# Ebonics, also known as AAE.



## JLanguage

Note, AAE: African-American English. I was wondering if you guys would share your experiences with Ebonics, either as a native speaker or just another English-speaking person. I certainly think it's one of the most interesting dialects of English, especially considering it's seems to be the same whether in Chicaho, Atlanta or California.

Cheers,
-Jonathan.


----------



## VenusEnvy

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Note, AAE: African-American English. I was wondering if you guys would share your experiences with Ebonics, either as a native speaker or just another English-speaking person. I certainly think it's one of the most interesting dialects of English, especially considering it's seems to be the same whether in Chicaho, Atlanta or California.


It is also often referred to as AAVE: African-American Vernacular English. It seems as though this thread has had many viewers, but no responders, yet! This topic is of such controversy, I am sure that no one really wants to stick their neck out to voice an opinion on the matter. I urge others to do so, however!

I understand Linguists point of view: It is a dialect of English. It endures, it has a structure, it is understood by its speakers, and can be taught. English in the US has many, many dialects, none of which are better, or more correct than the next.

I understand Educators point of view: working-class US African-American children come into the institution of mainstream society speaking another dialect of English. In order to facilitate the learning of standard English, educators should incorporate AAVE into the curriculum. To deny their dialect is to deny their individualism.

I EVEN understand Sociologists point of view: The origin of AAVE may stems from de facto (or de juro, at the time) segregation. When a population of people is isolated, and social mobility is limited with the dominant language and culture, and new language and culture is then adopted.


I'll put my actual opinion on hold for a while. Meanwhile, those who don't know much about AAVE, or Ebonics, can check out this site  with tons of readings on the subject.


----------



## el alabamiano

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> It is also often referred to as AAVE: African-American Vernacular English. It seems as though this thread has had many viewers, but no responders, yet! This topic is of such controversy, I am sure that no one really wants to stick their neck out to voice an opinion on the matter.


Yesterday, I had dinner at the Poarch Creek Indian reservation near Atmore, Alabama where I didn't hear a word of Creek, although it's taught in their school. Also, I belong to the Chikamaka and I only know a few words of Cherokee, as Cherokee is only taught in the Cherokee reservation schools.

Native American languages are not required learning in American public schools, yet foreign languages like Spanish and French are. I wonder why that is! The thing is, if an American school kid can't slough their way through basic English grammar, why should they be given a chance to learn a foreign language (or street-level dialect) at taxpayer expense when native languages are ignored altogether?

At any rate, don't jump to negative conclusions just because tens of thousands responses haven't been given to this post. I rarely look at this forum so I didn't see this post until today. What makes me reply is that I can't help but wonder why you think no one wants to stick their neck out when it comes to giving opinions concerning black speech. I will say that not every black person in existence speaks ebonics, and many of them don't give a damn about it, one way or another. That being said, I don't either!


----------



## VenusEnvy

el alabamiano said:
			
		

> What makes me reply is that I can't help but wonder why you think no one wants to stick their neck out when it comes to giving opinions concerning black speech.


::sigh:: Ok, here we go.
It was only an observation. From my powers of deduction, I noticed that the thread had received 13 views, and 0 replies. 



			
				el alabamiano said:
			
		

> I will  say that not every black person in existence speaks ebonics, and many of them don't give a damn about it, one way or another.


The existance of a court case regarding the issue seems to give it imoprtance. In 1996 (in CA), the Oakland Unified School District Board of Education seemed to make a pretty big deal about it. Because of this hot-topic, many schools have initiated court-mandated educational programs which have substantially benefited African-American children.

I am fully aware (and agree) that not every black person speaks ebonics. But, enough do for there to be court-mandated educational programs requiring AAVE be utilized to teach these children. 

As to whether "many of them give a damn about it" or not, I do not know. I am not black, nor do I discuss this issue with the black people that I know. I do, however, know that this problem is more salient in areas with a very high concentration of black students. 

Thanks for sticking your neck out, alabamiano.   

What do others think?


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> In order to facilitate the learning of standard English, educators should incorporate AAVE into the curriculum. To deny their dialect is to deny their individualism.



I disagree vehemently.  If you have Chinese children in the classroom (in the US), should teachers incorporate Chinese into the lesson?   Many people come from foreign countries not speaking a single word of English, and they settle in the US to live.  No one "denies" their heritage or individualism and soon they become fluent speakers.

Blacks ARE smart and can learn just like everyone else does without all the special help.  To think otherwise is an insult and somewhat racist.

(By the way, my views are not directed towards one individual at all but are just general remarks)


----------



## ojyram

Will emphasizing standard English in the US schools help or hurt children?
 Imagine if Ophra Winfrey had spoken only Ebonics.

To be successful one must master the language of the place in which he lives. If one lived in Italy, speaking Italian would be a huge advantage. To be successful in a Navaho village, it would be a good idea to learn that language. If children are to live outside the intercity ghettos, they must master the language of their country, not just their neighborhood. In the USA, that language is _standard_ English.

Many children in the ghetto where I taught school for several years spoke a poverty dialect. It was a complete language with grammar rules and vocabulary. Although I learned to understand the grammar and vocabulary of the dialect, I never spoke it; nor did I speak against it. I expected all my students to become fluent in standard English, because that is the language of learning, commerce, and mass communication in our country. I simply modeled standard English and urged its use in my classes. 

Kids stopped calling it "talkin' white" after I persuaded them that outside the mean streets, doors of opportunity would open--regardless of color, religion or sex--for those who spoke standard English, held positive beliefs and demonstrated good manners. When challenged by my students, I found nearly 600 examples of African American achievers and 600 more Hispanic American achievers to prove this position. There was place for the dialect in the streets and to some extent in the homes. In the classroom we had immersion in standard English. That was preparation for life outside the ghetto. 

Some may insist that the culture _should_ change--that it _should_ value all dialects equally. Lofty idea, but people must deal with what _is_. Dialects of neighborhoods marked by poverty and crime are _not_ valued by the mainstream nor by leaders of the culture. This is not a matter of race: my white hillbilly dialect is no more valued than black street language. 

By the way, did you know that redefining large numbers of students as non-native speakers can be economically motivated? Schools receive large sums of additional money for each such student!

Will emphasizing standard English in the US schools help or hurt children?
  Imagine if Ophra Winfrey had spoken only Ebonics.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> I disagree vehemently. (By the way, my views are not directed towards one individual at all but are just general remarks)



That's fine. The comment of mine that you are responding to was not my own, but one known to be of educators.



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Blacks ARE smart and can learn just like everyone else does without all the special help.  To think otherwise is an insult and somewhat racist.


Some people would say that only teaching the values and/or dialect of the dominant culture is racist. We, as a country, cater to others' needs (we don't like to call it special help) through bilingual education, special education, adult literacy programs, etc.

I think their (once again, not mine necessarily) opinion is that it is a fact that working-class black children spend the first few years of their lives developing a language that is slightly different to the dominant one. Often times, these black children live in highly concentrated, homogenous areas where exposure to the dominant dialect is limited. Therefore, tossing them into the dominant culture's classrooms, and expecting them to learn a different dialect without proper training is unfair. This may have accounted for the underrepresentation of black students in the lower-level reading/writing classes (in all classes, as a matter of fact). One way to addres the problem is to look at cultural background.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Modgirl.


----------



## modgirl

Ojyram, thank you very much for your perspective.  I've found that generally, if you expect more out of children, they'll rise to the occasion.  If you treat them like they're disadvantaged and can't learn very well, that's exactly what you'll see.  Most kids of any culture are darned smart.  It seems mean not to help bring out their best!


----------



## modgirl

Hi VenusEnvy,

I didn't see your reply while I was writing just a moment ago!

Let's see that I move to an area of Africa where the dominant language is Zulu.  I don't speak a word of Zulu, but I plan on living there.  Should the community then go out and hire someone who speaks English just to teach me?

My feeling is that when one lives in an area -- any area -- one should learn the dominant language, simply to be able to function at a basic level!  Again, people whose native language is much farther away from English than Ebonics learn to speak our language -- and quite well.  Why should we expect less from blacks?

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Let's see that I move to an area of Africa where the dominant language is Zulu.  I don't speak a word of Zulu, but I plan on living there.  Should the community then go out and hire someone who speaks English just to teach me?


I understand your point of view. Part of me does agree with you to an extent. But, the USA is a diverse country. The reason Africa (or Zulu speakers) aren't concerned with English-speakers is because 
#1: English-speakers don't make up 25% of the population. If that were the case, who's to say that Africa wouldn't take initiatve?
#2: We recruit immigrants. We recruit them either for work, as students, or as refugees. I think this is why this country is unique. 
While I agree that offering special help to everyone is draining, letting our country fall apart is not an option.

QUOTE=modgirl]My feeling is that when one lives in an area -- any area -- one should learn the dominant language, simply to be able to function at a basic level! [/QUOTE]
Yes, but how???? How is an immigrant from a foreign country just supposed to learn English? Consequently, speakers of ebonics can speak English, but in oder to better equip these children to getting a good education, isn't it our responsibility to do ALL that we can?



