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

A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

the-magazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 262 posts

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#161

Post by eridius »

Cushman wrote: post #156
eridius wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He most certainly did not speak modern English, which is the English we're talking about. > Students of English language and literature will also know that, had you lived in England up to the 17th century, you’d also have been doubling your negatives with gay abandon and not incurring the wrath of the grammar police. The key part here is "up to the 17th century". If you had bothered to continue reading, you would hav…

Shakespeare most certainly did speak, and write, Modern English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English . If your claim is that he did not speak an identical dialect to you, well, neither do many English speakers who use double negatives for emphasis (or because they are grammatically required) every day.

I said "modern English", not "Modern English". The fact that Wikipedia defines a term "Modern English" to mean English spoken since ~1550 is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#162

Post by Cushman »

eridius wrote: post #161
Cushman wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shakespeare most certainly did speak, and write, Modern English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English . If your claim is that he did not speak an identical dialect to you, well, neither do many English speakers who use double negatives for emphasis (or because they are grammatically required) every day.

I said "modern English", not "Modern English". The fact that Wikipedia defines a term "Modern English" to mean English spoken since ~1550 is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

Wikipedia, referencing the science of linguistics. And it ain't a scare capital, they call it Modern because it is. English spoken since the Great Vowel Shift does not differ from English spoken today any more than dialects of English spoken today differ from each other.

If you want to claim that Shakespeare did not speak modern English, capitalized or non, you will need to specify exactly what you think you mean, because the statement as written is just not true.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#163

Post by Cushman »

omonra wrote: post #160
Cushman wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To reiterate your parent: The point is not that they should not be taught ASE. The point is if a young child writes, "No tengo", you'll say, hey, we need to get a Spanish speaker in here to teach this kid some ESL. But if they write, "I ain't got none", you'll say, hey, we need to put this kid in remedial English because that's incorrect . But that's just factually false. Both of these children speak a proper first l…

Your argument seems to rest on the premise that teaching them in Standard English will imply that ebonics is wrong. And that is somehow bad. I, meanwhile, just don't care. The world will not care about their feelings - and the earlier they learn SE, the better. I am only interested in what is the most effective way to learn SE (any variety that news anchors speak in Anglophone countries). I want them to succeed outsi…

> And I think the best way that would be achieved is if they learn proper English at school, full stop.

Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but this is not the opinion of, among many notable others, the Oakland school board since 1996.

I entreat you to consider that they (and I) might have a good reason that extends beyond "feelings". Perhaps a good reason elaborated upon at length in the article linked at the top of this very page?

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#164

Post by stan_rogers »

dsfasfasf wrote: post #58
JoelSutherland wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you read the article. "Schools should recognize the legitimacy of AAVE as a language for their students, and teach those students to recognize when and how to switch between AAVE and American English as appropriate. But most schools don’t do that. They simply teach students that the way they speak is wrong. Don’t talk this way; talk our way. Wheeler says we’re still not doing right by children who grow…

Seriously, you are equating AAVE with Spanish. AAVE is how people of poorer means speak or with less education speak, even if it's not politically correct to say it. Spanish is an actual language hundreds of years old and spoken by multiple nations. By your logic you might as well recognize English slang as an actual language. -Edit: So for those arguing that AAVE is a dialect, then If I add a few rules to any other…

Responding to your edit: no, the rules of AAVE nearly all originate in non-standard dialects of British and Irish (Hirberno-) English. They aren't something that spontaneously arose from a deprived economic climate or a dysfunctional society. There are only a very tiny number of differences between AAVE and American Standard English that can be explained by an element of weak creolization (such as the dropping of to be in statements of identity and optional inversion in forming questions); the rest find exact parallels in dialects on the ground throughout Britain and Ireland. In fact, most Newfoundlanders would have little trouble with the grammar (though not necessarily the slang) of AAVE, since their native dialect derives from a very similar mixture of British and Irish dialects. While it can probably be fairly stated that the colour bar has been responsible for the isolation of the black vernacular grammar (and its failure to transition to something closer to American Standard English), it is not dissimilar to the native English dialects of the people who were once working alongside them as indentured servants rather than as slaves.

The idea that diglossia (or triglossia) does not exist in the mouths of educated, and even privileged speakers of English (wherever they may live) is preposterous outside of a relatively small part of the American socioeconomic strata (and by American, I mean North American — much of Canada is weirdly homogeneous as well). Most native speakers of English speak two or more "Englishes", each with its own grammar and vocabulary. AAVE is not a "lesser" dialect; despite its speakers often being disadvantaged, the language itself is no less legitimate. However, like most of us, in order to move outside of their dialectical grouping, speakers of AAVE must also have command of the prevailing standard — just like Jeff Foxworthy's redneck brain surgeon.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#165

Post by dandelany »

Hairy_Sandwich wrote: post #70
blocking_io wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article points out, if it were 'bad English', the rules of AAVE would not be consistently applied. However, speakers know how to use the rules and they always apply them. Saying that 'calling it a language' is bad is truly ignorant. As far as linguists are concerned, it is a language. If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong. There is nothing inherently better about the English you speak compared to their En…

