[chabib]

in an english class, i would mark ebonics as wrong. if my school offered ebonics, i would not. the point of an english class or an english language writing class is to enhance a student's use of the english language. you aren't doing yr job if you bow to political correctness. yr doing a great disservice to the student. encouraging the school to offer a course in ebonics would be the course of action to follow if you felt that ebonics was a viable skill for a school to dedicate resources to. whenever i used franglais or english in french, i was penalized. why should the same not apply to ebonics?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by chabib

unless a black kid is aware of the Nguzo Saba and is utilizing ebonics as a way of identifying with the practice of kwanzaa, they have no genuine claim on the concept of ebonics. when you remove intention and awareness from what ebonics actually is, yr essentially left with an excuse for creative illiteracy. i'm all for creativity, but illiteracy is sure a shame.

meh, that's a gross misunderstanding of the language acquisition process-- unless you're joking (i hope you are!). language is acquired during infancy and it's modeled from the environment (usually the parents). the grammar and phonetics are learned unconsciously. the phonetics get pretty much frozen after a certain age. "intention" has nothing but absolutely nothing to do with it. our native language grows in our brains the way trunks grow on elephant's faces.

part of the problem of illiteracy as i see it is that there is little public understanding of this linguistic difference.

when black kids from certain communities go home, to their parents and neighbors, they don't hear "standard" english, they don't speak "standard" english, yet they are expected to read and write it without any adjustment? additionally, these kids aren't taught to read and write in their colloquial language. does the educational system account for this difference? or does it simply overlook it? that depends on the school district i suppose...

we're talking about 2 language systems here, and their difference is being overlooked. i suspect that the high rates of illiteracy have a lot to do with that fact. you speak one language at home and are expected to already know another one in school. i know that's the problem in other communities (among native americans for example, where "traditional" bilingual education doesn't work for various reasons-- but that would be another long explanation).

on a related note:

when dante wrote the divine commedy in his native tongue-- that of the market, of the streets--he was derided for not writing in the literary language of his day (latin). funny, nowadays we read dante as "high-brow" literature (those of us who read anyway).

---

ah i see you posted something else after. ebonics would be different from franglais in your case but likely not in some parts of say new hampshire.

and anyway maybe that's the reason why you grew up to be a radical

--------

noumenal - no i think you are sitting on a linguistic and political hotspot, and it's an interesting contradiction. i don't think there's an easy solution-- i don't think there should be a separate SAT either-- i only think that your students need to be aware of the situation in the sense that they are adjusting to a foreign language. the reason it doesn't get recognized as such is as i said power and politics. why is galician not called portuguese? because galicia is in spain and they had different kings. but anyway, as long as both you and the students know the game that's being played, it's fine to enforce standard english-- the moment the game gets confused with "truth" however is when i see problems happening. "if you want a good job, learn to speak whitey". hah hah. ok.

[!@#$%!]

oh and something else i found... pretty cool...

Theme for English B
by Langston Hughes


The instructor said,



Go home and write
a page tonight.
And let that page come out of you--
Then, it will be true.


I wonder if it's that simple?

I am twenty-two, colored, born in Winston-Salem.

I went to school there, then Durham, then here

to this college on the hill above Harlem.

I am the only colored student in my class.

The steps from the hill lead down into Harlem,

through a park, then I cross St. Nicholas,

Eighth Avenue, Seventh, and I come to the Y,

the Harlem Branch Y, where I take the elevator

up to my room, sit down, and write this page:



It's not easy to know what is true for you or me

at twenty-two, my age. But I guess I'm what

I feel and see and hear, Harlem, I hear you:

hear you, hear me--we two--you, me, talk on this page.

(I hear New York, too.) Me--who?

Well, I like to eat, sleep, drink, and be in love.

I like to work, read, learn, and understand life.

I like a pipe for a Christmas present,

or records--Bessie, bop, or Bach.

I guess being colored doesn't make me not like

the same things other folks like who are other races.

So will my page be colored that I write?



Being me, it will not be white.

But it will be

a part of you, instructor.

You are white--

yet a part of me, as I am a part of you.

That's American.