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Again, people whose native language is much farther away from English than Ebonics learn to speak our language -- and quite well.


Perhaps this is just your observation, and speculation. I'm at work now, but I have a slew of info at home about exactly what percentage of working adults (and children) can't speak English with any proficiency. I have friends who have been here for years, but can't speak very well at all. To say that foreigners learn English, and quite well is simply speculation. The actual facts are much more grim.

IMHO, too.


----------



## mnzrob

I agree that they should be taught basic english. When I started kindergarten in the US, I only spoke german, and my teachers only spoke english. I have no idea how we communicated at first, but by being subjected to that english-only environment, I learned to speak perfect english very quickly.
Also, I now live in the German state of Bavaria, which has its own dialect called bavarian. All of my bavarian friends speak bavarian with each other, but can change to regular high german when speaking to non-bavarians or foreigners, because that is what they learned in school. I would say bavarian is as close to high german, as ebonics is to basic english. Schools in bavaria teach high german, and as far as I know, they speak high german in all of their classes.

Also, I figure if anyone who speaks ebonics learns basic english in school, and speaks ebonics with their friends and family, it'll kinda be like they're growing up bilingual, right?

Rob


----------



## modgirl

*How is an immigrant from a foreign country just supposed to learn English?*

How does a baby learn a language?  There is no translator for him!  Actually, there was a graduate student that I knew a few years ago who did indeed come to the US, and yes -- he did not speak a word of English.  And no one spoke his language.  But he was desperate to learn, so he completely immersed himself in the culture.  Oddly enough, he said that watching TV helps a lot!  Oddly enough, I know several people like that.

However, I've been to several countries where I did not speak the language, and if the desire is there, one catches on VERY quickly!  Really, I think we're all a lot brighter than we realize.


----------



## modgirl

mnzrob, I think your experiences are common outside the US.  For some odd reason, we tend to think that blacks simply won't learn like the rest of us and need special education to learn what the rest of the world seems to be learning quite well.  If I were black, I would be so insulted.


----------



## VenusEnvy

mnzrob said:
			
		

> I agree that they should be taught basic english. When I started kindergarten in the US, I only spoke german, and my teachers only spoke english. I have no idea how we communicated at first, but by being subjected to that english-only environment, I learned to speak perfect english very quickly.
> Also, I now live in the German state of Bavaria, which has its own dialect called bavarian. All of my bavarian friends speak bavarian with each other, but can change to regular high german when speaking to non-bavarians or foreigners, because that is what they learned in school. I would say bavarian is as close to high german, as ebonics is to basic english. Schools in bavaria teach high german, and as far as I know, they speak high german in all of their classes.
> 
> Also, I figure if anyone who speaks ebonics learns basic english in school, and speaks ebonics with their friends and family, it'll kinda be like they're growing up bilingual, right?
> 
> Rob



You make a good point Rob.    Congrats on learning so many languages/dialects. It's a rare trait.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> *How is an immigrant from a foreign country just supposed to learn English?*
> 
> How does a baby learn a language?  There is no translator for him!  Actually, there was a graduate student that I knew a few years ago who did indeed come to the US, and yes -- he did not speak a word of English.  And no one spoke his language.  But he was desperate to learn, so he completely immersed himself in the culture.  Oddly enough, he said that watching TV helps a lot!  Oddly enough, I know several people like that.
> 
> However, I've been to several countries where I did not speak the language, and if the desire is there, one catches on VERY quickly!  Really, I think we're all a lot brighter than we realize.



I admire your optimism, and the way you look at things. 
But, as you may know, the way a baby learns, and the way an adult learns are completely different. We can all agree that if a child is born and raised hearing two different languages, they learn more quickly than an adult first being introduced to it (Take me for example! It's tough!)

Your story about your friend is really inspiring. But it is just that: one story.


----------



## Outsider

Is this dialect really spoken only by black people?


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> If I were black, I would be so insulted.



Right on, Modgirl. In fact, it seems as though many other blacks feel the same way you do. From what I've read, the black population is pretty split on this issue. Go figure!


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> But, as you may know, the way a baby learns, and the way an adult learns are completely different.



Not necessarily!  There is a computer program (the name escapes me) which teaches language based on the concept of learning language as an infant.  There is NO native language spoken in the program at all.  One associates pictures with words.



> Your story about your friend is really inspiring. But it is just that: one story.



And it was just one example.  There are thousands more!  Please don't let the negative (questionable) statistics mar what is happening all over the world.  Black kids really are smart, but we have to have confidence in them.  Really, we're doing a grave injustice by all the (well-meaning) but harmful "extra" help.

I don't know how much you travel, but I spend more time in other continents than I do in the States.  What we're doing to blacks here is a crime.


----------



## modgirl

Outsider said:
			
		

> Is this dialect really spoken only by black people?



That's my general impression (although there are always a few others who, for various reasons, speak the same way), but I do not know that for a fact.


----------



## Outsider

I have another question:
According to this site, there are many dialects of English in the U.S., aside from ebonics.
Is there are drive to teach these other dialects in the classroom--for instance, the Southern dialect(s?) in the Southern states, the Western dialect in California, etc.?


----------



## VenusEnvy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Is this dialect really spoken only by black people?



No, not only. But, it was developed by lower-class African-Americans. The dialect is, afterall, called AAVE (African-American Vernacular English).

In 1997, it was estimated that 80% of the black population spoke non-standard English. The other 20% spoke either standard, or they switched back and forth.
Source

I'd love, however, to obtain more recent, accurate statistics.


----------



## el alabamiano

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I understand your point of view. Part of me does agree with you to an extent. But, the USA is a diverse country. The reason Africa (or Zulu speakers) aren't concerned with English-speakers is because
> #1: English-speakers don't make up 25% of the population. If that were the case, who's to say that Africa wouldn't take initiatve?
> #2: We recruit immigrants. We recruit them either for work, as students, or as refugees. I think this is why this country is unique.
> While I agree that offering special help to everyone is draining, letting our country fall apart is not an option.


It needs to be remembered that:

English is spoken by millions of Africans, 
ebonics isn't a "foreign" language
ebonic-speakers don't make up 25% of the population
African-Americans aren't "foreigners". They are "Americans". This means that the "We" part includes "African"-Americans. And as stated before, not all African-Americans speak ebonics, meaning: our country isn't falling apart just because the majority of Americans are "ebonics-challenged".


----------



## VenusEnvy

el alabamiano said:
			
		

> And as stated before, not all African-Americans speak ebonics, meaning: our country isn't falling apart just because the majority of Americans are "ebonics-challenged".


This is true. Approaching Ebonics, or AAVE, in such a way allows policy-makers to address racial inequalities in the classroom/education. 


I love toooo much playing devil's advocate. I'd like to actually state my own opinion now, if it's ok. I agree with all of your points. I don't believe that teachers should alter the way the speak in the classroom to adjust to those unfortunate children who have not had the opportunity to develop their language skills. But, children are resilient, and I believe that much exposure, and simple compassion can push them in the right direction.

I've already said too much. I need to get some work done. Stop pulling me into these interesting debates while I am at work, please people!


----------



## el alabamiano

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I've already said too much. I need to get some work done. Stop pulling me into these interesting debates while I am at work, please people!


I want the name and phone number of your boss right this instant, young lady, coz--I'm gonna tell!


----------



## mzsweeett

After reading these posts, I truly have even more respect for you all. I am white, of Italian, Irish and Gypsy heritage. I have a brother in law and step brothers who are black. My brother in law was raised with Standard English, but the neighborhood where he lived was very poor and they spoke the Ebonics. He does know how to speak in both forms. His view that he has expressed to me many times is what many of you all here have stated. It comes from segregation of the classes and neighborhoods. He refuses to speak in Ebonics or let his children speak it (even though they too understand it) in most settings. 
His and my opinion (to an extent), is that in order to achieve a higher level of success in the US you must be able to communicate in a professional manner. In higher offices and in the governmant slang is not accepted at all, nor any regional dialects given any value. It is a harsh reality but only standard speaking is accepted. I do not speak crudely or with slang when at work, but at home is different. 
I think even just living makes you sort of bilingual. You have Standard for the general public, and you have dialect or regional at home or with friends. 
I do not think that giving specal attention or granting federal money to schools where this is more prevalant helps them at all. I think it hinders them, makes them feel less than what they are. Because they speak a dialect does not mean that they are impaired in any way. They need to be motivated to learn MORE to make them more advantaged---not the other way around.
I know this has been long, but I had to say it. I love culture and people and learning, I wish all had that view, maybe so many pepole wouldn't be labeled _disadvantaged_ or _special needs._

Hugs to all!!!

Sweet T.


