11–20 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It causes segregation based on race; Black people speak this language, white people speak this one. We're trying to bring these groups together, diving their language won't help at all.
It causes segregation based on race Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Why isn't it a result of segregation?
Am I understanding correctly that this paper is making the argument that because AAVE follows an identifiable set of grammatical rules, it is a dialect rather than an aberration? I don't have any opinion on that, I just wanted to make sure I understood the basic premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It causes segregation based on race; Black people speak this language, white people speak this one. We're trying to bring these groups together, diving their language won't help at all.
It causes segregation based on race Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Why isn't it a result of segregation?
Languages change, evolve, and split into new languages. This has gone on forever- why would it stop now?
It causes segregation based on race; Black people speak this language, white people speak this one. We're trying to bring these groups together, diving their language won't help at all.
Languages change, evolve, and split into new languages. This has gone on forever- why would it stop now?
It causes segregation based on race; Black people speak this language, white people speak this one. We're trying to bring these groups together, diving their language won't help at all.
If we have to choose a causal direction, I'm pretty sure it goes the other way. Otherwise we'd say things like "The government are trying to take my job away." (what British English speakers would say) to suggest someone is stupid, but no one does. That sentence, from my American-English perspective, sounds just as "different" as "The government be trying to take my job away.", which is grammatical in Black English.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It causes segregation based on race; Black people speak this language, white people speak this one. We're trying to bring these groups together, diving their language won't help at all.
I'm from rural Arkansas, and from my perspective, the dialect that is spoken there shares more in common with AAVE than standard English. The difference that I see is that I was expected to learn and speak standard English in a professional environment while the perception among my peers seems to be that those who natively speak AAVE expect their dialect to be accepted in all settings. Note that I was careful to say…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It causes segregation based on race; Black people speak this language, white people speak this one. We're trying to bring these groups together, diving their language won't help at all.
That seems like a very inflammatory statement. I doubt what most african americans want out of desegregation is their culture wiped out and replace with american white culture. The more apt solution would be to stop being prejudice towards other american subcultures.
Am I understanding correctly that this paper is making the argument that because AAVE follows an identifiable set of grammatical rules, it is a dialect rather than an aberration? I don't have any opinion on that, I just wanted to make sure I understood the basic premise.