Ebonics

[zenith-nadir]

I have this guy I work with. He's a part-time DJ and hip-hop afficianado. Yesterday we had a lively debate about the use of "Ebonics". He called it a new and exciting language while I called it blacks unintentionally stereotyping themselves. For example, you are the boss, would you hire a guy for a professional position if he spoke like "Yo yo yo homey, props!" or "Yo dog that shorty is banggin" or "What up Gee"

What do you think?

[Mr Manifesto]

I think this is further evidence of how woefully ignorant you are.

Get educated (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~patrickp/aavesem/EbonicsQ&A.html)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I have this guy I work with. He's a part-time DJ and hip-hop afficianado. Yesterday we had a lively debate about the use of "Ebonics". He called it a new and exciting language while I called it blacks unintentionally stereotyping themselves. For example, you are the boss, would you hire a guy for a professional position if he spoke like "Yo yo yo homey, props!" or "Yo dog that shorty is banggin" or "What up Gee"

What do you think?

I don't think it is intentionally self-stereotyping but I do think that encouraging the use of it through legitimization will have a mostly negative impact, mostly for the reasons you stated. So, unless the ebonics speaker is applying for a job that requires or desires its use (radio DJ, singer, crack dealer, etc) then it is of little or no use career-wise.

[crimresearch]

"I think this is further evidence of how woefully ignorant you are. "

Woefully ignorant like this guy?
" They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth "

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040612/COLUMNIST24/406120306
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course the article previously referenced as supporting the notion that Ebonics is a language, flip-flops to claim that it is actually a dialect, even though admittedly not universally understood by all members of the community from which it purportedly came. So it's quasi-dialect language....

[Tmy]

People can be bi-lingual you know.

I dont know about you but my professional speech is different than my hangin wh buddies speech. For example I dont really drop a bunch of F-bombs around the boss.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crimresearch
". ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth "


Do you think we should all be taught Spanish? Its important in todays job market.

[Matabiri]

I think this made me think your friend was being a fool:

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
He called it a new and exciting language

Language it may be, but who describes a language as "new and exciting"? That makes it a lifestyle choice, not a communications tool.

[AtheistArchon]

- I pity da foo.

[Voob]

Of course the article previously referenced as supporting the notion that Ebonics is a language, flip-flops to claim that it is actually a dialect

Yeah, "Ebonics is a language, not a separate language."

He then likens it to London English, as a dialect of English.
According to his definition, the Americans, Brits and Aussies would appear to all be speaking different languages.

from the article
It can be spoken badly, or imitated inaccurately, by whites (or blacks) unfamiliar with its rules
I've heard a few Asian guys who weren't exactly "fluent".

Anyway, change "language" to "dialect" and you win a lot more agreement for the statement, I'm sure. It gets mine.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Tmy



Do you think we should all be taught Spanish? Its important in todays job market.

Either that or another language. Spanish is probably still the number one choice of second languages among middle and highschoolers. Followed by French, of course. German probably gets a strong third place.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I have this guy I work with. He's a part-time DJ and hip-hop afficianado. Yesterday we had a lively debate about the use of "Ebonics". He called it a new and exciting language while I called it blacks unintentionally stereotyping themselves. For example, you are the boss, would you hire a guy for a professional position if he spoke like "Yo yo yo homey, props!" or "Yo dog that shorty is banggin" or "What up Gee"

What do you think?

I don't think anyone uses the term "ebonics" anymore except jokingly, but in talking about black slang you are correct. A young man who only speaks this way is screwed professionally. The professional black people that I know don't speak that way in the office, but save it for less formal occasions (like when there aren't too many white-folk around.)

An amusing anecdote: My daughter who is black (my wife and I are not) who was raised in a white neighborhood, who attends a school that is 95% white, who until very recently has only had white friends (not entirely true, but close enough) recently made friends among some of the black students in her school and in a process of self-discovery started picking up their lingo. When I asked her, "What’s up with the slang?" she responded, "Daddy, it’s a black thing. You wouldn’t understand."

Which while it doesn’t have much to do with our topic, I thought was really funny and worth sharing. :)

[crimresearch]

"Do you think we should all be taught Spanish? Its important in todays job market."

