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

stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#51

Post by mattmaroon »

_pius wrote: post #49
mattmaroon wrote: post #47

This seems to make the ludicrous argument that because the mistakes are consistent they are not mistakes.

What is any dialect or derived language but a set of consistent mistakes with respect to the ancestor language? A dialect that lacks prestige is no less a dialect for it — that was one of the points of the article.

I was trying to point out that that is a bad way of framing it. To call it a dialect may be technically correct, if you're merely arguing semantics.

However to accept it as a legitimate dialect is another thing. If your child spoke that way you would constantly correct them, for their own good. It'd be much better for all involved to redefine "dialect" to not include something that devolved from another language via mistakes made by dumb rednecks who can't understand the concept of a double negative.

If we call that a dialect, then the very word "dialect" is broken.

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#52

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Listened to a great series of lectures on the story of human language a while back: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1600

I learned two things that are equally true and somewhat self-contradictory. 1) Language is a continuum, not a rigid thing. There is no right or wrong language. If you are communicating you're doing it right. 2) Most all societies have a "high" language and a "low" language. Sometimes there are multiple layers. People who want to move in better circles learn to conform and work fluently in the "high" language.

The continuum question was especially interesting. Is Old French just bad Latin? Or is it a different language? What about those languages that have one spoken form and two written forms? The same language with different names because of political considerations? Lots of neat history and trivia here. I really enjoyed the series.

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#53

Post by _pius »

mattmaroon wrote: post #51
_pius wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is any dialect or derived language but a set of consistent mistakes with respect to the ancestor language? A dialect that lacks prestige is no less a dialect for it — that was one of the points of the article.

I was trying to point out that that is a bad way of framing it. To call it a dialect may be technically correct, if you're merely arguing semantics. However to accept it as a legitimate dialect is another thing. If your child spoke that way you would constantly correct them, for their own good. It'd be much better for all involved to redefine "dialect" to not include something that devolved from another language via…

If we call that a dialect, then the very word "dialect" is broken.

Then, I suppose, the word dialect is broken. :)

There's a long history of vernacular dialects lacking prestige and casting aspersions on their speakers. Shakespeare, notably, wrote his plays in the vernacular to connect with his audiences. [1] Chaucer did the same with Canterbury Tales. [2] Of course we forget that now because we revere those authors as purveyors of great literature.

To call it a dialect may be technically correct, if you're merely arguing semantics. However to accept it as a legitimate dialect is another thing. If your child spoke that way you would constantly correct them, for their own good.

Matt, I'm a young, intelligent, black male in America: I would never let my kids grow up speaking AAVE exclusively. Trust me. But neither I nor the author are arguing the prestige of the dialect.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_influence#The_c...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular_literature

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#54

Post by jfarmer »

mattmaroon wrote: post #51
_pius wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is any dialect or derived language but a set of consistent mistakes with respect to the ancestor language? A dialect that lacks prestige is no less a dialect for it — that was one of the points of the article.

I was trying to point out that that is a bad way of framing it. To call it a dialect may be technically correct, if you're merely arguing semantics. However to accept it as a legitimate dialect is another thing. If your child spoke that way you would constantly correct them, for their own good. It'd be much better for all involved to redefine "dialect" to not include something that devolved from another language via…

It's not ludicrous, and you're being ignorant. Additionally, using words like "legitimate" and "devolved" illustrate perfectly the concept of high-prestige versus low-prestige language dialects.

People don't speak AAVE because they're lazy or dumb. They speak AAVE because they grew up where everyone else speaks AAVE.

If the South had won the Civil War you might not think using double negatives, double modals, etc. were a sign of stupidity -- AAVE and Southern (white) English share many common syntactic and morphological features.

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#55

Post by pg »

_pius wrote: post #43
pg wrote: post #11

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. Which is true for some definitions of mistake, and false for others. The problem with the definitions that make it true is that there's a slippery slope from dialects to idiolects. How many people have to speak a dialect for it to count as a dialect? You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in…

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. This is the very epitome of attacking a strawman. The article didn't come close to arguing that "no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake." As a matter of fact, the author specifically and painstakingly drew a distinction between what he considers simply mistake-based variants of lan…

The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would.

What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. Their speakers couldn't understand one another otherwise. So if your definition of mistake = inconsistency, then (by definition) you'll never find a vernacular that embodies mistakes.

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#56

Post by grandalf »

pg wrote: post #11

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. Which is true for some definitions of mistake, and false for others. The problem with the definitions that make it true is that there's a slippery slope from dialects to idiolects. How many people have to speak a dialect for it to count as a dialect? You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in…

pg: In linguistics a grammar is just a series of rules. "Proper English" is not a linguistic concept, it's a social concept.

If you were raised in a household and exposed to proper English input, your native language is proper English. You have accomplished nothing other than learning the language you were exposed to. Similarly, if you are born into a household that speaks Spanish or AAVE or Dutch (and are fed and otherwise not abused too significantly), you will learn one of those languages and become a fluent speaker without any conscious effort.

AAVE is no more "improper" Standard English than Spanish is improper Standard English.

Of course, if you're taking a course in school on Standard English and you choose to turn in a paper written in AAVE (or Spanish), you are likely not to get an A.

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#57

Post by grandalf »

pg wrote: post #55
_pius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. This is the very epitome of attacking a strawman. The article didn't come close to arguing that "no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake." As a matter of fact, the author specifically and painstakingly drew a distinction between what he considers simply mistake-based variants of lan…

The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would. What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. Their speakers couldn't understand one another…

A linguist would argue that it's a mistake only if an adult speaker learned the language after the critical period and didn't manage to grasp all of the rules.

If a child (or someone who grew up in the language environment) made the "mistake" then it's an example of language change in action... unless the child is so young that it's simply a language learning artifact such as "I goed to the store today, daddy" (which, incidentally, is logically consistent with other past-tense forms yet ungrammatical b/c of social norms)...

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#58

Post by pg »

grandalf wrote: post #56
pg wrote: post #11

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. Which is true for some definitions of mistake, and false for others. The problem with the definitions that make it true is that there's a slippery slope from dialects to idiolects. How many people have to speak a dialect for it to count as a dialect? You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in…

pg: In linguistics a grammar is just a series of rules. "Proper English" is not a linguistic concept, it's a social concept. If you were raised in a household and exposed to proper English input, your native language is proper English. You have accomplished nothing other than learning the language you were exposed to. Similarly, if you are born into a household that speaks Spanish or AAVE or Dutch (and are fed and ot…

Do you really believe I don't understand that human languages are just grammatical conventions their speakers observe?

If you think you disagree with me in some way, could you point out a sentence I wrote that you believe is false, and explain why it is?

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#59

Post by grandalf »

pg wrote: post #58
grandalf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pg: In linguistics a grammar is just a series of rules. "Proper English" is not a linguistic concept, it's a social concept. If you were raised in a household and exposed to proper English input, your native language is proper English. You have accomplished nothing other than learning the language you were exposed to. Similarly, if you are born into a household that speaks Spanish or AAVE or Dutch (and are fed and ot…

Do you really believe I don't understand that human languages are just grammatical conventions their speakers observe? If you think you disagree with me in some way, could you point out a sentence I wrote that you believe is false, and explain why it is?

Well, I think the burden of proof is on you to show why language mistakes matter at all.

If I can understand what someone else said or wrote (or spelled!), then why do we need a central authority to determine what is correct vs incorrect? Isn't there a fairly significant incentive toward conformity for efficiency's sake?

It's as if there were a call for some central authority to critique the names people are given (which, incidentally, change over time just as languages do). It is my opinion that someone named, say, Shanikwa had about as much control over her name as anyone else does over his/her native grammar, and those who judge someone on the basis of their name are just as much playing the social judgment card as those who judge a person's native grammar. Doing so is purely a social status play, and has no useful/pragmatic significance or objective superiority.

The fact is, language changes over time like any other fashion. If you don't like a particular grammar or a particular fashion that is a matter of taste. I can look at someone's outfit and say "ooh, fashion mistake", but is there really any reason why I would find doing so useful?

You can make the argument that using Standard English (and wearing a suit) are useful social conventions to adopt when going to a job interview, but I think the usefulness of either judgment ends there.

Re: African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes

#60

Post by _pius »

pg wrote: post #55
_pius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake. This is the very epitome of attacking a strawman. The article didn't come close to arguing that "no vernacular variant of any language could possibly embody a mistake." As a matter of fact, the author specifically and painstakingly drew a distinction between what he considers simply mistake-based variants of lan…

The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would. What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules. Their speakers couldn't understand one another…

Thanks for the clarification.

The author drew a distinction between making a grammatical mistakes, and a vernacular dialect. He didn't claim that there were some vernacular dialects that embodied mistakes and others that didn't. I can't imagine any linguist who would.

Fair enough. When you said "vernacular variants" (as opposed to dialects) it sounded as if you were including all vernacular variants including simple grammatical mistakes, sporadic use of slang, etc.

What I'm saying is that all vernaculars have consistently observed (surely you don't literally mean well-specified) grammatical rules.

I agree that all vernacular dialects have consistent rules. And you're right, I did mean consistently observed, not well-specified.

Post reply on HN