Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

web.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#81

Post by garrettdc »

disantlor wrote: post #73
garrettdc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article isn't discussing accents, but rather differences in vocabulary and grammar between two dialects. There is a difference "He isn't going to do anything about it" with an accent and saying "He ain't gon' do nothin' bout it."

is there that much of a difference? how much? poster used the word "accent" but to my mind that includes regional variations in the language, not just the sonics.

Not sure... the poster didn't differentiate, so I could only assume they meant speaking Standard English with an accent.

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#82

Post by ng12 »

mabbo wrote: post #51
LordKano wrote: post #34

There is a very big aspect that people overlook in this conversation. There is what is known as the "dialect of power" and in the US that is Standard American English. It's not necessarily "wrong" to speak AAVE but in doing so, you will disqualify yourself from opportunities that could otherwise be open to you based on your education and/or experience. If someone calls you to schedule a job interview and you don't so…

You shouldn't have to. I recently started a role where I work very closely with a guy from southern Kansas. He speaks with an accent that I would associate with hicks, farmers, non-intellectuals. And true to form, he was raised on a farm. But he's smart, hard working and great to work with. Every day that we work together, I'm learning things that I wouldn't have otherwise understood. No one criticizes him for speaki…

> He speaks with an accent that I would associate with hicks, farmers, non-intellectuals.

Isn't that the point? Your stereotype was wrong but you still stereotyped him, and he had to overcome it.

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#83

Post by athenot »

This is a very revealing quote:

> No dialects in southern Britain (or America, which was settled from there) have a g after a velar nasal at the end of any word anymore. So it is true that in the speech of Queen Elizabeth II, the g sound that used to end sing has been lost. But no one calls the queen sloppy or mistaken in her speech. Why? Because there is a double standard here. When Standard Southern British English introduces a simplifying change in the rules of punctuation (like "do not pronounce the g sound after a velar nasal except in the middle of a word"), it is respected as the standard way to speak, but when AAVE introduces such a change (like "do not pronounce a stop at the end of a word after another consonant with the same voicing"), it is unfairly regarded as sloppiness.

I found this article as a whole to expand my appreciation for this dialect; there is a lot more logic to it than I had assumed. In particular, the negative concord (which had often bothered me) turns out to be the same as what I already use in French.

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#84

Post by fishcolorbrick »

dukoid wrote: post #61

The primary purpose of language is understanding. Forking a language to convey some sort of cultural distinction has the unfortunate side effect of making this more difficult.

Language is as much about parsing groups as it is about understanding, and it has been for a really long time [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#85

Post by sampo »

8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote: post #53
sampo wrote: post #48

Norwegians spend the late 1800s and early 1900s quarreling amongst themselves what should be the standard for written Norwegian. Should they take the heavily Danish-influenced written language common in cities, or should they use something closer to the dialects spoken in the rural areas? Eventually, their parliament ruled that Norway shall have two official written languages and all government documents will be publ…

These are writing systems, not languages. As I understand it all Norwegian speakers _speak_ the same language, they just represent that language differently when writing it down. Interesting but not that similar.

> As I understand it all Norwegian speakers _speak_ the same language

I am not Norwegian so I might not get this entirely correct. The British have "BBC English" or "Oxford English" and the Americans have "Hollywood English", but Norway doesn't have such a unifying standard for the spoken language. People speak their own dialects, and the different dialects can vary quite a lot.

There is no standard dialect for the Norwegian language as a whole, and all dialects are by now mutually intelligible. Hence, widely different dialects are used frequently and alongside each other, in almost every aspect of society. Criticism of a dialect may be considered criticism of someone's personal identity and place of upbringing, and is considered impolite. Not using one's proper dialect would be bordering on awkward in many situations, as it may signal a wish to take on an identity or a background which one does not have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_dialects

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#86

Post by weberc2 »

sp332 wrote: post #12
scoot wrote: post #9

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.

Right. The point is that the differences are following rules, they're not "mistakes".

Seems like arguing semantics--what is a "mistake" if not a departure from the established convention? What is the difference between a "rule" and a "mistake"? That the "mistake" is repeated a certain amount of times and/or by some critical mass of people? How often / how many people must repeat the mistake before it becomes a rule? If it becomes a new rule, does it cease to become a mistake? The classification quickly begins to feel arbitrary.

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#87

Post by vorg »

Pharylon wrote: post #32
scoot wrote: post #9

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.

Sure, and many rules of AAVE are more consistent. For instance take the following words in standard English: * yourself * myself * ourselves * himself * itself One of these things is not like the other! All of these take the form of possive + "self," except "himself." And sure enough, in AAVE we have "hisself" instead. A more logical, consistent replacement.

You omitted 2 of the reflexive pronouns. Only the 1st and 2nd person forms use the possessive:

  * myself, ourselves, yourself.
All of the 3rd person forms use the personal pronoun:

  * themselves, himself, herself, itself
Does AAVE also use "theirselves" ?

Re: African American Vernacular English Is Not Standard English with Mistakes (1999) [pdf]

#90

Post by icebraining »

mark212 wrote: post #64
dukoid wrote: post #61

The primary purpose of language is understanding. Forking a language to convey some sort of cultural distinction has the unfortunate side effect of making this more difficult.

not sure that's the primary purpose. It can also be a very strong way to reinforce / test the boundaries of a group. Do you talk like us or not? Are you one of us? There are a multitude of ways to convey understanding; the how is sometimes more important than the content.

It can also be used for the inverse purpose; if you're an oppressed minority, a dialect may be helpful in obfuscating your communications from the powers-that-be. An example that fits this and your purpose would be Polari: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari
Post reply on HN