But there is a right and a wrong way to do math. 2 + 2 must always equal 4. Language is not the same way. What you view as standard English is not inherently superior to AAE. AAE is not a ‘‘wrong’’ way of speaking. It follows grammatical rules, it has an underlying structure and those rules are always followed consistently–it does not need to be corrected because it is perfectly consistent with itself and actually quite an efficient form of communication. What is considered ‘‘standard’’ English is important to learn simply because it is a status language that is basically a requirement to function as a professional within society… but standard English is a prejudice, not an objective way of doing things.
I found this video of a guy discussing this exact idea–he says “a teacher’s job is to educate… if a teacher doesn’t have a problem correcting a student’s math problem, science problem, or social studies problem, then why do they have a problem correcting a child’s English?” He goes on to say “so we have a kindergarten student, a first, a second, a third grade student who has never been corrected. They become an eighteen year old senior who has never been corrected. They enter the business world, and they get knocked out of a job opportunity because they’ve never been corrected.” He advises that teachers respect a home dialect but differentiate between casual English and “academic” or “employment English”. He argues that it’s not just about AAVE, it’s about speaking properly across race and socio-economic status, that “getting good grades or a good job is not about trying to be white” or “appear white” but that “it’s about excellence”.
One interesting thing he said (is this true?) is that “ax” or “axeth” is a correct but archaic version of the word “ask” in old and middle english. He says it went out of “style” in the mid-1800’s but was retained in areas of the south and in slaves. Is that true?
That’s a matter of opinion (or perspective). Increased standards for teachers, improved student achievement in reading and math, and a 60% increase in education funding is hard to ignore, and even the AEA would rather reform NCLB than scrap it.
Yes, there are problems, but to say it “made schools worse” is simply not true.
FWIW, the vast majority of whites can’t write fer shit either.
The problem with this perspective is that you are perfectly correct on an objective basis. In fact I recall the
[quote from Max Weinreich]
(Dialect - Wikipedia) who said “A language is a dialect with an army and navy”. However in speaking specifically to that point, as you diverge further and further from the standard English necessary to communicate comfortably and intelligibly with the majority of the population you will typically isolate yourself from professional and financial advancement opportunities.
Is it “wrong” to speak with a syntax that will tend to isolate your ability to access the benefits conferred by the larger society? That question sits at a blurred intersection where respect for cultural differentiation, and the practical realities and necessities of professional interaction come together. Generally kids who speak with more a pronounced level of ghetto speak (and I’m not going to call it AAE, because to me ghetto speak is, to my ears, a substantially different syntax than what most middle class blacks speak. In my experience it’s overwhelmingly a dialect used by poorer black people) are going to be shut out of many opportunities that more standard English would afford them.
Tut tutting at business people for not being embracing enough of dialect differences when they’re trying to hire someone who can communicate clearly and professionally with their (majority white) clientele is a somewhat precious stance, that will tend to yield a larger than necessary cohort of underemployed adult black job seekers. It it “wrong” to not discourage grammar usage that will tend to make you poorer and less employable? I suppose that’s an individual call.
Fixed title.
No, you didn’t.
Only if you restrict yourself from equally valid nondecimal numeral systems. What’s wrong with ternary, you numeralist!?
[QUOTE=astro]
The problem with this perspective is that you are perfectly correct on an objective basis. In fact I recall the
I’m amazed that you managed to ignore a sentence that you quoted.
I had said:
In other words, I said that that there are social reasons to not use AAE, so we can both beat that strawman, if you like.
My point was in agreement with liberty3701:
(Bolding mine)
Astro, I think you’re a bit confused on a few points. No one here, as far as I can tell, is putting out the arguments you’re refuting. We all get that knowing standard English is important for the business world. You asked how it’s possible that the stigmatized variety continues even after people have education, and several of us gave some plausible reasons why. All JJ states, correctly, is that the notions of “correctness” and “identity” are different for dialect usage and chemistry.
Also, AAE refers to a wide spectrum of speech by African Americans, so please do not continue to use the derogatory term “ghetto” for a dialect that is just as regular and expressive and complex as every other dialect.
New and improved title fix. 
