Total Embarassment by a US Congresswoman

[Pelic]

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.

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.

This is a highly contentious topic - even in academia.

The argument in Linguistics over AAVE is about its origins, not it's validity.

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.

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'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.

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 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".

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).

The uniformity of American English and the general lack of dialects

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.

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.

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.

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.

This (my response below) is somewhat unrelated to the thread in general, but adds on to the quoted part above.

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.

[leira]

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.

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.

[Jyn]

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.

"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.

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.

Originally posted by Pelic

Double negatives are routine in Old and Middle 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.


"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"
) 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.

[Pelic]

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.

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.

"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".

"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.

If most people understand it's meaning, how is it detrimental to human communication?

[Aristotle]

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 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.

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.

[Rosuav]

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.

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.