----------



## aprendista

I have to agree with mzsweeett and el alabamiano. There is nothing wrong with speaking something other than English (or common language in your country) at home. However, the reality is that you have to speak standard English in any profession. Bureaucrats, who promoted "bilingual education" in Ebonics but nevertheless did not appear to use that language in public, could be very well-intentioned, but the tragic result is that their misguided policies often discourage our youth from mastering English and consequently condemn them to a less bright future. The Oakland school board members themselves never used Ebonics in any of their meeting minutes, notes, resolutions, debates and so on as far as I know. You guessed right. They consistently used standard English.


----------



## VenusEnvy

I must speak up again. ::sigh:: At least I'm home now, and not at work.   



			
				aprendista said:
			
		

> Bureaucrats, who promoted "bilingual education" in Ebonics but nevertheless did not appear to use that language in public,


I think that these people (pro-Ebonics in school) would use the dialect IN ORDER TO teach standard English, or to facilitate the learning process. They wouldn't be teaching Ebonics to standard-English-speaking children, or anything like that. (At least, I hope not!) Those children who speak Ebonics are said (at least in the Oakland School Board Resolution) to have "limited [standard] English proficiency". So, with this being said, are we supposed to treat every student the same way when they enter school for the first time? Some children come in with physical handicaps. But, the "real" world doesn't much accommodate these type of people. Should we tell them as well, "Just do as we do, eventually, you'll get the hang of it." No, we offer them special programs, as well.



			
				aprendista said:
			
		

> could be very well-intentioned, but the tragic result is that their misguided policies often discourage our youth from mastering English and consequently condemn them to a less bright future.


This is the argument of many. Do special programs such as these create dependency, or handicap students? Do they help or hinder? It's a fine line . . .

It's a fact: Some people have special needs. Whether they are economically disadvantaged (welfare), physically disabled (Disabilities Act), historically discriminated against (Affirmative Action), an immigrant (Bilingual Education Act), etc. I think that we, as a society, have a duty to at least attempt to provide assistance. 

It's a fine line . . . 

Whether or not using Ebonics as a teaching method actually HELPS or HINDERS, this will be a constant debate.



I've really gotta shut my trap. Alright, from now on, I'm out of it.    ::mouthfingers zipped::


----------



## sohc4

mnzrob said:
			
		

> Also, I now live in the German state of Bavaria, which has its own dialect called bavarian. All of my bavarian friends speak bavarian with each other, but can change to regular high german when speaking to non-bavarians or foreigners, because that is what they learned in school. I would say bavarian is as close to high german, as ebonics is to basic english. Schools in bavaria teach high german, and as far as I know, they speak high german in all of their classes.



As a German who was born and raised in Bavaria, I strongly second that. The language taught and spoken in school is regular high german. Bavarian is different enough from regular german to have it's own grammar and vocabulary. And even as it is acknowledged as the very language which has it's roots in that part of Germany, nobody would seroiusly question that the language taught and used in school should be standard high german.

And the same situation is true in other parts of the country. When I lived in the Cologne/Dusseldorf area for a couple of years, I didn't understand a word when the locals were talking to each other in their (strong) local dialect, but we could easily converse in standard german, altough we still could tell from each others accent where we came from.

Likewise when I moved to Hamburg later on. "Plattdeutsch", the dialect of the north, is widely accepted as a seperate language - there are even special classes in school - but still high german is the common denominator for all, and that is what is taught and spoken in school. (I got along easier with Plattdeutsch than with the Cologne dialect, maybe because Plattdeutsch has some similarities to English, e.g. "The door is open" sounds the same in Platt, even if it would be spelled differently).

Now, imagining I would only have spoken bavarian, and the people I met in Cologne or Hamburg would only have spoken their dialect, we would just have been unable to communicate unless we probably would have switched to English .

Just my 2 cents.

Axl


----------



## JazzByChas

modgirl said:
			
		

> . I've found that generally, if you expect more out of children, they'll rise to the occasion. If you treat them like they're disadvantaged and can't learn very well, that's exactly what you'll see. Most kids of any culture are darned smart. It seems mean not to help bring out their best!


 
I couldn't agree more, ModGirl   ...any child is inherently intelligent, and can learn whatever challenge you put before them...as long as it is a challenge.  To simply cater to their needs is to put them at a disadvantage.  Cultural and community issues aside, I believe all children should be challenged to rise to the occaision.  There will be a lot more children who are happy, productive members of our society in the long run.

Chas.


----------



## Sabine Teaver

Regardless of what kind of dialect one speaks, it seems to be of utmost importance to be able to "code switch" when necessary.  In a job interview one might have to show that one is able to speak standard English whereas among friends one might want to use the prevalent dialect.  Seems like everyone does it all the time.  One watches one's language depending on the context.  The value of the language spoken depends upon the context. And the importance of the context is determined socially, historically, and politically.  Good question why there is not so much interest in the dialects of poor Southerners!

And, yes, growing up to be able to speak Ebonics and standard English would qualify as being bilingual, I think.  And that's just the point:  Do we want to stamp out Ebonics (I don't see why we would want to) or do we want Ebonics speakers to be able to ALSO and additionally speak standard English?  That, in education speak, would be the "additive" instead of the "subtractive" approach.

Also, maybe we don't want to forget that people vary widely in their circumstances: parent SES, schools attended which are funded and staffed at quite different levels, neighborhoods, and also, yes, also, cognitive ability. So for whom will forceful immersion into standard English work the best? Hmmm ... Sometimes people succeed DESPITE what they are exposed to and where they come from.

And yes, good point, classifying students as limited English proficient (LEP) indeed determines funding levels at schools. Hence the discrepancies between percentages of LEP students according to school records and based on Census data. Uh,uh, the political context again.

It's a hot and controversial topic. As for myself, I envy people who can speak Ebonics AND standard English, just like I envy people who are fluent in any other language. They can easily cross borders between different groups of people. I imagine that this type of skill becomes increasingly important for companies in a globalized economy. It's happening with Spanish right now. Big growing market with huge buying power of the largest minority in the U.S. More profit to be made there than with Ebonics?


----------



## nycphotography

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Note, AAE: African-American English. I was wondering if you guys would share your experiences with Ebonics, either as a native speaker or just another English-speaking person. I certainly think it's one of the most interesting dialects of English, especially considering it's seems to be the same whether in Chicaho, Atlanta or California.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Jonathan.


 
There is a book (search on name of bookseller removed!--mod. ) regarding Ebonics from a Linguistic point of view, called 'the real ebonics debate' or some such. I own it, but I havent read it. My linguisitcs friends has, says its interesting, and elightening.

But the fact of the matter is that debate around Ebonics has almost nothing to do with linguistics, and everything to do with politics, which is why almost any educated person avoids it like the plague.

That said, I would personally caution everyone to be careful not to confuse "Ebonics" with "Black Slang". Ebonics is rooted in bantu family language concepts, and is largely an english based creole or pidgin. Black Slang is just a bunch of (mostly youth) slang not so unlike other (mostly youth) slang lingos.

"And that's all I have to say about that."


----------



## JazzByChas

Sabine Teaver said:
			
		

> ... As for myself, I envy people who can speak Ebonics AND standard English, just like I envy people who are fluent in any other language. They can easily cross borders between different groups of people. I imagine that this type of skill becomes increasingly important for companies in a globalized economy.


 
Sabine:

I would agree that being able to "code switch" or speak in dialects is a nice ability to have...I do it very well...not only can I speak in Ebonics, but I can speak "Surfer", "Midwestern", "New England", "Hillbilly", "Southern/Redneck", as well. 

I notice that you are a native of Germany who speaks German, as well as English. You are the kind of person who inspires me to learn foreign languages, because I like to be able to "code switch" as I speak to different groups of people. Being a native American, I have learned Spanish by speaking with/listening to Spanish speaking peoples. I am studying French in school, and hope to study an Asian language like Japanese in the future. 

But even when I learn a foreign language, I learn the formal version and the "slang" words as well. And, as with English, it is always desirable to be able to master the fundamentals of the language and speak it well...you might even call that a "cerebral" dialect.  

Chas.


----------



## nycphotography

Outsider said:
			
		

> I have another question:
> According to this site, there are many dialects of English in the U.S., aside from ebonics.
> Is there are drive to teach these other dialects in the classroom--for instance, the Southern dialect(s?) in the Southern states, the Western dialect in California, etc.?


 
Technically, Outisder, and this comment is more for general information than to specifically correct you:

The original initiative was not to TEACH ebonics.  Rather it was to use some ESL (english as a second language) teaching concepts in helping ebonic speakers to catch up in basic english.

Unfortunately, it immediately became a political debate, at which point the signal to noise ratio shot straight to zero.


----------



## JazzByChas

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Ebonics is rooted in bantu family language concepts, and is largely an english based creole or pidgin. Black Slang is just a bunch of (mostly youth) slang not so unlike other (mostly youth) slang lingos.
> 
> "And that's all I have to say about that."


 
I would have to agree strongly about that point: Ebonics is an English-base creole or pidgin...it is a corrupted form of English.  Slang, is just a set of code-words that youth or other groups use to create a sense of uniqueness among themselves.

Chas.


----------



## VenusEnvy

nycphotography said:
			
		

> The original initiative was not to TEACH ebonics.  Rather it was to use some ESL (english as a second language) teaching concepts in helping ebonic speakers to catch up in basic english.


Sorry, but I'm skeptical about this, John. Where did you hear this? I was under the impression that this wasn't going to be taught to the students, but rather to the teachers to HELP teach students SE...


----------



## nycphotography

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm skeptical about this, John. Where did you hear this? I was under the impression that this wasn't going to be taught to the students, but rather to the teachers to HELP teach students SE...


 
Exact quote: "African-American pupils are equally entitled to be tested and, where appropriate, shall be provided general funds and state and federal (Title VIII) bilingual education and ESL programs to specifically address their LEP/NEP needs. "

Full text of original 1996 Oakland resolution.

It was both.  But teaching teachers to teach english to spanish speakers specifically, is an ESL concept, yes?  I don't see where you are contradicting me.  Maybe adding clarification.


----------



## JazzByChas

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Whether or not using Ebonics as a teaching method actually HELPS or HINDERS, this will be a constant debate.
> I've really gotta shut my trap. Alright, from now on, I'm out of it.  ::mouthfingers zipped::


 
Well, I'm going to add my two cents to the debate: I learned English by teachers who taught me in English. I learned French (best) by teachers who taught me in French. I learn Spanish best by speaking to native speakers of Spanish. I would find it difficult to learn from someone who used an argot, or dialect of a language. It would work well with other people/children who spoke in that dialect, but not in general.

Dialects will always be here, and I, like others, appreciate them, but as in the case of the Germans who communicate with people from other parts of thier country in "High German" or Standard German, in order to communicate efficiently with the largest amount of people, you must be taught a standard version of a language in the standard version of that language.

(Just adding to the debate!)  

Chas.


----------



## fenixpollo

Chas said:
			
		

> being able to "code switch" or speak in dialects is a nice ability to have





			
				Sabine Teaver said:
			
		

> it seems to be of utmost importance to be able to "code switch" when necessary.


Let's get our terms straight, Sabine and Chas: 





			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> *Code-switching* is a term in linguistics referring to alternation between one or more languages, dialects, or language registers in the course of discourse between people who have more than one language in common. Sometimes the switch lasts only for a few sentences, or even for a single phrase.


 I agree that it's important to be able to switch between one's own dialect and another dialect, depending on the situation. I'm not as big a fan of code-switching, but that's another thread. 





			
				Chas said:
			
		

> Ebonics is an English-base creole or pidgin...it is a corrupted form of English.


 The word "corrupt" has so many negative implications that it sounds like you're denigrating Ebonics. I'm not sure that's what you're trying to do, since you stated otherwise:





			
				Chas said:
			
		

> Dialects will always be here, and I, like others, appreciate them


 I agree that dialects should be valued as unique forms of communication that can bond a community together.





			
				Chas said:
			
		

> Being a native American, I have learned Spanish by speaking with/listening to Spanish speaking peoples


 It sounds like you're implying that people who were born in the U.S. aren't native speakers of Spanish. That's not accurate. And I'm assuming here that you are saying that you were born in the U.S., not that you are Native American.

Just trying to make sure I understand you.


----------



## Kelly B

I view this issue the same way as the Spanish one, more or less, though I haven't written anything about it there. 
If a child starts school in the US beginning in kindergarten or first grade, I think that child can be taught standard English through mainstream immersion (unless he suffers from learning disabilities.) Whether his parents speak Chinese, Urdu, Spanish, ebonics or street slang, if he is surrounded by English speakers for 6 hours/day and has a teacher competent to teach standard English, he can certainly learn standard English well enough to use it in a business setting by the time he graduates from high school. English as a second language training for the teacher might be helpful, but I don't think that training in the at-home language of the student is really necessary.


----------



## nycphotography

Kelly B said:
			
		

> ... but I don't think that training in the at-home language of the student is really necessary.


 
Or at least not at taxpayer expense.  Many ethnic groups have separate special language schools to teach their children to be truly and fluent and literate in the native language of their parents / enthicity / religion / etc.

Korean, Spanish, Hebrew, Chinese, etc.

Let's not forget that true literacy is seldom accomplished just by growing up hearing something spoken.  Literacy may not require a formal classroom, but it certainly involves, at minimum, significant effort on the part of the student.

I think the true pothole in this particular road is dealing with ebonics as if it were different from any other verbal form of english.  Not because it isn't, but rather, the political firestorm of trying to figure out WHAT it is, isn't worth the effort involved.  Just call it a spoken (dialect of) english vs. written (literary)  english and move on.


----------



## mjscott

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> English in the US has many, many dialects, none of which are better, or more correct than the next.
> QUOTE]
> 
> On this point I disagree. I am not the only one who holds this opinion....
> 
> I have a boss who was brought up in Ebonics. When he would speak or would be in a hurry in writing, he would write things that would change out the subject/verb agreement. However, when he wished to have his work transcribed, he would _not_ want to see, "He need five acres for a farm," or "They wants to know their voices is heard."
> 
> He is one of the most intelligent men I know. His upbringing and style of language is what it was. No one doubted his intelligence because of Ebonics. However, he, himself, knew that there is a proper way to say things in English. (Granted, it may change in the future, but) there is a register for casual and proper voice.
> 
> All come from a background of erroneous literacy--if traced back far enough. (I thought _chester drawers_ was the piece of furniture in which you put your underwear), but when we use a generally-accepted register, we "sand off the edges" from our backgrounds that don't fit, and find the ones that are generally accepted by all readers, and learn them for the sake of standardized languge.
> 
> I shall read your link--and maybe I'll change my mind! A lot is written these days on Spanglish and its degradation of both English and Spanish. I happen to enjoy reading something that is written with Spanglish words that give the flavor of an ever-changing society, and living therein. I do, also, however, respect the Spanish-speaking world for its desire to respect the integrity of its language by also creating a "proper" register of such. If the same were said about English, Ebonics would not be as correct as proper English, because subject and verb do not always agree within the same sentence.


----------



## VenusEnvy

nycphotography said:
			
		

> I don't see where you are contradicting me.  Maybe adding clarification.


A million pardons, nyc. Coming back hours later, I realize what you were saying. And yes, I agree!


----------



## Outsider

I found an essay about this. Food for thought?


----------



## JazzByChas

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> The word "corrupt" has so many negative implications that it sounds like you're denigrating Ebonics.


Quite honestly, Fenix, (I used to live in Tucson, BTW  ) there are regional dialects that have a unique way of saying something, e.g. "pop" and "soda", or "frappe" and "milkshake", "honky tonk" and "bar", or "homey" and "indigenous population", or "wicked cold" or "jai cold". _("Jai"_ is a regional AAVE term for "very".) These are all words that express the same concept differently.

There are, on the other hand, -- and this does not occur solely in ebonics -- words that are corrupted English, e.g.

The classic "ain't, *(see article)*
The use of double negatives, e.g. "You *don't *need *no* cornbread if you eatin' mashed p'tatas." (Notice also, that the "are" is dropped in this sentence as well)Or, "He ain't ha' no sense..."
Incorrect conjugation, e.g. "I seen that you was goin' to tha' pah'k yestiddy.", or "He do his homework afta school if he want to...".
And then, of course, the lack of conjugation of _be,_ e.g. "I be goin to tha pah'ty t'mah night..." _(Translation: "I'm going to the party tomorrow night.") _Or,_ "_...boy be wiggin!" (Note that _" wiggin' "_ is a slang term for crazy, not currupted English...)



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's what you're trying to do, since you stated otherwise: I agree that dialects should be valued as unique forms of communication that can bond a community together.


 
I have no problem with dialects, or even corrupt/pidgin/creole English, as long as the speakers realize that there are proper settings for them, which usually does _not_ include the marketplace, or academia.



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> It sounds like you're implying that people who were born in the U.S. aren't native speakers of Spanish. That's not accurate. And I'm assuming here that you are saying that you were born in the U.S., not that you are Native American. Just trying to make sure I understand you.


 
Now that you mention it, that does sound a bit confusing! 

People of Latin-American descent, i.e. from Mexico, Central, and South America, can be born in this country and have Spanish as their first language. (See this article). They tend to become bilingual very quickly, as I'm sure has been discussed ad nauseum in various forums. But they still have Spanish as their first language. And, in this country, those are the people I talk to the most to learn Spanish.

And, actually, I am both born and raised in the U.S. of America _and_ part Native American.


----------



## SweetMommaSue

Well, to add another thought to all this.  I wonder what it would do to all the debates and politics and fundings for programs if the good ol' US of A would just make Standard American English the OFFICIAL language of the country.  Many countries have official languages.  We do not.  Perhaps that's part of the problem.  Everyone has an equal opportunity to get into the main ring and vie for attention.  And that is certainly what is happening!  Ahhh, but the bleeding hearts of this nation don't want a standard anything it seems.  It really would simplify matters, wouldn't it?  Then we could be like Germany! speaking SE in schools and businesses and our vernacular in our homes. . .

food for thought. . .

Smiles!
Sweet Momma Sue


----------



## tmoore

Different dialects in the USA? I don't think so ! Perhaps different accents
As far as Ebonics, I cannot even imagine,someone applying for let's  say a type of corporate job, speaking Ebonics ! It will never happen.


----------



## GenJen54

tmoore said:
			
		

> Different dialects in the USA? I don't think so !


 
I beg to differ. Please seel this chart HERE and HERE.

While it is true the majority of us speak a standard "language," (theoretically), there are certainly regional pockets where dialects do exist.

Have you never heard of Appalachian English, Creole, Pidgin English, Pennsylvania Dutch? The list goes on. 

Our language is rich with the influence of different cultures and traditions that have led our own mother tongue to become as diverse as the people who live here.


----------



## JazzByChas

Nope!

Different dialects...not only does the speech sound different, but different words are used, therefore making a different dialect.

And, no, Ebonics will not ever land one a position of any importance in Corporate America! 



			
				tmoore said:
			
		

> Different dialects in the USA? I don't think so ! Perhaps different accents
> As far as Ebonics, I cannot even imagine,someone applying for let's say a type of corporate job, speaking Ebonics ! It will never happen.


----------



## Outsider

tmoore said:
			
		

> As far as Ebonics, I cannot even imagine,someone applying for let's  say a type of corporate job, speaking Ebonics ! It will never happen.


I doesn't look like that was ever a goal of the Ebonics resolution, though.


----------



## foxfirebrand

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> And, no, Ebonics will not ever land one a position of any importance in Corporate America!


Except, ironically enough, highly-paid "spokesperson."  
.


----------



## tmoore

GenJen, I guess you are  right, after reading your links. But if you apply the same logic, the spanish languages spoken in the different countries of South America, should also be considered dialects ?Different words... different accents ...different expressions...

Just curious...


----------



## JazzByChas

Not having read GenJen's posts, I would say, again, yes. 



			
				tmoore said:
			
		

> GenJen, I guess you are right, after reading your links. But if you apply the same logic, the spanish languages spoken in the different countries of South America, should also be considered dialects ?Different words... different accents ...different expressions...
> 
> Just curious...


----------



## HistofEng

Sabine Teaver said:
			
		

> *Regardless of what kind of dialect one speaks, it seems to be of utmost importance to be able to "code switch" when necessary.* In a job interview one might have to show that one is able to speak standard English whereas among friends one might want to use the prevalent dialect. Seems like everyone does it all the time. One watches one's language depending on the context. The value of the language spoken depends upon the context. And the importance of the context is determined socially, historically, and politically. Good question why there is not so much interest in the dialects of poor Southerners!
> 
> And, yes, growing up to be able to speak Ebonics and standard English would qualify as being bilingual, I think. And that's just the point: Do we want to stamp out Ebonics (I don't see why we would want to) or do we want Ebonics speakers to be able to ALSO and additionally speak standard English? That, in education speak, would be the "additive" instead of the "subtractive" approach.
> 
> Also, maybe we don't want to forget that people vary widely in their circumstances: parent SES, schools attended which are funded and staffed at quite different levels, neighborhoods, and also, yes, also, cognitive ability. So for whom will forceful immersion into standard English work the best? Hmmm ... Sometimes people succeed DESPITE what they are exposed to and where they come from.


 

That's the thing...these ESL initiatives are there to teach children who speak E-bonics how to code switch correctly.

.

In Bavaria, if all the students are taught specifically how to speak in High-german correctly and how to translate between Bavarian and High-German and then they are taught and are encouraged (in correct fashion) how to code-switch, then they should have no problem incorporating themselves in a professional society, like many blacks have done as well.

However, this may also have to do with the perception of AAVE, if it as seen as lazy English of the low-class, this perception and subsequent "ostracization" won't lead to efficient code-switching.

Also if the students (and their parents) don't value education enough, then why would they learn the standard language used in education. 
If you live in a predominantely poverty-stricken African-American neighborhood (or Latino neighborhood) where the graduation rate is less then 50% then you live among students who obviously tend to not value the education system, the only medium where you can learn efficient code-switching.

In my home county of Haiti, Haitian-Creole is spoken by everyone, and schools, professional jobs, and government agencies and documents, etc are administered in French. If your family earns enough money to send you school (no public school in Haiti), chances are you and your family values education (takes it seriously) and will have to learn the language used in an educational setting. 

The more African-Americans value education, the more they will become proficient at code-switching (just like immigrant groups and Bavarians and Haitian school-children)...no school-board legislation is going to install drive into these students (or their parents), but it may help those (the few or many) that already do have the drive.


----------



## foxfirebrand

An excellent and concise treatment of the problem-- there is a lack of willingness among large segments of the AAVE-speaking population to learn standard AE, whatever the advantages.

But I don't think it can be boiled down to a lack of "drive."  There is a strong consensus of discouragement among some of these groups, particularly in the schools-- a black American kid may find it difficult to learn AE, or practice what he is trying to learn, because he finds he is constantly, and sometimes harshly, admonished against "talking white."

This attitude arises from distrust, which in turn goes back to cultural patterns established over many generations during slavery.  Then as now, relations between the races were complex, and one very problematic area was the interface between owners and chattel-- it was minimal among fieldhands, but tended toward social intimacy, a family inclusion of sorts, when it came to house servants.  Cooks, maids, and especially mammies (uh...I guess we'd call them nannies nowadays) were placed in a split-level reality where they were given exceptional treatment and status-- but regarded with an underlying distrust by black and white alike.

The relevance here is, they spoke a kind of servile and infantile pidgin with the white families they served, but could (if they wanted to) learn the white language to perfection.  House servants' children were allowed to play with the white kids and form fairly close bonds-- all of which was cut off completely at puberty.

"House niggers" were a source of information about both worlds they inhabited, and could pass valuable secrets to the fieldworker caste about the doings in the manor house-- or to their masters about the less privileged blacks on the plantation, whom they sometimes felt superior to.

So to the general population, house niggers were disliked, distrusted, and regarded with disgust-- especially when they affected "white" ways and attitudes of superiority.

Analogies between the two castes of pre-emancipation blacks were made by writers and activists during the Civil Rights movement, so all this stuff is out there to be found and studied, if you're too young to remember it.  The point is, it all goes to explaining the deeply-engrained attitude of enmity with black people who "talk white."  In the old days, such people could get you killed.
.


----------



## JazzByChas

Yes, and many contemporary Afro-Americans do just that. Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell are a few well-known examples that come to mind. An engineer friend of mine is another example, as well as some black guys I know who won't speak "AAVE" and ignore you if you do!

And, if you take a black child and teach him standard English from the time he learns to speak, he will end up speaking "white english" (Standard English)

So, I guess it does come down to desire. Given the opportunity, you can learn to speak properly. That doesn't mean you won't be able to be able to speak in both AAVE and SE, it will just mean you took the time to become educated!



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> The relevance here is, they spoke a kind of servile and infantile pidgin with the white families they served, but could (if they wanted to) learn the white language to perfection.


----------



## Tamlane

modgirl said:
			
		

> I disagree vehemently. If you have Chinese children in the classroom (in the US), should teachers incorporate Chinese into the lesson? Many people come from foreign countries not speaking a single word of English, and they settle in the US to live. No one "denies" their heritage or individualism and soon they become fluent speakers.
> 
> Blacks ARE smart and can learn just like everyone else does without all the special help. To think otherwise is an insult and somewhat racist.
> 
> (By the way, my views are not directed towards one individual at all but are just general remarks)



  This is a very interesting view to take on the subject.  I would find that comparing Chinese immigrants who do not know English to American born black people who do know English is unfair.  We know that a person speaking AAVE (I really like this use) is speaking English, just not always a mutually intelligible variety of English.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that English is either the only or one of the national languages of America?  In this case, should not the greater representation of the speakers of a certain dialect in an area be provided with the education in their dialect and a more formal dialect in the interest of preserving a unique tradition and educating in a formal universal dialect of English?

Coming from a removed point of view ((that being that I do not live in America, nor have I had contact with speakers of AAVE, let alone the _other_ dialects being spoken in the United States (and I believe there are a few mutually unintelligible varieties of English spoken), and I do not live somewhere where a different variety of English than that I can understand is spoken (that being all of Canada).), I would find it insulting (not racist, that's rather harsh to suggest) to suggest that speakers of AAVE do not speak a valid dialect of English and that they aren't fluent speakers of English just because it is not mutually intelligible with the dialect that you speak (modgirl) or possibly what the greater part of the English speaking world speaks!

What Modgirl is in fact suggesting, though I somehow doubt that she is aware of it, or she may not have made the general comments she has, is not quite unlike the actual ongoing suppression of variant French by the Academie Française, along with the suppression of other languages in France, including Occitan (Languedoc ou Provinçal).  You may not be denying the existence of AAVE or even other variant forms in America, but certainly suggesting that people not be taught them because they are intelligent enough to 'become fluent speakers' is on par with this suppressive and prescriptivist attitude and practice!

I cannot see a possible bad outcome to providing education in two English dialects in schools where an overwhelming majority speaks one dialect over another.  In fact, in cases of I.Q. tests measured between schools of white majority and schools of black majority, the I.Q. tests showed the white students scoring much higher (so much so that it was concluded, and this was during the race riots in America, that white people were more intelligent than black people).  This is not the case, because when the LANGUAGE on the I.Q. test was changed to match the LANGUAGE that the black students used, they scored on par with the white students!  This means that not only is it a better idea to educate someone in the language they speak, if they can read at all, they can read best a written form of what they speak.


----------



## Tamlane

I must ammend to my post, but I feel in a second post it's better done. I live in a country where two languages that are not mutually intelligible are taught in schools. That is English and French. Here, in Ontario, where I live, I was brought up learning French and English from the age of four. I suppose that is why I take the stance on language learning that I do. The French Canadians wish to preserve their heritage and unique language, and I learned French to that end. I'm not French, but I learned it. If we were to suppose that the situation in Canada was AAVE speakers instead of French, one way or another I would hope that in the interest of cultural preservation both languages would be taught. Maybe the matter is entirely different and I simply can't see that, but I would find it to be the case in the instance of any unique heritage. Maybe this is a serious point of separation between Canadian and American values?


----------



## foxfirebrand

Tamlane said:
			
		

> Maybe the matter is entirely different and I simply can't see that, but I would find it to be the case in the instance of any unique heritage. Maybe this is a serious point of separation between Canadian and American values?


 The flap about ebonics has never been about _teaching ebonics to non-speakers_, as far as I know. A program like that would get very little support from either side of the issue-- white kids learn that stuff on their own at an "alarming" rate, if they're so inclined.

This is about allowing teachers to communicate with students _in their home-learned language_ in order to teach *other subjects* with more clarity.  And standard AE is one of those subjects.

I've been a very maniacal opponent of government and societal suppression of "languages of no prestige" on these forums, my particular area of interest being dialects/languages like Neapolitan and Sicilian-- their situation being, I've argued, analogous to that of Catalan and Occitan. Obviously I believe AAVE comes under the same rubrique, but that doesn't mean it should be taught as a subject in the curriculum, except strictly as an elective, and probably in the higher grades. The point of public schools is to give children skills (I wish they'd limit themselves to that, frankly), and kids who don't know AE need to learn it. I also wouldn't advocate schoolkids in northern France being forced to learn Provençal.

About Asian immigrants, including Chinese. It's my observation that adults in general seem to have a hard time mastering the spoken form of AE-- but their children and grandchildren speak it like natives, even if they still are taught Chinese or Vietnamese at home. I think there's a shared cultural value in acquiring these skills, and I don't know of any difficulties their kids exhibit in public schools that would require instruction in their home language. 

And standardized tests? You say AAVE speakers are disadvantaged, but in your point about Chinese students you make a distinction between them, who don't understand English-- and blacks, who *do.* The cultural divide between American culture and the world our Asian immigrants left behind is far, far greater than any you can posit about blacks-- yet they manage to score higher on those same exact tests than black kids, by ten percent. Oh, and they score higher than _whites_ by five-- almost forgot to mention that!


----------



## Moogey

The topic is too long for me to read but I'll say that I'm not very fond of it. I like speaking old and proper English. Not quite the Shakespeare English, but something like it. I tend to speak it more than I write it-- the contents of my posts here in this forum has consisted of far less than Shakespeare language 

But I do think it would be cool if English had more dialects and of those, farther away from standard English. I want to see an English dialect with a modified alphabet and more words only in the dialect!

-M


----------



## HistofEng

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> An excellent and concise treatment of the problem-- there is a lack of willingness among large segments of the AAVE-speaking population to learn standard AE, whatever the advantages.
> 
> But I don't think it can be boiled down to a lack of "drive." There is a strong consensus of discouragement among some of these groups, particularly in the schools-- a black American kid may find it difficult to learn AE, or practice what he is trying to learn, because he finds he is constantly, and sometimes harshly, admonished against "talking white."
> 
> This attitude arises from distrust, which in turn goes back to cultural patterns established over many generations during slavery. Then as now, relations between the races were complex, and one very problematic area was the interface between owners and chattel-- it was minimal among fieldhands, but tended toward social intimacy, a family inclusion of sorts, when it came to house servants. Cooks, maids, and especially mammies (uh...I guess we'd call them nannies nowadays) were placed in a split-level reality where they were given exceptional treatment and status-- but regarded with an underlying distrust by black and white alike.
> 
> The relevance here is, they spoke a kind of servile and infantile pidgin with the white families they served, but could (if they wanted to) learn the white language to perfection. House servants' children were allowed to play with the white kids and form fairly close bonds-- all of which was cut off completely at puberty.
> 
> "House niggers" were a source of information about both worlds they inhabited, and could pass valuable secrets to the fieldworker caste about the doings in the manor house-- or to their masters about the less privileged blacks on the plantation, whom they sometimes felt superior to.
> 
> So to the general population, house niggers were disliked, distrusted, and regarded with disgust-- especially when they affected "white" ways and attitudes of superiority.
> 
> Analogies between the two castes of pre-emancipation blacks were made by writers and activists during the Civil Rights movement, so all this stuff is out there to be found and studied, if you're too young to remember it. The point is, it all goes to explaining the deeply-engrained attitude of enmity with black people who "talk white." In the old days, such people could get you killed.
> .


 
I whole-heartedly agree with everything you had to say. 

As a black boy in a predominantly white elementary school, I learned how to speak Standard Amer. English, but when i went to a predominantly AAVE-speaking middle school, I was accosted many times for "talking white". Speaking SE is still de-valued (to an extent) in many African-American communities, and I too believe that it's a legacy of historical society and past circumstances.


One interesting tidbit, the dialects of the American South spoken by whites actually stem form AAVE, the dialects are extremely similar (in the south), and this interesting notion is rooted in the fact that blacks were the care-takers of white children during slavery and so these children learned to speak the language of adult slaves and their children. Later, during the the Great Migration, when many blacks moved to the North, AAVE underwent the substratum effect, and the dialect changed by some margin (in the North) but still bares plenty of resemblance to the speech of many black and white communities in the South today.

I find it kind of ironic! (the underclass "giving" the higher classes their lang/lect)

ain't nutin' but a lil' southern twang.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Yes, Southern AE and ebonics have largely the same origins, and center-city AAVE reflects changes brought about by its speakers leaving the south and living among white folks who did _not_ speak the same.  Your hypothesis about the cause is plausible and largely true, but it's also kind of a chicken/egg thing-- don't forget that American blacks learned English in the first place from white colonists.  To me the influence that _perpetuated_ this underlying similarity was the fact that white and black children were traditionally free to associate freely together-- this was as true during Jim Crow as it was in the days of slavery.

The underclass is often, maybe even _most_ often, the foundation of a language.  When the Norman-French-speaking ruling class took over ownership of Britain in mid 11th century, only the lowest echelons of society spoke Anglian, Saxon, Kentish (in the south), or Northumbrian, Norse or Scots (in the north).  They had to learn French to deal with the ruling class.  As they took positions in the lower levels of the economy, language interplay within villages, manors and even smaller households had its inevitable effect-- again, I think children growing up together were the prime movers of the development of a hybridized common tongue.

Don't forget that as early as the 12th century, a Royal Prince and a Saxon playmate grew up into drinking buddies as youths-- and eventually became Henry II and Thomas Beckett.  By the early 14th century both the upper and underclass languages were merged into Middle English.  Few people would suggest that English qualifies as a Romance language, so I think you could say that the "underclass" had its way in that stage of language evolution too.

The Franks also lost their language in realms west of the Rhine, and south of the Alps-- before them, however, the Romans successfully latinized the formerly Celtic languages in those regions.  So it works both ways.
.


----------



## Tamlane

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> The flap about ebonics has never been about _teaching ebonics to non-speakers_, as far as I know. A program like that would get very little support from either side of the issue-- white kids learn that stuff on their own at an "alarming" rate, if they're so inclined.
> 
> This is about allowing teachers to communicate with students _in their home-learned language_ in order to teach *other subjects* with more clarity.  And standard AE is one of those subjects.
> 
> I've been a very maniacal opponent of government and societal suppression of "languages of no prestige" on these forums, my particular area of interest being dialects/languages like Neapolitan and Sicilian-- their situation being, I've argued, analogous to that of Catalan and Occitan. Obviously I believe AAVE comes under the same rubrique, but that doesn't mean it should be taught as a subject in the curriculum, except strictly as an elective, and probably in the higher grades. The point of public schools is to give children skills (I wish they'd limit themselves to that, frankly), and kids who don't know AE need to learn it. I also wouldn't advocate schoolkids in northern France being forced to learn Provençal.
> 
> About Asian immigrants, including Chinese. It's my observation that adults in general seem to have a hard time mastering the spoken form of AE-- but their children and grandchildren speak it like natives, even if they still are taught Chinese or Vietnamese at home. I think there's a shared cultural value in acquiring these skills, and I don't know of any difficulties their kids exhibit in public schools that would require instruction in their home language.
> 
> And standardized tests? You say AAVE speakers are disadvantaged, but in your point about Chinese students you make a distinction between them, who don't understand English-- and blacks, who *do.* The cultural divide between American culture and the world our Asian immigrants left behind is far, far greater than any you can posit about blacks-- yet they manage to score higher on those same exact tests than black kids, by ten percent. Oh, and they score higher than _whites_ by five-- almost forgot to mention that!