I have absolutely no problem with people speaking whatever dialect they choose. If you and your friends want to speak entirely in Pig Latin, using Turkish adjectives and German adverbs, who am I to complain?
The short answer to the question asked in the thread title is that “black ghetto grammar” (AAE if you prefer) exists for the same reason as haxor kids use leetspeak; it makes the speakers part of an exclusive group. A dialect will never go away as long as some group of people identify with it.
How so? Your dialect isn’t like your skin color. You choose the way you speak. I’m perfectly capable of speaking geek to one set of friends and “newscaster English” to another, and I know plenty of people who change their dialect based on who they’re with at the time. If you move from Chicago to Aberdeen and pick up a Scottish accent, you haven’t changed who you are.
On any objective level? A language teacher’s job is to teach students how to communicate. A large percentage of the population finds AAE difficult to follow at best and incomprehensible at worst. If a student gets through school only knowing how to communicate with a small fraction of people who ostensibly speak the same language, then what the teacher did is objectively wrong.
You could choose the way you speak, to some extent, but apart from actors while on the job, most people don’t choose in any significant way and needn’t bother to. It’s hardly coincidence that people in the U.S. tend to use American dialects and people in Britain tend to use British ones; it’s odd to describe the phenomenon at work there as a “choice”.
At any rate, while some may pick up a Scottish accent after moving from Chicago to Aberdeen, plenty of others would just retain their Chicago accent, and none would fault them for it.
(Yes, yes, don’t get the wrong idea, like everyone else, I do think children who speak AAVE natively should learn “Standard American English” and the written standard as well, for deployment in those special situations where it would be useful to them)
To me, your sentence
said effectively “It’s a perfect valid form of communication on practically every objective level that should not be shield away from, except for fact that it may severely cripple your ability to make a decent living as an adult.”
You can rely on this “and the only reasons it should be shied from are social.” little fig leaf if you want, but the “Don’t you dare judge other people’s dialects” point was obviously the main thrust of your statement.
If something is going to nuke a child’s ability to make a living this academically precious stance borders on enabling failure. At some point you have to a make a choice about encouraging or discouraging this language pattern in schoolchildren. And doing nothing to discourage it is a making a choice.
You missed the point. You’ve incorrectly assumed that the people you’re thinking of can’t speak standard English. They can and do–just not with each other, and not in informal contexts.
-FrL-
It’s ridiculous the bombastic levels of damage to one’s life and opportunities which people consider in store for native speakers of AAVE. I never see such exaggeration trotted out regarding, say, the prospects for Scottish speakers in the U.S (or, for that matter, England or Australia or anywhere outside of Scotland). People, on the whole, ought to be pretty used to the fact that not everyone speaks exactly the same way; it’s not usually some terrible, cogs-of-society-jamming problem to have to interact with others across such shifts of native dialect.
When it comes to language, what other reasons are there besides social?
Okay, what’s wrong with that? How is this inconsistent with liberty3701’s idea that we should respect all dialects, and then from this position of respect, teach a more standard mode of speech? This is instead of the current mode of devaluing AAE, and saying that it, and all of the cultural baggage it represents, is objectively wrong.
Again, the same strawman.
Oh, and InvisibleWombat? I don’t think you and I are using the word ‘objectively’ the same way. To me, the concerns you raise are relative to the society we live in and thus not objective. I’m sorry if I’ve created some misunderstanding.
Odd… the users of the particular version of AAE I am referring to consistently use the term 'Ghetto", often proudly or humorously, as an identifier for behaviors, actions and things they determine as belonging to that cultural lifestyle set. I would think you would have more respect for their self chosen identifiers.
Also, I’m not going to lump this into the big AAE basket of generalized black language, as to the the particular dialect of Ghetto speak is (to my non-linguist ears) considerably different than the spoken language of middle class black people. If you want me to term it UAEE for underclass AEE that’s fine, but “Ghetto Speak/UAEE” is (to me) a considerably different animal than the more generalized AAE.
(Sorry for the double post; I’ve just seen this.)
I don’t think there are other reasons. Please recall that when I made that remark, I was responding to Mr. Excellent’s analogy of language instruction with math or chemistry instruction. I was trying to point out the very difference you are asserting.