Unbelievable.
Absolutely horrendous.
Florida Congresswoman totally embarrasses herself.
Printable View
Unbelievable.
Absolutely horrendous.
Florida Congresswoman totally embarrasses herself.
Ugh - just, ugh...
Looks like you don't need to be able to read aloud in public to be a member of Congress...
Oh. My. Cringe.
She makes the Detroit City Council sound articulate.:biglove
Go Gators!
That was a very important speech. I'm sure the other congressmen were elated.
I bet the dean of the university wants to bury himself somewhere very deep right now.
Weird more than embarrassing!!
It is hard to believe something with such an appalling "command" of the English language could be elected to the Congress.
Corrine Brown
lol!Quote:
Brown attended Florida A&M University, from which she received both a bachelor's and a master's degree, and the University of Florida, where she was awarded an Education Specialist degree.
She's less than stellar at reading aloud, and hopeless at the politician's skill of appearing to know what s/he is talking about in spite of just being briefed (which, given how frequently pollies are asked to give a speech, and how seldom they have ANY real knowledge on the subject, is probably the single most important skill in the arsenal). This doesn't mean she's unintelligent or uneducated, but... it does make me wonder how she came to be elected. Many have often decried the way the one with the glibbest tongue will get elected, but... was there NOBODY else??!
Definitely weird. Extremely awkward for anyone at all involved. Mindnumbingly tedious for those who actually had to sit through it.
I was under the impression that Florida is marked with stupidity as a whole.
Comprehending Florida: It's Not Rocket Science, You Know!Quote:
Originally posted by Pae
I was under the impression that Florida is marked with stupidity as a whole.
(Actually, I don't know much about Florida, but it asked for a NASA joke.)
It's not the way she talks, other than being so casual that I find so revolting about it. She uses African American Vernacular - not appropriate for the situation, but there's nothing "wrong" with it in itself.
It's her acting like a dim-witted sorority girl at graduation on the floor of the US congress. I can't understand how she thought it'd be appropriate to wear a FL graduation gown and give what sounds like a very bad, freshman Communication 101 class presentation about how cool her school is. It sounded like she was pimping the football program to high school football players, and then recapping the game for local public access television. How on earth she thought that was appropriate for Congress is beyond my comprehension.
Gotta agree with Jidoe - if I were the president, hell if I even taught there, I'd be embarrassed that my school produced that.
WTF is this shit?
In the middle of the worst economic downturn since the depression, the US Congress has time to recognize such a phenomenally badly worded and frankly IRRELEVANT piece of dross?
That was an embarrassing lack of eloquence and a demonstration of very poor literary skill. To excuse it as the vernacular of ANY group is to, in my mind, insult every single one of them.Quote:
She uses African American Vernacular - not appropriate for the situation, but there's nothing "wrong" with it in itself.
It would seem that someone who has completed tertiary education to a masters level would have something of a better command of the King's English.
(Inb4 knee-jerk "Maelgrim is a racist" posts)
Haven't you heard of "equal opportunities"? It means that you can get the same chance at a degree whether you're man or woman... slave or free... Jew or Greek... speak English or can't speak English... and possibly, have learned the material or have learned nothing.Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
It would seem that someone who has completed tertiary education to a masters level would have something of a better command of the King's English.
I don't think you're being racist. You are off base though. African American English has been extensively researched and documented by linguists. Not every African American speaks it, nor are all the people who speak it African American - but the majority are, thus the name.Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
To excuse it as the vernacular of ANY group is to, in my mind, insult every single one of them. ...
(Inb4 knee-jerk "Maelgrim is a racist" posts)
Wikipedia, as much as I hate it, has a pretty decent summary of the linguistic features and the main theories on its origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...acular_English
She reduces coda consonant clusters, is non-rhotic, monophthongizes standard diphthongs, and g-drops.
I just finished teaching a 3 week section on AAVE to my freshman English classes at the University where I teach. I'm not talking out of my ass on this one. I study this kind of thing professionally.
What the hell is African American Vernacular?Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
I She uses African American Vernacular
There are people who have all types of dialects based on their geographical location in America. A step further, making the blanket statement of "African American Vernacular" is absurd and ignorant. Many many many African American's do not sound like her. Your statement is saying all white people sound like a hillbilly from Kentucky.
There is nothing wrong for commenting on how awful she is, but making the blanket statement that all African Americans talk like this is absurd and offensive.
Kailen do read what gets posted or do you just intentionally troll the forums?Quote:
Originally posted by Kailen
What the hell is African American Vernacular?
There are people who have all types of dialects based on their geographical location in America. A step further, making the blanket statement of "African American Vernacular" is absurd and ignorant. Many many many African American's do not sound like her. Your statement is saying all white people sound like a hillbilly from Kentucky.
There is nothing wrong for commenting on how awful she is, but making the blanket statement that all African Americans talk like this is absurd and offensive.
It can be researched all you like. Still sounds like a cop-out to me. I know plenty of individuals with thick cultural accents (My girlfriend's parents for one, who speak with a very thick Chinese/Malay accent) who in no way mangle the mother tongue like that.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
I don't think you're being racist. You are off base though. African American English has been extensively researched and documented by linguists. Not every African American speaks it, nor are all the people who speak it African American - but the majority are, thus the name.
An' Orstraylyuns wen ubzerved fr'mah cumpletely phonic stanpoint sounaboudaz civalized as sailahs.Quote:
She reduces coda consonant clusters, is non-rhotic, monophthongizes standard diphthongs, and g-drops.
But most of us can still manage to stumble our way from one end of a speech (That we wrote, btw) to the other without making that big a cock up of it.
What was presented in the video was illiteracy, and a mockery of what should be a hallowed institution. I personally think African Americans deserve better than the implication that piss-poor English skills=their cultural vernacular.
Also I'm more pissed off about the fact that she wasted Congress time on a fucking footy match. If Ruddkips turned up in a Geelong jersey, he'd be told STFU and GTFO by the speaker of the house before he even reached the lectern. It's completely insane that not only was that woman not ejected from the house, but, after doing some research, that the corrupt slattern is continuously re-elected!
Yeah, Pelic, get your facts, research and qualifications outta here. There's OPINIONS to be heard!
Ok, point made, but really. You can justify it with whatever you like, but when push comes to shove that was an embarrassment, and trying to explain it away as a cultural vernacular is nothing but an insult to the culture it references.Quote:
Originally posted by khaltek
Yeah, Pelic, get your facts, research and qualifications outta here. There's OPINIONS to be heard!
Sorry, but that's some extremely dubious research. That's research done after the fact to justify a systematic failure in public education. It is also part of the culture of dependency. If you tell people its ok they talk like an idiot, they might not bother learning how to speak properly. That keeps them down so you can continue to buy their votes with a welfare check.
I can totally understand how people like Kailen would be totally offended by the patronizing bullshit that just oozes from the "they can't help it, that's how they talk" academia. This "African American Vernacular" is a bunch of white-guilt bullshit.
American English is one of the most homogeneous spoken languages on the planet. It wasn't until modern, bed wetting, apologist, self-hating, white guilt academics started inventing crap like "African American Vernacular" that garbage like this even existed.
That Congresswoman is a disgrace - not only to the education system, but to our country as a whole. She completely fails to pronounce BASIC WORDS. There is no excuse for that. Furthermore, the coach's name is Urban Meyer, not Urban MeyerS. The WR's name is Percy Harvin, not Percy Harvey. If you are going to give a speech in front of the US Congress, get the names right maybe? That lady is so full of stupid if you hit her with a pinata bat you'd lose 20 IQ points.
Excusing that type of laziness and incompetence is one of the main reasons we are slipping as a country. When we accept and make excuses for that level of ignorance, we guarantee it will increase and spread.
Is no one else completely shocked and disgusted that this crap is being taught in a university? And that kids are getting college credit (semester hours) for it?Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
I just finished teaching a 3 week section on AAVE to my freshman English classes at the University where I teach.
This "vernacular" is a self-inflicted barrier to black advancement.
Linguistic research into AAVE has been going on since the 1920s or earlier, starting with widely respected Germanic philologists and American dialectologists.. You can ignorantly dismiss it if you want, but the research on the dialect is solid. AAVE is rule/constraint governed just like every other dialect - whether untrained lay people recognize it or not.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Sorry, but that's some extremely dubious research. That's research done after the fact to justify a systematic failure in public education. I It wasn't until modern, bed wetting, apologist, self-hating, white guilt academics started inventing crap like "African American Vernacular" that garbage like this even existed.
I agree she's an idiot - for every reason mentioned, except for the way she talks.
I think (and hope) you misunderstand what I mean by teaching AAVE. No one is teaching people to talk like this. What is being taught is the linguistic analysis of a nonstandard dialect. The same thing is taught with other dialects and languages.Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Is no one else completely shocked and disgusted that this crap is being taught in a university? And that kids are getting college credit (semester hours) for it?
This "vernacular" is a self-inflicted barrier to black advancement.
I recommend that everyone who is engaging with Pelic should at least read the wiki article about AAVE that he pointed us to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...acular_English
Not everyone may agree with the contents, but at least the argument could be based on facts rather than insults.
Though english is somewhat universal, different dialects can be quite jarring. As a Canadian, there are things in American English, Australian English, and British English that sound completely wrong to me yet are accepted as proper in the respective dialect. Things that I was taught were bad in elementary school are taught as the proper way to do things in other cultures. Is something more proper because it was what I was taught? Not necessarily. I don't have a problem acknowledging this dialect, and I don't associate it with a lack of intelligence/education.
I do think Kailen has a point though. Labeling it as "African American English" does imply certain things(ie. "this is how black people talk"). I'm opposed to labeling things by race in general. I'm sure the intent is noble, but I don't think it helps matters much.
By the way: those of you who don't follow the link, what Pelic and Malacasta are talking about right now is Ebonics. I can only imagine why they deliberately chose not to use the common term, and instead danced around it with AAVE. I think most of us are well aware of the hyper political abuse that has always been connected to Ebonics.
Read the traits of Ebonics. It is basically a "get out of jail free" excuse for all kinds of horrible grammar abuses. Things like using "aint", double negatives, leaving off the "has" when "has been" is supposed to be used, leaving off verbs, etc. Its a freakin' joke. Only in the hyper-PC world we live in could junk academics like this persist.
To whatever extent a real dialect exists, that's not to blame for her babble.
I don't deny the fact that there are dialects even in American English. But the way Ebonics is twisted and contorted is to justify and excuse laziness and/or an abysmal lack of education. It is part of the culture of dependency an entire segment of politicians depend on. They MUST keep large portions of the populace pathetic, incompetent, and totally dependent upon the government to live. That way they keep voting for the scum bags who promise to keep the checks coming. It is hardly better than a medieval noble/peasant slave setup. If people got an education, learned to speak properly, or could provide for themselves, then whadda ya know: they wouldn't need that government check any more, and those politicians would have to actually do something good for the country to earn a vote.
Most of the people to whom it is attributed speak the way they due because of poor education, laziness, and a society that makes excuses for them every step of the way. So they keep getting pushed along, promoted, graduated, etc. when they don't deserve it and didn't earn it.
She doesn't even have the names right - AT ALL.
She cannot pronounce basic, simple words. She does not comprehend where she is in a sentence as far as the flow of a natural sentence.
She leaves off the "con" of "congratulate."
That lady is a fucking idiot, and no amount of ivory tower, white-guilt, self hating research is going to change that.
Giving idiots an excuse like "oh, she's not a disgrace, she's speaking Ebonics!" does nothing but guarantee a continued decay of our society and our country.
After a little more reading, it is interesting to note that among others, Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson, and Kweisi Mfume (former President of the NAACP) have all been critical of AAVE and attempts to teach it or consider it a language.
OMG you are only second to Jack Bauer in my books after this...Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Sorry, but that's some extremely dubious research. That's research done after the fact to justify a systematic failure in public education. It is also part of the culture of dependency. If you tell people its ok they talk like an idiot, they might not bother learning how to speak properly. That keeps them down so you can continue to buy their votes with a welfare check.
I can totally understand how people like Kailen would be totally offended by the patronizing bullshit that just oozes from the "they can't help it, that's how they talk" academia. This "African American Vernacular" is a bunch of white-guilt bullshit.
American English is one of the most homogeneous spoken languages on the planet. It wasn't until modern, bed wetting, apologist, self-hating, white guilt academics started inventing crap like "African American Vernacular" that garbage like this even existed.
That Congresswoman is a disgrace - not only to the education system, but to our country as a whole. She completely fails to pronounce BASIC WORDS. There is no excuse for that. Furthermore, the coach's name is Urban Meyer, not Urban MeyerS. The WR's name is Percy Harvin, not Percy Harvey. If you are going to give a speech in front of the US Congress, get the names right maybe? That lady is so full of stupid if you hit her with a pinata bat you'd lose 20 IQ points.
Excusing that type of laziness and incompetence is one of the main reasons we are slipping as a country. When we accept and make excuses for that level of ignorance, we guarantee it will increase and spread.
Dude this is insulting. This is Liberal Academia Elitism at its finest. I'm sure if I give an educational institution a sack full of money to research Goat shit. I'm sure they can come up with some startling facts, as well.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
Linguistic research into AAVE has been going on since the 1920s or earlier, starting with widely respected Germanic philologists and American dialectologists.. You can ignorantly dismiss it if you want, but the research on the dialect is solid. AAVE is rule/constraint governed just like every other dialect - whether untrained lay people recognize it or not.
I agree she's an idiot - for every reason mentioned, except for the way she talks.
I imagine Pelic used the term because that's the way it's used in his teaching. I imagine I used the term because it was the term that the Wiki page he linked to used. It looks to me like you're trying to infer that we're being dishonest.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
By the way: those of you who don't follow the link, what Pelic and Malacasta are talking about right now is Ebonics. I can only imagine why they deliberately chose not to use the common term, and instead danced around it with AAVE. I think most of us are well aware of the hyper political abuse that has always been connected to Ebonics.
Junk academics like who?Quote:
Read the traits of Ebonics. It is basically a "get out of jail free" excuse for all kinds of horrible grammar abuses. Things like using "aint", double negatives, leaving off the "has" when "has been" is supposed to be used, leaving off verbs, etc. Its a freakin' joke. Only in the hyper-PC world we live in could junk academics like this persist.
Seriously, just because you can't see the use of something doesn't mean there isn't a use for it. I know basically nothing about linguistics or language. I know next to nothing about African American culture. I know though, that there are all sorts of complicated arguments about black nationalism and black identity which really need to be looked at in detail with an understanding of the history of Blacks in America if one is going to have something useful to say.
People like Bill Cosby argue from one side of a very involved debate and that side has all sorts of famous and learned and respectable people, so what? Leon Trotsky disagreed with CLR James about the issue too. Who gives a fuck about a given individual making a noise, it's the noise they make that matters.
I use the term AAVE because that is how other professional linguists refer to it - precisely because peole with zero understanding of linguistics attach so much, completely uninformed, ideological baggage to the word Ebonics - which is precisely why you used the word Ebonics and made it bold text, to "win" by attaching that uninformed ideological baggage to the conversation.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
By the way: those of you who don't follow the link, what Pelic and Malacasta are talking about right now is Ebonics. I can only imagine why they deliberately chose not to use the common term, and instead danced around it with AAVE. I think most of us are well aware of the hyper political abuse that has always been connected to Ebonics.
"Proper" English grammar is an artificial construct based on the speech patterns of those in power - precisely why it's called "Kings/Queens English". It's the way the royal family talked. It's only a "freakin' joke" because you have zero understanding of linguistics or the history of English. Double negatives are routine in Old and Middle English.Quote:
Read the traits of Ebonics. It is basically a "get out of jail free" excuse for all kinds of horrible grammar abuses. Things like using "aint", double negatives, leaving off the "has" when "has been" is supposed to be used, leaving off verbs, etc. Its a freakin' joke. Only in the hyper-PC world we live in could junk academics like this persist.
The prescriptive rules that most people call "grammar" were imposed by Anglican bishops who controlled England's educational system in the 1750s. In the middle of a debate about whether the Bible should be written in English or Latin, they argued that English sounded barbaric, uneducated and uncivilized and should follow the grammatical structure of Latin to make it less so.
They also said many of the same things you're saying about AAVE about American English in general.
Yet because an entire field of academic research disagrees with your completely uninformed opinion, it's "junk academics". I can't imagine the fit you'd have if someone here were treating your knowledge of the law with the same type of disrespect.
This is baseless position scientifically. This "deficiency" position is one that was held in the early 20th century when the following type of thing passed for language study.Quote:
Most of the people to whom it is attributed speak the way they due because of poor education, laziness, and a society that makes excuses for them every step of the way.
Ambrose Gonzales - "Slovenly and careless of speech, these Gullahs… wrapped their clumsy tongues about it as well as they could… [then] issued through their flat noses and thick lips as so workable a form of speech that it was gradually adopted by the other slaves" - The Black Border, 1922
Children acquire the rules/constraints of their speech patterns before they even start school.
You'll have to pardon me if I don't consider a comedian who sells puddin' pops to be a reputable scholar of language.
No one wants to teach Ebonics. That is a popular misconception that rose up during the Oakland City Ebonics resolution controversy. Oakland City schools were asking for federal money under the Federal Bilingual Education Act to set up programs that would target under performing students who had learned AAVE at home and teach them standard English skills as if English were a second language. The goal was to do exactly what you've used as an argument against Ebonics - to "improve the English language acquisition and application skills" of certain black students.
I don't think there's any disagreement on that.Quote:
That lady is a fucking idiot
She's speaking in a perfectly rule governed language variety, and no amount of ignorant, racist, ideology changes that scientific fact.Quote:
and no amount of ivory tower, white-guilt, self hating research is going to change that.
I do agree with you on this to a degree. It makes it easy to unintentionally imply that all and only black people talk like this - and that is certainly not the case. But at the same time, few people get up in arms when someone calls another English dialect "Scottish English". Eh, I didn't come up with the name. I'm just using a generally accepted one for the dialect. There are some linguists who think calling it "vernacular" suggests that the variety is somehow culturally inferior.Quote:
Originally posted by leira
Labeling it as "African American English" does imply certain things(ie. "this is how black people talk"). I'm opposed to labeling things by race in general.
Yeah, I was trying to make this point, but you stated it more eloquently than I did.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
"Proper" English grammar is an artificial construct
Great point, well stated. Perfect example too, as I would know about that.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
I do agree with you on this to a degree. It makes it easy to unintentionally imply that all and only black people talk like this - and that is certainly not the case. But at the same time, few people get up in arms when someone calls another English dialect "Scottish English". Eh, I didn't come up with the name. I'm just using a generally accepted one for the dialect. There are some linguists who think calling it "vernacular" suggests that the variety is somehow culturally inferior.
If people can't speak American right they should go back where they came from!...ok, just kidding, but that was funny (to me anyway).
Seriously though, I would never vote for anyone who spoke like she does, and I would be ashamed to have her as my representative. Regardless of how the currently accepted rules of grammar were put in place, they are important! If you want to be taken seriously you need to be able to speak something close to what is generally agreed upon as proper English, especially if your line of work requires public speaking.
Right. It's the same in any context. You can't cry "DISCRIMINATION" when you walk up to McDonalds and have trouble ordering in Elbonian. The recommendation when singing opera is to use a British accent, even when you and your audience are all (say) Australians, because correct (formal) English is the most clear way to communicate. When you're in public speaking of any sort, you're there to communicate, not to show off your background. Yes, your accent will come through; but taking a little care with how you speak is a marked improvement over sloppiness of any kind.Quote:
Originally posted by Gadiantor
Regardless of how the currently accepted rules of grammar were put in place, they are important! If you want to be taken seriously you need to be able to speak something close to what is generally agreed upon as proper English, especially if your line of work requires public speaking.
This is your final warning, Pelic. Cut it out with the personal attacks. I already let a few slide, but its getting old. Disagree with me as much as you want. I like discussing things with people who disagree with me. But you have a bad habit of constantly making it personal. Stop it. Furthermore, you don't know the details of my education. So stop making embarrassing and incorrect assumptions.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
It's only a "freakin' joke" because you have zero understanding of linguistics or the history of English.
Honestly, that sounds like white guilt to me. It reeks of an implication that we shouldn't care about grammar since it was codified by white royalty and bishops.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
"Proper" English grammar is an artificial construct based on the speech patterns of those in power - precisely why it's called "Kings/Queens English".
...
The prescriptive rules that most people call "grammar" were imposed by Anglican bishops who controlled England's educational system in the 1750s.
Obviously grammar is an artificial construct. But its an extremely useful and important one. Those who fail to understand and use this construct are crippling themselves as far as their ability to interact meaningfully with others on a higher level.
First, you've gone personal again. My opinion is not uninformed. You don't know anything about my education or the types of things I've researched in great detail for my work.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
Yet because an entire field of academic research disagrees with your completely uninformed opinion, it's "junk academics".
Second, the entire field of linguistics does not agree with the arguments you have made here. I cannot even believe you'd say such an absurd thing. This is a highly contentious topic - even in academia.
There you go again - making it personal.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
I can't imagine the fit you'd have if someone here were treating your knowledge of the law with the same type of disrespect.
I said nothing of your knowledge of linguistics. You are the one making this personal. I have not. Do not attribute your love for attacking me personally with anything reciprocal. I did not treat your knowledge of linguistics with disrespect. If I treated anything with disrespect, it is the politically correct movement to justify Ebonics as a legitimate form of speech.
You used Ebonics as an excuse and justification for this Congresswoman's speech. Many of those who do believe Ebonics is a legitimate dialect certainly would not state it is acceptable for a US Congressman to use it on the floor of the Congress.
I snipped part of your post, but I understand and am sensitive to the idea of programs that are customized to help "Ebonics speaking" children learn proper American English. There is definitely some merit to that. But US Congresswoman Corinne Brown isn't a 5 year old showing up to kindergarten. She's someone who supposedly went through all levels of formal education and obtained graduate degrees. Any disadvantaged upbringing that might have saddled her with Ebonics should have been shed decades ago.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
She's speaking in a perfectly rule governed language variety, and no amount of ignorant, racist, ideology changes that scientific fact.
Furthermore, I read through the rules of AAVE and I do not think all of these bumblings are "perfect" examples of any ruleset: changing the names of people you are referring to, dropping the "con" from "congratulate" ("I want to gradulate the University of Florida), stopping randomly in the middle of sentences for no apparent reason other than confusion, randomly breaking single words into multiple words by their syllables ("for being the best ack ....... adem....... ic school"), random phrases that lack necessary words to make sense ("for being the athletic school in the country".... uh, left off something.. "the best", "the worst", "the only"... what?), putting emphasis on the completely wrong syllables - thereby changing the meaning of the word (the difference between offense like in football and offense like breaking the law), pronouncing "coach" as "corch" (where the hell did the R come from?), using words completely wrong ("gators are superb to other schools"... huh?). She wasn't even consistent in her various abuses. Some times she'd do something right, then 2 sentences later do it wrong. If she was speaking Ebonics, then she was failing at that too.
The uniformity of American English and the general lack of dialects has been pointed to by historians as a major strength in our country's development. It would make absolutely no sense, and be terribly counterproductive, to start giving up on that advantage. It is bad enough that we refuse to declare a national language and encourage people to learn it.
The debate as to whether or not AAVE/Ebonics is a language, a dialect, or neither is a purely academic one. But what is not debatable is the fact that speaking Ebonics is a near guarantee of poverty and misery. All ivory tower arguments aside, our citizens would be better off if Ebonics were stamped out completely.
The most insidious thing about the whole Ebonics movement is the fact that it is just another tool in perpetuating the culture of dependency. The more you excuse someone's inability to speak like the rest of the educated masses, the more you consign them to perpetual inferiority. That's not just racist, its dehumanizing.
If Ebonics is a form of English that is spoken at home, or amongst ones friends, or at the local shop whose owners also speak Ebonics or in the workplace, if you work with people who all come from the same background, then I honestly can't see any difference between that and people who speak 'Spanglish' in Australia, or any other form of Pidgin English or non English in their local environment.
I don't get cross when I'm on a tram and I hear people speaking in Spanish or Korean or Chinese or Sudanese. I wouldn't dream of telling them to stop speaking their language in public, or at home, nor would I tell them that their language is a 'movement' that will cripple them.
Obviously everyone should be given the opportunity to gain a good education in the dominant language of whatever country they are living in. Obviously without a good grasp of the main language in that country, a person will face obstacles, sometimes crippling obstacles.
But just as many non English speaking people who learn English as a second language do exceedingly well, so too could people with Ebonics as their first language. It's not Ebonics or the 'Ebonics movement' that stops people speaking 'proper English' - there's nothing inherently stupefying about it that stunts people's intellectual growth.
One of my best mates is the most occa, skin headed bogan you could picture (he's from near Moe, which will help some of our Australian readers understand the extent of his boganhood). He makes Steve Irwin sound like Henry Higgins. You'd write him off as a moron and a gun toting redneck until he starts discussing astrophysics and his job as one of the heads of a modelling department at CSIRO. He also played a brass instrument (I can't remember which) in the Royal Melbourne Philharmonic Orchestra. He also is a lefty and militant unionist (which is where I come in I guess). Probably my friend speaks quite nice English in his job - I wouldn't know - or maybe he's such a talent that his thick, almost impenetrable, accent is seen as some sort of handicap that he has overcome.
But people who assume he is a moron do so because of their own prejudice and class based misconceptions - his accent tells you very little about him. Someone who uses Ebonics tells me very little about them, except that they are in some way associated with a Black culture that uses that dialect.
This woman has given a piss poor performance on a topic that she clearly knows very little about in a venue where it couldn't be less relevant. If she is using Ebonics because she always uses Ebonics, then she got elected as someone who speaks that way - possibly she represents an electorate that speaks similarly. If that's the case then whatever. If she was being cute then that's pretty pathetic - but whatever.
I don't think you can conclude from this woman though, any of the conclusions that seem to be being drawn from this thread.
I don't know how to put this next comment without making the situation worse, but I honestly believe that you often post with a lot of venom Ari, that's how your posts read to me. When I read something like this "It wasn't until modern, bed wetting, apologist, self-hating, white guilt academics started inventing crap like "African American Vernacular" that garbage like this even existed. " as a response to Pelic indicating that he was an academic who used AAVE, it is clear that you are being intentionally insulting. And then later on when you say both Pelic and myself are using the term AAVE in a dishonest way (because we are presumably bed wetting apologist self hating white guilt posters), you are also being insulting so it strikes me as odd that you'd be balking at people responding in kind.
I can't help but wonder if both sides of the left right divide on this board have ideological blinkers that excuse their own vitriol and yet read bad intent from the other side without much reason.
I have to be honest with you - I felt like the exact opposite was going on, that you were making it personal and insulting both me and my work becase of your distaste for some of my stances. I'm happy to be wrong about that. And I really don't have anything against you personally, other than my apparently mistaken opinion that you were doing to me exactly what you said I was doing to you.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
This is your final warning, Pelic. Cut it out with the personal attacks....You are the one making this personal. I have not. Do not attribute your love for attacking me personally with anything reciprocal.
The argument in Linguistics over AAVE is about its origins, not it's validity.Quote:
This is a highly contentious topic - even in academia.
Some argue that it's simply another dialect of English, one whose nonstandard features are traceable historically in English. One example is the "ask" vs. "aks" pronunciation. This variation exists in written documents (the Beowulf manuscript and others) dating back 1000 years. Even without that kind of manuscript evidence, metathesis - the swapping of two sounds, usually r or s, is extremely common in English history. Bird, third, and wasp (as three examples) used to be brid, thrid, and waps. In Scottish English, there are several words that use the older forms of similarly metathesized words.
The other main argument is called the Creolist theory. It argues that AAVE is a creole - with a largely English vocabulary mapped on top of a West African grammatical structure (sound and syntax rules). This is the more commonly accepted theory - but not the one I agree with.
I'm not. That's exactly what I said in my very first comment (after ugh... just ugh). The woman *is* a damn idiot who has trouble reading her written comments and had no business wasting Congressional time with that inane pep rally speech. But it's not because of the way she talks. And maybe that's where some of the confusion is coming from. I'm not defending her awful reading skills. I am defending her 'accent' as legitimate, but somewhat inappropriate for what I think should be the formal setting of the US Congress. But, Congress people from Texas and other areas routinely use their dialects in Congress without style shifting (moving to more formal speech) and no one really bats an eye.Quote:
You used Ebonics as an excuse and justification for this Congresswoman's speech. Many of those who do believe Ebonics is a legitimate dialect certainly would not state it is acceptable for a US Congressman to use it on the floor of the Congress.