Well, unfortunately sometimes things don't quite get across quite as we intend them. 

  First... okay, I admit that I made it sound like it would be a good thing to have AAVE taught to non-speakers of AAVE.  I actually meant that it should be taught to AAVE speakers along with Standard English, not to speakers of Standard English.  Though, despite the poor support that would get, wouldn't it be at least neat?

Secondly, I suppose there is a huge rift here, because the fact of the matter is that children in Canada are taught French (albeit secondary) along with English in schools.  Of course, French is a national language as is English.  I would never suggest that AAVE be considered a language so extensively used that it be a national language requiring education across the board as it is done in Canada with English and French, but I would seriously expect it to be taught alongside Standard English in places where it is widely spoken.  Offering the Occitan example again, that is being taught in the provinces of Italy and Spain where the speakers live alongside the standard forms of Italian and Spanish that are taught in the schools as well.  I cannot see any error in this.  I just cannot.

Third, there is in fact a HUGE problem with second generation speakers of other languages in America and Canada, and that is they're illiterate in their parent's native language.  Children can learn languages (lots of languages) easier than adults (children are still acquiring and perfecting linguistic skills until at least the age of 12), but they certainly will not be literate if they are not taught the language in its written form.  This is something that does not happen though.  It is overwhelmingly useful to grow up learning two spoken languages.  It can be far more useful to be able to read and write both languages too.

Last, I didn't say that AAVE speakers were disadvantaged in the way that seems to be presumed in the article above.  The problem during the race riots in America was that black students were not being taught properly and the 'standardized tests' that they were given not only were written in a language they were not familiar with, but presented situations using that language in ways that they were not familiar with.  Asking a middle class suburban white boy of the time a question involving golf made the question easier for the child to answer.  Asking the lower class inner-city black boy a question involving golf made that question harder to answer.  Not only was the language on the tests changed, but the examples and word usage and situations used to present problems on the test were changed.  This is a simple fact of the tests that has since been fixed.  Also, we must remember that schools in America do not educate students to a uniform level.  Education in America simply is not as standard as it is in many other post-industrial countries.  This means that statistics regarding who does better than who in tests must be pulled a part.  If the statistics are split using wealth indicators, such as Upper, Middle, and Lower Class, we find that there is no ethnic population in ANY class performing better than any other ethnicity.  This is a simple truth.  There is no ethnicity that outperforms another where intelligence is concerned.  There simply is not.  Any point made by foxfirebrand regarding ethnicity and higher intelligence is scientifically untrue and if any such belief is held it is a truly inhuman belief.  In the case of the statistics to which foxfirebrand referred had the students all received the same level of education they would have performed uniformly.  They did not and so they did not.  The Chinese students need to learn Standard English and they do, and they perform as well as anyone else who knows Standard English.  The speakers of AAVE need to learn Standard English, and then they too will perform as well as anyone else who knows Standard English, but at least they should also be taught AAVE in order to preserve it.  It is not better to know one language than another and certainly no language is better than another.


----------



## blancalaw

Outsider said:
			
		

> Is this dialect really spoken only by black people?



There are some whites that speak that way, those who have grown up in a black neighborhood. 

As far as if there is a push for other American English dialects, no there isn't.  

Some people say Ebonics is a language with it's own set of rules and vocabulary, but I am unfamiliar with such.  But in my opinion, if one is not used to hearing another dialect, it may take a while to adjust, kind of like listening to someone with an accent.  I am a teacher in a Detroit school where all of my students are black.  When they talk, it sounds like they cut out sylables from their words, and thus I often ask them to repeat what they say.  But after a while I can understand them more and more.

For them to understand us, they have more exposure to the northern dialect because they hear it on tv (unless they watch only BET) thus they are used to hearing our dialect.  Because of this, I do not believe there is a need to teach Ebonics nor teach in Ebonics because they can perform just as well in the "standard" dialect.  ("standard" does not mean better)


----------



## JazzByChas

No...Ebonics is NOT a language of its own...it is a corrupt/pidgeon form of Standard English, and is typical of people who learned English in an environment where it is spoken incorrectly by all in that environment, adults especially. The children learn from the adults, and each other. 

One can get used to hearing it...I have 3 adopted boys who speak that way all the time living in my house. By the time they are 12 or 13, those bad habits are deeply engrained in them, and it takes a LOT of practice to undo those habits. 

Now, I can speak Ebonics as well as the "best" of them, but I learned to speak standard AE when I was growing up. I realize all languages have more colorful ways of expressing things, especially among youth, but there almost always is a standard language that has been that way for hundreds of years.

So the real challenge is to get children to to speak in a slang or dialect of the standard language, but to get them to speak IASE (Intellectually Advanced Standard English -- in the USA).



			
				BlancaLaw said:
			
		

> Some people say Ebonics is a language with it's own set of rules and vocabulary


----------



## HistofEng

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> No...Ebonics is NOT a language of its own...it is a corrupt/pidgeon form of Standard English, and is typical of people who learned English in an environment where it is spoken incorrectly by all in that environment, adults especially. The children learn from the adults, and each other.


 
Aren't all languages a corrupt form of its substrate languages. What you've said above applies to all Romance Languages and Engish as well.




> One can get used to hearing it...I have 3 adopted boys who speak that way all the time living in my house. By the time they are 12 or 13, those bad habits are deeply engrained in them, and it takes a LOT of practice to undo those habits.


 
bad habits??...undo them??...why is AAVE bad? Is it inherently bad, or is bad that speakers don't learn Standard AE *in addition* to AAVE?



> Now, I can speak Ebonics as well as the "best" of them, but I learned to speak standard AE when I was growing up. I realize all languages have more colorful ways of expressing things, especially among youth, but there almost always is a standard language that has been that way for hundreds of years.


 
do you realize why one language/dialect is standard while others are not, and are sometimes denigrated



> So the real challenge is to get children to to speak in a slang or dialect of the standard language, but to get them to speak IASE (Intellectually Advanced Standard English -- in the USA).


 
why, again, is Stadard English inherently more intellectually advanced? Does the same go for Jamaican English (Patois), or Appalachian?


----------



## fenixpollo

HistofEng said:
			
		

> Aren't all languages a corrupt form of its substrate languages. What you've said above applies to all Romance Languages and Engish as well.
> That used to apply to English and Romance languages, until they developed into the widely-spoken "languages" that we know today.  You are correct, but Chas isn't overlooking that fact.
> 
> bad habits??...undo them??...why is AAVE bad? Is it inherently bad, or is bad that speakers don't learn Standard AE *in addition* to AAVE?
> What Chas said was that his boys have the "bad habit" of speaking AAVE "all the time".  As teenagers, they're still learning that there's a time and place for everything -- and what the best time and place for each thing is.


 While Chas doesn't need a defender, I wanted to point out that you seem to be unnecessarily argumentative with him.


----------



## HistofEng

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> While Chas doesn't need a defender, I wanted to point out that you seem to be unnecessarily argumentative with him.


 
Maybe he didn't state clearly enough then, but to me his first paragragh makes it seem as thouh AAVE is just lazy English, and that it wasn't a language (however much unstandardized). With a conroversial issue like this, you really have to be concise with your ideas. Not to mention the last paragraph, where he renames Standard English to IASE (Intellectually Advanced Standard English) and did not even include an "in addition," or something similar, which is why I had asked all those questions, I just wanted him to clarify his position.


----------



## BSmith

Intelligent black people don't want to be associated with "Ebonics." See Bill Cosby, for example.

That's not to say there's even anything WRONG with Ebonics. There's a time and a place for casual conversation. We all have our own manner of language we use around friends and family.

What's completely ludicrous is trying to put Ebonics out there as some kind of official language or something to be taught.

Jeff Foxworthy teaching a class on southern American English would be just as ludicrous.


----------



## HistofEng

BSmith said:
			
		

> Intelligent black people don't want to be associated with "Ebonics." See Bill Cosby, for example.


 
So black people who speak ebonics aren't intelligent?


----------



## Joelline

Please don't reduce this discussion to silly accusations.  Over and over, people who have posted here have tried to make the opposite point:  black people are intelligent--period.  Intelligence has nothing to do with whether one speaks standard English or Ebonics.  

But let me shift to the ideas of pragmatism and wisdom:  It would be both pragmatic and wise for speakers of Ebonics to learn standard English IF they wish to, say, get a high-paying job on Wall Street; be accepted to one of the Ivy-League schools, run for President of the USA!  They are intelligent enough to do all three (and more!), but these things will be easier to do if they speak standard English in the marketplace.  What they choose to speak in private is their own concern--and more power to them if they are functionally bilingual!


----------



## BSmith

Joelline said:
			
		

> Please don't reduce this discussion to silly accusations. Over and over, people who have posted here have tried to make the opposite point: black people are intelligent--period. Intelligence has nothing to do with whether one speaks standard English or Ebonics.
> 
> But let me shift to the ideas of pragmatism and wisdom: It would be both pragmatic and wise for speakers of Ebonics to learn standard English IF they wish to, say, get a high-paying job on Wall Street; be accepted to one of the Ivy-League schools, run for President of the USA! They are intelligent enough to do all three (and more!), but these things will be easier to do if they speak standard English in the marketplace. What they choose to speak in private is their own concern--and more power to them if they are functionally bilingual!


 
Ebonics isn't a language. Speaking English and "ebonics" doesn't make you bilingual.  Be politically correct all you want, but it's not a language.


----------



## fenixpollo

Who in this thread has said that it is a "language"?


----------



## BSmith

HistofEng said:
			
		

> So black people who speak ebonics aren't intelligent?


 
In a casual environment? No.  Demanding to speak it on a professional level?  They'd be just as ignorant as someone from the south making redneck jokes at their banking job.

The problem is those who intend to make "ebonics" a mainstream, legitimate language.  It's not.  It's an insult to black people everywhere, just like Bill Cosby said.


----------



## BSmith

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Who in this thread has said that it is a "language"?


 
Uh, might wanna re-read the thread.  It's been insinuated several times.  It's the entire argument of the ebonics movement that it become an official language.


----------



## Phil Kaplan

As deh be an on Newfoundland I say you say.  You canna be tha which haps the thought that ha a breum on der sayin.  Tha whe hey do will only hoot me root on time, eh?


----------



## fenixpollo

BSmith said:
			
		

> Uh, might wanna re-read the thread.  It's been *insinuated* several times.  It's the entire argument of the ebonics movement that it become an official language.


 You said that people have "insinuated" -- which is different than *saying*.  People have said that AAVE is a dialect, and that it should be incorporated into the curriculum in at least an informal way, but I missed the posts where anyone has said that it's a language.  Unless you can quote them, you're reading into their comments.


----------



## BSmith

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> You said that people have "insinuated" -- which is different than *saying*. People have said that AAVE is a dialect, and that it should be incorporated into the curriculum in at least an informal way, but I missed the posts where anyone has said that it's a language. Unless you can quote them, you're reading into their comments.


 
I'm not going to argue semantics or some false logic arcana with you.

"What they choose to speak in private is their own concern--and more power to them if they are functionally bilingual."

There's someone saying Ebonics is a language.  Want me to dig another one out?  This thread is finished, for all intents and purposes.


----------



## Joelline

If you'd like to explore further the debate over whether Ebonics is a dialect or a language, please go to http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/hass/ejohnson/ebonics.htm

Scroll about half-way down to the appropriate section.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I don't think the language-vs-dialect dispute is a quibble, but I do think it's such an imponderable that it's almost beside the point to try and come to terms about it.  That's because the distinction we're drawing is so _political._

The exact same kind of heated arguments blew up like stormfronts in the Italian-English forum some time ago over the Neapolitan language/dialect, and any study of Spanish history will shed light on this same topic-- the issue there being Catalan, and the status of Cataluña as a nation or a province of Spain.

Legitimizing a language confers political supremacy on the people who speak it, and when there are other dialects spoken regionally, whether the nation is Spain, Italy or the U.S., the struggle of those dialects to achieve par status with the "official language" will bring hostility from anyone who benefits from the status quo and/or feels threatened by change.

I do believe that judmental opinions that downgrade such dialects are perfectly legitimate opinions, and can be honestly come by-- but they are _subjective_ to put it mildly.

Most every "language of prestige" was once the bastard stepchild of a precedent _lingua franca_ that lost its power by one means or another-- usually the political unit represented by that language declined, possibly went extinct.

Is French an unintelligent and botched form of Latin?  In a context like this forum, where I presume everyone agrees French is a Language, the question is insulting or amusing, depending on your take on it-- but not one to be taken seriously.  But at one time not so long ago, I'm sure it seemed a legitimate and very germane question to many people-- and it's the same question that is being asked and debated with such vigor here.

Is black AE a separate language?  Does the extreme form of it found in center city areas, which seems to change faster than trendy non-blacks can learn it-- have any claim to the future?  Is it even a language?  To me the answer has to be, _time will tell._ 

In the meantime the question will generate heat-- not a problem for me, unless of course the focus strays to the question of Neapolitan.  
.


----------



## BSmith

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I don't think the language-vs-dialect dispute is a quibble, but I do think it's such an imponderable that it's almost beside the point to try and come to terms about it. That's because the distinction we're drawing is so _political._
> 
> The exact same kind of heated arguments blew up like stormfronts in the Italian-English forum some time ago over the Neapolitan language/dialect, and any study of Spanish history will shed light on this same topic-- the issue there being Catalan, and the status of Cataluña as a nation or a province of Spain.
> 
> Legitimizing a language confers political supremacy on the people who speak it, and when there are other dialects spoken regionally, whether the nation is Spain, Italy or the U.S., the struggle of those dialects to achieve par status with the "official language" will bring hostility from anyone who benefits from the status quo and/or feels threatened by change.
> 
> I do believe that judmental opinions that downgrade such dialects are perfectly legitimate opinions, and can be honestly come by-- but they are _subjective_ to put it mildly.
> 
> Most every "language of prestige" was once the bastard stepchild of a precedent _lingua franca_ that lost its power by one means or another-- usually the political unit represented by that language declined, possibly went extinct.
> 
> Is French an unintelligent and botched form of Latin? In a context like this forum, where I presume everyone agrees French is a Language, the question is insulting or amusing, depending on your take on it-- but not one to be taken seriously. But at one time not so long ago, I'm sure it seemed a legitimate and very germane question to many people-- and it's the same question that is being asked and debated with such vigor here.
> 
> Is black AE a separate language? Does the extreme form of it found in center city areas, which seems to change faster than trendy non-blacks can learn it-- have any claim to the future? Is it even a language? To me the answer has to be, _time will tell._
> 
> In the meantime the question will generate heat-- not a problem for me, unless of course the focus strays to the question of Neapolitan.
> .


 
That was interesting and well written.


----------



## fenixpollo

BSmith said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue semantics or some false logic arcana with you.


 My request that you provide facts to support your claim that anyone had come out and said that Ebonics is a language is hardly arcane. But thank you for providing one such fact.  Point taken.

This whole issue turns on semantics and the cultural politics surrounding the language/dialect of a particular subculture. It seems to me that the reason you posted in this thread to begin with was to argue semantics. 





			
				BSmith said:
			
		

> This thread is finished, for all intents and purposes.


 Alrighty, then.  I'll alert the moderators.


----------



## gaer

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Is black AE a separate language? Does the extreme form of it found in center city areas, which seems to change faster than trendy non-blacks can learn it-- have any claim to the future? Is it even a language? To me the answer has to be, _time will tell._


Well put! 

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

My query on Ebonics is this.
If I tape a speaker in (say) New York, and play it back to a speaker in (say) San Francisco, would it be understood as readily as standard English.
From what I see here it would appear that there are many variants of this format. I'm wondering if this is really a widespread slang which is just bubbling below the point at which it could become a language.
The idea that Ebonics is constantly changing would indicate that it might be mutually incomprehensible to people from different cities, and that would mean it cannot be termed a language yet.


----------



## foxfirebrand

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The idea that Ebonics is constantly changing would indicate that it might be mutually incomprehensible to people from different cities, and that would mean it cannot be termed a language yet.


 That would be true, if it weren't for cell phones and CDs and such. 400 years ago cultural cohesion, included language, depended on drums. When the owners got a clue about what the drumming entailed, its message had to be buried in music.

Similar instinct at work in the hip-hop culture today, I suspect.  Not that I "get it" chapter and verse.
.


----------



## keeprockin'

To answer one of the questions from the original post, about whether AAVE has the same linguistic structres and rules everywhere: I actually just finished a linguistics class regarding this, and yes, AAVE is unusually similar in different regions -- although there are some differences. It is also very similar to the dialect usually spoken by lower-income white Southerners (don't know about Southerners of other races). AAVE and Hawaiin creole are the two most distinct English dialects in the US.

And a lot of the heated discussion on this thread seems to be in response to the Oakland, CA school board decision and surrounding controversy from several years back. The school board decided that teachers should learn how to most effectively teach standard English to students who speak AAVE at home. (Similarly, there are approached for how to teach English literacy to students who speak Spanish at home, and likely others for other languages/dialects) So there was an uproar as rumors spread that the school board was recommending teaching "Ebonics" in place of English, which it wasn't. There was also controversy among linguists because, I believe, the school board called AAVE a language rather than a dialect, and many linguists disagreed with this.

By the way, if someone has already posted this info & I didn't see it, I'm sorry.


----------