Are you talking to moi?

I would think that Mandarin will be a much more useful choice down the road.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"Do you think we should all be taught Spanish? Its important in todays job market."

Are you talking to moi?

I would think that Mandarin will be a much more useful choice down the road.

Not Cantonese?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Not Cantonese?

Mandarin, Cantonese, tough choice. Mandarin is spoken by more Chinese but Cantonese is spoken by more asians in and out of China.

Which would be better for business depends on your business goals.

[Dancing David]

Ebonics huh, is that like Hooked on Ebonics.

The main issue is that if you are white and working with people who speak the black dialect of ebonics, is that you understand the stress of certain contructions in the dialect, otherwise you can miss the importance of a phrase, especialy the use of the double verb.

"I done been telling you that.", means that they have really tried to tell you something and you missed it. So it is important to understand that it is more than just slang, it has it's own grammer and dialictic importance.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ebonics huh, is that like Hooked on Ebonics.

"I done been telling you that.", means that they have really tried to tell you something and you missed it. So it is important to understand that it is more than just slang, it has it's own grammer and dialictic importance.

Or conversely:

"I've already explained that to you", be meanin dat day gots fo real tried ta yell atcha and ya done be goofin. So it beez impotant ta understand dat it be moe than just jive, it be it's own grammer and dialictic impotance.
- aww yea foo.

[LFTKBS]

I find it very amusing that when most people try to imitate BVE, they look like idiots not because of BVE's idiosyncrasies, but because they reveal themselves as hopelessly out-of-touch.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I don't think anyone uses the term "ebonics" anymore except jokingly, but in talking about black slang you are correct. A young man who only speaks this way is screwed professionally. The professional black people that I know don't speak that way in the office, but save it for less formal occasions (like when there aren't too many white-folk around.)

An amusing anecdote: My daughter who is black (my wife and I are not) who was raised in a white neighborhood, who attends a school that is 95% white, who until very recently has only had white friends (not entirely true, but close enough) recently made friends among some of the black students in her school and in a process of self-discovery started picking up their lingo. When I asked her, "What’s up with the slang?" she responded, "Daddy, it’s a black thing. You wouldn’t understand."

Which while it doesn’t have much to do with our topic, I thought was really funny and worth sharing. :)
Not funny as much as a road sign indicating where you will be going as adoptive parents. Coming from an adoptive parent.
Good luck.

[rwald]

Just a comment about teaching Ebonics/AAVE/BVE in schools: Do we ever teach any dialects of languages if people already understand the main language? I mean, obviously one might be taught a Mexican or Iberian dialect of Spanish, depending on where one learns the language (England versus the US, for example), but I don't think people in Spain take a course on Mexican Spanish. Nor do people in the US take courses in New Yorker or Southern Drawl. So it doesn't make sense to teach Ebonics in a classroom, regardless of whether or not it is a dialect.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by subgenius
Not funny as much as a road sign indicating where you will be going as adoptive parents. Coming from an adoptive parent.
Good luck.

No worries. She is what she is and will become what she will become. So long as part of that includes being happy, I will be satisfied.

[rockoon]

I think a debate regarding Ebonics shouldnt begin with taking on the question "Is it a language or is it a dialect?" -- it should really begin with the question "Is there a standard form in predominant use?" - I call your attention to the fact that east coast "ebonics" is very different from west coast "ebonics" yet these language buffs simply ignore that fact.

If you ask me... The idea that "ebonics" even exists in the sense that its a 'dialect' or a 'language' is trumped up and that discussions about which it is is a diversion from the fact that this is all one big joke that steamrolled itself into some sense of legitimacy within the media.

Its called slang. When you put a lot of slang together it can appear to be a new language. It is not a new language if people 10 miles away also use a lot of slang but slightly different slang and 10 miles away from that its again slightly different. 1000 miles away the only resemblence is that the 'th' sound is absent in both place.

The great thing about slang is that people get the gist of it when they hear it even when they have not been exposed to it before.

"check it blee.. dis bro was on"

[Thanz]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- I pity da foo.
Of course you do, as should we all. Dave Grohl and his band of merry men are out there fighting da foo everyday. That's scary stuff, kids.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by rwald
Just a comment about teaching Ebonics/AAVE/BVE in schools: Do we ever teach any dialects of languages if people already understand the main language? I mean, obviously one might be taught a Mexican or Iberian dialect of Spanish, depending on where one learns the language (England versus the US, for example), but I don't think people in Spain take a course on Mexican Spanish. Nor do people in the US take courses in New Yorker or Southern Drawl. So it doesn't make sense to teach Ebonics in a classroom, regardless of whether or not it is a dialect.

Where is AAVE taught in classrooms? The Oakland school district resolution which caused all the ruckus a few years back suggested an appreciation of the grammatical and syntactic structures of AAVE would be of use to teachers of Standard English. AFAIK, there is not a single class anywhere called "Ebonics"; the dialect is not taught as such.

If you have any evidence of AAVE being taught in classrooms, I'd be very interested to see it. The closest you get are university level linguistics courses, and of course, all kinds of dialects are examined by people who study languages.

I would also add that "Southern Drawl" and "New Yorker" are accents, not dialects. There is no need to conflate terms; it leads to inaccurate and reductionist discourse.

[Kodiak]

Here is what Walter Williams had to say about Bill Cosby's comments concerning today's problem within the black community, which he said included the way the English language is spoken.


Part 1 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/cheers.html)

Part 2 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/cheers2.htm)

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by rockoon
I think a debate regarding Ebonics shouldnt begin with taking on the question "Is it a language or is it a dialect?" -- it should really begin with the question "Is there a standard form in predominant use?" - I call your attention to the fact that east coast "ebonics" is very different from west coast "ebonics" yet these language buffs simply ignore that fact.

What language buffs did you have in mind? Could you point me to an instance of a "language buff" ignoring the regional variety of the dialect? If by language buffs you mean linguists, then you're quite wrong. Here's (http://www.une.edu.au/langnet/aave.htm) an accessible presentation of the linguistic approach to AAVE which soundly refutes the notion that they ignore the fact of dialect varieties.

It is extremely difficult to say how many people speak AAVE because it is not clear what exactly this would mean. Some speakers may use some distinctive aspects of phonology (pronunciation) and lexis (vocabulary) but none of the grammatical features associated with the variety. Many sociolinguists would reserve the term AAVE for varieties which are marked by the occurrence of certain distinctive grammatical features some of which are discussed below. Even so it may still be difficult to say with any exactitude how many AAVE speakers there are since such grammatical features occur variably, that is, in alternation with standard features. Such variability in the speech both of groups and individuals reflects the complex social attitudes surrounding AAVE and other nonstandard varieties of English and it was this variability which initially attracted the attention of sociolinguists such as William Labov.

If you ask me... The idea that "ebonics" even exists in the sense that its a 'dialect' or a 'language' is trumped up and that discussions about which it is is a diversion from the fact that this is all one big joke that steamrolled itself into some sense of legitimacy within the media.

The study of AAVE has been a rich field of linguistic study for 30+ years. Oakland's (ill-conceived and incredibly poorly written, imo) resolution thrust the field into the spotlight, but it that spotlight was hardly characterized by positive, well-thought out media analysis. Have you read anything on the topic written by an actual linguist? Here's (http://www.cal.org/ebonics/wolfram.html) an excellent clarification from the National Science Foundation of the many myths and facts woven into the Oakland brouhaha.

Its called slang. When you put a lot of slang together it can appear to be a new language. It is not a new language if people 10 miles away also use a lot of slang but slightly different slang and 10 miles away from that its again slightly different. 1000 miles away the only resemblence is that the 'th' sound is absent in both place.

It's not slang; it's a dialect. There are vast syntactical difference between the two. See above-linked sources.

"check it blee.. dis bro was on"

What LFTKBS said.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by livius drusus


What LFTKBS said.

Just a quick nopte, havent had time to go through the non-responding links you gave.

But "check it blee, dis bro was on" is infact a classic example of EAST COAST "ebonics" and if you have a problem with that then you are proving my point. This quote is actualy a cited example of ebonics, and one of the first to be heard in a block buster movie.

From webster:

Dialect.

A regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language.



So L. A. ebonics is a different dialect from San Fransisco ebonics which is different from Chicago ebonics which is different from New York ebonics which is different from Miami ebonics which is different from Houston ebonics which is different from ...

So if you are arguing that "ebonics" is a dialect of english then you have just created thousands of dialects and are now trying to pawn them off under a single name, "ebonics", to some how increase the legitimacy of it all by defining a "language" encompassing all of these dialects.

The language, sir, is english. If *anything* they are a dialect of english. But of course its barely regonal and more defined by small social cliques which rapidly changes through both time and distance. Street talk. Jive. Slang.

"dis cat frontin"

[crimresearch]

"What language buffs did you have in mind? Could you point me to an instance of a "language buff" ignoring the regional variety of the dialect?"

Well, I don't know how 'buff' he is, but Prof. Patrick, (who wrote the article on Ebonics/AAVE as a language/dialect which was under discussion in this thread), certainly didn't seem to go into specific coastal differences, and in fact appeared to minimize any inability of specific African Americans to understand AAVE or its variants as anomalies.
And I seriously doubt that he is the only advocate for AAVE to approach the matter as though the African American community were monolithic...

I also don't know if the educators and politicos who promoted the Oakland initiative were linguists, or mere language buffs, but the notion of Ebonics being treated as a distinct language was certainly brought to the forefront, and no amount of backpedalling can undo that.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, I don't know how 'buff' he is, but Prof. Patrick, (who wrote the article on Ebonics/AAVE as a language/dialect which was under discussion in this thread), certainly didn't seem to go into specific coastal differences, and in fact appeared to minimize any inability of specific African Americans to understand AAVE or its variants as anomalies.

I would submit that any oversight in a single article is hardly just cause to reduce the entire field of AAVE studies to "language buffs" ignoring the fact of regional variety. At the very least it is a paltry oversimplified generalization, once that can be easily countered with even a casual perusal of the many AAVE materials available online from university liguistic programs.

And I seriously doubt that he is the only advocate for AAVE to approach the matter as though the African American community were monolithic...

Have you read any of his other work? Can you say for a fact that his slackness in the one article accurately reflects his approach? I'll look around and see what I can find, but right off the bat I can say that there hasn't been any evidence proferred in this thread that would justify using Prof. Patrick's article as the measuring stick for an entire field.

Also, I don't consider English linguists "advocates for AAVE" anymore than I would consider Italian linguists "advocates for Emiliano" should that dialect be their particular field of study. I think the tendency to conflate linguists with the Oakland school board politicians leads to sloppy, hamfisted, inevitably inaccurate arguments.

I also don't know if the educators and politicos who promoted the Oakland initiative were linguists, or mere language buffs, but the notion of Ebonics being treated as a distinct language was certainly brought to the forefront, and no amount of backpedalling can undo that.

I thought the Oakland initiative was almost as sloppy and hamfisted as some of the claims in this thread, but I see no value in calling the members of the school board "language buffs". There's certainly no evidence of any such thing. Just because they paraphrased linguists poorly doesn't mean they know anything about the field or even have a passing interest in it, nevermind a hobby-level "buff". Quite the opposite, really. Their misconceptions about what constitutes a language/dialect are their own problem and really cannot be used to dismiss the actual field of study.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by rockoon But "check it blee, dis bro was on" is infact a classic example of EAST COAST "ebonics" and if you have a problem with that then you are proving my point. This quote is actualy a cited example of ebonics, and one of the first to be heard in a block buster movie.

Feel free to point to me to a linguistic source that divides Ebonics by coast. Everything I've read indicates far, far more variety than that. There are multiple varieties of AAVE in the burroughs of New York city, nevermind over the entire coast.

Just a quick nopte, havent had time to go through the non-responding links you gave.

I'm not sure what you mean by non-responding. In any case, I hope you don't mind if I wait until you actually read them before non non-responding to you.

Oh and one thing: I don't really dig on the Argument from Websters. If you're going to use definitions when discussing a specialized field of study, I'm going to have to ask that you use the terms as defined by linguists. It's like creationists using the dictionary definition of "theory" to dismiss Evolution: I do no theenk eet meansse what you theenk eet meansse.*

*Montoyan accent, Standard English

[Batman Jr.]

Never mind its classifications as being a "dialect" or a "sub-dialect" or what have you. So long as Ebonics is comprehendible—those who speak it get their messages across to one another, so it seems that it is so—it ought to be considered viable.

[crimresearch]

"I would submit that any oversight in a single article is hardly just cause to reduce the entire field of AAVE studies to "language buffs" ignoring the fact of regional variety. "

How wonderful. Of course you will be able to point to the exact words in this thread where that reduction occured?

I didn't think so.

A specific aspect, and a specific article were being dicussed and you came along and presumed to assert that another poster somehow meant the entire discipline of linguistics, so that you could create a grandiose argument over something that YOU said, not over what they said.

Then you show this conduct to be part of a pattern, when you link a specific characterization of Prof. Patrick's article to the non existent claim that it was the measuring stick for an entire field.

And yet again when you took my comment that the article advocated AAVE be considered as a dialect, and somehow or another twisted it into a spurious connection between being English and qualifying as an advocate for AAVE.

Did you even read any of the article?
You have read his other works haven't you?
Would you care to explain exactly what it is about Prof. Patrick that renders him unfit to comment on black dialects in various countries?

And then after receiving a clarification that another poster believes Ebonics to vary significantly from city to city, you take his initial exampl of two coasts, and parrot his own clarification back at him?

OTOH, you aren't the first on this board to dismiss the dictionary definitions of words in favor of circular reasoning that the only references which matter are ones that agree with your usage.
Not surprisingly, you appear unwilling to accord the same courtesy to other posters, preferring instead to pick and choose their definitions for them.


Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem, a great deal of imprecision in language skills, an inability to apply critical thinking, and a fundamental intellectual dishonesty...

Or you are just a very unoriginal troll...

I guess we'll see which soon enough.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by livius drusus


Oh and one thing: I don't really dig on the Argument from Websters. If you're going to use definitions when discussing a specialized field of study, I'm going to have to ask that you use the terms as defined by linguists.


Yer the guy who tried to get semantical about definitions.

"It's not slang; it's a dialect. There are vast syntactical difference between the two."

Thats right there are. Slang is language peculiar to a particular group. An informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech.

Such as a particular group living on the north end of Hartford, Connecticut which has different slang than a group living in the south end of Hartford, Connecticut.

But you are pretending its a language called Ebonics.

At what point does slang become a dialect? When it no longer qualifies as slang perhaps.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Or conversely:

"I've already explained that to you", be meanin dat day gots fo real tried ta yell atcha and ya done be goofin. So it beez impotant ta understand dat it be moe than just jive, it be it's own grammer and dialictic impotance.
- aww yea foo.

You da bomb bay...

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"I would submit that any oversight in a single article is hardly just cause to reduce the entire field of AAVE studies to "language buffs" ignoring the fact of regional variety. "

How wonderful. Of course you will be able to point to the exact words in this thread where that reduction occured?

Sure. rockoon said: "I call your attention to the fact that east coast "ebonics" is very different from west coast "ebonics" yet these language buffs simply ignore that fact."

I asked him to clarify which language buffs he was referring to, as linguists are not hobbyists and I see no evidence that the Oakland school board is populated with language buffs instead of politicians.

If he meant linguists than he is indeed reducing an entire field of study to hobbyists ignoring the fact of regional variety. If he meant something else, then a simple answer to my questions (ie. what language buffs did he have in mind and could he point me to an instance of a "language buff" ignoring the regional variety of the dialect) should clear things up.

You're the one who replied to that question by proferring Prof. Patrick's FAQ and my reply was simply that that is insufficient for a variety of reasons. I'm not really sure why this rather obvious statement would engender such venom.

A specific aspect, and a specific article were being dicussed and you came along and presumed to assert that another poster somehow meant the entire discipline of linguistics, so that you could create a grandiose argument over something that YOU said, not over what they said.

The OP asked about if Ebonics is a language or Black's steretyping themselves. Prof. Patrick's article was one of the resources offered to counter the latter supposition. I offered some others. If a few more links to actual linguistic analyses addressing what I found a poorly-crafted point is grandiose, then so be it.

Then you show this conduct to be part of a pattern, when you link a specific characterization of Prof. Patrick's article to the non existent claim that it was the measuring stick for an entire field.

Well, if rockoon did not mean linguists when he said "language buffs" he's more than welcome to say so.

And yet again when you took my comment that the article advocated AAVE be considered as a dialect, and somehow or another twisted it into a spurious connection between being English and qualifying as an advocate for AAVE.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Being English and qualifying as an advocate for AAVE? I said English linguists (as in linguists who specialize in the English language) are not advocates of any dialect of it just because they study it.

Did you even read any of the article?

Yessir.

You have read his other works haven't you?

Just the paper on social mobilty in Jamaica (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~patrickp/papers/SocMobwww.pdf). His work on glottalisation is a bit too technical for my tastes and abilities, but he has several other papers with a sociological angle that look intriguing. I think Language, Faith and Healing in Jamaican Folk Culture (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~patrickp/papers/LgFaithHeal.html) will be the next one I try.

Would you care to explain exactly what it is about Prof. Patrick that renders him unfit to comment on black dialects in various countries?

He's rather eminently fit to comment on black dialects in various countries. Again, my only point is that he is not a "language buff" and any oversimplifications he may have made in that FAQ wrt regional variety of dialect do not represent the field of study. Therefore, point to him is not a valid response to the questions I asked rockoon.

And then after receiving a clarification that another poster believes Ebonics to vary significantly from city to city, you take his initial exampl of two coasts, and parrot his own clarification back at him?

I wouldn't call it parrotting; more like pointing out that his analysis was rough-edged and insufficient. rockoon made a fuzzy generalization that does not accurately depict a linguistic field. If he was not referring to linguists when he said language buffs ignore regional variety, then exactly to whom does he refer? That question remains unanswered.

<snip various spittle-flecked aspersions on my motivations and character>

I guess we'll see which soon enough.

I guess so.

[zenith-nadir]

An interesting discussion. I guess for me it boils down to this, one may speak whatever they wish, but to legitimize Ebonics in a school or legitimize it as a 'dialect' is foolish. It is slang popular amongst inner city crack dealers, thugs and gangbangers. Unfortuantely some of these same crack dealers, thugs and gangbangers are now multi-millionare rap stars and have popularized this slang in the media.

The argument with my coworker was that if two people, regardless of color, came into my office and one tried to do business with me in "ebonics" I would dismiss him/her immediately and choose the one speaking to me in english. That is why I felt ebonics is unintentional stereotyping oneself.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by rockoon
Yer the guy who tried to get semantical about definitions.

I'm not a guy, actually, but my point was that a general Webster's-style definition is not necessarily accurate when discussing a field's technical terminology. Creationists use the dictionary definition of "theory" to try and dismiss the Theory of Evolution, but that's nothing but an equivocation, of course, because "theory" means something quite specific in scientific terms that it does not in general usage.

Slang is language peculiar to a particular group. An informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech.

Where did you get this definition? The second sentence looks correct to me - the emphasis on vocabulary and imagery as opposed to grammar or syntax is particularly notable - but the first sentence strikes me as inaccurate. From what I've read, slang is rather specifically not "peculiar to a particular group", but more like peculiar to a particular time.

But you are pretending its a language called Ebonics.

Strawman. I consider them varieties of a dialect called AAVE.

At what point does slang become a dialect? When it no longer qualifies as slang perhaps.

I'm sure there are many possible answers to this. Slang is usually words and phrases, not syntax or grammar. It is not regionally bound; it is usually temporally bound. So I suppose my reply would be that slang becomes dialect when word usage settles down for the long haul and develops a syntactical and grammatical structure.

In any case, this is not the kind of thing that can be easily delineated. Linguists argue about where to draw the line all the time. I just don't think facile oversimplifications are the way to clarify the issues.

[Bottle or the Gun]

I love the 90's is showing on VH1 soon. Maybe they will re-hash the subject better. Thanks for the trip down Ignorant Lane.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
An interesting discussion. I guess for me it boils down to this, one may speak whatever they wish, but to legitimize Ebonics in a school or legitimize it as a 'dialect' is foolish.

I don't think the study of AAVE is foolish at all. Do you think the linguists who study it are behaving foolishly?

It is slang popular amongst inner city crack dealers, thugs and gangbangers. Unfortuantely some of these same crack dealers, thugs and gangbangers are now multi-millionare rap stars and have popularized this slang in the media.

That's just false, zenith-nadir. AAVE crosses all kinds of socio-economic boundaries. Here (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/ets/labo.htm) is a nuanced and fascinating article by AAVE (called BEV at the time) study pioneer William Labov which underscores the academic usefulness of understanding the sociolinguistic dynamics at play in AAVE. The people he quotes are schoolchildren; it was 1972 so there was no crack, no rap stars and no media popularization.

The argument with my coworker was that if two people, regardless of color, came into my office and one tried to do business with me in "ebonics" I would dismiss him/her immediately and choose the one speaking to me in english. That is why I felt ebonics is unintentional stereotyping oneself.

Do you do business with black people? If yes, then has any one of them ever tried to do business with you in "ebonics"? Since you used "would" in the above quote, I'm guessing nobody has tried it. If Standard English is more appropriate for your workplace then I'm sure people use it, no matter what they might speak in the comfort of their home. Unless we're counting your assumption that AAVE is merely the slang of drug dealers, I don't see how stereotyping enters into it at all.

[Brian the Snail]

Interesting topic. The article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonics) has a useful discussion on this.

Originally posted by Tmy
People can be bi-lingual you know.

I dont know about you but my professional speech is different than my hangin wh buddies speech. For example I dont really drop a bunch of F-bombs around the boss.

I think that's exactly right. I originally come from a region of the UK with a (notoriously incomprehensible) dialect. When I return and speak with friends there I speak dialect, while when I'm speaking in a professional manner or with people not from this region (which is most of the time) I use more standard English. This is completely natural to me, to the extent that I rarely notice it when it happens.

This is actually common in many languages. For example, in Italy there are several separate dialects. Many Italians tend to speak dialect with their families and friends, while switching to standard Italian (which is based upon the Tuscan dialect) when in more formal settings.

I imagine that exactly the same is true for "ebonics".

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

I think that's exactly right. I originally come from a region of the UK with a (notoriously incomprehensible) dialect.

Yee Geordie man?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yee Geordie man?

Why aye!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Why aye!

Braw. Ye cannae whack a Geordie.

edit Pardon if my "English" is fer *****, but I come from the Newcastle at the other end of the globe. We're, like, lodge brothers! Or something.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by livius drusus
I don't think the study of AAVE is foolish at all. Do you think the linguists who study it are behaving foolishly?Nope. And I have never ever said the study of any language, dialect, or origin of slang is foolish. You said I did.
Originally posted by livius drusus
That's just false, zenith-nadir. AAVE crosses all kinds of socio-economic boundaries.Even the term AAVE or African American Vernacular English is misleading. Most of African Americans have never even seen "Africa", and there is no place in Africa which AAVE is the official language.
Originally posted by livius drusus
study pioneer William Labov which underscores the academic usefulness of understanding the sociolinguistic dynamics at play in AAVE. The people he quotes are schoolchildren; it was 1972 so there was no crack, no rap stars and no media popularization.Study is ok, learn all about it you want, speak it where ever you want to, I have no problem with it's exsistance, just it's usefulness in a business environment.
Originally posted by livius drusus
Do you do business with black people? If yes, then has any one of them ever tried to do business with you in "ebonics"? Since you used "would" in the above quote, I'm guessing nobody has tried it. If Standard English is more appropriate for your workplace then I'm sure people use it, no matter what they might speak in the comfort of their home. Unless we're counting your assumption that AAVE is merely the slang of drug dealers, I don't see how stereotyping enters into it at all. There is no business on earth which would accept "work" or a "proposal" or a "study" in ebonics. No black, white, hispanic, Chinese or Indian has ever come to me and said "Hey, peep at dis here new product and brace yourself foo'!".... ;)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by livius drusus
If Standard English is more appropriate for your workplace then I'm sure people use it, no matter what they might speak in the comfort of their home. Unless we're counting your assumption that AAVE is merely the slang of drug dealers, I don't see how stereotyping enters into it at all.

You're assuming that they CAN speak proper English when the situation calls for it. Do you think a move to legitimize ebonics, especially in schools, increases that likelihood?

Additionally I'd like to ask about the rules of ebonics. This might have been discussed but I missed it. Can anyone point to a grammatical mistake in ebonics?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Additionally I'd like to ask about the rules of ebonics. This might have been discussed but I missed it. Can anyone point to a grammatical mistake in ebonics? Maybe this will help...

An Ebonics Lesson (http://toplist.funnyjunk.com/hoho/ebonics.swf)

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
You're assuming that they CAN speak proper English when the situation calls for it.

Sure. On what grounds would you base the assumption that they can't?

Do you think a move to legitimize ebonics, especially in schools, increases that likelihood?

Since the only move to recognize AAVE in schools was for the purpose of more effectively teaching SE, I'd say the answer is yes.

Additionally I'd like to ask about the rules of ebonics. This might have been discussed but I missed it. Can anyone point to a grammatical mistake in ebonics?

Here's (http://www.une.edu.au/langnet/aave.htm#grammar-hce) a quick overview of some of the grammatical rules of AAVE from the linguistics department of the University of New England in Australia. That whole page is actually a very nice summary of AAVE from a linguistics perspective.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Nope. And I have never ever said the study of any language, dialect, or origin of slang is foolish. You said I did.

Okay, then what did you mean when you said "to legitimize it as a 'dialect' is foolish"? Since linguists are the ones doing that, I naturally thought you were referring to the scholarly interest in AAVE as a dialect.

Even the term AAVE or African American Vernacular English is misleading. Most of African Americans have never even seen "Africa", and there is no place in Africa which AAVE is the official language.

That's it's English spoken in the United States by people of African descent. If it were called African Vernacular you might have a point, but it's not and you don't.

Study is ok, learn all about it you want, speak it where ever you want to, I have no problem with it's exsistance, just it's usefulness in a business environment.

Please point me to anyone claiming AAVE is appropriate or useful in business environments.

There is no business on earth which would accept "work" or a "proposal" or a "study" in ebonics. No black, white, hispanic, Chinese or Indian has ever come to me and said "Hey, peep at dis here new product and brace yourself foo'!".... ;)

Again I repeat my questions: do you have opportunity to work with Black people and if so, have any of them ever used AAVE in business communications? If your answer to the latter question is no - which your above-quoted showcase of wannabe jive lingo would seem to indicate - then do you think this is because the black people you have worked with are unable to speak AAVE or is it perhaps because they are well aware that SE is preferable in a formal setting?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Since the only move to recognize AAVE in schools was for the purpose of more effectively teaching SE, I'd say the answer is yes.


Why is your answer 'yes'? Do you have any evidence that it did indeed result in more effective learning (as opposed to teaching)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Do you do business with black people? If yes, then has any one of them ever tried to do business with you in "ebonics"? Since you used "would" in the above quote, I'm guessing nobody has tried it. If Standard English is more appropriate for your workplace then I'm sure people use it, no matter what they might speak in the comfort of their home. Unless we're counting your assumption that AAVE is merely the slang of drug dealers, I don't see how stereotyping enters into it at all.

There is a big difference between being a customer and being a merchant. A customer can find someone to sell them what they want no matter how they speak, but a merchant may have a hard time finding customers.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
"Nope. And I have never ever said the study of any language, dialect, or origin of slang is foolish. You said I did."
-------------------------------------------------------

So how many posters does this make, in this thread alone, that have had words put in their mouth by LD?

Oh wait, I forgot, it is up to the **victims** to 'clear up' the error, not LD.

As I said, unoriginal....and that other thing.
:rolleyes:

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So how many posters does this make, in this thread alone, that have had words put in their mouth by LD?

:id: