There are no “higher level” and “lower level” words. There are just words. And languages and dialects. If liberals are more aware of the existence of dialects like African American Vernacular English, and sometimes make language choices to ensure that AAVE-only speakers understand their messaging, then that sounds to be entirely reasonable, compassionate, and appropriate. The assertion or implication that AAVE is “lower level” or less competent or in any other way less than any other dialects of English is highly bigoted (and sadly quite common).
The linked article makes no reference to the existence of different dialects of English and I suspect that the author and researchers are unaware of their existence, or otherwise chose to ignore their existence.
AAVE is not “lower level” in discourse than any other dialect.
The authors used words like “sad” instead of “melancholy”. What does that have to do with AAVE? Is “sad” exclusive to AAVE. Anyway, why would the author assume the recipient prefers AAVE, an outgroup dialect associated with poor economic success? Why is there no assumption that “Emily” prefers outgroup dialects spoken by whites?
In any case, I would bet that the authors themselves think words like ”sad” are dumbed down compared to words like “melancholy”. Most people understand that.
Conservative poster cites results of conservative study that finds conservatives are better people.
Any discussion (or study) of language use and black people in America that ignores dialects, and AAVE in particular, is an incompetent study that can be dismissed in its entirety. The author of the linked article is apparently ignorant of AAVE. So, apparently, are the researchers referenced. This is sadly very common - lots and lots of Americans, liberal and moderate and conservative, are unaware of AAVE and assume that the dialect is simply lower level English (or some other bigoted categorization). Hopefully discussions like this can help to educate the ignorant about the existence and significance of AAVE, and maybe reduce the chances of ignorant articles and studies put out that ignore its existence (or worse, refer to it as “lower level” discourse).
Except the study authors bend over backwards to explain why conservatives are bigoted and liberals are still “well-intentioned”. I don’t know if they are conservative, but I doubt it.
Why didn’t the study subjects communicate with perceived whites in outgroup dialects spoken by whites?
Why must the black people be talked to in a dialect associated with poor economic success? Seems self-defeating and presumptuous.
The spectacle of thewhite guy “trying to be down” by using AAVE in order to be “compassionate” gives me a chuckle I must say. You understand an individual like this would and should be laughed at, right?
Based on the apparent incompetence of the study, they didn’t consider dialect usage at all, and thus the study wouldn’t tell us anything about whether this occurred or not. Furthermore, IMO there is a considerable lack in education and understanding of American English dialects in general, not just about AAVE.
This paragraph just looks like a way to take a cheap shot at black Americans, and I’m not interested in responding to that.
No idea what you’re talking about here, except perhaps to just deal in more cheap shots and caricatures. If you think taking dialect usage and fluency into account in crafting messaging is laughable, then we really don’t have much to discuss.
Actually, no, that is a link to another article about the study, which contains a link to the study.
THIS is a link to the actual study:
https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/
Also in a situation where one side prefers AAVE and another prefers academic English (or whatever it’s called) why should the default be AAVE for the sake of compassion? Why doesn’t the AAVE user adopt academic Engiish for the sake of compassion?
Ok maybe others will provide some insights on the word choice of liberals. Thanks for your contribution.
Before asking that question you have to show that tailoring a speech for your audience (or in this case using fewer words from a given set of words) is the same as a “lower level of discourse”.
If you now recognize that calling or implying AAVE is “lower level discourse” is bigoted and wrong, then this might be the most productive discussion the two of us have ever had on this board, and I’ll tip my hat to you for your open mind.
Thanks 
I never implied or called AAVE anything of the kind. I said AAVE was associated with poor economic success. It is. I called it an outgroup dialect which I believe is appropriate.
I did say that words like “sad” are lower level compared to words like “melancholy”. I said the language used by the study subjects with black people was lower level discourse. Lower level could mean many things. What I meant by “lower level” is that English speakers, broadly considered, will encounter and use words like “sad” at a lower level of language comprehension than the level at which they encounter and use words like “melancholy”. If you want to take the discussion of language further, I will not be able to indulge you in this thread.
Calling AAVE “lower level discourse” could be wrong depending on your definitions. It could be bigoted depending on your motivations. I will not make categorical claims on issues like these.
Could you say this again, using smaller words?
Regards,
Shodan
What does “poor economic success” have to do with the article in the OP, or anything related to this discussion? Just more pointless cheap shots at black Americans.
What ever could you be speaking upon, Willis?
I brought it up because I don’t understand why someone would choose to use that when communicating with someone considering that it is associated with lower incomes. I don’t think it is compassionate to encourage use of a dialect when doing so could bring poor economic outcomes.
For those interested in the source materialhere it is.
It’s an interesting study and discussion, that is poorly represented by a simple headline. It wasn’t so much the liberals talked down to African American audiences, (ie I don’t want to use the word melecholy because they wouldn’t understand me) it is rather that they didn’t use words that promoted their own competence (ie I don’t want to use the word melancholy because it might sound like I’m trying to boast about my erudition.). Basically liberals were more concerned than conservatives with using language that might suggest their superiority when they were talking with blacks than when they were talking with other whites, while Conservatives were not so worried, and in some cases appeared more likely to to want to use words indicating their competence with blacks than when talking with whites.
They also found that there was a moderate negative interaction between “warmth” words and “competence” words, and that conservatives seem to be less likely to use warmth words with blacks than they are with whites, while there is no such significant change in liberals.
So basically white liberals were worried about appearing cold and like a know-it-all when talking to blacks, while conservatives either didn’t care, or to some extent wanted to demonstrate their superiority.
I would also say that the statistics is a bit sketchy from a multiple comparisons point of view. They looked at 3 different measures of conservativeness in 5 different studies, and only found a few cases where the interaction between conservativeness and competence words was statistically significant (p<0.05) but the trends in the multiple studies seemed in the same direction so a meta analysis would probably show overall significance.