Sometimes perhaps you don't want to be a part of me.

Nor do I often want to be a part of you.

But we are, that's true!

As I learn from you,

I guess you learn from me--

although you're older--and white--

and somewhat more free.



This is my page for English B.


-----------

additionally, a geeky linguistics discussion on the subject

[noumenal]

That's a nice poem.

I've thought a lot about these issues and I think I know (as much as a white person can) the situation for black folks and I know how language and its acquistion works. I want (as much as anyone can) equality and a fair shot for everyone, but changing tests around or alloying students to write ebonics with no penalty isn't going to do a damn thing about equality. America has no national language and there is no set right or wrong when it comes to grammar or usage or spelling. All there is is what we all agree on and accept and nothing you can do, no amount of sensitivity training is going to change people's attitudes. What we decide is "correct" comes about through just as organic a process as that of language acquisition. Changing tests or adding Ebonics programs at schools is like spraying deodorant on your trash every day instead of taking it out.

I'm as liberal as they come, or at least that's what most people would call me. I guess I'm sort of a philosophical communitarian. But, this kind of wishy-washy crap is what gives liberals or progressives a bad name - makes us look silly. Honestly, all it seems like is some kind of a holier-than-thou preachy hodgepodge.

I'm a pessimist and certainly no activist, but if you really wanted to make a difference for black people, you'd start a revolution and overthrow our fascist president and his staff and practically all of congress, burn them on the stake and start some sort of totalitarian regime to enforce our more "enlightend" viewpoint.

[!@#$%!]

wow, the "enlightening attitude" was directed at chabib -- not at you-- because his post demonstrated either a twisted sense of humor or an ignorance of linguistics.

about this matter, i'm not talking about sensitivity really, but science-- and yeah i concur with your w/ the uselessness of wishy washy liberal crap. i'm not advocating for sensitivity of any kind but knowledge of linguistics when it comes to ,,,

ah, im not trying to argue (not with you at least), so somehow i feel continuing with this post will only add to the misunderstanding.

and really believe me, i don't try to make a difference in the world through discussion boards. well maybe on a one-on-one basis but who would pretend except for charles baer internet world government or whatever it is hah ha...

anyway sorry for the miscommunications here.. not sure where all went wrong

[noumenal]

Oh, hopefully you read my last post after I changed it. I read your post where you had edited it and added something at the end directed at me and I realized I had misunderstood you and took out some of my post.

In reality, I think we pretty much agree, but it's so easy to jump on the defensive on here because discussions so often turn into yelling matches.

[!@#$%!]

hah hah

damn edit function

let me go back & read

[noumenal]

all I did was take out the parts directed at you..... sorry if I was an asshole for a second there.

yes, these edit functions are so annoying sometimes

[!@#$%!]

ah.... you taught SATs....

hey for the record i've been driving for 10 hours & i'm in a motel waiting for sleep to arrive...

why did i think this was in your music classes? i must be zonked...

no worries man no... ok

i'd like to present the case that ebonics is a different language rather than a dialectal variation of english but i don't have the energy

this for purely egghead reasons, i taught spanish for 4 years & got bombarded w/ pedagogy courses, plus, had to study linguistics for my degree... so i kinda get "itchy" for theorizing, hah hah..

i'm alway happy to find smart people on the board to discuss shit--- a pity it's not a cheap bar as it's a more suitable place w/ food + drink

[noumenal]

I remember reading somewhere about the grammar in ebonics and the way that words are changed and whatnot and how it is completely systematic and has its own rules and you could even teach it as a language. You're probably right that a lot of people don't know that - in the The Game thread on this forum they're making fun of it all the time.

I know what you mean about wanting to theorize all the time - I make an ass of myself sometimes on here by rambling about music theory stuff or my philosophical ideas about music.....

I'm taking pedagogy of music theory right now - I'm not really a fan of pedagogy classes. But I'm doing a cool project right - I'm writing a paper on how a certain Beach Boys song could be used as a teaching tool in the classroom.

Oh, and yes, it is nice to be able to discuss shit on here - that's why I hang around here really....

[!@#$%!]

hey i appreaciate your musical theorizations they are more entertaining than most threads

--
im fuking up my spelling at this point

[noumenal]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

hey i appreaciate your musical theorizations they are more entertaining than most threads

--
im fuking up my spelling at this point

thanks man

the reason I'm up is because I have a caffiene problem and am sort of an insomniac, I've been listening to the same Beach Boys song over and over for hours, trying to transcribe it

[!@#$%!]

well im going to crash but tomorrow we'll give chabib some lectures on linguistics

[noumenal]

Allrighty.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

when black kids from certain communities go home, to their parents and neighbors, they don't hear "standard" english, they don't speak "standard" english, yet they are expected to read and write it without any adjustment? additionally, these kids aren't taught to read and write in their colloquial language. does the educational system account for this difference? or does it simply overlook it? that depends on the school district i suppose...

The question for me is whether ebonics constitutes a radical enough difference from other dialectical/ cultural variations on the language - by which I mean, the above is true of anyone, no matter where they're from. No one speaks standard English, absolutely no one. Thinking of myself, I can write in standard English as well as idiosyncraticly... my parents both have very thick accents (West country (UK)/ rural Irish) and in no way speak anything like standard English, but everyone in my family writes in standard English - is there enough of a case for ebonics being radically different enough to warrant the leniency that isn't afforded to other linguistic variations on English? I know plenty of people of Jamaican origin who write in standard English, or if they write in patois, they began to write it after they finished school, as an assertion of identity or as a idiosyncratic, creative way to express themselves. They all know the rules, however, and are happy to abide by them where necessary. I use Jamaican because, in it's thicker variations, can be radically different to the way non-Jamaicans speak.

So the question, to re-iterate: On what grounds may we say ebonics is more than a dialectical variation on English? What, then, precludes us from teaching Glaswegian children to write as they speak?

[truncated]

Originally Posted by Glice

The question for me is whether ebonics constitutes a radical enough difference from other dialectical/ cultural variations on the language - by which I mean, the above is true of anyone, no matter where they're from. No one speaks standard English, absolutely no one. Thinking of myself, I can write in standard English as well as idiosyncraticly... my parents both have very thick accents (West country (UK)/ rural Irish) and in no way speak anything like standard English, but everyone in my family writes in standard English - is there enough of a case for ebonics being radically different enough to warrant the leniency that isn't afforded to other linguistic variations on English? I know plenty of people of Jamaican origin who write in standard English, or if they write in patois, they began to write it after they finished school, as an assertion of identity or as a idiosyncratic, creative way to express themselves. They all know the rules, however, and are happy to abide by them where necessary. I use Jamaican because, in it's thicker variations, can be radically different to the way non-Jamaicans speak.

So the question, to re-iterate: On what grounds may we say ebonics is more than a dialectical variation on English? What, then, precludes us from teaching Glaswegian children to write as they speak?

I have to agree with Glice here. EVERYONE'S spoken language (for purposes of the discussion, I'll restrict this to English) is peppered with colloquialisms and idioms, their pronunciations varied by accents and regional custom. It's almost a 'personalization' of the existing standard of English, in so far as such a standard exists. Ebonics, which really is in essence a dialect, is simply an easily translatable variation of formal English. Its prevalence within certain communities does not preclude neither the need nor the ability to learn and implement 'formal' English.

The claim that it is difficult to discard ebonics in favor of formal English within an academic setting simply because it is the dialect children are exposed to on the home front can likely be applied to 75% of the American population. A multitude of factors influence how a child learns to speak: his region, the education level of his parents, the parents' occupation, the schools, the diversity of the area, etc. It is simply a matter of adaptability - like any other academic lesson, the use of 'proper' English is an acquired knowledge that requires an active learning process.

In addition to that, a majority of a child's day is spent not with his family, but in school, with educators and peers. So if anything, he's more likely to pick up the speaking habits he's exposed to in an academic setting than those in an informal setting.

My point is, whether or not you use proper English in the appropriate setting is a simple matter of individual choice.

