Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
African American Vernacular is well-accepted in linguistics and language teaching. As part of my TESL degree (teaching English as a second language), the in-depth study of it was required. It makes complete sense when you realize how consistent it is. It isn't poorly spoken standard English.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Try to go for a job interview and speak "African American Vernacular" and see how far that gets you unless you're applying for an inner city job where the interviewer speaks the same way.
'Tis a dreary perspective! - sounds ridiculous for forum conventions, right? Everything has it's place. It doesn't make it uneducated or ignorant. Now, as native speakers of standard American (let's face it, overwhelming white) English, it's easy to take that attitude.
I'm not American, although I speak standard Canadian English which is nearly identical. I find it fascinating (and sad) how racism permeates so much through the attitude of AAV. You don't even realize how much of this thread is just racism.
In Quebec, language differences are similar from stsmdard French yet, it's considered a natural deviation from cultural and linguistic separation. Yet, some white Americans refuse to see a natural cultural/linguistic separation and label it as ignorant. It's shameful.
In Quebec, language differences are similar from stsmdard French yet, it's considered a natural deviation from cultural and linguistic separation. Yet, some white Americans refuse to see a natural cultural/linguistic separation and label it as ignorant. It's shameful.
One question would be: How well does a Quebec-French speaker interview in Paris?
English was not the native language of any African who was imported from Africa.
There were black Americans who spoke standard English in the 1700s. "Ebonics" is not a deviation from what they spoke. Black American dialect is not a "natural deviation from cultural and linguistic separation," it's a deviation from a language improperly taught and improperly learned in the first place.
Let me propose an analogy. Let's say that the slaves were only allowed to eat the parts of animals that the whites tossed out as garbage...say, the entrails, the so-called "chitterlings." You're trying to convince us that the entrails are equal in quality to the ham.
Sorry...my grandfather taught me, "When you have the ham, you don't eat the chit'lin's." I'm not going to let you convince my children that slave-based dialect is equal to standard English in a standard-English speaking nation.
Your whole premise is based on the inferiority on particular class of people who have been historically marginalized in education and the community. People who until 50-60 years ago, were hardly even permitted to chat together at a restaurant. So, what sort of "standard English" do you propose they learn out in a field, in a blacks-only club, or a blacks-only classroom? How do you intend to expect the benefit of an extensive education in one form of the language when people have gone centuries of being prohibited from it?
It's ridiculous. I am an English teacher. I teach standard English to hundreds of people. We teach it because a standard is useful and appropriate. In no way should that standard diminish the deviations that are formed by the social barriers that were historically forced on people.
Has everyone posting on this thread watched "The Story of English", either in its entirety or the pertinent episode about Black English? If not, do take a look. It is a fascinating and very informative series.
I found the episode titled "The Guid Scots Tongue" particularly interesting, as it reflected the immigration pattern of a branch of my own family, but the entire series is very watchable and I can guarantee that viewers will painlessly learn quite a bit.
I'd strongly advise posters here to watch the series, and/or read the associated book by the same title, in order to write better informed posts on this topic.
I just watched the 7 parts of this series about the black influence on language that came up when I clicked on the youtube link in the OP. Thanks for the links. I haven't yet had a chance to watch the rest - but I will.
I find the evolution of language and the study of linguistics fascinating. My father studied that sort of thing all of his life so I guess I came by it honestly but I know so little compared to what even he did. Each segment of (world, not just local) society that keeps and uses its own colloquial language is interesting in itself - and I hope they preserve that part of themselves - for it engenders pride in self and community I believe. And I love how integration of bits of language have, over time, made us all richer and in many ways, enhanced respect for each other as we gain more common ground.
Issues however ensue when it comes to communication outside our own small enclaves - and because we live in a larger world, and because whether we stay in our own communities or move outside them we must deal with economic issues imposed by others. The concept of 'getting ahead' in life and what that means today is a problem. We can never understand each other if we cannot find a way to communicate effectively who we are to others and have them respect us for that, etc. We may understand the words but not the 'sense' and we will never find common 'context' if we cannot speak the same language - even if it just a pictorial one.
Happiness is really all that counts in my books. But, as illustrated in this series even blacks who used to be happy doing what they wanted to do in their own worlds want to move into the white circle and teach their own how to communicate in what they often assess is a predominantly white world (which is not true anyway in many parts of the world). It is a dilemma for everyone that so many see 'moving up in the world'/'success' to mean getting to be more like white people - and therefore everyone must speak white - while at the same time the local community sees that as being traitorous and uppity unfortunately. I wish that the two could coexist - that all would have an appreciation for both - but I unfortunately don't see that happening yet.
We need to be able to 'communicate' and we need also to stay ourselves and to have pride in that too. I guess it all goes to what we define as 'progress' in today's world. The internet has done us many favours but also has hurt us as well, as individuals and as groups. All our worlds expanded far beyond what they had ever done before as the ability to speak to and about people from all over the world in real time became the norm. The internet breeds jealousy, contempt, and admiration all at once. Access and use of it can bring out the best and the worst in all of us. It is truly a conundrum.
No one can speak all world languages and dialects. Esperanto was a (failed) attempt to introduce a 'common way of communication'. We are definitely (as we always are but this time seems much more critical than others may have been, at least in the moment) in a time of transition. We shouldn't 'rank' one (language or anything else) against the other - we should just appreciate each for what it is in itself.
