Ebonics is misunderstood

Mxsmanic   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:34 GMT
There are many native forms of English that are far less than valid forms of communication outside very tightly circumscribed communities of people who speak that same dialect.

I make every effort to speak a completely neutral variety of American English precisely because I wish to be able to communicate in a "valid" way with as many people as possible, as efficiently as possible. And I additionally do not wish to be saddled with the prejudices of people who believe a certain accent or speech to be a reliable indicator of other variables that are far less correlated with speech than they might believe. Put more simply, I don't want people to think I'm retarded because I speak some grossly substandard form of English. It's easy to learn better English, and so that's what I've tried to do.

As for the use of expletives, I pick my debates very carefully, always giving priority to attacking positions that I know to be utterly baseless. Naturally this means that my interlocutors rapidly find themselves at a loss for effective arguments in support of their own positions, and resorting to personal attack is the next step, which they often reach within just a few posts (sometimes in the very first post, if they are very frightened by the attack on their position). And yes, someone who resorts to this has already lost the debate.
Lazar   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:41 GMT
<<And yes, someone who resorts to this has already lost the debate.>>

Nonsense; it just means that they're momentarily angry. I, for instance, was momentarily angry because I care deeply about minority languages like Welsh.

<<And I additionally do not wish to be saddled with the prejudices of people who believe a certain accent or speech to be a reliable indicator of other variables that are far less correlated with speech than they might believe.>>

I would prefer that they change their prejudices.
Mxsmanic   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:46 GMT
Even angry people can wield sound arguments effectively in debate. And people holding positions that they can easily support are not generally prone to anger.

It would be nice if the entire world could discard its prejudices for my benefit, but I don't expect that to happen, and so I try to do as little as possible to trigger those prejudices. Speaking a very clean, standard variety of English that appears to be "from nowhere" is one way to avoid the effects of prejudice. Speaking Ebonics, in contrast, is only one step short of slitting one's wrists, figuratively speaking.
Lazar   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:48 GMT
<<I try to do as little as possible to trigger those prejudices.>>

So in other words you're a conformist.
Lazar   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:52 GMT
I, myself, am proud of my regional accent - let it trigger what prejudices it may. I think it would be a very dull, sad world in which everyone spoke an identical, "from nowhere" accent.
Bubbler   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:59 GMT
>>such is making the unstated presumption that someone who speaks AAVE *only* speaks AAVE, and it is not allowing room for codeswitching and so on.

I don’t know how many times I can continue to repeat myself regarding this issue, for doing so is truly exasperating. I *REALIZE* there are people who use SAE at work AND Ebonics at home, but these are normally people making a transition in economic status. No doubt, they grew up in an area where Ebonics was prevalent (i.e. a poor area). If they move from this area, as they inevitably do as wealth increases, the source of that speech pattern is eliminated and, in all likelihood, their children will not speak Ebonics.

>>My viewpoint is that there is value in linguistic diversity because language is an important element of human culture . . . I think that some things are more important than mere economic expedience.

There is no value in linguistic diversity if it inhibits the workings of society, not only economically but if actually affects the general social order. Forgive me, but I find societal harmony more important than cultural diversity. I prefer to interact with people rather than histories. Does any American wish his immigrant ancestors had held on to their language in order to preserve their culture? What a mess this county would be if nobody had assimilated into American society and instead clung to their culture.
Travis   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 23:03 GMT
Your arguments take a rather chicken-and-egg-ish tone overall, Mxsmanic, as you say that you're opposed to the use of AAVE for the reason that others are opposed to its use, for one way or another. Of course, what happens if you try to take such an argument, and extend it beyond an individual level, and rather to a society level, it essentially is a reason for itself. You still haven't explained to me "why" AAVE is somehow "grossly substandard", besides that some others don't have the highest view of it, which of course is a non-argument, and that it may have reduced intelligibility with some, but then, that is an argument against /all/ minority languages in general, and not just against AAVE.

As for "completely neutral", in the context of English, what is that supposed to mean, anyways? Again, what does "clean, standard variety of English" mean? If one is speaking in terms of "standardness", that has the implication that one always speaks formally, no matter what, considering that "standard varieties" tend in general, by definition, to be formal in nature, no matter what language one is speaking of. Again, what does "from nowhere" mean? Sounding like you're from Iowa does not mean you sound like you're from nowhere, it means you sound like from you're from Iowa. And why is "sounding like one is from nowhere" so important, anyways?
Kirk   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 23:22 GMT
Exactly right, Lazar. I am, too, proud of my particular accent, and appreciate the quirks and certain characteristics that make it stand out from other varieties (even when how I speak may diverge considerably from whatever arbitrary standard there is out there). This is also another reason why I find it inherently unfair and illogical to deny other groups that same right to appreciate and speak their own varieties as perfectly valid communication forms. Mxsmanic, you are apparently not aware of your one-sided logic in that you're obviously proud of how you speak (as anyone well should be), yet you can't afford that same consideration to another specific group. As I've said before (read my earlier post), I'm fully aware certain varieties are sociologically stigmatized, especially in a context such as the professional world. While this is an unfortunate reality, and opinion-wise you are not required to always like how everyone speaks (most people have their own subjective preferences, but reasonable people realize they're just subjective opinions and keep it at that), you cannot even grant this variety (varieties?) the basic decency of the valid forms of English that they are.

You also make several assumptions which are highly linguistically flawed. I guarantee you that no one speaks a "neutral" form of American English. Everyone is from somewhere and everyone's background ultimately influences how they speak.

"Put more simply, I don't want people to think I'm retarded because I speak some grossly substandard form of English. It's easy to learn better English, and so that's what I've tried to do."

Wow. Just that short comment has about 27 things wrong with it, but I'll just stick with the fact that there is no way to be a native speaker and speak a "substandard" form of a language. Period. Please stop saying "substandard" and implying that your form of English is "better" than that of any other native speaker of English. Once again, these comments are highly inaccurate on a purely linguistic level, even removed from politics, where they're offensive and inaccurate as well.
Travis   Sunday, April 24, 2005, 23:25 GMT
Bubbler, still, you're making the assumption that people /should/ lose AAVE, one way or another, if they economically transition, and that AAVE is inherently economically marked /as such/. Whether people do or not is one thing, whether they /should/ is a completely different thing.

As for linguistic diversity, why is large scale linguistic assimilation so important, and how does that in itself somehow result in "societal harmony"? But then, even if it does, I don't really see much value in such in itself.

And as for languages brought to the US other than English, well, the loss of such is something that I myself am not the biggest fan of myself, and not something that I see as having been good in itself. But then, I sort of indirectly remind my dad, time to time, that he, within my family, is why German is no longer spoken within it, except by his older brother, and potentially some older relatives which I personally have no contact with; he specifically resisted learning it, as a kid, for the reason that he saw no value in it himself. But then, my dad today seems to view German as a language for old people, of which there is no value learning-wise besides as just yet another foreign language like any other. Of course, though, that kind of perspective is one of the sort that only makes itself further so by being held.

On the other hand, my mom, on the other hand, apparently has had very little to no contact with Polish in the first place, it seems, even though it was her mom's and some of her relatives' native language (she could tell that some of her aunts and like were not exactly fluent in English). At least there seems to have been no effort to pass it on, even though her oldest brother does speak at least some Polish, considering that I've heard him break into it. The thing, though, that bothers me less about this, is that in retrospect, German could have survived (but didn't, for better or for worse) in the Upper Midwest, whereas Polish probably lacked the critical mass necessary outside of a few limited neighborhoods and like.
Bubbler   Monday, April 25, 2005, 00:04 GMT
>>Bubbler, still, you're making the assumption that people /should/ lose AAVE, one way or another, if they economically transition, and that AAVE is inherently economically marked /as such/. Whether people do or not is one thing, whether they /should/ is a completely different thing.

Travis, talking to you is like banging my head against a wall. I'm saying 1. people *have* to speak SAE if they wish to succeed; 2. when they do they traditionally move from areas where Ebonics is prevalent (i.e. inner cities) to places where more opportunities are available for them and their children (i.e. places where Ebonics is rare), 3. and therefore, eventually SAE wins out, if not for them, most assuredly for their children. Hence, it is a consequence of their adopting SAE for societal advancement purposes that eventually leads to their total departure from Ebonics (for dual-dialects do not survive generational gaps if the child’s surrounding environment does not support them both).

That's what DOES happen. I never commented on whether or not the process SHOULD happen, though I suppose I'm inclined to believe things that naturally occur do so for a reason. Because Ebonics is socially unaccepted, yes, I believe people *should* learn SAE in order to succeed in life. As to whether they *should* abandon Ebonics, well that's like asking if couples should have sex. One's opinion doesn't matter because they eventually do.
Mxsmanic   Monday, April 25, 2005, 04:26 GMT
I'm the last person whom anyone might consider a conformist, but I do try to reduce the opportunity for others to form inaccurate and preconceived ideas about me based on factors that are uncorrelated with who I am as an individual. The dialect I've acquired, if any, is largely unrelated to my individual personality and qualities or defects, and so I prefer that people not make any assumptions based only on that dialect. Since I cannot prevent them from doing so, the only real choice I have is to abandon the dialect and speak as neutral a variety of English as possible. I do this for exactly the same reason that people in broadcasting do it. As long as you sound like you're "from nowhere," you don't have to deal with inaccurate preconceived notions. It's not conformism, it's just clarification.

I don't care if people use Ebonics or not, but I think it does people a disservice when they are encouraged to retain this type of substandard language without being warned of the very grave consequences to doing so. Speak Ebonics if you must, but be aware of the tremendous amount of prejudice you engender in others by doing so. Since using Ebonics will hurt most people in most situations, I cannot recommend it, and in fact I recommend against it. Let others evaluate you for who you are, and not for the way you speak.

Yes, there is a "neutral" standard for any language: it's the standard that is least likely to sound "foreign" to the greatest number of speakers of the language. In English, it's the standard followed by professional voice talent (in most cases). When you speak in a neutral way, people listen to what you say ... and not to how you say it. That clears many obstacles out of the way.

Smart speakers of Ebonics eventually abandon it on their own, as they reach the same conclusions that I've described above. But when the less-smart speakers of Ebonics are encouraged to retain that substandard dialect, they suffer needlessly in many situations. Even the smart ones can delay their progress by clinging irrationally to the dialect. The sooner they adopt a standard version of English, the better.

There is a place for prescriptive standards in language. I use them every day in teaching English. My students are not interested in making queer statements of individuality in their discourse; they wish only to speak English in a way that is neutral and unremarkable, so that they "fit in" as native speakers would in the greatest possible number of situations. They know that standards exist, and they want to learn and adhere to those standards.
Travis   Monday, April 25, 2005, 04:46 GMT
First, please define "standard version of English". And for starters, if you do consider RP to be a form of such, then clearly you are wrong, as speaking RP, for example, most clearly does attach social connotations to one. Likewise, if one speaks "Standard American English", but one speaks primarily formally, that will too be noticed by individuals exactly because it is /too/ "correct", that is, it isn't what most people /actually/ speak on an everyday basis; of course, whether one wants to sound like a book or not is another story, and is one's own business. Obviously, if such is what one has been taught, as a second language, it's hard to avoid such, simply because people are generally not formally taught the everyday speech patterns used by most, whatever the place may be, simply because such aren't deemed "correct" or "standard" by people like you. And then there is the problem of speaking a carefully "standardized" form of English making one sound somewhat "artificial", specifically because most people /don't/ actually speak such, as much as some may happen to idealize such.
Mxsmanic   Monday, April 25, 2005, 18:18 GMT
A standard version of English is one that does not seem strange to a majority of speakers in the target population. So-called General or Standard American English is in this category with respect to the largest number of native speakers; RP or "BBC English" has approximately the same status among many non-rhotic native speakers. Overall, it's the version of English that does _not_ cause the listener to wonder where the speaker is from.

Many people take classes to adopt a "standard" and "neutral" form of English. The idea is not to speak English like any one group of native speakers, but to speak an English so neutral and ordinary that nobody can place the speaker geographically or socially. It's not that people will say "oh, thank goodness he is speaking _standard_ English," because they won't. It's simply that they _will not_ say "oh, he's speaking non-standard English" or "oh, he must be from X." Communication is most efficient when there is nothing about your speech that distracts the listener from the meaning you are trying to convey.

If you subtract my American accent from my speech in French, this is exactly the type of French I speak: a standard French that comes from "nowhere" (except perhaps the Radio France building). It conjures up no image of any particular geographic region or any particular social class; it is rigorously neutral. "Standard" English is the same way.

At the other end of the spectrum are dialects like Ebonics, that are so distracting and so at odds with any standard version of the language that they tend to blot out any meaning that a speaker might attempt to convey while using them. People notice only the accent and the speech pattern, not the actual content of the speech. In general, this is a very bad thing.
Tyrone   Monday, April 25, 2005, 18:31 GMT
I think I am the only person that speaks AAVE to comment on this post. And it's amusing to watch people that aren't involved very much in a particular culture to make stunning value judgments.

My grandfather moved from Texas to Los Angeles in 1954, speaking a very Southern-influenced form of English, although not entirely AAVE. His lower-middle class children grew up speaking both AAVE and SAE, although almost entirely AAVE at home. I am the child of a middle class white mother and a middle class black father, and I grew up speaking SAE at home and at school, although AAVE with my father's family. It's a useful linguistic pattern to have, as it allows you to communicate effectively with other groups of people.

To be successful in the United States, one does seem to have to adopt an Anglo cultural norm of speech patterns and behaviors. This is not completely binding, although it happens often. To relate back to this post, however, AAVE is entirely misunderstood. It is not an attempt to dumb down the language; rather it is an effective commnunicative dialect for a group of historically discriminated peoples. It serves a purpose, and is no less valid because it is not often used in high circles. I know plenty of middle class and upper class blacks that use AAVE at home and code switch to SAE, much like myself.

On that note, I'm late for French class.
Lazar   Monday, April 25, 2005, 19:02 GMT
<<I'm the last person whom anyone might consider a conformist, but I do try to reduce the opportunity for others to form inaccurate and preconceived ideas about me based on factors that are uncorrelated with who I am as an individual.>>

Regardless of any other aspect of your personality, it *is* a conformist notion that one should eliminate all regional speech characteristics and adopt the accent that is most neutral and most pleasing to the majority. As I have said before, instead of changing my identity in order to avoid people's prejudices, I would prefer that they change those prejudices.