Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-12-2011, 06:31 PM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,439,563 times
Reputation: 12597

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
I think its his intonation. Its a pitch change in a word or phrase. If he was raised around African Americans in a black community it will be hard to change that. Its the first thing that comics who mimic people learn about their subject.

I also think the the author of the book is wrong telling people to "code change." Language is like good posture or perfect technique you have to use perfect English all the time until you can notice when you are not using it.

I also take issue with anyone who believes perfect English is all that is standing between African Americans and the road to riches.
I agree--intonation is a part of it too. But I can often even tell black voices from white voices with singers so I think there is just some biological, dialect-independent sound factor I'm picking up on, too.

I think the author is too hardcore putting higher expectations on blacks than other people. But if blacks are expected to code-switch just as much as any other American, then I agree. For example, most Americans do well to code-switch to standard English in any sort of business dealings--regardless of their home dialect. This applies to AAVE speakers as well. I speak AAVE with my family, and I speak "Deaflish" with my Deaf friends. I would never use those variants of English in a job interview, even though I'm white because I know it would work against me.

This would hold true if I were black too, except that I would have the added disadvantage of people having the tendency to generalize any individual negative trait to my whole race. When a white person speaks in what's perceived to be a "improper manner", that individual is a "improper" speaker. When a black person or other minority speaks in what's perceived to be an "improper" manner, all black people (or all members of that minority group) are perceived to be "improper speakers". It doesn't matter that there are plenty of black people that speak standard English all the time. The fact that there are even just a minority of AAVE speakers among Blacks is enough to convince most employers that all black people speak that way. And because AAVE is associated with lower intelligence and lower education, AAVE speakers are perceived to be less intelligent and less educated.

In other words, when a white person projects a less-than-ideal image, it's at the cost of their own success. When a black person projects a less-than-ideal image, it's at the cost of their entire race's success.

I think what the author is saying is blacks can't afford to be perceived as improper speakers of English to get ahead. It's true for anyone, but it's especially true for blacks because of so many people's tendencies to take any negative (real or perceived) qualities of a minority percentage of the black population and generalize it to the entire population.

I also agree with you that dialectical variation is far from the only thing holding the Black Community back. It's only one of many factors.

 
Old 06-12-2011, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 5,343,313 times
Reputation: 1626
so many of these replies, indicating that expectation of "the kings english" from those raised in vastly different cultures, reflect, for me, a hidden racism that I have never felt.
I was raised in a mixed community of working class people of many backgrounds, and learned to value content rather than style. . . . .something to "think about".
 
Old 06-12-2011, 06:44 PM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,113,650 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10 View Post
Blacks, if they are to be taken seriously, must speak English well (unless they were born and raised in a non-English speaking country).

The same goes for whites.

Most whites aren't trying to insist that the different regional dialects are a completely separate language.

Some blacks are trying to push the idea that poor pronunciation and grammar is a legitimate alternative language.
People, if they are to be taken seriously, must speak English well even if they were born and raised in a non-English speaking country. But those who miss the content of a person's words and concentrate on mispronunciations BY ONE RACE are idiots.


Most people aren't trying to insist that the different regional dialects are a completely separate language.

Some people are trying to push the idea that poor pronunciation and grammar is a legitimate alternative language.[/quote]
 
Old 06-12-2011, 06:45 PM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,439,563 times
Reputation: 12597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy View Post
But this is a very condescending and insulting mindset and borderline racist. Basically you're saying that black people are too stupid to pronounce a 3 letter word the proper way. It's not a native "dialect" any more than white people mispronouncing wash as "warsh" is. They are both equally ignorant and incorrect. To act as if it's okay is treating black people like they are incapable of speaking correctly. And what about the millions of black Americans who pronounce "ask" correctly, are they special? I believe everyone regardless of skin color can speak proper English and you should too.
Saying that "warsh" is ignorant and incorrect is just as condescending as saying that "ax" is ignorant and incorrect. They are both non-standard ways of pronouncing words for which the standard pronunciations are "ask" and "wahsh". The terms "standard" and "nonstandard" remove the bias that is inherent in the words "correct" and "incorrect" or "informed" and "ignorant".

It is important to realize this social stigma is real and to acknowledge it in formal contexts by adjusting one's speech to a more socially accepted dialect. This is why I advocate using standard English in an interview, for example. But it's equally important to realize that nonstandard dialects are just that--nonstandard. They're not substandard, "incorrect," or "improper". From a linguistic point of view, they are just as complex, rich, and consistent within themselves as any standard dialect. To consider them inferior from a linguistic point of view is inaccurate and unscientific.
 
Old 06-12-2011, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,545 posts, read 8,312,279 times
Reputation: 2888
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
Saying that "warsh" is ignorant and incorrect is just as condescending as saying that "ax" is ignorant and incorrect. They are both non-standard ways of pronouncing words for which the standard pronunciations are "ask" and "wahsh". The terms "standard" and "nonstandard" remove the bias that is inherent in the words "correct" and "incorrect" or "informed" and "ignorant".

It is important to realize this social stigma is real and to acknowledge it in formal contexts by adjusting one's speech to a more socially accepted dialect. This is why I advocate using standard English in an interview, for example. But it's equally important to realize that nonstandard dialects are just that--nonstandard. They're not substandard, "incorrect," or "improper". From a linguistic point of view, they are just as complex, rich, and consistent within themselves as any standard dialect. To consider them inferior from a linguistic point of view is inaccurate and unscientific.
I do agree with you from a linguistic point of view. However, there is such a thing as "poor", "incorrect", "improper" grammar, even when the speaker adheres to the same improper rules repeatedly. For example, someone who consistently says "I be going down to the store now" may be following their own grammatical rule consistently, but it's improper grammar (from a non-linguistic point of view). It is socially unacceptable in the business world to speak with grammar that deviates from standard English grammatical rules, and it is seen (rightly or wrongly) as having poor grammar. I get what you're saying and am familiar with the linguists point of view on this, but standard English is the standard by which all other dialects and speaking patterns are held to. All others, no matter how consistently followed, are considered substandard in my opinion. Just because they are consistent within themselves and have their own grammatical/speech rules does not make them equivalent to standard English.
 
Old 06-12-2011, 07:21 PM
 
10,449 posts, read 12,439,563 times
Reputation: 12597
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay View Post
I do agree with you from a linguistic point of view. However, there is such a thing as "poor", "incorrect", "improper" grammar, even when the speaker adheres to the same improper rules repeatedly. For example, someone who consistently says "I be going down to the store now" may be following their own grammatical rule consistently, but it's improper grammar (from a non-linguistic point of view). It is socially unacceptable in the business world to speak with grammar that deviates from standard English grammatical rules, and it is seen (rightly or wrongly) as having poor grammar. I get what you're saying and am familiar with the linguists point of view on this, but standard English is the standard by which all other dialects and speaking patterns are held to. All others, no matter how consistently followed, are considered substandard in my opinion. Just because they are consistent within themselves and have their own grammatical/speech rules does not make them equivalent to standard English.
I know, and I am acknowledging that already. That's why I advocate using standard English in any sort of formal context, or any context where standard English is the expected dialect (academia, business, even on these forums posters catch flack for using nonstandard English).

Equally, any context where a nonstandard dialect was the expected dialect, I would advocate using that as well. For example, there are some contexts where speaking standard English might be viewed as "uppity" or "snobbish" and in that case I would advocate using whatever dialect is expected.

My main point is just that "proper" and "improper" are socially defined. Of course, social standards are important, but they are also biased. That said, it's important to play into biases if you want to get ahead.

I am not saying that linguistics is more important than social stigma either. I am just saying that they are equally important, and that in these discussions, the linguistic perspective often gets completely ignored.
 
Old 06-12-2011, 08:21 PM
 
5,999 posts, read 7,076,669 times
Reputation: 3313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
John F. Kennedy pronounced "America", Americur", he pronounced "car', "cah"....WHO says "anyone else"(white people) all speak correctly????

My friend's cousin in New Jersey "changes the earl in his cah" every 3,000 miles.

I've heard white Minnesotans pronounce "year", yur".


Why do you insist black people must talk like white people??? Why is such a low standard YOUR standard???

Like "white people?" It's standard American English. It's extremely racist to assume that a group of people can't pronounce a word properly because of their skin color; shame on you.
 
Old 06-12-2011, 08:24 PM
 
5,999 posts, read 7,076,669 times
Reputation: 3313
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
I could not dissagree with you more. Most people speak in the dialect of their childhood upbringing, and that use (or misuse) of the language is reflective not of their intelligence or capability, but of their familial influence. That can, of course, change with the process of maturation, and or the process of becoming formally educated, but it is no way a "looking down" on those who were raised in a culturally different way.
My contention is that any divide between black and white Americans is a cultural divide, and not a racial one. I do not consider President Obama culturally different from the majority of educated caucasians, although he may well be culturally different from those people, black or white, who were raised in "closed" communities, whether those communities were inner city black, or Appalacian!
Mispronouncing a word is not cultural. Many whites mispronounce the word wash as warsh; that's not cultural, it's ignorant. To think that one group of people, based solely on the color of their skin is less capable of pronouncing a word properly than other people of a different skin color is condescending, insulting, and possibly has racist undertones.
 
Old 06-12-2011, 08:25 PM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,113,650 times
Reputation: 5941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy View Post
Like "white people?" It's standard American English. It's extremely racist to assume that a group of people can't pronounce a word properly because of their skin color; shame on you.
No, shame on you for constantly lying about what I post and never addressing the topic but attacking me instead.
 
Old 06-12-2011, 08:26 PM
 
5,999 posts, read 7,076,669 times
Reputation: 3313
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky View Post
Saying that "warsh" is ignorant and incorrect is just as condescending as saying that "ax" is ignorant and incorrect. They are both non-standard ways of pronouncing words for which the standard pronunciations are "ask" and "wahsh". The terms "standard" and "nonstandard" remove the bias that is inherent in the words "correct" and "incorrect" or "informed" and "ignorant".

It is important to realize this social stigma is real and to acknowledge it in formal contexts by adjusting one's speech to a more socially accepted dialect. This is why I advocate using standard English in an interview, for example. But it's equally important to realize that nonstandard dialects are just that--nonstandard. They're not substandard, "incorrect," or "improper". From a linguistic point of view, they are just as complex, rich, and consistent within themselves as any standard dialect. To consider them inferior from a linguistic point of view is inaccurate and unscientific.

Is this the new pc term for "incorrect?"
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top