refers to any inner city in the US.

53

“Bow bells” (as in “tie a”, not “take a”) is the traditional Cockney area.

54

I am not finding data that doesn’t show that every group has its ebonics. You just have “to be” in. Case in point: surfing groups, construction, math, religion, real estate, entertainment, etc. Therefore, I do not see any reason to mend anything negative with internal jargon if you will. Let alone base ebonics on race!

55

You are responding to a thread from almost 14 years ago!

So, I have only this to say:
Do zombies speak Ebonics?

56

I’ve heard that the stereotypical “pirate” speak is actually related to AAVE/Ebonics because many first-generation slaves learned some English on the slave ships from sailors, and the “pirate” speak is actually more “sailor” speak in general and would have been used by both pirate sailors and non-pirate sailors.

57

Given that this thread is so old, I’m going to close it. If there are further questions not addressed here a new thread can be opened in GQ. If you want to discuss Ebonics in general a thread can be opened in Great Debates or IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator