Is Ebonics” Black English” a bad influence for American English?

Vytenis   Friday, April 08, 2005, 08:07 GMT
Yeah, Dubya speaks it, so Texas accent is EEVEEL!!!. :)))))

Talking seriously, I think a particular accent is neither good not bad as such. It is just the matter of where it is being used and what grup of people speak it. I don't know much about Ebonics, but here in Siauliai (the 4-th largest city in Lithuania) we have a local "dialect" which is... well.. not a very prestige one. All educated people try to avoid it. And as a rule, the less educated the person is, the thicker is his Siauliai accent. And if you walk in the street after dark and see a gang of young men coming your way, you can judge in what degree of potential trouble you are by the thickness of their Siauliai accent. At least that's my experience, I have been living in Siauliai since birth. But I think it is pretty much the same all over the world, is't it?
vytenis   Friday, April 08, 2005, 08:09 GMT
*neither good not bad

neither good NOR bad
Vytenis   Friday, April 08, 2005, 08:12 GMT
Mind you that my example with Siauliai accent was not meant to offend anyone (Ebonics speakers or anyone else). Maybe we will soon have great masterpieces of world literature written in Ebonics and it will be taught as a classical language in the universities of the world. Remember Vulgar Latin...
Vytenis   Friday, April 08, 2005, 13:12 GMT
Do I sound sarcastic?
Antepolleo   Friday, April 08, 2005, 14:52 GMT
I hate to disagree with most of you, but there is a correct and an incorrect way to speak English. The correct way is either the way the majority of the natives speak it or the method that allows the most number of people to comprehend the speaker. The purpose of language is communication; dialects are fine, but basic grammar cannot be modified without consequence. This isn't to say that Ebonics is any worse than other deviations of standard English, but it should be recognized as a deviation. Like it or not, it isn't seen as an educated way of speaking.
Vytenis   Friday, April 08, 2005, 20:05 GMT
Antepolleo, you are right. But that does not refute what I have just said. Dialects are not "bad" as such. Again, remember "Vulgar Latin"
Mxsmanic   Friday, April 08, 2005, 21:35 GMT
"Ebonics" is a dramatically substandard dialect of English, and it is a passport to nowhere outside the very tiny microcosms of society in which an illiterate minority actually uses the dialect with any frequency. People who encourage the use of this dialect are either incalculably stupid, or they have sinister ulterior motives (such as a desire to keep certain segments of society "in their place" by ensuring that they will always advertise their original stations in life through their speech and writing).
Travis   Friday, April 08, 2005, 22:23 GMT
Sorry, Mxsmanic, but from a linguistic standpoint there is no such thing as a "substandard" dialect or like per se, and something being "substandard" is just social bias against a given dialect, or the social group(s) with which it is associated. And also, you make the assumption that individuals cannot codeswitch between multiple dialects and registers, but rather are left speaking the same dialect and register, no matter whether they are at home, or with their friends, or at work, and you seem to promote the view that one must get rid of ones native dialect, in this case AAVE, and replace it with a more "standard" form, with one not being able to maintain multiple different dialects/registers in parallel with each other. Also, you seem to view the tie between dialect and one's identity as being a bad thing as a whole, and that one should try to actively get rid of one's native dialect and replace it to likewise detach one with any preexisting overall social identity as well, which I myself would not consider as a good thing, in the first place.
Vytenis   Saturday, April 09, 2005, 08:53 GMT
I think Mxsmanic is speaking from the social point of view, and he is right that some dialecs are not considered prestigious in society. However, the linguistic point of view mentioned by Travis is also valid. So there is no point in arguing: we are comparing oranges and apples. :)
Mxsmanic   Saturday, April 09, 2005, 15:31 GMT
Language is a tool for communication, not a facet of individual identity. I always strive to speak as neutrally as possible, so that others have no tendency to develop preconceived notions based on my speech alone.

Speaking "ebonics" advertises oneself as a potential loser from the lowest dregs of American society. This is true independent of any linguistic considerations. If that's the impression one wishes to make, then by all means, one should feel free to speak that way. But if one wishes to avoid conjuring up any negative connotations when speaking, it's best to speak the most standard version of the language possible, or, if one is in a part of society where non-standard speech is common, adopt that non-standard speech.

The segments of society in which "ebonics" is considered neutral are vanishingly small and not generally very attractive, so speaking this substandard dialect is probably not a very good idea in most cases. If one has had the misfortune of learning it as a native dialect, one should try to replace it with something more standard.
Deborah   Sunday, April 10, 2005, 01:12 GMT
Mxsmaniac,

>> Language is a tool for communication, not a facet of individual identity. I always strive to speak as neutrally as possible, so that others have no tendency to develop preconceived notions based on my speech alone. <<

People always have preconceived notions based on how a person speaks. If you speak neutrally, someone will have preconceived notions of what a person who speaks neutrally is like. (What do you mean by "neutrally," anyway?)
Travis   Sunday, April 10, 2005, 04:34 GMT
I myself agree completely with Deborah here. For example, if one defines "neutral" as being, say, formal Northern Central American English, also known as "Standard American English", one is likely to be perceived as being overly formal, and generally "speaking like a book", if one were to use it in an everyday fashion. I myself avoid speaking in such, unless I'm intentionally being very formal, for the sake of politeness, for expressing increased force while speaking, especially while yelling (strong aspiration, especially word-final aspiration, and significant disconnectedness overall are good for this), for the sake of increased expressed poeticness or eloquentless or like, while speaking to individuals which I'm having trouble understanding, or who are having trouble understanding me.

On the other hand, while speaking in the informal forms local to here, while it may seem less marked from your standpoint, if you don't happen to speak the dialect here, on the other hand it is the complete opposite here, for the exact reason that such is the informal speech forms used here on an everyday basis, and is not removed from the everyday spoken language like formal spoken forms are. The same thing goes for AAVE, because while it may seem marked from, say, my point of view, it exactly is not such in communities in which the general population speaks it on an everyday basis, and rather speech forms like my own informal ones would be perceived as distinctly marked, due to not being native to the community as a whole, and not being used there on an everyday fashion.