I talked in an earlier post about the 'lie-berry' incident. And reflecting now I think what I said may have come off the wrong way. Each side should value their heritage, their language, their way of doing things. The problem comes when one tries to impose their way on others too, whether consciously or unconsciously. The mother wants her children to speak English the way that it is currently spelled in what she sees as (and which is generally acknowledged by many as being a 'standard' for that language) and the 'teacher' wants to speak hers too - and that is fine .. but she currently has greater influence over many more than just herself and her own family than the mother I spoke about does. Which will eventually win out? Will we meld the languages in this case or not? I wonder.
The natural evolution of language I have no quarrel with at all. The deliberate morphing of same (particularly for political purposes) I am less enthusiastic about. It often seems derived just to 'get back at others' and/or to exclude them from the 'in group' of the moment. I think that alienates many and is designed to do just that (rather than to enrich us all) - and that is what I dislike about it. We need to find a common platform for communication amongst our differing groups and yet also maintain and respect our 'local lingos' as well. Let nature take its natural course .. and do not try to force it one way or another. Slow the boat down.
One question would be: How well does a Quebec-French speaker interview in Paris?
English was not the native language of any African who was imported from Africa.
There were black Americans who spoke standard English in the 1700s. "Ebonics" is not a deviation from what they spoke. Black American dialect is not a "natural deviation from cultural and linguistic separation," it's a deviation from a language improperly taught and improperly learned in the first place.
Let me propose an analogy. Let's say that the slaves were only allowed to eat the parts of animals that the whites tossed out as garbage...say, the entrails, the so-called "chitterlings." You're trying to convince us that the entrails are equal in quality to the ham.
Sorry...my grandfather taught me, "When you have the ham, you don't eat the chit'lin's." I'm not going to let you convince my children that slave-based dialect is equal to standard English in a standard-English speaking nation.
We have immigrants arriving in this country who have little or no ability to converse in English. They come from all over the globe, represent a rainbow of colors. They learn English, speak with an accent and might not master all of the idioms or conjugations. A generation later, their American born children are speaking English.
What confuses me, is that despite improvements in public education, there is a portion of the AA community (whose families date back to our nation's sad slavery era) who chose to speak AAV.
I was born in NYC in a Puerto Rican family. NONE of us has that 'Jenny from the Block' accent that some inner city Hispanics have. (Granted, a few relatives might prattle on in a combo English/Spanish.) I have heard some Hispanics refer to themselves as bi-cultural; they don't want to give up their heritage but do embrace being American. I have to wonder if AAV remains in part because of a similar situation?
Your whole premise is based on the inferiority on particular class of people who have been historically marginalized in education and the community. People who until 50-60 years ago, were hardly even permitted to chat together at a restaurant.
That was my childhood. When we travelled across the south, my father had to get out of the car first to see if we'd be allowed in.
I was in the seventh grade before I ever knew a white person by name, seventh grade before I'd ever sat in a classroom with a white child or had a white teacher.
And you know what the black teachers taught us black children at George Washington Carver Elementary School? Standard English. They insisted on Standard English.
Because, you see, that was shortly after Brown v Topeka. Our parents believed that my generation would be the first that would finally get a piece of the "American Pie"...and they were determined to make sure we would be ready to reach for it.
..........So, what sort of "standard English" do you propose they learn out in a field, in a blacks-only club, or a blacks-only classroom? How do you intend to expect the benefit of an extensive education in one form of the language when people have gone centuries of being prohibited from it.........
The kind that Condoleeza Rice, who was raised in Birmingham, Al. speaks.
That's a theory out of the head of overseer, not a prisoner. Spend some time talking to some former Vietnam PWs about that, as I have.
Prisoners will learn the language of the overseer in self-defense, but they're not going to communicate with each other using it.
As I said, many of the captives would already speak their own common language. Most others would speak cognates. They would use a pidgin of one of their own languages among themselves, and would hide the fact that they've learned any of the language of their captors.
No, the crew would not spend any particular effort teaching them English. They didn't order the slaves around on any regular basis, they kept them chained below decks. The crews did not spend any time dealing with them at all as humanity.
Here lies the problem. I always wondered how Africans, coming from all different nations and villages (I don't like the word 'tribe') communicate with each other to form insurrections, with all the different dialects? I'm not a historical expert on a topic like this. Darn sure not a linguistics expert!
And don't say the drum! 1) they sure didn't have a drum on ship! 2) Even if they did, I'm sure each village's 'drumming' had different drum patterns, just like different languages! (OK, another thread on music as communication!)
Here lies the problem. I always wondered how Africans, coming from all different nations and villages (I don't like the word 'tribe') communicate with each other to form insurrections, with all the different dialects? I'm not a historical expert on a topic like this. Darn sure not a linguistics expert!
And don't say the drum! 1) they sure didn't have a drum on ship! 2) Even if they did, I'm sure each village's 'drumming' had different drum patterns, just like different languages! (OK, another thread on music as communication!)
It wasn't always (if ever) "all different nations and villages" in any one shipment. It's not as though any shipment had one person from each of a hundred tribes from all across the continent. And it's not as though neighboring tribes didn't know at least smatterings of each other's languages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
