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

121–130 of 130 posts

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

#121

Post by yongjik »

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.

This is a flawed analogy. Software projects usually have a "central" repository which serves as the ground truth, and copies are made bit-perfect. Any difference is a result of someone's conscious choice.

Languages are learned individually by each child, depending on the environment that includes family, friends, and the whole town. No two kids can have exactly the same upbringing.

So, having multiple dialects is pretty much the natural state of any living, thriving language. To artificially unify them is a conscious choice that needs to be justified.

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

#122

Post by Karunamon »

anon151516888 wrote: post #96
Karunamon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a result of the educational oppression and lack of English language and grammar education for African Americans. Assuming for a moment that this is a true or even defensible statement, trying to "fix" it would be an even greater injustice. You can't rightly rip someone's culture away, regardless of how it got there in the first place. Expect any such attempts to go over poorly. Also, keep in mind that the point…

>Also, keep in mind that the point of language is to communicate. So long as that goal is being achieved, what's the problem? Because it's a language that pretty much means that they're illiterate and can't actually be understood by normal people. With the other party having to employ mental gymnastics to understand. Let's not beat around the bush here. Not to mention that this "dialect" obscures the intelligence lev…

Not to mention that this "dialect" obscures the intelligence level of the speaker.

This is actually a fault of a kind of racism, though. If we accept that AAVE is a dialect of English, with its own rules (and the article appears to make that case soundly), then people not being able to look past that is a symptom of their own ignorance.

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

#123

Post by lawpoop »

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.

One thing that jumps out in this sentence is that, grammatically, AAVE uses negative concords (double (or more) negatives), like Spanish or French, instead of the "standard" English "not any", etc. (which I forget the name of.)

Interestingly, double negatives were standard in English up until about 200 years ago, when English speakers wanted their language to be more like Latin-- that is, civilized and refined. So they changed it.

An interesting part of AAVE is that is has verbs conjugated by tense and aspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_En... . Aspect is something standard English doesn't have a grammatical case of.

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

#124

Post by weberc2 »

icebraining wrote: post #101
weberc2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conveying meaning is necessarily more primary than forming group identity simply because "do you talk like us" depends on "us talking to each other" in the first place. It's hard to imagine an evolution where intra-group communication happened as a result of extra-group communication.

Right, but here we're talking about understanding in a broader group - specifically, between groups - since that was what dukoid's post was about.

Dukoid said the primary purpose of language is not communication (conveying meaning), but intergroup identification. I don't see how this could be possible.

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

#125

Post by weberc2 »

alexasmyths wrote: post #119
mabbo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" That might be because you're a hint bigoted? (No offence, but why else would you think that?) (FYI someone from Kansas speaks with an accent - it's not a dialect.) Or perhaps you've been trained very well by decades of Hollywood/New York representation of 'anyone with a southern accent as stupid?' Also - you do realize that like…

The downvoters are accidentally proving your point. I'm from the north, and it isn't really the north that looks down on the south (no pun intended), but the American left (arguably only the far left, depending on where "far" begins) looks down on the south. Conservative and moderate northerners are generally congenial towards the south. But the left dominates the academy and media and education and fine/popular arts and technology, so they are more visible in many ways, and they largely get to craft your exposure to American culture and its various subcultures.

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

#126

Post by rhizome »

jbob2000 wrote: post #37
rhizome wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jbob2000 rarely participates in the inflammatory threads he sparks, so the smart money here is probably in avoiding anything with a question mark.

No, I just usually hit the "You're posting too fast" mark and give up for the day.

I do too, but I come back to reply to previous threads later.

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

#127

Post by LordKano »

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.

There aren't a lot but some really stand out.

For example, what's known as the "habitual be".

In SAE, one would say something like "Sam is walking that route to the store and does so regularly." In AAVE, an equivalent statement would be "Sam be walking to the store that way."

The habitual quality of the action is what would allow for the use of the habitual be. One would not say it for an activity that is only expected to happen once.

To further illustrate, in SAE you'd say "He's dying." In AAVE, you would not say "He be dying." because it's not habitual.

There are many others but I think this is one of the easiest to explain.

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

#128

Post by racer-v »

LordKano wrote: post #127
disantlor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There aren't a lot but some really stand out. For example, what's known as the "habitual be". In SAE, one would say something like "Sam is walking that route to the store and does so regularly." In AAVE, an equivalent statement would be "Sam be walking to the store that way." The habitual quality of the action is what would allow for the use of the habitual be. One would not say it for an activity that is only expect…

Incidentally Latin also employs a habitual verb form in the imperfect tense. For example the imperfect ambulabam (was walking): "He was walking to the store" can mean "He was in the habit of walking", perhaps more informally "he used to walk" or "he would walk".

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

#129

Post by Pent »

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.

The primary purpose of language is communication which does not imply understanding.

Understanding is a subtle insult if you think about it.

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

#130

Post by foldr »

alexasmyths wrote: post #120
Pharylon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but lots of people code switch. As a southern white guy, I also don't speak on interviews the same way I do to my friends. Even around other southerns, you want to "turn it down" in a professional setting. I don't think there's any danger of English teachers not pushing standard American English. Mastering it does open doors. But I think we should also learn about other dialects, because in learning about them…

'Southern English' is 'Standard American English' :) It's just an accent, not a dialect :)

Not really, there are distinct grammatical features (e.g. y'all). There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But it is certainly an accurate use of linguistic terminology to describe Southern American English (which obviously has internal variation also) as a separate dialect or group of dialects.
Post reply on HN