I don't think there are any rules to "AAVE" either, one speaker of this dialect? creole? language? or whatever we're calling it, would not be able to point out grammatical errors in the speech of another. I think the following would all be considered valid AAVE: I ain’t tell nobody nothing about no sushi. or I didn’t tell nobody nothing about no sushi. or I didn’t tell nobody about no sushi. or I didn’t tell nobody a…

Sorry, but you're just wrong - not "I disagree with you" - but your facts are wrong. There are many rules, as other posters have said, and people who speak AAVE regularly would absolutely be able to pick out grammatical errors. If I said "I didn't tell him anything about anybody," it would be grammatically correct English. If I said "I ain't tell him nothing about nobody," it would be gramatically correct AAVE. If I said "I ain't tell him nothing about anybody," or "I ain't tell him anything about nobody," AAVE speakers would certainly recognize it as incorrect. Most AAVE speakers I know would probably make fun of you for mixing dialects.

Your four examples of valid AAVE prove absolutely nothing. Most statements in English can be formed correctly in many different ways without drastically changing meaning. Here are the English corollaries to your AAVE examples:

I didn't tell anybody anything about any sushi. I didn't tell anyone a thing about any sushi. I didn't tell anyone about any sushi. I didn't tell anybody about sushi.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#166

Post by Nursie »

jinushaun wrote: post #11

I think ebonics if a load of crock, but as an aficionado of linguistics, I don't understand the resistance to double negatives in "proper" English. The "ain't got none" construct exists in many other languages. The double negative reinforces each other, instead of canceling each other out.

Sometimes double negatives do cancel or change meaning though - "I can't do that" and "I can't not do that" have distinct meanings.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#167

Post by dandelany »

Hairy_Sandwich wrote: post #106
blocking_io wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are any rules to "AAVE" either, one speaker of this dialect? creole? language? or whatever we're calling it, would not be able to point out grammatical errors in the speech of another. You're wrong. Linguists have been studying AAVE for years. It has been determined how the grammar of AAVE differs from SAE. All are bad English, i have no doubt whatsoever, that all would be understood by a speaker…

"You're wrong. Linguists have been studying AAVE for years. " Yeah but I didn't say Linguists wouldn't be able concoct a grammar for AAVE, I said one AAVE speaker would not be able to point out the grammatical errors of another. The sentence I gave was an example of AAEV from the article. The article used the sentence "I ain’t tell nobody nothing about no sushi". I just gave a bunch of other examples I thought would…

"If AAEV truly is a language then I'll come around eventually with the right explanation."

I wish this were true, but it doesn't seem to be. Several posters have given you well-thought-out, factual explanations for your misunderstanding of AAVE, but you seem to sweep them all under the rug because you think that "one AAVE speaker would not be able to point out the grammatical errors of another" - an assertion not based in fact at all.

Let's say I told you I didn't believe the earth was round, but that I'm keeping an open mind. You would, of course, bring up scientific data and expert opinions. To which I reply, "Well it still seems flat to me. Look!" stomp stomp "See, pretty darn flat! This round-earth theory of yours seems like just a result of PC politics. But keep trying - if the earth really is round, I just need the right explanation to win me over." Am I really being open-minded?

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#168

Post by smallegan »

richardjordan wrote: post #9
smallegan wrote: post #4

I think in order for a language to gain any significant amount of respect it needs to be used in commerce and more than just illegal commerce.

With a comment like that, either you didn't read the article or you just brought your own bigotry to it and left with it in tact.

I did read the article and was expounding upon footnote #1: "These are sometimes pidgins or creoles, such as the Chinook Jargon of the Pacific Northwest, and sometimes fully realized natively spoken languages, like Swahili or French, that become the de facto tool for commerce or diplomacy in larger areas." This ain't got nothin to do with bigotry and actually I don't got nothing against no "Ebonics"/AAVE.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#169

Post by smallegan »

mpyne wrote: post #18
smallegan wrote: post #4

I think in order for a language to gain any significant amount of respect it needs to be used in commerce and more than just illegal commerce.

Some of the nicest, hardest-working, and most experienced people I've had the pleasure of working with in my current job speak AAVE. Don't let your preconceptions cloud your judgment as to the validity of a language.

This was ONLY a comment on what I think it takes for a language to grab hold and not a comment on the people who speak it.

Re: A mother tongue spoken by millions of Americans still gets no respect

#170

Post by dyno12345 »

Daishiman wrote: post #144
dyno12345 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As counterexample I would still call American English and Brazilian Portuguese dialects, even though they have armies and navies. I'm not sure if I would call Afrikaans a dialect.

Americans self-identify with English just as much as Brazilians identify themselves with Portuguese. This issue arises when this is not the case.

I can think examples of any combination of "has army/not", "is language/dialect". Mutual intelligibility doesn't even matter either way.

has army, is dialect: Schweizerdeutch, American English, Brazilian Portuguese

has army, is language: Norwegian (v. Danish)

no army, is language: Yiddish, Afrikaans

no army, is dialect: Frisian

Post reply on HN