I grew up on the south side of Chicago, and while I realize that my 'dialect' doesn't deviate nearly as severely from formal English as ebonics does, the way my parents speak and the way I speak differ completely. None of the following is a criticism, but my parents are blue-collar workers with high school educations who are simply not academically oriented people. Therefore, they tend to use a lot more colloquialisms and idioms than I do, and hardly give a thought to grammar. They have distinct Chicago accents as well. I on the other hand sound rather different to them - I don't really have a Chicago accent, because it's rather integrated with the use of the dialect, and once one drops the dialect, the accent sort of naturally falls away. This did not happen with any special linguistic training - I've been educated in Chicago my entire life, in public schools. Once you actively attempt to learn an implement a particular way of speaking, however, it's akin to riding a bicycle - you either can do it, or you can't.

Or should I say, will, or won't.

This might sound racist, but I do put the ebonics issue down to laziness and/or histrionic displays of 'reclaiming roots.' Just as Glice pointed out, children in the UK are not allowed to write in their regional dialect - it is not a 'right' they are entitled to simply because of their place of origin. It is not a right because it's not an ISSUE. Standardized formal English is EXACTLY that - standardized. It is entirely exclusive of all other mitigating factors, and its very nature is based on its universality (again I use that term loosely for purposes of the discussion).

I don't use calculus or chemistry outside of school, but I learned it. I swear like a truck driver outside of work, but I don't utter a single curse while I'm there. Why? Because I learned what is appropriate when and where.

Ebonics is an attempt to assert cultural identity in a sphere in which it is unnecessary and overblown. It is a playing card born of racial tension in America, nothing more. If you are a person of average intelligence, regardless of race, ethnicity, or geographic location, there is no excuse

and I mean NO excuse

for not learning formal English. End of story. And no allowances should be made for it.

[!@#$%!]

^^^ yes, that's precisely the point (i meant glice's post)

is there enough of a case for ebonics being radically different enough to warrant the leniency that isn't afforded to other linguistic variations on English?

first i wonder about the use of the word "leniency" because... hm, we're not talking about crime and punishment are we? (although language tends to be imparted with the lash of humiliation for the transgressor). i'm not trying to be a deconstructionist wanker though, just to call attention to the underlying framework in which we see conformity with language rules.

"language is companion of empire" was a phrase (poorly translated i admit) coined by grammarian antonio de nebrija in his prologue to the first castillian grammar, aroun 1490 (then he went on to write the first dictionary)... this was very important because the spanish crown had just expelled the muslims from the iberian peninsula and their ships had just landed on the "indies", full of conquering impetus.

i hope i don't sound like i'm speaking in parables but my mind tends to associate images rather than build a case.

i'll jump forward (i hope the connection can be made here):

the reason glaswegian children are taugh standard english instead of london childream being taught glaswegian is, roughly, because they live under british rule (i say "roughly" as there are other factors). but even where british rule is no longer present, such as in ireland, or india, the influence and prestige of the language is sufficient to promote its teaching.

the question then is HOW FAR REMOVED is the variant to justify teaching english AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, rather than assume that the learners already know it00 it's not about tolerating its presumed "mistakes". i posted a link to an article (it's below the poem) in which it's explained how ebonics is not considered by many as a cogent language... system (even naming it is problematic), but "a collection of mistakes"... (this is i guess why i was calling attention to the use of the word "leniency"). yet from the point of view of linguistics, it is considered a variant significant enough to merit special treatment.

i'll quote from the wikipedia:
Proponents of Ebonics instruction in public education believe that their proposals have been distorted by political debate and misunderstood by the general public. The belief underlying it is that black students would perform better in school and more easily learn standard American English if textbooks and teachers acknowledged that AAVE was not a substandard version of standard American English but a legitimate speech variety with its own grammatical rules and pronunciation norms.

the wikipedia article explains the linguistic phenomenon in great detail; if you notice, all objections to the various educational policies proposed come not form linguists, but from politicians, which relates to my faraway nebrija simile.

there is mention also of the bilingual education approach having successful results to teach standard english, yet those initiatives were torpedoed again for political reasons.

i could quote the whole beast here, but better to take a look at the article itself. and then the other one i linked previously.

my question with regards to great britain, about which i know little, has to do with the academic success rate of jamaican immigrants. is it similar? different? are they taught standard english differently from native english children? still, jamaicans in the uk are not totally comparable to afroamericans for a variety of reasons-- immigrants are self-selected populations, usually more willing to assimilate, etc.

i hope i haven't rambled completely aimlessly...

[Savage Clone]

It's a freaking colloquial dialect, for god's sake.
If I can learn (after a fairly limited amount of exposure) to understand Scottish people, Jamaican people, or people speaking in ebonic patois, I don't think it's too much to expect that someone coming from one of those other dialects would be able to pick up "standard" English either. Especially considering how much more immersive "standard English" is in general society, TV, etc.
IT IS THE SAME LANGUAGE. I don't think Southerners could get away with using Southern patois in a Master's thesis, and they would have little recourse to complain if they received poor marks for turning in a paper peppered with Southern colloquialisms and sentence structures.
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to go with truncated on this.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by truncated

I have to agree with Glice here. EVERYONE'S spoken language (for purposes of the discussion, I'll restrict this to English) is peppered with colloquialisms and idioms,

[...]

Ebonics is an attempt to assert cultural identity in a sphere in which it is unnecessary and overblown. It is a playing card born of racial tension in America, nothing more. If you are a person of average intelligence, regardless of race, ethnicity, or geographic location, there is no excuse

and I mean NO excuse

for not learning formal English. End of story. And no allowances should be made for it.

ok, you're one of my very favorite people here, so it's more fun to disagree.

first i think glice didn't go as far as to reach a conclusion but simply posed a precise question" "is it removed enough"?

your answer is no, mine is yes. but glice didn't say either.

now, about the rest of your post, please read that article... it's pretty good. read it & then we argue some more

[Glice]

Truncated, have a ball-cup.

On a related note, what I appreciate about internet discussions is that, unlike in real-world conversations, the epithet "You don't understand because you're not black", which could so easily be applied here, holds no water whatsoever because a person's ethnic identity is effectively neutered thanks to anonymity.

Good work, the internet.

*Edit - I didn't read the following posts by Ned at the time of writing, not that it matters...

To continue... I understand there are a lot of issues at play here (more deconstructionist rhetoric)... I'm being fairly partisan so far because I don't really know a lot about ebonics - so far, I can't help but think that the case for it being a foreign language rather than a sociolect is fairly weak. My linguistic theory is rudimentary to say the least, although I have done papers on Sapir/ Whorff, Saussure, Chomsky and Wittgenstein, so I'm not entirely in the dark, but I must admit a certain ignorance.

My overwhelming feeling at the moment is that it is political enterprise to give ebonics cultural clemency rather than a linguistic one. I say this because the large communities of Indian, Pakistani, West Indies, African and Chinese are all expected to learn standard English; all of them have regional variations on English, and (anecdotal evidence here) there is a general way of speaking for most of them (I'm not sure if this is to do with voice or language variations - the first thing that comes to mind is that many people with south Indian families tend to have quite nasal voices).

Um... I'm drifting away from my point... Um... Yes. So. Anyway. Those of African origin generally tend to have lived in a culture in which English is the standard; languages of course change, and new ones come out of old ones - is this the case with ebonics? I feel that it isn't, based on the fact that I can understand black English just as easily as anything else. Admittedly, I have problems with dense Jamaican patois and Nigerian English, but then I would have the same problems for dense Cork accents, thick Glaswegian or, looking elsewhere, I have problems with the syntax of a lot of Eastern European English speakers (Bosnian, Polish) that I know, I also notice that the families I know of Chinese origin tend to speak English, at home (they're fully comprehendable otherwise) incredibly quickly. I don't see, so far, that the case for ebonics is anything more than a political enterprise based on black politics.

Also, it seems to me that we haven't mentioned how diverse a country Africa is - Black, as a term, encompasses so very many things - for instance, a Ghanain (sp?) will (generally speaking) have an entirely different sense of values and culture to a Somalian or a South African - I worry that ebonics seems to clump an incredibly diverse set of people into one bracket, which again, can only be interpreted as a political, not a linguistic enterprise.