The only thing I'd disagree with here is the part about r-insertion. That's a feature of several dialects. It's related to r-deletion (what I called 'non-rhotic' earlier). In r-deletion, you get the very well-known example "pahk yah cah" as well as the coastal plantation "down by thuh riva". Most people are familiar with that. It's a feature of British RP (Queens English) too. Some speakers however, view the rule for r-deletion (I saw view, this is all subconscious) as a rule of r-insertion. So you get things like "warsh the clothes".Quote:
Furthermore, I read through the rules of AAVE and I do not think all of these bumblings are "perfect" examples of any ruleset: changing the names of people you are referring to, dropping the "con" from "congratulate" ("I want to gradulate the University of Florida), stopping randomly in the middle of sentences for no apparent reason other than confusion, randomly breaking single words into multiple words by their syllables ("for being the best ack ....... adem....... ic school"), random phrases that lack necessary words to make sense ("for being the athletic school in the country".... uh, left off something.. "the best", "the worst", "the only"... what?), putting emphasis on the completely wrong syllables - thereby changing the meaning of the word (the difference between offense like in football and offense like breaking the law), pronouncing "coach" as "corch" (where the hell did the R come from?), using words completely wrong ("gators are superb to other schools"... huh?). She wasn't even consistent in her various abuses. Some times she'd do something right, then 2 sentences later do it wrong. If she was speaking Ebonics, then she was failing at that too.
I didn't/don't mean to imply that her 3rd grade level reading skills are "features" or following any system of grammar (the subconscious rules for language production, not the schoolbook kind).
Dialectal differences in American English trace back to settlement patterns, and do exist. The research done by dialectologists (Labov and Wolfram are the leaders in the field) shows that contrary to what most of us think, the differences in American dialects are growing, not shrinking. It usually has to do with regional/ethnic identity.Quote:
The uniformity of American English and the general lack of dialects
I can't agree with the stamping it out part - largely because I agree with the basic notion behind Sapir-Whorff, that language molds our worldview. I think what would be best is if speakers of AAVE can learn to style switch into a more formal standard English when the situation calls for it. Most of the studies related to the Oakland Ebonics case (by John Rickford) show that children who can style switch between the two are the most successful. And this is what Oakland wanted to do, teach children to switch, but their intentions were misunderstood and blown out of proportion.Quote:
The debate as to whether or not AAVE/Ebonics is a language, a dialect, or neither is a purely academic one. But what is not debatable is the fact that speaking Ebonics is a near guarantee of poverty and misery. All ivory tower arguments aside, our citizens would be better off if Ebonics were stamped out completely.
This (my response below) is somewhat unrelated to the thread in general, but adds on to the quoted part above.Quote:
The most insidious thing about the whole Ebonics movement is the fact that it is just another tool in perpetuating the culture of dependency. The more you excuse someone's inability to speak like the rest of the educated masses, the more you consign them to perpetual inferiority. That's not just racist, its dehumanizing.
Despite what some of my opinions might suggest, I'm not some feel-good hippy liberal who wants to have the government "embrace" us all. I'm an anarchist, pretty Nietzschean when it comes to competition - but equally Marxist. It's fine to say that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, provided as MLK once said, they have bootstraps and no one is standing on them.
I agree that the classic liberal response can create that dependent, enslaved mindset that you're criticizing. But I also think the typical conservative response is sort of like bragging that you beat the shit out of the retarded kid. Neither solves the problem. I'm all for meritocracy, but I think for things to be truly based on merit everyone has to start on equal footing - and I don't think that's the case in our society.
As far as the Ebonics movement goes - I think recognizing the language differences as valid sets the stage to improve, not perpetuate, a general condition of inequality. If years of hand holding produces government dependency what do we think 150 years of an attitude that says black people are too stupid to speak English does? That's my ideological/political stance on it. As a linguist, I can say that the scientific evidence that AAVE is a valid speech variety is overwhelming, even if I disagree professionally with the creolists.
I picked these quotes out because they serve as an example(an unintentional one, I think) of what I was saying. No Canadian would ever speak either of those two sentences. They seem to be "properly" constructed sentences, but some of the words chosen would pretty much never be used by a Canadian. I know what most of them mean, but they are still pretty alien to me.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
I don't get cross when I'm on a tram and I hear people speaking in Spanish or Korean or Chinese or Sudanese.
One of my best mates is the most occa, skin headed bogan you could picture.
Is "mate" the proper english word for the meaning Mala was trying to convey? Should it be "buddy" or "friend" maybe? Whatever the answer is, it seems pretty arbitrary to decide one way of speaking is the "proper" way, and I'm not really surprised at Pelic's explanation that the origin of "proper english" basically amounted to powerful people deciding that their way was best.
"Proper" English is simply following the rules of the English language. Perhaps the ruling classes set the rules up, but for good reason. They allow for the sharing of the most specific and detailed ideas in a correct, logical, and standardized manner.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
"Proper" English grammar is an artificial construct based on the speech patterns of those in power - precisely why it's called "Kings/Queens English". It's the way the royal family talked.
There is a difference between dialect and simply breaking the rules for no good reason other than ignorance of them. There are many different dialects, but they at least reasonably stay within the rules. If they do break the rules, they at least remain within the spirit of them. Ebonics simply breaks so many of them that, at its most extreme, it is not always recognizably any form of English.
Which is evidence that the breaking of such rules stems from relatively uneducated ignorance. The rule on double negatives, in theory, is one of the most basic and important rules of language. Sure, everyone knows what you meant in practice, but that isn't what you said. It should be -simple- logic.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
Double negatives are routine in Old and Middle English.
"That ain't no joke." Most people (including the speaker) assume they mean the issue is serious, when in fact they're saying the opposite. This kind of ignorance can only be detrimental to human communication (Annoyingly enough, the forum spellchecker found nothing wrong with "ain't"
:mad) The language structure and rules are pure logic applied to communication (The system isn't perfect, but it's light-years ahead of Ebonics, despite being hundreds of years older). Everyone makes mistakes when speaking or writing, but a consistent disregard for logic is always going to be viewed as ignorance and/or a lack of intelligence.
Only if you assume incorrectly that the writers of Old and Middle English were uneducated and ignorant. Most of the Old English scribes were monks - the most educated people in the society. They also made frequent use of triple and other multiple negation.Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
[Double negatives are ] evidence that the breaking of such rules stems from relatively uneducated ignorance. The rule on double negatives, in theory, is one of the most basic and important rules of language. Sure, everyone knows what you meant in practice, but that isn't what you said. It should be -simple- logic.
"Ne no schafte ne no schelde to schwue ne to smyte" - Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. ("neither no shaft nor no shield to show nor to smite")
"Ne this ne may nat be wi seid in no manere" - Chaucer. ("and this cannot be denied in any way").
They're frequently used in modern English as well, where some extremely well-educated people used them with regularity.
Oliver Cromwell wrote in a letter from 1644. "...that God had not suffered him to be no more the executioner of His enemies."
Shakespeare used them often, "no woman has; nor never none shall mistress be of it..." - Twelth Night.
And present day English, "I have neither the need nor the desire" is double marked as negative (neither...nor), but considered required by the standard prescriptive grammar rules.
It's only illogical if you assume that mathematic "charges" have anything to do with language. And if this were the case, then triple negation should be "proper". Yes, it's redundant, but so is the sentence, "yes it's redundant".
If most people understand it's meaning, how is it detrimental to human communication?Quote:
"That ain't no joke." Most people (including the speaker) assume they mean the issue is serious, when in fact they're saying the opposite. This kind of ignorance can only be detrimental to human communication.
I can't quite tell if that is an apology, but if it is - accepted. If you go back and look at all my posts, you'll notice I never disparaged you or your knowledge whatsoever.Quote:
Originally posted by Pelic
I have to be honest with you - I felt like the exact opposite was going on, that you were making it personal and insulting both me and my work becase of your distaste for some of my stances. I'm happy to be wrong about that. And I really don't have anything against you personally, other than my apparently mistaken opinion that you were doing to me exactly what you said I was doing to you.
I don't like the PC aspects of the AAVE/Ebonics, and I firmly believe the movement towards creating acceptability is politically motivated (I won't repeat those arguments). The study of any language variation is interesting, and it is not that part of the academic side that I think is "junk." I read a good bit about AAVE/Ebonics in the last few days, and I found it very interesting. But the way some of that research is being applied in social and political policy disturbs me greatly. No good can come from people thinking it is ok to speak in AAVE/Ebonics in their general interactions with others.
There's a difference between vernacular and sloppiness. Local terms, like jargon, fit into the same standard grammar; look at the way Threshold characters discuss their areas of skill. "Mate" is an Australian term, and describes a concept in the Australian culture. It's just as valid standard English as calling our animals "wallabies" rather than "overgrown grasshoppers". But the more of these sorts of words you use, the more important standard grammar is, as it allows people to glark your meaning from context. (In fact, the very word "glark" there is a prime example of what happens when you use many vernacular/jargon terms - see http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/glark.html - if the structure of the sentence is correct, listeners/readers should be able at least to figure out "that's a noun, that's a verb", and comprehend you to an extent.) It's the grammar, not the terms, that is crucial.Quote:
Originally posted by leira
I picked these quotes out because they serve as an example(an unintentional one, I think) of what I was saying. No Canadian would ever speak either of those two sentences. They seem to be "properly" constructed sentences, but some of the words chosen would pretty much never be used by a Canadian. I know what most of them mean, but they are still pretty alien to me.
Is "mate" the proper english word for the meaning Mala was trying to convey? Should it be "buddy" or "friend" maybe? Whatever the answer is, it seems pretty arbitrary to decide one way of speaking is the "proper" way, and I'm not really surprised at Pelic's explanation that the origin of "proper english" basically amounted to powerful people deciding that their way was best.