[!@#$%!]

well if you replace "jackinory" w/ "deal" you have an expression you already know. no change in grammar. just vocabulary & a bit of phonetics not too hard.

hah hah but in the school papers, my point, my whole point, was,
-assuming it's the same language tends to confuse things
-showing it's a different language clarifies not only the problem but also the objectives of the class (learn to speak like "whitey" so you can get a mortgage)

--
ps i hope everyone in this discussion is having a good time. i am.

[Savage Clone]

OK, first off, I am glad this is a fun discussion and not a bitter argument, because we're all friends.
Secondly, !@#$%!, I had no idea you were not a native English speaker. Awesome. You're one of the best writers on this board!
I actually have no problem with people teaching in whatever dialect dominates the region the students and teachers live in, but a standardized form of "common English" needs to be learned as well. That way we can all understand each other.
Dialects proved problematic for certain jobs, like ambulance drivers communicating with dispatchers, etc. There is a particular standard of speech that is followed as radio protocol in jobs like that. I don't see how learning "standard english" for writing, for news broadcasts, etc is difficult or problematic.
Teaching in a language that gives people the most education they can absorb is important, but we all live in the same country and it's important to have a universal standard so we can communicate effectively between regions and subcultures.
If you grow up speaking an English dialect in an English speaking country, standard English is hardly a "challenge" to learn to use when you need to use it.
That's all I'm saying.

[truncated]

I would never have known English wasn't your first language if you hadn't pointed it out. You write it nearly impeccably.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

with african american vernacular english (i'm going to drop the term "ebonics" now), a similar approach to that of bilingual education has proven successful, and yet IT HASN'T BEED ADOPTED BECAUSE OF POLITICS. which proves to me that politicians make shitty scientists. just listen to bush on global warming and you'll see what i mean!

I'll continue to assert that whether or not that approach is successful, that approach shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

How do those who 'speak' Ebonics (I'm not really sure how to phrase that) not have an existing mastery of a language? If they are able to communicate universally amongst a particular group of people, that constitutes a mastery. They are in no way at a linguistic disadvantage in comparison to anyone else.

[!@#$%!]

yes yes yes i agree w/ you completely-- people NEED to speak english
but not because it's "proper"-- just because it's the language of power and if you don't want to be disenfranchised fool you have to play the game.
but it's a game-- a survival game-- a play, a mask you need to learn to wear...
it's just the method of teaching i disagree with-- assuming that people "should know it already" hasn't brought very good results. so, my point: teach it as a 2nd language & everything becomes clear as night

[Savage Clone]

We all wear masks at times and we are all whores.
Life in the modern world.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by truncated

How do those who 'speak' Ebonics (I'm not really sure how to phrase that) not have an existing mastery of a language? If they are able to communicate universally amongst a particular group of people, that constitutes a mastery. They are in no way at a linguistic disadvantage in comparison to anyone else.

there's an oral profficiency but no reading or writing or content learning in AAVE (AAVE= "ebonics"). that's what bilingual programs do. so if you're a ghetto kid you speak one language but have to write a different one. and you are never taught to write what you speak, and don't get a lot of practice at home with your written language. am i making sense?

[Savage Clone]

If you already speak that way, how hard is it to write in your own vernacular?
Learning how to write in a universal standard is the challenge.

[!@#$%!]

reading, writing, grammar, content knowledge, it's all deliverd in the OTHER language that's not your vernacular; at the same time you don't learn any science math or say geography (?) in your own vernacular. the problem with this is that it interferes w/ your whole cognitive development and schooling as your brain tries to straddle both language systems. if you are offered some curriculum in your own vernacular & then "proper english" gets introduced, it's much easier to adapt-- that's what the research shows.

[Savage Clone]

Like I said before, people can go ahead and teach in the vernacular that dominates their region, but eventually there must be some kind of common standard so we can comminucate across regional and subcultural lines in the same country.
And I still maintain that AAVE is English. The "E" stands for English!

Very small children are also fully capable of absorbing two languages simultaneously.

AAVE also evolves so quickly that any structured "curriculum" in it will inevitably be somewhat behind the curve.

[truncated]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

OK, first off, I am glad this is a fun discussion and not a bitter argument, because we're all friends.
Secondly, !@#$%!, I had no idea you were not a native English speaker. Awesome. You're one of the best writers on this board!
I actually have no problem with people teaching in whatever dialect dominates the region the students and teachers live in, but a standardized form of "common English" needs to be learned as well. That way we can all understand each other.
Dialects proved problematic for certain jobs, like ambulance drivers communicating with dispatchers, etc. There is a particular standard of speech that is followed as radio protocol in jobs like that. I don't see how learning "standard english" for writing, for news broadcasts, etc is difficult or problematic.
Teaching in a language that gives people the most education they can absorb is important, but we all live in the same country and it's important to have a universal standard so we can communicate effectively between regions and subcultures.
If you grow up speaking an English dialect in an English speaking country, standard English is hardly a "challenge" to learn to use when you need to use it.
That's all I'm saying.

This is fun, too much actually. I'm neglecting obligations, I have to get my ass off this board.

I agree with Savage Clone in that in order for American society to function effectively and fluidly, standards need to be adopted. That's just the way it is, and that is a global universality. I might like to speak Spanish (which I do very poorly, if at all really) or pig Latin, but I recognize that in order to operate within any society, I have to conform to its adopted standard of communication in order to be at all functional.

!@#$%!, you may see such enforcement of standardization as a white political agenda. I on the other hand see the resistance to the standard as a reactionary black political agenda.

These language differences have NOTHING to do with race. It's simple practicality. The implementation of a communication standard isn't an attempt to rob anyone of his ethnic identity; I could claim that not being allowed to use Chicago slang in a thesis is discriminatory - why should I have to abandon my cultural roots to conform to a standard of academia? The standard exists to broaden the lines of communication amongst a diverse population. If anything, it is an attempt to narrow cultural gaps rather than widen them. The standard happens to be based upon Anglo English, because for one thing, it's got to be based on something, doesn't it? How the hell else could it exist? And it's based on Anglo English simply because, historically (at least after colonization), THAT IS THE PREVALENT LANGUAGE IN THIS COUNTRY. It would be positively MORONIC to base the standard on a minority language.

But we're all PC and pansy-assed and modern and sensitive these days, so if something popular or mainstream or 'standard' can be attributed to the white majority, well, it must be racist, musn't it?

"White" standard English isn't racist. It's simple logic, convenience, and effectiveness. Claiming that adopting such a standard is the manifestation of a white political agenda is the equivalent of me going to Poland and bitching about not being able to understand anyone.

Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Life's a bitch.

[!@#$%!]

yo, mes amis, i gotta leave this fine establishment of known as the motor-hotel, with it's free internet, and get on the road. or i finna get on the road (??). thanks for the conversation and i hope i can afford a motel w/ internet for tonight

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

reading, writing, grammar, content knowledge, it's all deliverd in the OTHER language that's not your vernacular; at the same time you don't learn any science math or say geography (?) in your own vernacular. the problem with this is that it interferes w/ your whole cognitive development and schooling as your brain tries to straddle both language systems. if you are offered some curriculum in your own vernacular & then "proper english" gets introduced, it's much easier to adapt-- that's what the research shows.

Sorry, but that still doesn't fly with me (I know I'm probably being obstinate now). We've come full circle back to Glice's question, which is how drastically Ebonics differs from standard English. Again, I don't care how you deconstruct it, the difference is far from drastic enough to pose a learning problem.

You are taught in standardized English from the moment you begin schooling which, for the most part, is around 4 or 5 years old. As Savage Clone pointed out, children whose first language is one other than English, but who are educated at a relatively young age in English, adopt English in a flash.

In fact, a friend of mine whose native language is Polish moved to the States when she was four. She speaks Polish in her home, her parents speak no English whatsoever, but, because she began schooling in America as a child, speaks English as fluently as if it were her native language. More significantly, she has a lot of difficulty writing properly in Polish, and speaking it "formally," despite it being her native language. She simply does not have occasion to do either of those things, and therefore never learned.

She is now in medical school after having graduated Cornell with honors.

Talk about differences in language!

I will boldly state that those who use Ebonics and claim they or their children cannot adapt to standardized English are, plain and simple,

JACKASSES

and it's an insult to try and pass that shit off as a race issue.

[truncated]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yo, mes amis, i gotta leave this fine establishment of known as the motor-hotel, with it's free internet, and get on the road. or i finna get on the road (??). thanks for the conversation and i hope i can afford a motel w/ internet for tonight

Have a safe drive, and remember to watch out for those nose-pickers.

Good, this is a good excuse for me to get the hell out of here as well.

God I'm such a geek, I love these debates.

[Savage Clone]

Jackasses, eh?
Is that some kind of highbrow academic term?
I don't understand you.

[truncated]

You gotta be trippin' yo, I knows you ain't no foo'.

[truncated]

Ok, that was probably in poor taste. Sorry.

[Savage Clone]

Yeah, ordinarily you are the gold standard for tact.
I'm shocked.

[truncated]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Yeah, ordinarily you are the gold standard for tact.
I'm shocked.

Fuckin' right I am. My elocution and delightful femininity should be a paradigm to all young women.

[Spanks]

I Admire you fashionable running shoes

Drop them nikes of yo ass before i blast you Mother Fucker

[chabib]

chomsky explains of ebonics (or black vernacular english) that, in essence, "standard english" is taught and expected to be learned in schools because it's the dominant language of power. he then goes on to explain that if suddenly, people speaking BVE were reaching positions of power en masse, that BVE would carry with it a sense of prestige. chomsky also explains that in touring universities in the hinterlands of the US, he often comes upon locales where he can't understand anyone around him, and they're speaking english. he says that upon enquiry regarding local dialects, it's generally revealed that "standard english" must be taught to those individuals while they're enrolled in the university so that they can communicate effectively with recruiters from IBM and the like.

chomsky has a lot to say about ebonics. essentially, however, his discussions are purely conceptual in nature and revolve around power dynamics and social oppression. essentially, if you examine his arguments, he says that, "in an insular and perfect world where a member of community A will never venture beyond her community, her dialect should be celebrated and encouraged."

well, sure. that's great. but it does more to perpetuate a horribly unbalanced power dynamic against community A if their community is not absolutely insulated from those beyond it. in my opinion, it's helpful to have a mastery of the tools of the oppressor if you want to give weight to tools beyond their reach. does hip hop do this? is it a way to use the white power structure to deliver a little trojan bomb of BVE to white ears? maybe.

hurricane katrina brought international attention to ray nagin. his quotes were often peppered with BVEisms. sharpton used BVEisms on the campaign trail. the black panthers used BVEisms. black celebrities use BVEisms in press. oprah even uses them when she needs to whip her audience into a frenzy.

do any of you believe though, that the most powerful of the people mentioned above do not have a complete, functional mastery over the language of the oppressor? do any of you believe that they would have been just as well served--or better served--by having been encouraged to communicate **exclusively** in BVE throughout school?

that's my only concern with BVE. of course it's a practical means to colloquial verbal discussion. of course it has its own structure. of course people are often saturated in it. the rub is in the notion that not everyone is immersed in it. if you have a school of 3000 black kids in the bronx (which my mom taught at for 15 years) i can tell you from first hand experience that not every student there wants to be institutionally exposed to BVE. should their education then be made a process whereby they go home to do their homework for an english language writing class and rigorously adhere to the rules of grammar and structure conveyed to them in class, while another student sitting next to them ignores what they'd both had equal exposure to in class and hands in a paper disregarding every rule they had learned--and both receive an equal grade based on politically correct relativism or teacher apathy?

i'm well aware of BVE's ability to fit linguistics' mold of language. i've never claimed that it wasn't a language or a dialect. what i do claim, however, is that schools theoretically exist to teach a program. if two students are enrolled in the same school, exposed to the same program, each has an equal **opportunity** to come away with the same mastery of what is taught. it's both an educator's and a student's prerogative to subvert that opportunity thru either apathy, frustration, political correctness, fear or ennui. i seriously believe that if 10% of the students in a class can come away from that class with an ability to express that they've learned something from it, then ALL of the students had the same opportunity to gain at least what that 10% had learned. i think testing and grading are ridiculous, but as students are in those boxes for 8-10 hours a day, they might as well go home with something to show for their time.

that's my basic point. argue away as you wish.