Now that's an interesting assertion. I'd posit further that if the roles were reversed, and it was AAVE that was "standard" and SAE that was lower socioeconomic class slang, you'd probably see the same issues with peer pressure and the denigration of education coming from the lower socioeconomic class.
Exactly, and that's what the find all over the world when there is a language/dialect of power. Whatever qualities make the "inferior" language/dialect different are regarded as indicative of substandard intelligence. Even if it means that they are enunciating more clearly.
Although it might be fun to think about what the world would be like if we didn't judge people by their speaking or writing ability, the simple fact of the matter is that someone who isn't proficient in the standard language cannot perform in society the way someone who is, can.
I openly recognize that my ethical standard cannot be met in this world right now. However, despite your assertions of a benefit to a standard language, there are numerous nations in the world that demonstrate that multiple languages can be accommodated just fine.
Upheaval of the status quo in America to make it accept minority languages/dialects though, is entirely unlikely to succeed. I am still free to hold the assertion that doing so would be the best ethical choice.
So is Louisiana Creole a perfectly acceptable way to speak French then?
Tautologically, if it weren't they wouldn't speak that way. Of course, those speaking other dialects of French may disagree.
Doesn't prevent the speech of my ancestors and that which we use in casual situations from being derided as a lesser form of speech, though. We just can't use the race card.
And here we get to the crux of the whole issue. Because AAVE is so intertwined with race, there are a bunch of racial issues around it. Racists will disregard evidence and claim that the dialect doesn't deserve distinction, and others will hold it up as a uniquely black experience and part of their fundamental culture.
None of these arguments are made over AE, it's simply viewed as a nominal dialect... and if a law enforcement agency ever put out an add seeking people with expertise in Appalachian English, people would fleetingly go "oh, interesting" and never post it to slashdot.
Bzzzt...wrong answer. The rules of syntax are only proper in that given language, not in other languages. "2+2=5" is neither semantically nor syntactically correct in a language like Lisp.
I already qualified the language of discourse as "mathematics"... you know, that shit they write on the board in elementary school? I wasn't talking about LISP, and you know it.
[T]he elite that we accept as "The Ruling Powers" define the conventions and vernacular.
I'm glad you acknowledge your belief that an oligarchy is the way the world is run.
Fair enough. I'd also go so far as to assert the inverse as well - we should categorically reject any depictions of SAE being ethically or aesthetically inferior.
With you on this one. Sure it tends to appear "bland" to those who have been exposed to it their whole lives, but then vanilla is an actually really cool new flavor to those who have never tasted it before.
Now, that's a stretch. It might be the same as demanding that every subculture of America learn about Christianity, Bible history, and the various sects and factions, but learning a language is not nearly the same thing as practicing a religion. Conflating the two doesn't help make your point.
Conflating "believing" with "practicing" is also not a good idea. See: Crypto-Judaism.
I think the real ethical problem is when subcultures denigrate the attempts of their peers to rise above their current socioeconomic status with education, thereby denying social advancement where it is arguably the most needed.
You are certainly allowed to have your opinions on what is ethically better.
I'm also certainly allowed to take the position that the more ethical choice is to stop expecting SAE to be spoken by everyone, and adapt to fit AAVE in without their change. After all, the only thing making SAE more useful is that AAVE is rejected.
You need mod points. This is the clearest explanation I've read.
But, truthfully, did anybody need to have this explained to them?
"Law enforcement agency seeks translators to decode wiretaps for language they don't speak. Background check required."
Other than the reference to Lil' Wayne, is TFS even ambiguous?
Sadly some people don't understand that AAVE is not always intelligible to speakers of SAE.
TFS was totally clear and unambiguous to me as well, however I understand that no matter how clear or unambiguous you can make a statement, someone will come along and twist the meaning to infuriate their beliefs.
Demanding that a subculture learn SAE, is the same as demanding that every subculture of America be, or at least practice Christianity.
We do have freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution; we don't have freedom of language included as far as I know. While I agree that demanding a subculture learn and always use SAE is unreasonable, here I think you've gone too far.
Legally the analogy fails (but then all analogies eventually fail... just like cars.)
However my position was on of an ethical standpoint, rather than legal.
To further clarify, and if you'd actually like to look up anything about it, people who aren't dipshit DEA agents, and have actually studied linguistics call it African American Vernacular English. "Ebonics" is just another way to say "Speakin' Jive", just a racist way of saying "black people don't talk right".
To further clarify, and if you'd actually like to look up anything about it, people who aren't dipshit pet owners, and have actually studied biology call them felis catus. "Cat" is just another way to say blah blah blah...
The ignorant of a subject should not be punished for attempting to be sensitive, and understanding just because they used poor word choice.
"Codified rules"? You mean the arbitrary laws that prescriptivists continue to attempt to impose on speakers despite all indications that these rules have no logical or meaningful basis?
Like double negatives, split infinitives, or dangling prepositions?
These "codified rules" are not actually a part of Standard American English. They are instead artificially imposed rules for a specific subset of language use.
But there is something much more useful about Standard American English - it is the key to education, employment, and as you so cleverly put it, "power".... but surely you must agree that learning Standard American English is beneficial on a myriad number of levels, and those subcultures that denigrate learning it are inflicting harm upon themselves.
I wish I could take credit for it, but the linguistic term is "language of power" or "dialect of power". And I do agree with your assessment. An individual has a significantly better chance in life learning the language/dialect of power.
However, the moral assertions applied about subcultures that actively discourage learning the language of power is something best left to people who study ethics, and not individuals like me, who study language.
Clearly individuals are better off learning the language of power, but that should never justify the connotation that the language of power is "better". "More useful" perhaps, but I would categorically reject any depictions of an ethically or aesthetically superior position.
And "utility" has its own weights... knowing how to cook is far more useful than not knowing how to cook, yet few people actually learn it. Thus ethically considerations cannot be unequivocally implied from utility.
Demanding that a subculture learn SAE, is the same as demanding that every subculture of America be, or at least practice Christianity.
Linguists have actually noted quite often how the naming of the dialect as "Black English Vernacular" or "AAVE" indicates a race, which does not indicate in any way except historically who speaks it.
There are plenty of white people who speak AAVE. We just haven't developed a better name for it, and we're kind of stuck with what it is already popularly known as.
The NAACP still means "colored people"... tradition is a powerful thing.
All of this just to say "most linguists wish there were a better term, but we can't agree on anything better".
It's more of a sub set of our black population that doesn't want to learn or get educated; which also happens to be the part of the population with the highest crime rate.
"Subset" is one word.
Now, the interesting thing here, is that people who are disadvantaged in life, regardless of will or desire, tend to have the highest crime rates. They're also the most likely to be least educated.
Funny how people attribute these disadvantaged as being "lazy" or lacking desire, when in reality, they're simply given a shitty hand to play.
You're spot on about the craziness of the lack of dialectal differences in the US/Canada area. However, China only has "dialects" because of the aphorism "a dialect is a language with an army and a navy."
China has two main "dialects": Mandarin and Cantonese. These two "dialects" are mutually unintelligible, and significantly different from each other when compared to the Scandinavian "langauges".
"Jeg er snowgirl" (Norwegian) vs. "Jag är snowgirl" (Swedish) vs. "Jeg er snowgirl". (Danish)
The reason why the Chinese writing system is mutually comprehensible between Mandarin and Cantonese, is because they both share a similar grammatical system, and words are represented by "ideographs" containing distinct morphological units.
If we expressed "I speak English" with ideographs, and indicated conjugation with "syntactigraphs", I could write the same thing the same way in English, German, Spanish, and French.
Ever notice how "professional terms" just get really long and add hyphens everywhere? I just call it the "black accent" and leave it at that. And since I know someone's thinking it, no that's not being racist. Racism implies that I implied something derogatory towards them. I haven't. Don't mind the people; the accent is just difficult to understand, just like any other strong accent.
Ok, accepting your definition of "racism", it's not racist. It's still factually wrong though.
AAVE has different mood, tenses, and aspects on its verbs, some of which are not expressible in Standard American English.
It is a "dialect", not an "accent". An accent is a different way of pronouncing words. For instance, the British speak a different dialect of English from Americans, but if a British person were to say a sentence with American word choice, they would still pronounce it in a British Accent.
Likewise, one can pronounce Standard American English with an AAVE accent, but "they ain't be doin' that."
Both are accepted varieties, however it is plainly clear to all scholars of the topic that "intar-" is the proper first component of the word. "webz" and "tubez" are highly variable.
a) They are a separate group, but being so does not mean that they "should not be assimilated". b) They do have their own culture, values and heritage that is distinct from the majority... this is fact. Ignoring it, or refusing it does not make it less of a fact. c) What what?
Ah crap, I'm arguing with a nut job conspiracist...:(
"Proper english" is a misnomer. The proper way to say it is, "Speaking English in the dialect of power is often seen as 'selling out'."
There is nothing more "proper" or "correct" about Standard American English as opposed to AAVE. Both have their own (ofttimes overlapping) rules of grammar and vocabulary.
What does it say about our society if a group we need to integrate is so isolated it's developing an incompatible dialect?
Not "is developing", "has developed".
And it says nothing at all... separated groups will develop separate dialects. The issue of "dialect" even to the point of unintelligibility has been a pervasive issue throughout Europe in the modern age. America (all of it) is so new, that separate unintelligible dialects are rare due to everyone having such a recent base language to develop from.
Bah, I hate pseudo-Germanic names... my mind auto-spellchecks and "fixes" them.
I definitely agree that Kurzweil is pulling some stuff out of his butt to make his theory palatable... I mean, predicting a technology singularity is easy, they're bound to happen again... but predicting what they're actually like? I though the whole point was that we have no concept of what it will be like.
But still, the media no doubt simplified his (potentially already a "strawman") argument further and distorted things enough. PZ can only respond to what he's seen.
Clearly, Myers has discovered that being unnecessarily angry and insulting leads to more pageviews in his blog. I'm sure he knows his field, and it's great when he tears into real jokers, but he has moved beyond that. He is now being inflammatory just for page hits.
You missed something. The media will always inaccurately propagate scientific... hell, just about ANY view. They necessarily must summarize, simplify, and downplay. Typically, their own personal interests will cause a bias towards one particularly interesting feature of the advancement or article, and they will focus on that. (Remember the recent "chicken or egg" article whose scientific findings had NOTHING to do with that question?)
PZ Meyers made a bit of a mistake in responding so vehemently to a strawman construction of media's doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that's an interesting assertion. I'd posit further that if the roles were reversed, and it was AAVE that was "standard" and SAE that was lower socioeconomic class slang, you'd probably see the same issues with peer pressure and the denigration of education coming from the lower socioeconomic class.
Exactly, and that's what the find all over the world when there is a language/dialect of power. Whatever qualities make the "inferior" language/dialect different are regarded as indicative of substandard intelligence. Even if it means that they are enunciating more clearly.
Although it might be fun to think about what the world would be like if we didn't judge people by their speaking or writing ability, the simple fact of the matter is that someone who isn't proficient in the standard language cannot perform in society the way someone who is, can.
I openly recognize that my ethical standard cannot be met in this world right now. However, despite your assertions of a benefit to a standard language, there are numerous nations in the world that demonstrate that multiple languages can be accommodated just fine.
Upheaval of the status quo in America to make it accept minority languages/dialects though, is entirely unlikely to succeed. I am still free to hold the assertion that doing so would be the best ethical choice.
So is Louisiana Creole a perfectly acceptable way to speak French then?
Tautologically, if it weren't they wouldn't speak that way. Of course, those speaking other dialects of French may disagree.
Doesn't prevent the speech of my ancestors and that which we use in casual situations from being derided as a lesser form of speech, though. We just can't use the race card.
And here we get to the crux of the whole issue. Because AAVE is so intertwined with race, there are a bunch of racial issues around it. Racists will disregard evidence and claim that the dialect doesn't deserve distinction, and others will hold it up as a uniquely black experience and part of their fundamental culture.
None of these arguments are made over AE, it's simply viewed as a nominal dialect... and if a law enforcement agency ever put out an add seeking people with expertise in Appalachian English, people would fleetingly go "oh, interesting" and never post it to slashdot.
I figured you had meant "dialect", and read it into your post already. :)
They should just be honest and call it fool-speak or idiot-talk
Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work.
Bzzzt...wrong answer. The rules of syntax are only proper in that given language, not in other languages. "2+2=5" is neither semantically nor syntactically correct in a language like Lisp.
I already qualified the language of discourse as "mathematics"... you know, that shit they write on the board in elementary school? I wasn't talking about LISP, and you know it.
[T]he elite that we accept as "The Ruling Powers" define the conventions and vernacular.
I'm glad you acknowledge your belief that an oligarchy is the way the world is run.
Fair enough. I'd also go so far as to assert the inverse as well - we should categorically reject any depictions of SAE being ethically or aesthetically inferior.
With you on this one. Sure it tends to appear "bland" to those who have been exposed to it their whole lives, but then vanilla is an actually really cool new flavor to those who have never tasted it before.
Now, that's a stretch. It might be the same as demanding that every subculture of America learn about Christianity, Bible history, and the various sects and factions, but learning a language is not nearly the same thing as practicing a religion. Conflating the two doesn't help make your point.
Conflating "believing" with "practicing" is also not a good idea. See: Crypto-Judaism.
I think the real ethical problem is when subcultures denigrate the attempts of their peers to rise above their current socioeconomic status with education, thereby denying social advancement where it is arguably the most needed.
You are certainly allowed to have your opinions on what is ethically better.
I'm also certainly allowed to take the position that the more ethical choice is to stop expecting SAE to be spoken by everyone, and adapt to fit AAVE in without their change. After all, the only thing making SAE more useful is that AAVE is rejected.
But, truthfully, did anybody need to have this explained to them?
"Law enforcement agency seeks translators to decode wiretaps for language they don't speak. Background check required."
Other than the reference to Lil' Wayne, is TFS even ambiguous?
Sadly some people don't understand that AAVE is not always intelligible to speakers of SAE.
TFS was totally clear and unambiguous to me as well, however I understand that no matter how clear or unambiguous you can make a statement, someone will come along and twist the meaning to infuriate their beliefs.
I was with you until this point:
Demanding that a subculture learn SAE, is the same as demanding that every subculture of America be, or at least practice Christianity.
We do have freedom of religion enshrined in our Constitution; we don't have freedom of language included as far as I know. While I agree that demanding a subculture learn and always use SAE is unreasonable, here I think you've gone too far.
Legally the analogy fails (but then all analogies eventually fail... just like cars.)
However my position was on of an ethical standpoint, rather than legal.
Saying "2+2=5" is proper mathematical syntax, however it is factually incorrect.
Saying that blacks don't speak properly is a factually incorrect statement.
Your insane ranting does nothing to change this.
To further clarify, and if you'd actually like to look up anything about it, people who aren't dipshit DEA agents, and have actually studied linguistics call it African American Vernacular English. "Ebonics" is just another way to say "Speakin' Jive", just a racist way of saying "black people don't talk right".
To further clarify, and if you'd actually like to look up anything about it, people who aren't dipshit pet owners, and have actually studied biology call them felis catus. "Cat" is just another way to say blah blah blah...
The ignorant of a subject should not be punished for attempting to be sensitive, and understanding just because they used poor word choice.
"Codified rules"? You mean the arbitrary laws that prescriptivists continue to attempt to impose on speakers despite all indications that these rules have no logical or meaningful basis?
Like double negatives, split infinitives, or dangling prepositions?
These "codified rules" are not actually a part of Standard American English. They are instead artificially imposed rules for a specific subset of language use.
But there is something much more useful about Standard American English - it is the key to education, employment, and as you so cleverly put it, "power". ... but surely you must agree that learning Standard American English is beneficial on a myriad number of levels, and those subcultures that denigrate learning it are inflicting harm upon themselves.
I wish I could take credit for it, but the linguistic term is "language of power" or "dialect of power". And I do agree with your assessment. An individual has a significantly better chance in life learning the language/dialect of power.
However, the moral assertions applied about subcultures that actively discourage learning the language of power is something best left to people who study ethics, and not individuals like me, who study language.
Clearly individuals are better off learning the language of power, but that should never justify the connotation that the language of power is "better". "More useful" perhaps, but I would categorically reject any depictions of an ethically or aesthetically superior position.
And "utility" has its own weights... knowing how to cook is far more useful than not knowing how to cook, yet few people actually learn it. Thus ethically considerations cannot be unequivocally implied from utility.
Demanding that a subculture learn SAE, is the same as demanding that every subculture of America be, or at least practice Christianity.
Linguists have actually noted quite often how the naming of the dialect as "Black English Vernacular" or "AAVE" indicates a race, which does not indicate in any way except historically who speaks it.
There are plenty of white people who speak AAVE. We just haven't developed a better name for it, and we're kind of stuck with what it is already popularly known as.
The NAACP still means "colored people"... tradition is a powerful thing.
All of this just to say "most linguists wish there were a better term, but we can't agree on anything better".
It's more of a sub set of our black population that doesn't want to learn or get educated; which also happens to be the part of the population with the highest crime rate.
"Subset" is one word.
Now, the interesting thing here, is that people who are disadvantaged in life, regardless of will or desire, tend to have the highest crime rates. They're also the most likely to be least educated.
Funny how people attribute these disadvantaged as being "lazy" or lacking desire, when in reality, they're simply given a shitty hand to play.
You're spot on about the craziness of the lack of dialectal differences in the US/Canada area. However, China only has "dialects" because of the aphorism "a dialect is a language with an army and a navy."
China has two main "dialects": Mandarin and Cantonese. These two "dialects" are mutually unintelligible, and significantly different from each other when compared to the Scandinavian "langauges".
"Jeg er snowgirl" (Norwegian) vs. "Jag är snowgirl" (Swedish) vs. "Jeg er snowgirl". (Danish)
The reason why the Chinese writing system is mutually comprehensible between Mandarin and Cantonese, is because they both share a similar grammatical system, and words are represented by "ideographs" containing distinct morphological units.
If we expressed "I speak English" with ideographs, and indicated conjugation with "syntactigraphs", I could write the same thing the same way in English, German, Spanish, and French.
You need mod points. This is the clearest explanation I've read.
Ever notice how "professional terms" just get really long and add hyphens everywhere? I just call it the "black accent" and leave it at that. And since I know someone's thinking it, no that's not being racist. Racism implies that I implied something derogatory towards them. I haven't. Don't mind the people; the accent is just difficult to understand, just like any other strong accent.
Ok, accepting your definition of "racism", it's not racist. It's still factually wrong though.
AAVE has different mood, tenses, and aspects on its verbs, some of which are not expressible in Standard American English.
It is a "dialect", not an "accent". An accent is a different way of pronouncing words. For instance, the British speak a different dialect of English from Americans, but if a British person were to say a sentence with American word choice, they would still pronounce it in a British Accent.
Likewise, one can pronounce Standard American English with an AAVE accent, but "they ain't be doin' that."
intartubes, plz
Both are accepted varieties, however it is plainly clear to all scholars of the topic that "intar-" is the proper first component of the word. "webz" and "tubez" are highly variable.
a) They are a separate group, but being so does not mean that they "should not be assimilated".
b) They do have their own culture, values and heritage that is distinct from the majority... this is fact. Ignoring it, or refusing it does not make it less of a fact.
c) What what?
Ah crap, I'm arguing with a nut job conspiracist... :(
Call it the dialect of majority if you want propriety.
Afrikaans was not the "language of the majority" in South Africa, yet it remained the "language of power".
I spoke correctly, and used the pedantically correct term.
No! It's a good thing! Now all we need is a comfy government job translating teh interwebs!
*ahem* "intarwebs"... you get a D.
"Proper english" is a misnomer. The proper way to say it is, "Speaking English in the dialect of power is often seen as 'selling out'."
There is nothing more "proper" or "correct" about Standard American English as opposed to AAVE. Both have their own (ofttimes overlapping) rules of grammar and vocabulary.
What does it say about our society if a group we need to integrate is so isolated it's developing an incompatible dialect?
Not "is developing", "has developed".
And it says nothing at all... separated groups will develop separate dialects. The issue of "dialect" even to the point of unintelligibility has been a pervasive issue throughout Europe in the modern age. America (all of it) is so new, that separate unintelligible dialects are rare due to everyone having such a recent base language to develop from.
Bah, I hate pseudo-Germanic names... my mind auto-spellchecks and "fixes" them.
I definitely agree that Kurzweil is pulling some stuff out of his butt to make his theory palatable... I mean, predicting a technology singularity is easy, they're bound to happen again... but predicting what they're actually like? I though the whole point was that we have no concept of what it will be like.
But still, the media no doubt simplified his (potentially already a "strawman") argument further and distorted things enough. PZ can only respond to what he's seen.
Clearly, Myers has discovered that being unnecessarily angry and insulting leads to more pageviews in his blog. I'm sure he knows his field, and it's great when he tears into real jokers, but he has moved beyond that. He is now being inflammatory just for page hits.
You missed something. The media will always inaccurately propagate scientific... hell, just about ANY view. They necessarily must summarize, simplify, and downplay. Typically, their own personal interests will cause a bias towards one particularly interesting feature of the advancement or article, and they will focus on that. (Remember the recent "chicken or egg" article whose scientific findings had NOTHING to do with that question?)
PZ Meyers made a bit of a mistake in responding so vehemently to a strawman construction of media's doing.
Hopefully you can accept this information from someone whose UID is only 369,864 less than yours. ;)
I'm so not new here, that I'm willing to accept facts from those with UIDs lower than mine. :)
But heaven help you if you're wrong!