Ebonics is misunderstood

Mxsmanic   Monday, April 25, 2005, 19:07 GMT
Well, I daresay you'll be waiting a long time. In the meantime, I'll be trying to reduce any irrelevant triggers of prejudice in my own speech so that I don't have to spend time correcting incorrect preconceived notions.
Deborah   Monday, April 25, 2005, 21:28 GMT
Mxsmaniac,

<< In the meantime, I'll be trying to reduce any irrelevant triggers of prejudice in my own speech so that I don't have to spend time correcting incorrect preconceived notions. >>

Instead, you'll trigger the *correct* preconceived notion that you're a conformist.
Travis   Monday, April 25, 2005, 22:24 GMT
Mxsmanic, obviously, you don't know what you're talking about, when you speak of RP here. RP is very *clearly* socially marked as being upper class in a not-necessarily-so-positive manner these days in the UK, and for related reasons is being rather steadily replaced by Estuary English, which in the future probably /will/ be the "standard English English", because unlike RP, EE is not class-marked, whether in a "high" or in a "low" fashion, and is being increasingly spoken by the general population, rather than a small elite minority. RP is not "neutral" in the least, and in England, the "neutral" position is being taken by EE instead (and before EE, did not really exist in the first place).
Gabe   Monday, April 25, 2005, 23:48 GMT
In my last post I don't think I expressed clearly what I wanted to say.

In any case, I don't think mxsmanic (or mxsmaniac as Deborah perhaps freudianly called him... ;-p ) holds that unreasonable of a position. At least, I think to some extent people here are arguing about different things.

1) From a *linguistic* standpoint, I don't think anyone here thinks Ebonics is any "worse" (whatever that means) than Standard American English. It's just as much of a "language" as anything else since it's what kids speak natively -- it has rules and whatnot. It's a valid form of communication.

2) I don't think anyone will argue that Ebonics has a fairly negative and uneducated connotation to it among the general public. Speaking AAVE will hinder your business advancement for most things. Now I don't think anyone debating here thinks that's *just*, but that's the way it is. I don't even think the people debating here think that AAVE inherently causes or is caused by stupidity and poverty. Similarly, I think most people agree that AAVE may cause poverty indirectly because of the public's general misconception about it, which will in turn hinder speakers of it.

3) From a *practical* standpoint people disagree on things. What do we do from here to give everyone the best chance to succeed in life? We have the realists like mxsmanic and bubbler who think it's best just to teach AAVE speakers SAE and let them go on their way. Mxsmanic as a teacher (an english teacher?), perhaps *should* take this position. Then we have the idealists like Lazar, Travis, and Kirk who think it is best to try to end the prejudices and nurture linguistic diversity. A laudable goal.

Am I correct so far? I really don't think the positions here are that at odds with each other. If we start from where we agree, I don't think this debate has to be like "talking to a wall" or regress to profanity.

Where do I stand? I love languages and linguistic diversity so I would love to have it preserved. I would love if AAVE were treated just as any accent and wouldn't inhibit you in finding work more than say a British accent of some sort would. That said, *until* things are that way I think that black speakers of AAVE should realize the existing socialogical landscape and work on a more standard accent if they hope to climb the economic ladder. One caveat is in jobs that require extensive communication with others -- in that case AAVE could be a help in communicating with others who also speak it, but it could also be a hindrance as it diverges from SAE by quite a bit at times. So in that case, even if prejudices are overturned, those people should still work on an SAE accent.

An anecdote to ground this in reality: I have a floormate here at MIT who's black. Since he's at MIT he's obviously smart, and he's majoring in Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineering so he's actually even quite smart as that's one of the more rigorous majors. However, even with this he doesn't speak perfect SAE. Occasionally while playing games he'll say "Why you did that?" and he says "togever" and "wif." And he knows the difference between "He working" and "He be working" (A question of current state vs. routine, respectively). He's tried to learn SAE and even gone to a speech helper person. So it is quite difficult to learn SAE. For this reason of difficulty I tend to side more with the idealists.

And how do we change the public's misconceptions? Just by talking with others about it. Eventually it'll change, I bet.
Kirk   Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 02:19 GMT
"Then we have the idealists like Lazar, Travis, and Kirk who think it is best to try to end the prejudices and nurture linguistic diversity"

Those are great goals, indeed, but I really was making my arguments purely on linguistic grounds, not even on hopeful political ideals, which aren't bad, either. I am somewhat of a realist, tho, and realize that unfortunately there usually are some socially stigmatized varieties of most human languages, and for professional purposes people may need to adopt what is considered more standard speech in order to succeed. My problem is that some of the posters on here directly stated Ebonics/AAVE was somehow "substandard," a "lesser" version of English, as if it were less legitimate just because its forms don't always match up with generally accepted "standard" forms or simply didn't match up to how the posters grew up speaking.
Gabe   Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 02:39 GMT
Kirk:

I see. I definitely agree with you about that. Perhaps I should reread the first few pages, but at least with the people still posting (mostly Bubbler and mxsmanic) I don't think they hold the position that it's "substandard" in a linguistic sense, merely in a current social climate one. But, yeah, I also find the position that AAEV is merely a perversion of English unacceptable.
Deborah   Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 06:27 GMT
<< (or mxsmaniac as Deborah perhaps freudianly called him... ;-p ) >>

Sorry, Mxsmanic, I truly thought Mxsmaniac was correct. I need a new prescription.
Travis   Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 07:11 GMT
I would have to say that I agree with Kirk completely on this, and my reasons for my position here are on linguistic grounds primarily, even though my position does also concord with my own political views, which are another story in themselves, and which I shall leave unmentioned further on here.
Tyrone   Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 22:31 GMT
I have a bit of a personal investment in this topic, and take quite a bit of umbrage at the implication that all AAVE speakers are stupid lazy and illiterate. It's actually fascinating to see a group of people discuss a cultural language that aren't at all connected to it.
Kazoo   Thursday, April 28, 2005, 03:13 GMT
I thought Steve K was dead.
Bob   Thursday, April 28, 2005, 03:30 GMT
"Sorry, Mxsmanic, I truly thought Mxsmaniac was correct. I need a new prescription."

In any case, the MXS is correct. Mental eXtraneous Sport?
Mxsmanic   Thursday, April 28, 2005, 20:08 GMT
It's actually a reference to a computer product.
Mxsmanic   Thursday, April 28, 2005, 20:15 GMT
...for nerds
Mxsmanic   Friday, April 29, 2005, 03:09 GMT
This particular product is used mostly by non-nerds.
Alex   Friday, April 29, 2005, 04:02 GMT
As I understood it at the time, the idea was not to teach the language. The professor who came up with the idea was drawing on ESL courses or bilingual education. My understanding is that he intended to classify the colloquail speach of the kids in Oakland as Ebonics-a separate language. Then they would be able to dedicate resources to teaching the kids proper English to enable them more opportunity in the workplace. Basically ESL classes for kids who spoke substandard English.