Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <ann
linguistlist.org>
>From an article on Ebonics by Christopher Hitchens in the current (March) Vanity Fair: Noam Chomsky, the founder of modern linguistics, said that while there's no difference in principle between "I be" and "Je suis," and while pre-modern and pre-technological languages can be extremely dynamic and complex, the chances of evolving one in a ghetto were distinctly slim. "If it's taught, it has to be like the way that Standard English is taught to unintelligible white kids in eastern Tennessee - as a means of making them fluent." Comments? Sandra Wilde Portland State University (Oregon) sandraMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueed.pdx.edu
Melvin Shearer writes: >I can understand the we have many problems in this country with equal >rights and race. but if we pass new laws to teach ebonics in our schools >are we not seperating our cultures even more. Although "teach ebonics in our schools" is a misconception, or at least a misleading wording, of any proposal to acknowledge African American vernaculars for educational purposes, the basic argument is a familiar one used by some blacks and whites alike for ignoring cultural differences (perhaps for fear they will be popularly misinterpreted as some other kind of difference), as if it were "the lesser of two evils" to do so. I suppose it would be a valid point if everyone promised to ignore their own reactions to African American vernaculars in judging and evaluating people, but I do not think it is humanly possible to do this (for profound sociolinguistic reasons). The same fundamental argument is also used against bilingual education by those who (claim to) fear that, say, acknowledging Spanish for speakers who come to school without English skills will lead to the drifting of the Southwest back to Mexico, or something like that. This is based on a misinformed understanding of which segments of the Spanish-speaking populations do not already speak English as a or the home language, and of the supposed but erroneous analogy between Spanish in the US (esp in the Southwest) and French (or is it English?) in Canada (esp in Quebec). I won't go through all the things which are wrong with such notions here. I will only observe for the moment that ostrich-like behavior with regard to the form of English (yes, English) spoken by most African Americans is not going to close the huge social gap which has existed between African Americans and neighboring populations since the inception of the US (and before) and has continued to grow (though in perhaps unpredictable ways, and NOT in ALL ways). I remember a news item in the early 70s on the radio talking about how in some wealthy white communities at the time, white parents were buying black dolls for their preschoolers so that they would not grow up prejudiced. Obviously there were no "real" black preschoolers in those neighborhoods for these preschoolers to associate with. I can't think of anything that would less prepare these white preschoolers for encounters with actual African Americans than that strategy. What would happen when they encountered real cultural differences, including language of course, not to mention all the contrary propaganda in the media (even at that time)? Melvin continues: >I have many Black friends and they speak the Kings English and like it. So? "Some of my best friends..." uh, I forgot what I was gonna say. Yes, the black dolls might have worked for such encounters. But, in my opinion, African Americans and their cultures have more to offer US culture and the world in general than the ability to replicate the culture that Americans have received from that lovely island off the west coast of Europe. African American replication of "standard" culture was something that became a point to be demonstrated in the past times when racist ideologies claimed that African Americans didn't have the ability to do it. We have moved beyond that kind of proving one's self now. Most African Americans don't give a damn about doing it for its own sake. They're sceptical of that kind of run-around. And it is part of the superficiality of the understanding of "racial" problems in the US that anybody thinks "color" (or appearance) is the root of the problem, such that cultural (including linguistic) differences can be ignored. I am also curious about how the writer was able to be so selective in acquiring "Black friends". In any case, the implication of the passage seems to be that African Americans would like "standard" English if they got to know it, as if most of them consciously resist it. Maybe I'm reading too much into the passage, but in case I'm not I repeat: African Americans and their cultures have more to offer US culture and the world in general than the ability to replicate the culture that Americans have received from that island off the west coast of Europe. Actually, that is already obvious to anyone familiar with American culture. And it also goes for the many other cultures (or should I call them ""sub"cultures"?) that exist in the US, as everywhere else in the world. In my opinion, reconciliation of cultures is the way to go, NOT elimination of cultures. I don't think that even the "standard" culture professes elimination of other cultures (it just ignores them to the extent that it does not find them useful or amusing). And if it did profess elimination of other cultures, I could understand why resistance would arise and be widespread. Come to think of it, maybe that has something to do with the problems of education. Next, Wenchao wonders: >Does anyone know offhand of good works of fiction written in >Ebonics that they could recommend ... What I have in mind is something >like Alice Walker's "The Color Purple", or the plays of Lorraine >Hansberry, in which the bulk of >the work is in dialectal language and grammar, replicating the actual >speech of its African American characters. The request has some assumptions that are not quite right. Written works SUGGEST rather than REPLICATE the "dialectal language and grammar" of African American vernaculars. There have long been traditions for representing African American speech, and they change over time as they become more and more separated from what they intend to represent (if they were ever accurate in the first place), e.g., it used to be sticking -s on all "present tense" verbs among a few other devices. Now that one is more or less disused, since it is completely divorced from current AA speech, and sounds archaic even as a literary device (thus Alex Haley uses it for slavery times in his novel "Roots"). Meanwhile, white writers like Styron add 1970s white slang to the fictional characterisation of Nat Turner that makes him sound like a late 1960s hippie, e.g., saying "white" things like "are you shitting me?" (= "are you bullshitting/lying to me"?). Good authors like Walker and Hansberry do not rely exclusively on literary stereotypes received from previous authors following such a tradition, but incorporate some fresh features familiar to them from speech into their writing. The freshness and originality of such touches would be more easily appreciated by readers familiar with the spoken sources than other readers who are satisfied to "get the idea" that a fictional character is an African American. Zora Neale Hurston's writings were very much appreciated by later black authors because she not only incorporated spoken elements into her represented speech but also into her own narrative style as an African American woman who was proud of her AA culture. She did that on purpose. She, like all other well-known African American writers, could have written exclusively in the standard if they wanted to. Zora was one of the first who showed that she no longer felt compelled to "prove herself" by sticking to Victorian-type written prose -- and she specifically wrote in defiance of many of the other "Harlem renaissance" writers who did think they had to prove their command of the standard. (Of course, Zora had studied with the anthropologists Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict, so she was aware of the "cultural relativity" point of view.) Still, her representation does not reflect AA vernaculars as spoken in today's American cities (and wasn't intended to). The representation of African American speech in literature is a separate area of a study itself, quite distinct from the study of spoken African American vernaculars, and should not be confused with it. Unless you follow studies of African American speech, or are directly and intimately familiar with it, you don't have any way of knowing to what extent the literary conventions for representing it are realistic or not. If I change a fictional character's represented speech from "isn't" to "ain't" that would be sufficient for many African American readers to assume the character is African American, but for many other readers to assume that the character is white, either uneducated or talking informally. -- BenjiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
My opinion is that there should be more emphasis on improving the overall education of African American children. The development/implementation of Ebonics would be a disservice to the very people it is trying to help. It's equivalent to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. I can speak out of experience when I say that unique programs like this one have a way with hurting the development of students rather than helping. I was involved with one such program in elementary school which was supposed to help me with math skills, it took me YEARS of my own hard work to catch up to the rest of my peers. Luckily I had the confidence, opportunity, and resources to do to just that. What I'm trying to say is don't single this problem out - Improve the system! Don't allow them to place the band-aid, force them to heal the wound. Better teachers, teaching real skills, a safe environment for teachers and students alike. Of course the above proposition will not be well excepted because some Whites as well as African Americans believe that there should be separation, there should be two distinct entities. Unfortunately this will ultimately be a disservice to black students. I believe that certain groups of people allow the existence of programs like this one because they know they do not work. For what ever reason they want to keep the people they are trying to "help" un-educated. There was a program in Georgia (I'm sorry but I don't remember the details). Basically they asked certain students who were failing or planning to quit school if they would be willing to go to summer school. Quite a few students decided to participate after it was explained to these children (white and black) that it was guaranteed that after that summer they would have the SKILLS they would need to compete with their peers. They did not say it was easy. Their workload was grueling - but there was no pressure to make a grade, and there were plenty of teachers to help. This was not a condecending class, it treated these kids as though they were "A" students, they just had to catch up - and that meant hard work. BUT these kids did it, and there was a REAL sense of accomplishment when they were done, and I don't think I have to tell you that all stayed in school and many went on to college. Thanks, for letting me voice my opinion. Good luck!Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue