POL: BEV/Ebonics--Language, Dialect, or Poor English?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I find it fascinating watching British movies, TV, music, etc. and hearing the different phrases and terms they use.

They didn't like it much when I was living in London, and told them that just because the language is named after their country doesn't mean they speak it correctly.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What stereotypical Wisconsin accent? Wisconsin is the single-most accentless state in the country, or at least it seems to me, unless you're talking about northern Wisconsin and even then it's debatable.

wis-CAN-sun.

[Buccaneer]

Geographers (as well as sociologists, anthropologists, etc.) love cultural identities and distinctions. Language/dialect is one of the characteristics of regionalism (macro) or localism (micro). As a nation that is increasingly becoming homogenized, we can still look to dialects as an indicator of distinctiveness in characterizing people, places and culture. But even as that becomes blurred (for whatever reasons), we can always look back in a historical context which is always fun.

Personally, I go along with a standard to be taught in public education and to be used for educational measures - because communication (oral and written) is important in every discipline and in the workforce. In other words, your words must be expressed so everyone can understand - to be inclusive, not exclusive. That is how we can learn (as a society) and pass on what we learn to others.

However, in a more exclusive setting (like a family or group of friends or among peers - social or professional), then the rules change to where the communication fits the peer identity - whether with comfortable conversation (e.g., ebonics), nature of the business (e.g., jargon) or the medium (e.g., l33t-speak). The friction comes in communicating to those outside of the peer identity in the same manner as inside - when there is already a common ground for communicating to "everyone".

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What stereotypical Wisconsin accent? Wisconsin is the single-most accentless state in the country, or at least it seems to me, unless you're talking about northern Wisconsin and even then it's debatable.

bubbler

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Mustang

bubbler

I never say bubbler.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

wis-CAN-sun.

I always say wis-CON-sin

[AlexB]

Without reading the entire thread, I speak a dialect offshoot of English, but I would consider American English as somewhere between a different language and a dialect. It's kinda in that family tree as a third cousin or whatever, it's definitely from the same source, and we all know what's going on, but it's different.

Offshoots from American English are still dialects rather than new languages, but are no real different to Scottish/Tyne & Wear/Yorkshire/Yorkshire/Midland/London regioanl differences at the end of the day

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I always say wis-CON-sin

You might, but many there say wis-CAN-sin.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why is proper English "correct"? Does it have inherent truth to it that Ebonics or Southern or New England dialects do not? Of course not.

Proper English is the chosen dialect of those in power and hence if you want to advance in or society you better speak the same way that those with money and power speak. Language is a way to delineate groups in much the same way as skin color. How you speak instantly conveys which tribe you belong to.

That tribal aspect is important in that while it may isolate you from those outside your tribe it's essential for those in your tribe. To speak differently than your family and/or friends is to isolate yourself. There is a tremendous amount of pressure to, as my wife says about her Southern dialect, "not get above your raisin".

Dialect has almost nothing to do with either education or intelligence. It's a way to speak so that those in your tribe understand and those outside don't. This is as much true for proper English as it is for Ebonics.

Of course all this can be found in the English speaking world's best piece on language, Pygmalion.

Seriously, 'proper' English doesn't exist in the US, not that that's a problem as such, but if you're going to make a point using 'proper' English as a major part of your argument, realise it slightly predates the Mayflower...

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by cartman

They didn't like it much when I was living in London, and told them that just because the language is named after their country doesn't mean they speak it correctly.

See ^^^^^

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What stereotypical Wisconsin accent? Wisconsin is the single-most accentless state in the country, or at least it seems to me, unless you're talking about northern Wisconsin and even then it's debatable.

Depends where you are. Eastern Wisconsin (Milwaukee) talks more like Milwaukee while Northwestern Wisconsin has hints of the Fargo accent. In my area the accent even vary from town to town. Usually linked to heavy German ethnicity. Many of the older folks in my area spoke German primarily in their childhood. They are a dying breed though. You can sure tell by how they talk.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Seriously, 'proper' English doesn't exist in the US, not that that's a problem as such, but if you're going to make a point using 'proper' English as a major part of your argument, realise it slightly predates the Mayflower...

I'm just curious, is the stereotype that Brits look down upon American English as inferior true as a general rule? It may sound silly to ask, but I've always wondered.

I know there seems to be at least a kernel of colonizing society looking down upon colonized society in terms of Castillian (yes I know there's multiple dialects within Spain itself, but I'm going with the official language here ) and Latin American Spanish dialects.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by lungs

Depends where you are. Eastern Wisconsin (Milwaukee) talks more like Milwaukee while Northwestern Wisconsin has hints of the Fargo accent. In my area the accent even vary from town to town. Usually linked to heavy German ethnicity. Many of the older folks in my area spoke German primarily in their childhood. They are a dying breed though. You can sure tell by how they talk.

Well that bit I can understand. Living just south of Milwaukee, I catch the occasional traces of strong German accent in elderly people.

My German teacher in middle school pointed out that the phrase "I'm going over by so and so's place" where the actual meaning is "I'm going -to- so and so's place" was an appropriation of "bei Whomeverwhomever". I remember he asked the class if anyone knew of anyone who used that particular phrasing. When none of us raised our hands, he commented that was unusual, as the heavy German ancestry in the area meant that he heard the phrase a lot.

I thought about it afterwards and I realized I knew a lot of people who used that phrase.

Kind of cool when you think about it.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'm just curious, is the stereotype that Brits look down upon American English as inferior true as a general rule? It may sound silly to ask, but I've always wondered.

I know there seems to be at least a kernel of colonizing society looking down upon colonized society in terms of Castillian (yes I know there's multiple dialects within Spain itself, but I'm going with the official language here ) and Latin American Spanish dialects.

Only hypocritical Brits - we all know we speak nothing like the Queen's English ourselves

[cartman]

I would usually ask a non EMT speaker which accent they preferred, the US accent or the British accent. They told me they usually learned to speak with the British accent, since their teachers were almost always from England. But they said due to movies and TV shows, they are more used to hearing the US accent.

To the folks here who are not native English speakers, does this match up with your feelings as well?

[AlexB]

Most Europeans I have met in my travels speak English with a more American accent than an English one, largely beacuse of the above. In the global world, there are simply more American accents immediately available than any others.

Plus the 'English' accent on tuition tapes, and in public schools is so far removed from reality that an American accent is actualy truer to life anyway.

Internationally, and especially in art forms, American english is #1 - to me, an action film doesn't work with English/British accents, while rapping with an English accent is really, really horrible. But when you think about it, these two artforms are American based anyway, so it makes sense.

[cartman]

When I was in England, the frustrating thing for me were the voice driven automated menus. Whenever I would call, for example, British Airways to get flight information, the automated attendant couldn't understand what I was saying and kept telling me to "please repeat your request". So I tried a horrible Cockney accent and it understood me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

The question I have for FOFC is the following: In your view, is BEV/ebonics a legitimate separate language, a dialectical form of English that while different from standard American English isn't really an entirely separate language, or is it just poor English and laziness in learning how to speak proper English?

Hmm ...

After looking at a few definitions for "dialect", I'm left wondering about an answer to your question.

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/dialect.html
A dialect is a variety of a language that is spoken by a group in a particular area or of a social group or class. It can have a different accent and pronunciation, vocabulary and use different grammatical structures.

M'kay.

Same source also mentions
-- Term: Colloquial
Definition: Colloquial language is informal language that is not rude, but would not be used in formal situations. It is less unacceptable than Slang & Swear Words. A colloquialism is an informal expression, that is, an expression not used in formal speech or writing.

-- Term: Anti-Language
Definition: Anti-languages, a term created by the linguist MAK Halliday, are a way of communicating within a language that excludes outsiders. An anti-language uses the same grammar and words as the main speech community, but uses them in a different way so that they can only be understood by insiders. Cockney rhyming slang is an example, where words that are familiar to all of the speech community are only understood by 'those in the know', the people who understand their true meaning within the minority speech community. Antilanguages are often used by criminals and people on the fringes of society, who do not want to be understood by everybody.

Okay, for starters I quoted the definition of "anti-language" verbatim. I'm not ascribing criminal tendencies nor isolating ebonics speakers to the fringe ... but I didn't want to get accused of it when somebody looked up the full quote either.

But after seeing those definitions, I'm left with questions in place of an answer to your original question. Such as:

1) At some point does an extensive collection of colloquialisms become a dialect? I believe there's a reasonable case to be made that many ebonics words/phrases are simply colloquialisms ... but I'm not at all certain at some point if enough of those becomes "a dialect".

2) I think there's a very good case to be made for ebonics as an "anti-language", although the motivation may often be subconscious rather than conscious. Again here I'm completely uncertain whether it's possible for an "anti-language" to qualify as a "dialect" as well. In other words, can both definitions be accurately applied to the same speech?

3) Finally, from your original question, I'm not at all certain that the existence of a dialect and "laziness in learning how to speak proper English" are mutally exclusive either. In fact, I'm wondering if the adoption of the former might be an indication of the latter in some cases (if so, then I think the two conditions must be capable of co-existing).

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I never say bubbler.

I do

Not that anyone cares but... a bubbler is a Water Fountain..

Other oddities, pretty much all ATMs are Tyme machines so.. if someone asks for a Tyme machine they want an ATM.. and I pronounce Smear -> Schmear...

Can't remember if I say Cool Hwip though or Cool Whip...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

... but I would question why they would make that particular choice.

In addition to SD's good answer to this already, I'll throw another possibility out there: to increase the comfort level of some listeners.

And that most surely isn't limited to ebonics. Prior to my grandfather's death a few years back, my wife pointed out that she could tell immediately when I was talking to him on the phone. My entire speech changed, word choice, phrasing, rhythm, everything. It was most pronounced in my conversations with him, but she can also identify when I'm talking to any family member versus a couple of close friends versus less close friends versus business versus rank strangers. Not by the content or context clues in the conversation but simply by listening to the different cadence, phrasing, vocabulary, etc.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I do

Not that anyone cares but... a bubbler is a Water Fountain..

Other oddities, pretty much all ATMs are Tyme machines so.. if someone asks for a Tyme machine they want an ATM.. and I pronounce Smear -> Schmear...

Can't remember if I say Cool Hwip though or Cool Whip...

This first time I heard about Tyme machines, all I could picture was countless Wisconsinites at their ATMs withdrawing their doubloons.

[Buccaneer]

How did "Tyme" machine for ATM come about?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How did "Tyme" machine for ATM come about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyme

I <3 Wikipedia...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyme

I <3 Wikipedia...

Thank you, I love wiki too but sometimes I like to converse with real people.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that most surely isn't limited to ebonics. Prior to my grandfather's death a few years back, my wife pointed out that she could tell immediately when I was talking to him on the phone. My entire speech changed, word choice, phrasing, rhythm, everything.

That's very, very similar to my wife's comment about when I talk to one of my brothers on the phone. She knows immediately, by the way I say, "Hey!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's very, very similar to my wife's comment about when I talk to one of my brothers on the phone. She knows immediately, by the way I say, "Hey!"

And now I sit back & wait for someone to say "that's just one of those southern things".

[SplitPersonality1]

Tyme = Take your money everywhere

edited post - I see dawgfan linked the wikipedia.


As far as the dialect discussion. I have a feeling my family is very similar to SkyDog's. When I was growing up, my grandmother nmade sure that all of all knew how to speak "proper" English. However, when the family gets together, our speech gets a bit creative.

I agree with some of what was said before. Teach a form of correct English in schools so everyone is one the same wavelength. In small groups or family situations, it changes completely.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SplitPersonality1

When I was growing up, my grandmother nmade sure that all of all knew how to speak "proper" English.

My mother was a bit more, uh, direct. I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time that woman reminded us that, "You need to learn how to talk when you're around white folks!"

This was my favorite:

Ben: "Mama, where's my shirt at?"
Mama: "Behind the preposition, 'at'!"

To this day, my siblings and I intentionally end sentences with prepositions when we're around her, just to get her to say it.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Geographers (as well as sociologists, anthropologists, etc.) love cultural identities and distinctions. Language/dialect is one of the characteristics of regionalism (macro) or localism (micro). As a nation that is increasingly becoming homogenized, we can still look to dialects as an indicator of distinctiveness in characterizing people, places and culture. But even as that becomes blurred (for whatever reasons), we can always look back in a historical context which is always fun.

Personally, I go along with a standard to be taught in public education and to be used for educational measures - because communication (oral and written) is important in every discipline and in the workforce. In other words, your words must be expressed so everyone can understand - to be inclusive, not exclusive. That is how we can learn (as a society) and pass on what we learn to others.

However, in a more exclusive setting (like a family or group of friends or among peers - social or professional), then the rules change to where the communication fits the peer identity - whether with comfortable conversation (e.g., ebonics), nature of the business (e.g., jargon) or the medium (e.g., l33t-speak). The friction comes in communicating to those outside of the peer identity in the same manner as inside - when there is already a common ground for communicating to "everyone".

There are many good posts in this thread, but I think this one, and the early one by dawgfan sum up my thoughts quite well.

I'm one of those darn "sociologists" that Bucc mentions (well, that's what my degree is in and I still enjoy reading a ton of it) and definitely recognize how important dialect, etc. are in understanding cultures.

I don't know if you technically call it a dialect or what, but I definitely think that "Ebonics" is on par with what you would hear in New England, in the mountains of VA and NC, on a wave in California, etc. They are all legitimate. However, as others have mentioned, there is a certain "standard" set in America that has many good reasons for existing, not the least of which is to ensure that in commerce, politics, etc. we can all understand each other. Someone that uses one of the other dialects is not necessarily unintelligent, but if you use it in the wrong environment I'd argue you're lacking some common sense. (In particular I mean in things like the work place where others will look down on you, right or wrong - you need to have the sense of the right and wrong time).

The only thing that bothered me in the recent spark of debate about Ebonics in the last several years, was the idea that it be taught/used in school as a language. Learning it in some sort of linguistics class, sure. But it should not be taught as the "proper" way to write, speak etc in a school - just as all of the other things I mentioned above should not be. Would it be smart for the teachers themselves to learn it to better communicate with their students? Sure. But not to be teaching.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by wade moore

The only thing that bothered me in the recent spark of debate about Ebonics in the last several years, was the idea that it be taught/used in school as a language. Learning it in some sort of linguistics class, sure. But it should not be taught as the "proper" way to write, speak etc in a school - just as all of the other things I mentioned above should not be. Would it be smart for the teachers themselves to learn it to better communicate with their students? Sure. But not to be teaching.

Yes, that was my point earlier in comparing it to what we do down here with ya'll, ain't, etc.. It is non-standard speech and should not be made equal to Standard American English.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I'm sorry but I cannot disagree more with this post. This has to be one of the least intelligent comments that I have ever read. Vick does not come close to Randall. Vick couldn;t even hold Randall's jock.

Oh, on the rest of the post, sure that sounds okay.

You beat me to it, I completely agree with this post. I'll add that Vick is hanging off Randall's jock.

[JW]

My view as an English teacher who teaches black and white students (and occasionally students of other ethnic groups and races) in north Louisiana.

Ebonics, or black dialect, is a dialect of English, though I also have to say that there is no one black dialect. Black dialects in America have regional variances.

There are numerous regional dialects of English. Ebonics is rather interesting in that it is ethnically rather than regionally oriented, though, like I said above, ebonics has regional variations. However, it is just one of several dialects of English in America.

For example, some of my relatives in north Louisiana, white rural Southerners, might say,

"We fixin' to go to th sto-wer."

Some of my black students might say,

"We be goin' to duh sto."

Both are imho inferior in some respects to what we teach in English class, which is generally called standard American English. (And, yes, there are variances in what we call standard American English, but those variances are generally minor.)

I say inferior because the language of business and success in most fields in America is standard American English. And standard English, of the American or British or a couple of other varieties, is the business standard in many part of the world.

Any educated person in America needs to be able to speak and write with some proficiency in standard American English rather than dialect. Certainly there are some fields in which one can do well without that proficiency, but that isn't true for most college-educated people who want to have successful white-collar jobs.

My view on the move, largely discredited, by some minority educators, linguists, and activists, to "normalize" ebonics, is that it is a misguided attempt to legitimize a dialect of English that is inferior to standard English, just as all dialects of English are inferior to standard English. It is the same in my view as the attempt by some minority activists to say that standardized tests are discriminatory because blacks tend to score lower on average than whites. It excuses the problem instead of seeking to fix it.

I often say "ya'll" when I speak, even to my English classes, because that is one word that is accepted in Southern culture, black or white, as "standard." But I know that it really isn't standard. It is dialect.

Which leads to my last point. Dialects of English are not bad. They bring variety and richness to our language and are an expression of unique cultural and regional traits. In fact some linguists argue that black dialect or ebonics is more closely related to the English spoken in colonial America than other varieties of American English, including standard American English. I think they may be right. Consider the use of "be."

Dialects of English are not bad, but they are not the equivalent of standard American English. Speaking of ebonics, children who speak black dialect at home must learn to speak and write and think in standard English to be successful in America in the 21st Century. As a teacher, I know that can be difficult with some students in my area, many of whom speak a dialect so pronounced and so ingrained that teaching standard English is almost like teaching a second language.

It can also be hard to do when those who try to master standard English are criticized by their peers for "acting white." And, yes, I have seen that happen.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JW

Dialects of English are not bad, but they are not the equivalent of standard American English. Speaking of ebonics, children who speak black dialect at home must learn to speak and write and think in standard English to be successful in America in the 21st Century. As a teacher, I know that can be difficult with some students in my area, many of whom speak a dialect so pronounced and so ingrained that teaching standard English is almost like teaching a second language.

This is the part I don't necessarily get. If people have to do these things to be successful, wouldn't parents want to bring this home so the kids wouldn't have to learn a second language? Clearly this is a process that would take quite a while since you don't just change speach patterns overnight, but wouldn't it help out the kids? One can honor their culture and their history while still equiping themselves for the future, right?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What stereotypical Wisconsin accent? Wisconsin is the single-most accentless state in the country, or at least it seems to me, unless you're talking about northern Wisconsin and even then it's debatable.

I've heard that the midwest is considered to be the least accented part of the country, but only parts of Wisconsin fit in with that. Living in Green Bay has me close enough to areas that are heavily influenced by the UP of Michigan and that isn't all that far off from a Fargo accent. People hear the UP/Fargo accent and immediately think of dumb country hicks. Folks are judged by their accents and their speach, so shooting for a nice neutral midwestern accent is the way I try to go. It may not match my German grandparents, but I don't live in their world...I live in mine.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I've heard that the midwest is considered to be the least accented part of the country, but only parts of Wisconsin fit in with that. Living in Green Bay has me close enough to areas that are heavily influenced by the UP of Michigan and that isn't all that far off from a Fargo accent. People hear the UP/Fargo accent and immediately think of dumb country hicks. Folks are judged by their accents and their speach, so shooting for a nice neutral midwestern accent is the way I try to go. It may not match my German grandparents, but I don't live in their world...I live in mine.

Hrmm.. I've always heard the Pacific Northwest and somewhere else that I just can't think of... might have been the midwest, but definitely wasn't meant to include what most of us think of MN/WI sounding like...

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This is the part I don't necessarily get. If people have to do these things to be successful, wouldn't parents want to bring this home so the kids wouldn't have to learn a second language? Clearly this is a process that would take quite a while since you don't just change speach patterns overnight, but wouldn't it help out the kids? One can honor their culture and their history while still equiping themselves for the future, right?

It's not that easy. The children have to recognize what they're up against. It partly depends upon the aspirations of the child. When I was a kid, I wanted to be a TV weatherman. My sister wanted to be a fiction writer. While my parents didn't (and still don't) speak perfect English, it's not the ebonics that's at the center of this issue. Still, my parents did point out that there were differences in the way they spoke, the way other people in our neighborhood spoke (which was ebonics), and the way we'd need to speak if we wanted to have a chance at most professional careers. My sister and I understood the differences, and we decided at pretty young ages that we would buy in to what our parents told us. Now, at the risk of fueling an argument about stereotypes, if a child from one of our neighborhoods wanted to grow up to be a rapper (which quite a few did), the advice from the parents might seem hollow. Many children, at least of the ones I grew up with, don't know or care if a lot of rappers are actually very well-spoken people. The kids just want a mic and don't give a damn about writing lyrics or forming a message. They just think they can say anything and be a star.

Now, obviously, I can't put it all on the children. Growing up in poor neighborhoods (the 8th and 9th wards of New Orleans, specifically), I knew a lot of parents who just didn't care. Hell, some of the kids were lucky to even see their parents for more than 2 hours a day, much less learn anything from them. Given the history of a lot of those people, I think many of the adults resigned themselves to the lives they had. They didn't expect much better for themselves, and (sadly) they didn't expect much better for their children, either. Couple these low expectations with the piss-poor public education system, and many of those children just blended in to their ebonics-laden environment. Their parents or guardians didn't urge their children to do anything differently, and many of their teachers didn't, either. If a child didn't provide his own impetus to learn things, he was stuck.

I can't say much for the rest of the country or even the rest of my own city, but that's the experience that I saw around me about 15-25 years ago. I would imagine that not very much has changed there in that respect.

[Dutch]

One of my troops back in Louisiana was a young black kid from North Philly. He spoke to me like I would speak to him. (Um, I guess we'll call it Whitey Style). But good Lord when his friends were around I thought he was a different person, I didn't understand a word of it. But he had an image to maintain; what I never figured out what who he was trying to maintain it with, them or me.

[rkmsuf]

fo shizzle, nizzles

shizzleonics fo eva

[Rizon]

Ebonics / Hicktalk / l33tspeak / AOL Talk are all technically dialects (by definition). Also, at the same time, they are all poor english.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Ebonics / Hicktalk / l33tspeak / AOL Talk are all technically dialects (by definition). Also, at the same time, they are all poor english.

Are they poor English by definition, too, or is that just your opinion?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

"Y'all seen dat boy Vick run dat ball last week? I ain't never seen NO quarterback run dat ball like Mike. He be USIN' niggas left and right. He better than Randall EVER was!" If you were a fly on the wall, you'd probably be mildly surprised to learn that all five of us even graduated high school, and SHOCKED to know that the average SAT verbal score among the four of us would be in the low 600's.

I'm shocked at the heresy of the statement.

edit: I see EagleFan had us covered. Good job.

[QuikSand]

Pretty fair discussion here, I think. Glad it has remained civil. I have one more thought to add, one I mulled a bit last night while AFK.

To me, departure from "proper English" (and I understand the undertones that phrase carries, and am not refuting them) really come in two stripes. For illustrative purposes, I'll try to separate them by easy examples:

A) They would of had a better chance kicking the field goal.

B) Everyone has to live with their mistakes.

Both of these sentences include a deviation from grammatically perfect English, but to me they are very different in nature. In short, A represents laziness and disregard for the language, while B represents a shorthand brought about, at least in large part, by a shortcoming in the formal language. (The fact that we don't have a suitable non-gendered third person singular pronoun suitable for describing a person)

This, to me, is where a degree of judgment comes into play. I am happy to simply declare the author of A as just a lazy bum, and no matter the formality of the setting in which it was used, I will draw conclusions about that person. As for the author of B, I don't really make much of an inference, because I think that compromise by necessity in language, especially in informal settings, isn't a matter of much consequence. In essence, I don't see B as being symptomatic of a more serious problem with proper education (actually knowing how to speak or write correctly) or adequate attention to detail (willingness to do so when it matters), but I definitely see A as a problem on one or both fronts.


Not certain where this fits into the debate on the language variants, exactly -- but to me there's a difference between speaking informally under certain circumstances for "comfort" and ignoring reasonable rules of grammar because you didn't learn them or found them to be a bit too cumbersome.

I think part of the reason why many people recoil at "ebonics" is that many of its grammatical simplifications -- like the oft-cited dropping of the need to coordinate subjects, linking verbs, and modifiers -- seem to be remedies to a problem that doesn't seem all that tough to most English speakers. Saying "She here now" as an acceptable sentence, rather than "She is here now" just doesn't pass the smell test of a language modification necessitated by a serious deficiency in the formal rules. It doesn't seem too difficult to most people to work out whether and when to use is/are and whether to include an -s on a verb to complement the subject. Right or wrong, I think it's the fact that most people can "get" that stuff in English that make them recoil against those who seemingly just opt not to do so.

There's an element of self-imposed judgment here. I can follow these rules, so why shouldn't everybody have to? A bit like the typical driver's opinion of the driver's around him (borrowed from George Carlin) -- that the guy driving 1 MPH slower than him is an idiot, and the guy driving 1 MPH faster than him is a maniac. Most of us intuitively define what linguistic rules area "reasonable" in terms of which ones we taned to follow ourselves. Some of us draw the line at who/whom, some of us draw the line at him/himself, and others of us draw the line somewhere around too/to, it seems.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Pretty fair discussion here, I think. Glad it has remained civil. I have one more thought to add, one I mulled a bit last night while AFK.

To me, departure from "proper English" (and I understand the undertones that phrase carries, and am not refuting them) really come in two stripes. For illustrative purposes, I'll try to separate them by easy examples:

A) They would of had a better chance kicking the field goal.

B) Everyone has to live with their mistakes.

Both of these sentences include a deviation from grammatically perfect English, but to me they are very different in nature. In short, A represents laziness and disregard for the language, while B represents a shorthand brought about, at least in large part, by a shortcoming in the formal language. (The fact that we don't have a suitable non-gendered third person singular pronoun suitable for describing a person)

This, to me, is where a degree of judgment comes into play. I am happy to simply declare the author of A as just a lazy bum, and no matter the formality of the setting in which it was used, I will draw conclusions about that person. As for the author of B, I don't really make much of an inference, because I think that compromise by necessity in language, especially in informal settings, isn't a matter of much consequence. In essence, I don't see B as being symptomatic of a more serious problem with proper education (actually knowing how to speak or write correctly) or adequate attention to detail (willingness to do so when it matters), but I definitely see A as a problem on one or both fronts.


Not certain where this fits into the debate on the language variants, exactly -- but to me there's a difference between speaking informally under certain circumstances for "comfort" and ignoring reasonable rules of grammar because you didn't learn them or found them to be a bit too cumbersome.

I think part of the reason why many people recoil at "ebonics" is that many of its grammatical simplifications -- like the oft-cited dropping of the need to coordinate subjects, linking verbs, and modifiers -- seem to be remedies to a problem that doesn't seem all that tough to most English speakers. Saying "She here now" as an acceptable sentence, rather than "She is here now" just doesn't pass the smell test of a language modification necessitated by a serious deficiency in the formal rules. It doesn't seem too difficult to most people to work out whether and when to use is/are and whether to include an -s on a verb to complement the subject. Right or wrong, I think it's the fact that most people can "get" that stuff in English that make them recoil against those who seemingly just opt not to do so.

There's an element of self-imposed judgment here. I can follow these rules, so why shouldn't everybody have to? A bit like the typical driver's opinion of the driver's around him (borrowed from George Carlin) -- that the guy driving 1 MPH slower than him is an idiot, and the guy driving 1 MPH faster than him is a maniac. Most of us intuitively define what linguistic rules area "reasonable" in terms of which ones we taned to follow ourselves. Some of us draw the line at who/whom, some of us draw the line at him/himself, and others of us draw the line somewhere around too/to, it seems.

I've been doing some reading on language, and I think the rebuttal to this post would be: BEV is not a modification of English, or a dialect, but an entirely alternate grammar. Because it borrows most of its vocabulary from English, the temptation is to think of it as a dialect - but in fact its structure is more like that of a foreign language than a regional dialect.

This is just a paraphrase of some things I've been reading, and I'm not entirely sure I have it right.

[CU Tiger]

In my personal life I have 3 distinct voices/tongues/languages and each stems from specific influences on my life.
1) I lived in a predominantly black community/apartmeent until I was ~9. (And predominantly is an understatement, bluntly we were the only white family in the "housing projects" apartments)
2) Mym mom re-married and we moved, ont a farm owned by my grandfather who spent most of his lie in the NC mountains (The truest form of the hillbilly)
3) My professional "proper" standard American English.

To this day, when I am around family I drop into a very slow drawn out speech pattern littered with yalls,yonders,diereckly,and fixins'.

When I am around my HS and earlier childhood (and a few college) friends it is a strong BEV/Ebonics dialect that quite honestly would shock 90% of my professional colleagues if they heard it come out of my mouth.

And at work it is as straight laced as imaginable.

But anytime I am online I fall into an almost 4th category. I do not stress over proper grammar and really dont have much regard for how my language skills are perceived.

I guess what I think some folks are missing, is the BEV is more than words or phrases, it is actually an altered sentence structure that does have a specific form. So while there are forms that are not consistent with SAE teachings they are consistent inside their own sub-set. Does this alone qualify as a dialect? That, I am not sure. Should it be taught at an acredited university I dont think so.

But here is what I find most interesting.
Why is it that when we collectively hear a Southern, UP, "black" or NE accent we automatically assume something about that person. However we (or at least I find myself) witholding judgement much longer on a person from another culture (I.E. Asian, or Non-English European) based on their acccent, while many of their grammatical errors are much more agregious than the other localities mentioned above.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by Izulde

What stereotypical Wisconsin accent? Wisconsin is the single-most accentless state in the country, or at least it seems to me, unless you're talking about northern Wisconsin and even then it's debatable.

I have lived in Wisconsin for over 40 years and agree that we have no real accents in the state.

-Cork

[Grammaticus]

People from Wisconsin (and Minnesota) have a distinct regional accent. There is a skit from SNL that does a pretty good job of exaggerating it.

Off hand I would say places like Kansas, Colorado and California seem to be lacking specific accents. That is assuming the people speaking are U.S. born and raised.

[lordscarlet]

I would say that people here (in the D.C. area) are very accent less -- probably because of the transient nature of the area.

[clintl]

Everybody has an accent. What is perceived as being accentless is actually just being used to the accent.

[duckman]

Actually, accent is using your native language voicing (vowel and constonant sounds) to speak another language. Like one of us speaking Spanish, we would speak it with an American English accent.

lordscarlet, your area has a particular dialect (accent and dialect get confused often) just like numerous areas of the country. You may not pick up on it as easily because you live in the area, but people who speak a different dialect (such as a Southern dialect) pick up the nuances much easier.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I've been doing some reading on language, and I think the rebuttal to this post would be: BEV is not a modification of English, or a dialect, but an entirely alternate grammar. Because it borrows most of its vocabulary from English, the temptation is to think of it as a dialect - but in fact its structure is more like that of a foreign language than a regional dialect.

This is just a paraphrase of some things I've been reading, and I'm not entirely sure I have it right.

I guess the rebuttal to that would come from Quik's post as well... namely, another language/grammar created for what purpose? If it's born not of communicative deficiencies in its obvious root language, then why is it here? Laziness?

Language is a funny thing. Entwined with the general purpose of communication is a set of other objectives that are generally geared toward measuring the cultural, technical, or social affluence of the speaker. Look at FOFC, there are the insider/outsider language and reference quirks used to make jokes and demonstrate essentially how "FOFC" you are (what better, computer Quik or giant-handed balla Quik?), and there are probably even dialects or subdialects for people that play Werewolf or like Pumpy pics or talk about PS3 sales numbers every month. At my office, we'll often talk for long periods of time in this ridiculous voice (with an absurd grammatical structure and general rhythm) that is rooted (pretty abstractly) in a caricature of a guy who passed out at our Christmas party last year. It's essentially a call and response game of repeating our old jokes and a creative exercise in trying to come up with new ones based around whatever is currently going on. We're pretty bad about "going into the voice" around outsiders, but then many that were once outsiders (spouses, friends, the UPS guy) have picked up on the general cadence and the basic attitude, and are now some degree of insider. The voice really has no purpose other than to facilitate the exchange of shared experience and humor amongst a group of "insiders", and to signal to each other that we're going to be joking around and doing that. It's a language in which you can say absurd things because you're wrapping them in grammar and vocabulary that let everyone know you're being some degree of ironic or not serious. That said, it is also a far less useful and rich language in almost all respects than standard English. It's difficult to communicate much of anything and nuance is an impossibility.

I mention all this because, obviously, that's how I feel about Ebonics. That it developed as an insider/outsider dialect that signals to other speakers an attitude or tone is perfectly natural and linguistically amoral (so to speak), but it has also now developed into a negative force that is inhibiting the ability of its speakers to participate in the larger insider/outsider linguistic exchange/affluence measurement taking place in our wider culture. Ebonics as your comfortable pair of jeans language is fine, but if you don't have a coat and tie language to go with it, you will be excluded from the coat and tie culture and all of its trappings. It's not worth going down the "but who decides" path regarding why one language offers different trappings than another because it simply "is" that way (which isn't to dismiss that the coat and tie language has certainly been used to enforce racism or wield other oppressive cultural power by the wrong people). If you want those trappings, learn the language. It's how the game is played. It isn't one of the "rules" per se, just like it isn't one of the "rules" that you have to cover the other team's wide receivers, but it's the smart thing to do if you want to be successful.