Moderator:JackFrost
Gormur wrote:This may or may not give you some insight:
http://www.une.edu.au/langnet/aave.htm
The linguists will undoubtedly disagree with me, but I believe it's a joke being taught in schools, since there is no standard variety and it is definitely not a creole or pidgin. There are certain features which characterize Ebonics, such as mentioned on the website.
In a nutshell, this is nothing new for California; wasting tax payers' dollars on useless programs which serve no purpose other than to make a political statement of "correctness"...
P.S. - Rap music has its own "poetic" language, which is no more than street slang used by the numerous gangs and thugs of California, NY, and elsewhere. In my opinion, Rap is an art form in and of itself, and not a seperate language from English, but a variety of poetic language.
There's a reason it's called a dialect.
... in New York that students learn to right "forget about it" as "fuhgeddaboudit" and that being the way teachers talk to students.
Patois is sure as heck not taught in Jamaican schools
Even if the dialect you speak isn't markedly different from the ideal standard, everyone usually becomes far more standard when dealing in professional situations.
reflexsilver86 wrote:I can understand Ebonics, I can't talk like that though.
Jamie*On wrote:But shouldn't we draw the line between dialect and language when they stop being mutually comprehensible?
That's not really true in the case of my parents (from East London) whose vocab and grammar are not standard but don't consider their way of speaking inferior to Standard English. And here, I'm talking about teaching it so people can understand rap, just like people can learn Italian, Russian, German and so on for opera. Or indeed, why not teach Jamaican Patois for reaggae lovers?
The linguists will undoubtedly disagree with me, but I believe it's a joke being taught in schools, since there is no standard variety and it is definitely not a creole or pidgin. There are certain features which characterize Ebonics, such as mentioned on the website.
In a nutshell, this is nothing new for California; wasting tax payers' dollars on useless programs which serve no purpose other than to make a political statement of "correctness"...
There's a reason it's called a dialect. I don't think there's anything wrong with AAVE, it's indicative of a certain culture. However, that'd be like proposing in New York that students learn to right "forget about it" as "fuhgeddaboudit" and that being the way teachers talk to students.
It's similar even, to go to a topic that Ego brought up also in this forum, to Patois in Jamaica. Patois is sure as heck not taught in Jamaican schools, and I don't think any Jamaican would even believe it if you said you thought it should be. There's usually a distinction between language in school and the workplace and language in the home and around friends. Even if the dialect you speak isn't markedly different from the ideal standard, everyone usually becomes far more standard when dealing in professional situations.
Wow, you're white.
There should always be room for social linguistic variation, but I think the idea of teaching 'Ebonics' in school borders on ridiculous. It's not a dialect, but a form of English. Standard English should be taught to everyone, so everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in public life, get a job, communicate with others, etc.
The 'politically correct' support of Ebonics is something like the support for segregation.
I'm not saying this form of speech should not be seen for its cultural value - I am very much for preserving it because it is meaningful for people.
But really, it's logical to have a 'standard' language use that should be available to everyone, not just those from particular social and ethnic backgrounds.
riki wrote:The 'politically correct' support of Ebonics is something like the support for segregation.
That is the new catch cry from right wing people (particularly in NZ) who believe that any form of redress is just like segregation against them, when they very well forget, that when segregation was performed, they were performing it against minority groups based on prejudice ideas (such as the native man is not capable of complex thought).
riki wrote:Languages are never 'standard' (even with in writing, there's no one that one can confirm completely with the rules of the written code). Unless the standard you are talking about is a 'prescriptivist' standard
I could quote some of your passages about "awful Maori" which uses "strange words". Shouldn't these also be taught in primary schools, then?In a nutshell, this is nothing new for California; wasting tax payers' dollars on useless programs which serve no purpose other than to make a political statement of "correctness"...That statement, could also apply to learning foreign languages in California....
What? We're talking about learning Ebonics in primary school, not in university. I see no problem with teaching it in a university; that way everyone has a choice. And if we're teaching Ebonics in school, why not teach Southern dialects, Hoity Toity, or Cockney slang while we're at it?
No, learning a foreign language is NOT the same; we can use foreign languages for practical purposes like communicating with people, getting jobs, travelling, teaching, etc.
As stated previously, Ebonics is a vague term used to describe American Black English in general, and as a result, has racist connotations. Is it only me who sees this?? It's like teaching kids how to speak Chinglish or Engrish. How is that CRAP even acceptable?Did you learn to write write as right? I see no problems with teaching English dialects - in fact, it would be nice if they could extend further and include the major English dialect of each region as being taught as the 'standard' along side with the two dialectal variations.
In primary school? First of all, it's impractical. Second, people would begin complaining immediately - "why can't we learn __?", or "why are my kids learning how to talk like __?", etc. Not only that, but can you imagine the cost of such an education? Let's leave those things for university courses and profs to teach.It's similar even, to go to a topic that Ego brought up also in this forum, to Patois in Jamaica. Patois is sure as heck not taught in Jamaican schools, and I don't think any Jamaican would even believe it if you said you thought it should be. There's usually a distinction between language in school and the workplace and language in the home and around friends. Even if the dialect you speak isn't markedly different from the ideal standard, everyone usually becomes far more standard when dealing in professional situations.I would say that opinions about Patois dialect is a direct result of colonisation more than anything else.
amoeba wrote:Would someone propose, for example, that all schools with a high proportion of black students should be 'taught' Ebonics?
I forgot the name of the school, but there is a school in Oakland, Calif that has made such propositions. There are also a few others in San Francisco, though I don't know if any have succeeded.Why should anyone assume one person would prefer one form of the language based on their skin colour?
I'm not saying either that people who speak a certain way regard how they speak as being "inferior" to other ways of speaking. It just is that many people will subconsciously moderate their speaking when they're in a mixed group of people, because not all of those participating in a conversation might be able to understand.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests