Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <seely
linguistlist.org>
With the exception of the post from Stirling Newberry <allegroMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuethecia.net>, analogies (or analyses) from other countries with linguistic diversity have been lacking in the Ebonics postings. America is relatively new to such controversy. What do the experienced linguistic planners think about this debate: a flash in the pan? a recognizable step toward linguistic diversity? paternalism masquerading as linguistics? I'd like to know.... ******** Mari Broman Olsen Research Associate University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies 3141 A.V. Williams Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 (301) 405-6754 FAX: (301) 314-9658 molsen
umiacs.umd.edu
I'm still confused about something. Given the tough time Whorf has had for over half a century around the word 'principle (of linguistic relativity)', what exactly are African Language Systems 'principles'? Are they something like what we otherwise call 'rules' or 'laws'? Linguistics just doesn't have a great track record in dealing with 'principles,' even though they are the foundation of science and mathematics, so every time I see the term surfacing, I wonder how it's meant. warm regards, moonhawkMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
First of all, didn't I say it's not "Ebonics" anymore, it's "African Language Systems"? But, seriously, I agreed with a lot of what Tom Sawallis wrote in his posting. Then I hit a bump at the following point. The time, effort, and >money that was to have been dedicated to teaching teachers about BEV would >be much more profitably spent teaching them about the differences between >spoken and written English. Idealistically this sounds good, and indeed in terms of "more or less (time, effort, money)" some formula is necessary, because indeed the difference between speaking and writing is not well recognised for what it is. Nevertheless, in case Tom does not realise it, in the US the position of African Americans in the overall society is historically and continues to be "special". And what that means is that debilitating attitudes which are no longer acceptable or even consciously held about African Americans are still able to hide themselves in reactions to African American speech. It's no accident that stereotypists seize on "invariant be" nowadays rather than some "nonstandardism" of currency beyond the African American community. Apart from that, mutual ignorance of African American and non-African American speech and even more general ways of talking (such as noted in Shirley Brice-Heath's "Ways with Words" in a localised context) remains a problem in recognising just what BEV-speaking pupils know and don't know and how to teach them what they don't know. I won't bury this point in a lot of other things, the way I usually do. But I will maintain for further discussion that in the US the relationship between African Americans and the "standard" society is SPECIAL, and also that discussion of this point is relevant to the linguistic issues involved. -- BenjiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue