![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I haven't read Geneva Smitherman's Black Talk, but I think these derivations are questionable, particularly for 'jive', supposedly from Zulu. There were essentially no slaves taken from what is now South Africa, so this seems unlikely to me. For 'hip' and 'dig' my Shorter OED lists the former as 'unknown etymology' and lists the latter under the standard definition of dig, with no African origin. I don't know how reliable Smitherman is, but if anyone has access to this book, could you please check these derivations? Makerowner 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm making this here because discussing how the Cosby quote should be put into the article above was too difficult to navigate through all of the unrelated material. Joe says that Joe is opposed to the Cosby quote being called "famous". The fact is it did get a lot of media attention when it was said and caused a basic uproar among afrocentrists who criticized Cosby. It does fit the definition of "famous". Wikidudeman (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
New Cosby version: Most notably, Bill Cosby, in his Pound Cake speech, criticized members of the African American community for various social behaviors including exclusive use of AAVE[.] Three points:
-- Hoary 09:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Me, above, on the citation of Bereiter and Engelmann, Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool (1966):
Ƶ§œš¹ in response, above:
They ignored one linguistic consensus, but they could very reasonably have been unaware of a second one (or, if you prefer, of the application of the first one).
I wrote that I note that its publication predates the huge majority of serious research into AAVE. I knew that there was good analysis in the 60s but was hazy about which was which and precisely when it all took place. Some more reading of Baugh's excellent Beyond Ebonics reminds me.
The major work of scholarship that examined and described the intricate grammar of AAVE was William Labov's "The Logic of Nonstandard English", a forty-plus-page paper published in volume 22 of something with the not obviously made-for-Hollywood title of Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics in 1969. Well over thirty years later, its effect clearly hasn't reached at least one of the most vociferous editors of this page. But we should give it two or three years to reach the sleepier of university linguistics departments. As for pedagogy, even the kind that gets published by Prentice Hall, we should perhaps give it five years and certainly no less than two years.
Let's be stringent and say two years. That's 1971, five years after the publication of Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool.
I don't say that Bereiter and Engelmann ignored (let alone refuted) what we -- uh, well, most of us -- now know about AAVE. They can't be expected to have known it.
There's no point in citing books from the 60s as examples of what is intelligently believed now. -- Hoary 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Aw, please. . . . Here's what the article says:
At least three citations are needed, two are supplied. One is so old that its writers can't be blamed for lacking an elementary understanding of AAVE; the other by somebody so crass (and bigoted?) as to choose remain ignorant of AAVE and whose criticism of the role/use of AAVE is clearly related to his ignorance of AAVE itself.
Meanwhile, mention that Middle America's beloved Cosby referred to AAVE as "crap" is expunged.
As it stands now, the article presents no evidence for what it suggests: that there are reasoned objections to the use of AAVE. It gives the wrong impression that the objections it cites are well informed, whereas almost certainly they're to a large degree the result of excusable ignorance (Bereiter and Engelmann) and willful ignorance (Govero). -- Hoary 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen on the page any criticism of the user of AAVE that's worth more than a glance. I don't say it exists; I just haven't yet seen it. I find it hard to believe that there could be any recent criticism of AAVE itself that's neither ignorant nor stupid.
Bereiter and Engelmann can hardly be expected to know what they're talking about (which is not their fault), Cosby doesn't know what he's talking about, Govero doesn't know what he's talking about. Cosby strikes me as going gaga and Govero as a batshit insane Little Lord Fauntleroy, but it seems that we're compelled to present the goofball "side of the story". If for some reason we can't simply quote Cosby and Govero uttering the idiotic comments ("crap", etc.) that explain their motivation for the part of what they say that's less obviously wacko, then how about this:
-- Hoary 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's sometimes claimed on this talk page or in the everchanging article itself that certain "educators and social commentators" (or similar) have no particular beef with AAVE itself but criticize the extent of its use. (After his telltale word "crap" is politely removed, Cosby is made to sound like this.)
I'm willing to believe that such people and such opinions exist, and I'm willing to have them presented in a Wikipedia article. But I haven't encountered them yet. It's my impression that if you investigate what appears to be criticism of the use of AAVE, you pretty soon find that it's based on the same old ignorance of AAVE itself. It argues from false premisses.
This isn't just my impression. The entry for "Black English Vernacular" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language rightly accords the criticism/controversy stuff a small place at the end, immediately before the conclusion. Here's what it says:
“ | [M]any misconceptions about BEV prevail, especially that it is simply 'bad English' and that it holds African Americans back in education and employment opportunities because of this. The dominant issue for BEV is a stereotype that equates non-standard usage with stupidity. Its negative consequences continue to affect the prospects of black American children. Because BEV is devalued and misunderstood, uninformed citizens (including many teachers with excellent intentions) continue to denigrate it in favour of standard [American English]. Few such educators, whether or not they have a training in linguistics, have learned about the history and nature of African-American English, and fail therefore to appreciate its diversity and logical integrity as a long-established variety of the language. | ” |
(Mention of "diversity" reminds me of a major shortcoming in the WP article. By contrast, diversity is emphasized in the BEV article within OCEL.)
That criticism of the "use" of AAVE stems from misunderstanding of AAVE itself seems to be a lot more than a mere hunch: the OCEL article presents it as a straightforward fact. -- Hoary 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently the section about criticism of AAVE and the use of AAVE is located in the "Education" section. However this isn't the right place for it. When Cosby criticized the use of AAVE in his speech he wasn't criticizing it's use in education but it's use in general. Having his speech and other criticism in the "education" section doesn't make sense. Moreover, Why keep removing the actual quotes from his speech? Why can't they be included? The reader needs to get an idea of exactly what Cosby was saying and from the mouth of Cosby himself and needs to make an interpretation of it that way. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is why I suggested you write an overview section dealing with controversies within black culture in general. Im not sure any of us is in fact up to the task, but certainly thats whats required. I know Joe and others have suggested that education be the only focus of criticism, but that would only exclude all other matters of culture. - Ste| vertigo 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems every time I make a contribution to this article you revert it. If I add citations, You revert it. If I correct spelling, you revert it. If I change the name of a section title to something that correctly identifies with the article body, you revert it. And your only edit summary is "rv". That's not an edit summary. You need to explain WHAT you're reverting and WHY you're reverting it. If you just want to change 1 thing in an edit I make then don't revert it. Make that change by editing the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note some of the new policy regarding sources, and how it relates to this article:
A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
I don't think Bill Cosby is known for his fact-checking. I would also like to note what Jimmy Wales has to say about "Crackpot articles":
(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect
(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.
The Cosby quote seems to fall under (b). Makerowner 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude Man, nobody will dispute your assertion that you have repeated yourself.
You say: Cosby's ideas are not crackpot.
What, the "pound cake" stuff again? They are so confused that it's hard to derive any sense out of them. But here they are, with commentary. A quick reminder for those too busy to click that link:
Well, Dude Man, if his ideas (crackpot or otherwise) are moderately coherent, perhaps you can summarize them for us here, and also point out where I've gone wrong in my description of them above.
Are they perhaps "not crackpot" because, in his incoherent way, Crosby appears to feel the truthiness of your own nutty notion, as expressed a month ago, that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are [sic] limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE, and that AAVE has a lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas? Even if we take "basic English" not as this but instead as an attempt to express the concept of "Standard American English", ideas such as this will be brushed aside by anybody who has read any of dozens of well-informed books about language. (Try Bauer and Trudgill's Language Myths. It's really easy to read.)
Or perhaps I misunderestimate you. OK: which book have you read? -- Hoary 08:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You have claimed dozens of times that Cosby is not your source, but we have all expressed our disagreement. If we accept your logic, then quoting a book is using the publishing company as a source, not the author. Cosby is clearly the source of the opinions expressed. Makerowner 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the start of the op-ed piece by Walker, linked to within the section on "AAVE in education":
“ | The Ku Klux Klan could not have come up with a better plan to impede the academic progress of young black children than the idea of teaching Ebonics as a separate language. | ” |
-- Hoary 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
While the "mediation" process here is in a bit of a lull, our "mediator" is busy elsewhere. Odd things are going on at Wikipedia:Attribution. This, in case you're not up to date on such matters, is pretty weighty stuff: This new merged policy page has replaced Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (which, you'll recall, were often cited as two of the three pillars of WP, the other being NPoV). And yup, This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. [...] When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Feel free to look at the history yourself, but here's a brief summary (provided for those who, like me, read top to bottom rather than bottom to top):
So what's it all about, then? That last set of three edits by Stevertigo replaces one paragraph with eight (one of which is a quotation from elsewhere). Here's the last but one of the paragraphs that our mediator wants to get in:
“ | NPOV trumps all other standards on Wikipedia for a good reason, in that given two sides in a topic, both must be represented. This is done without mischaracterising their views as either "nonbelieving" or "crackpot" (again using the example of science and religion), though it is fair to characterise majority and minority views. | ” |
Ah. Let's suppose for a moment that Pullum et al. are in the minority in believing that AAVE is just as fine a linguistic tool as Standard American English. (I really don't know if this is true, but my inner Ambrose Bierce would not to be so surprised to find it was indeed true.) Then, per Stevertigo, it's quite OK to say that Pullum's is the minority opinion. The "other side" of this topic? Step up Alberto Manguel. Apparently Manguel wrote in 1998 that AAVE is "nothing but a vastly impoverished version of Standard English". Now, it seems to me that "crackpot" is a pretty good term for somebody who either ignores or chooses to remain ignorant of easily available knowledge on a subject that he writes about so publicly. (It's not that he doesn't like books: His WP article tells us that he has thirty thousand of them. But then again maybe he just likes the sight of their serried spines.)
Our "mediator" points out that NPOV (the balanced presentation of all views on a subject) trumps RS for a good reason. This notion doesn't appear in WP:NPOV. It is, however, very close to something that the "mediator" is simultaneously (and so far unsuccessfully) trying to insert within a different policy page. So he seems keen to align this AAVE article with principles of Wikipedia that he has freshly adjusted to his own taste.
Irish jokes tells us that Irish jokes are a class of jokes based on a stereotype of the Irish people as unintelligent. I won't argue with that. Yes, such a stereotype exists. Ergo, the idea that Irish people are unintelligent is not merely that of a tiny minority. Yet Irish people rightly does not present this "side" of a "controversy" about Irish people. That's because no sane, sober person attempts to argue it. The alleged stupidity of Irish people, the alleged defects of AAVE: the two notions have about the same significance. It's probable that nobody continues to argue for either PoV in anything worth citing, though crackpots continue to argue from one of these goofy notions and perhaps from the other as well. -- Hoary 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that hole thing was a lot of fun; now can we fix the article? I also oppose a controversy section, for basically the same reasons, but I think the article should emphasize the popular opinion of AAVE, because this is an important part of its speakers' experience of it. It should be made clear, obviously, that linguists reject all these criticisms. Makerowner 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoary, Pinkville and Asshoes have repeatedly deviated from talking about the issues here to making personal remarks against me. Naturally I dont have anything fancy or clever to say in retort, nor am I much interested in their complete obliviousness to NPOV on such a basic and elementary Wikipedian principle. Mediation has not succeeded and rather I think arbitration is in order. Lots of useless discussion that I will not read. - Ste| vertigo 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I move that we table the "social criticism"/Cosby discussion on this talk page. If Wikidudeman still feels the need to argue with the editors who disagree with him, we all have our user talk pages. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Cosby has long been a critic of certain social mores prominent in poor African-American communities, including so-called excessive childbearing, failure to refrain from AAVE use, and reliance on welfare. Now, ignoring for the moment the question of his authority on the matter, he is lending a voice to a very real controversy: people think that AAVE sounds "ignorant" and bidialectal users should not use it.
Perhaps the best solution here is to provide an accurate summary of the real issues at hand. There is a non-academic belief that AAVE is "unsophisticated" and "ignorant." A proper encyclopedic entry would discuss that view and detail the division between experts in linguistics and the general population. This is an excellent example of when the uneducated public is simply wrong, and this article would be lacking if it failed to address this point.
Then Wikidudeman can throw his Cosby reference out there and those who know the facts surrounding AAVE use can demonstrate that it is not "ignorant," "unsophisticated," or whatnot. This article can discuss the controversy more than what is found in the last paragraph of the "Social Context" section, and we can all get on with our lives and have a better Wikipedia at the end.
I, of course, welcome all criticisms. I'm still a tad new at building wiki-bridges. UMassCowboy 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I will support a temporary break from debating this as long as you don't remove the Cosby quote from the article. If however you take the one symbolism of neutrality from the article then all deals are off. I would be forced to continue discussing this and taking other relevant steps to ensure neutrality. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've spent the last 3 weeks explaining that. If you want my explanation then check the archives. I'm tired of going in circles over and over with you. If you want a waltzing partner then you're looking in the wrong place. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You talk of contexts. Right then, the contexts are those of:
Those are just a few of the contexts, off the top of my head. Given a few hours, I might tinker with them, aggregating one or two, deleting one or two, adding more. And even after that, I might not have got them right: I don't claim to know all the answers on the status of AAVE and am open to intelligent arguments. I'm sure that, given time, the contexts can be reformulated and summarized by people who are at least averagely intelligent, well read, and energetic. It can't be done by people merely starstruck by particular entertainers or by Google hits, etc. -- Hoary 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope that a sociolinguist does it. If nobody else steps up for the job, I might have to start it: I probably wouldn't do a good job, but I'm fairly confident I'd do an honest one. However, ignorance, misinformation and irrational prejudice in this area aren't subjects that thrill me. ¶ Incidentally, my list of contexts now looks very poorly expressed, even to me. -- Hoary 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems someone in linguistics has an essay due, because I can hardly find any books on English phonology at my school library these days. Someone went ahead and changed the line on final obstruent devoicing and gives a source, but I haven't been able to check it. I think this section should note that not all of these features occur for all speakers at all times; variation in age, geography, and register affects which variant a speaker uses in a given situation. I also think it should focus on the mesolectal or most common features (eg. not showing [θ]→[t], or at least highlighting that it is rare. Makerowner 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed (?) it according to Green. Green says flatly that word-initial /θ/ is realized as [θ], which disagrees with Wardhaugh (as he/she is (mis?)cited) and certainly accords with my own casual impressions of AAVE. Disappointingly, Green doesn't comment on the difference between realizations of the two SE "th" phonemes as (a) interdental or (b) plosive. (Perhaps it's in part a geographical matter, but she doesn't say.) Green also says nothing about lengthening the vowel.
You chaps (chapesses) know more about phonetics and phonology than me, so please check and see that I haven't made some booh-booh. -- Hoary 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to ask what may seem like a dumb question, but in a sentence like "Ain't no white cop gonna put his hands on me," (I took this example from Linguistics: An Introduction by Radford et al.) does ain't mean "there isn't" or "doesn't"? Also, somebody included the example "I ain't know that". Can ain't be used instead of didn't in any construction or are there constraints on its use? The Merriam-Webster writes that ain't used for don't, etc. is restricted to some varieties of Black English. I made a change to the article reflecting this. Joeldl 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Must mean "there isn't": i.e., there is no white cop capable of/who would dare ; I would never suffer any white cop to, etc. The other example sounds regional. Moulv i 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that AAVE is a "degradation of English", although commonly held by the public, is rejected by linguists. See citations elsewhere in the article (such as Labov) for this. Perhaps the word "unfounded" is a poor choice. But as it stands, the text is more informative than without it. Readers should know what is merely a popular belief, and it is possible and desirable for an encyclopedia to reflect the facts here. Please find a better formulation conveying this information to the reader rather than just doing away with "unfounded". Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
AAVE introduces both inherent ambiguities (phrases in AAVE which can have multiple meanings) and contextual ambiguities (phrases that are ambiguous if the listener doesn't know that the speaker is speaking AAVE). Taken by themselves, these ambiguities constitute a clear degradation of the English language. Whether AAVE, taken as a whole, is a degradation is a matter of opinion, and WP should not by taking sides in the matter. Heqwm 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job to who ever realized that this aricle needs a POV tag. It was undobutably written by a middle-aged white man with no actual interaction with minorities. I found it kinda racist. Slayerofangels 00:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Should this page maybe be (semi-)protected? This vandalism is getting pretty annoying. We do clean it up quickly, but a) it's a waste of our time; and b) people who see the article before we fix it might be offended or misinformed, or simply think badly of Wikipedia because of it. What does everyone think? Makerowner 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to seem some articles that actually warrant protection. This article's 'vandalization' hardly warrants protection. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I was just putting the idea out there. Never mind. Makerowner 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just another way for SOME know-it-all whites to explain to each other what they think they know about us ... comment added at 18:20, 24 March 2007 by 68.201.118.165 ( contributions)
The point is, 99% of us blacks know proper English. So don't think that this is the way we speak all the time. We can talk the proper way anytime we want, but what you call AAVE just seems more expressive to us. Now, black children and some elders are probably the only ones who aren't educated on the proper way to speak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 ( talk • contribs).
Is this article the right place for information on Black rhetorial traditions in the church? For example everyone knows that MLK was a master orator. How dose AAVE inform the stylized speech of Baptist preachers? I'm searching the web now... here's is an interesting paper:
futurebird 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone with the requisite knowledge fill out the third column of the following table? I think it would be helpful to have in the article once filled out. — Lowellian ( reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Standard English | African-American Vernacular English | |
---|---|---|
simple present | I walk. | ?? |
simple past | I walked. | ?? |
simple future | I will walk. | ?? |
present perfect | I have walked. | ?? |
past perfect | I had walked. | ?? |
future perfect | I will have walked. | ?? |
simple present progressive | I am walking. | ?? |
simple past progressive | I was walking. | ?? |
simple future progressive | I will be walking. | ?? |
present perfect progressive | I have been walking. | ?? |
past perfect progressive | I had been walking. | ?? |
future perfect progressive | I will have been walking. | ?? |
— Lowellian ( reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: When Makerowner says "above unsigned post" he is referring to the post of this diff: [2]. I moved that post by anonymous user 68.201.118.165 up above to the heading and dialogue to which he or she seemed to actually be responding. — Lowellian ( reply) 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think people say "I'll walk." They just contract "I will walk"; I think that's as common as adding the "am going to." — Lowellian ( reply) 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't a single direct equivalent, could editors please give several possible equivalents? — Lowellian ( reply) 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Try to think of it this way. Imagine a hypothetical person standing somewhere who speaks only, say, General American. And he or she says, "I'll walk to the store." Now replace that hypothetical person with a different hypothetical person who has the same mood/intent and is in the same circumstances and is identical except that he or she speaks only AAVE. What would that person say? Once we know this, we can fill in the simple future row. Do this for the rest of the phrases in the table, and the rest of the table can be filled out. — Lowellian ( reply) 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Standard English | African-American Vernacular English | |
---|---|---|
simple present | I walk. | I walk. |
simple past | I walked. | I walked. |
simple future | I will walk. | I'm'a walk. |
present perfect | I have walked. | I done walked. |
past perfect | I had walked. | I had walked. |
future perfect | I will have walked. | I woulda walked. |
simple present progressive | I am walking. | I'm walkin'. |
simple past progressive | I was walking. | I was walkin'. |
simple future progressive | I will be walking. | I'm'a be walkin'. |
present perfect progressive | I have been walking. | I been walkin'. |
past perfect progressive | I had been walking. | I was walkin'. |
future perfect progressive | I will have been walking. | I'm'a be walkin'. |
Thank you very much, 68.201.... I appreciate it! It's interesting to see. — Lowellian ( reply) 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be appropriate to include a section on the literary uses of this variety of English? Itsmejudith 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that ebonics is just a pervasion of english. It is not a symbol african culture, but a reminder of the damage that was done when they were forced to relocate to America as slaves. They were poorly educated, and this passed on from generation to generation. In today's world, however, we believe that everyone regardless of race deserves the same basic education and now must try to undo this damage. Even the representatives of the black community, the naacp, concurs and I think it should be contributed to the criticism section. It is at this link http://www.largesock.com/writing/webonics.html and even has works cited. Now, if the naacp agrees with this stance, then that is a big criticism toward ebonics. At this link, http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic-issue.html, someone goes on to say that it should be considered its own language, using the reason as it actually being a "more efficient" system. About as efficient as saying "double plus good" I think. It uses the same words as english, even less, just in a different and degraded way by merely omitting parts of the english system rather than actually incorporating its own innovations. If efficiency is a reason, then by all means we should start taking whole words out of the English language and converting everyone to the Newspeak of 1984. This would result in the desecration of the rich culture of the english language that stretches back centuries, which is the exact point George Orwell was trying to make when he wrote the concept. My point is, the NAACP sees ebonics and its acceptance as wrong and I think it should be incorporated into the article. If "culture" is the reason to support ebonics, than I think we should start teaching authentic african languages than supporting and continuing the rape of the english language. It is all just another reason to not have to learn what has been accepted as the standard but make an unneeded "exception" and making everyone conform to it. I doubt people who use ebonics would actually take the time to learn original african languages, again just an excuse to not have to learn proper english either. While it may be "easier", it leaves them at the status quo of inferior education that african americans fought so hard for in the past.
... added in this series of edits on 17 April 2007 by some IP with this edit history
The article seems to discuss AAVE as if it were just one dialect. I have trouble believing that there's a single dialect that could be called AAVE, or even a single standard for it. For instance, in the Aspect marking section, the article lists phrases such as "he be steady workin'" and "he been had that job", but neither phrase sounds familiar to me. (I'm not a native AAVE speaker myself, but I've had a lot of exposure to it and do sometimes subconsciously shift into an AAVE-like dialect if it seems appropriate.) Also, a lot of the time, AAVE phrases and standard English phrases are interchangeable (in the dialect I'm familiar with, not necessarily all dialects, of course). The standard English phrases may be less idiomatic, but I wouldn't consider them "wrong" AAVE (but not all standard English is AAVE; legalese, for instance, would feel completely out of place). I think the article does a little too much to contrast AAVE from standard English; somebody who isn't already familiar with AAVE might get the mistaken impression that there is much less potential for overlap than there actually is. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we add something to this article about AAVE's impact on American culture, and American culture's response? I'm specifically thinking about a recent episode of Boston Legal. Denny Crane told a Black intern interviewee that he was "articulate." When pressed on the issue, he said that he simply meant the young man did not "sound Black." The implications of this are tied into concepts of "systematic racism" and the perception of accent in America, where people with British or Newscaster-style Midwestern accents are generally perceived as smarter than people with Southern, Wisconsin, Texas, New York, or AAVE-derived accents, while the latter are considered wiser in matters of the heart and personal life in general. Such a section should also reference the Boondocks comic strip and TV show. -- 205.201.141.146 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. So many people looking at this page and no one has discovered that HE FINNA GO TO WORK means "HE'S FINALLY GOING TO WORK." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lex94 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 May 2007.
The leading sentence in this article says that jive is a synonym, albeit one with possible pejorative connotations, for AAVE. Is this true? The disambiguation page, on the other hand, says that jive is a "parodied version" of AAVE. This strikes me as unquestionably false, and should be changed, but there are still other options. Perhaps "jive" has more to do with slang. Have young Black Americans ever spoken of their grandmothers as speaking jive, for example? If not, it would be a strong indication that it doesn't refer to AAVE....Jive is obviously not their preferred term for AAVE, but is there even any indication that linguists acknowledge it as a colloquial one? .... added on 8 May 2007 by 205.212.75.246
Excellent! I'm all about these edits. But seeing the disambig rely on that poor lonely signifying article, obviously the proper thing to do for the time being, makes an additional suggestion come to mind. How about a general article on AA speech, which would of course link to AAVE, and to signifying, and to snapping, fussing, etc. if they ever get their own pages? A lot of laypeople seem to be getting very interested in the subject, in and out of WP; and they're probably looking for some help with the big picture and any terminology they may have heard.
A related advantage: The present AAVE article contains an unusually large amount of information about language politics--and, incredible as it seems, the debate seems to be about whether to include more. It seems like for most language entries on WP, the amount of specific politics info is modest; and more general info on prestige, etc. can be linked to for the reader to consult. But this is American politics, race-related politics no less, so of course there's more information--and consequently the article is very unwieldy. Why not move the prestige politics to a subsection of a general AA speech article (add.: especially since nearly every political or media figure who has commented on AAVE has also failed to distinguish it from other AA speech behaviors), and leave AAVE looking more like a normal language article?
Just a suggestion, if you or any other editor out there thinks it's a good idea. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.75.246 ( talk • contribs) at 16:39, 8 May 2007
Yeah, sorry to have endangered your fragile and hard-won peace there. I realize now that I secretly harbored a somewhat elitist desire. It's just that I've seen a surprising number of articles that are a halfway decent quick source for academic subjects. But really, this has only happened where (a) the subject matter is too esoteric for anyone to even try fucking it up, or (b) it's esoteric enough that the article is dominated by editors who enforce the same rule that professionally encyclopedists do on such matters: NPOV means neutral with respect to the academic sociology of the subject; and if you wish to remedy any Eurocentric, anti-Christian, etc. biases in academia itself, you can fight that battle somewhere more productive. It's a policy that's simple, intelligent--and, as far as I can see, completely illegitimate. WP shows no favoritism for academic sociology; to the extent that its policy is clearly described, "neutrality" is supposed to reflect global sociology in some way.
I guess I was so excited that this policy sometimes accidentally produced good results that I was unconsciously plotting to reconcile populist "neutrality" with academic "neutrality" by sociologically balkanizing WP around the academic articles in order to protect their purity--I figured there could be an article describing the academic consensus about fossils, or whatever, with a nod to dissenters that that's all the article aspired to describe. I'd have been perfectly happy with that; but I've since discovered that my fantasy is a heresy known as "forking" and is decidedly not how WP has decided to organize itself. I still suspect that, while apparently unwieldy, my way might be better for the general public: What could be more valuable and convenient than immediately and clearly discerning what the experts think? As long as we're forced into a Dover-Board-of-Ed style mandate to "teach the controversy," we should at least make things clear for the students. ...In the end, I guess it's really just my idle dream; but I'm certainly grateful that there are people with enough faith in WP to make it as good as it can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.74.125 ( talk • contribs)
There are certainly a lot of edit wars that orginate not over whether or not a concept is academically recognized and studied by reliable sources, but rather over whether or not the concept is somehow "fair" or "unfair".and if you wish to remedy any Eurocentric, anti-Christian, etc. biases in academia itself, you can fight that battle somewhere more productive.
I'm a little reluctant to stir this whole thing up again, but why are there POV tags on this article? I can't see any major issues of bias here; the only thing I've noticed is that the creole origin theory seems to get a little more weight than the retention theory. When I see an article with a POV tag, I tend to be a little less confident in its value and I don't think it's necessary here. I'd like to remove them in a few days, after we've had time to discuss this and hear any objections. Makerowner 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This article dose seem to be somewhat in favour of AAVE, but maybe just some minor re-writing rather than a POV tag is best. MattUK 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a dead link to " Garrard Mcclendon" (sic) and I commented that it seemed to have been added as a joke. However the editor's history argued against that, so I googled Garrard McClendon and found that he is an author and lecturer on this topic, and he seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Still -- until there's actually a Wikipedia article, let's hold off on the link from this one. And I take back what I wrote about the link being a joke. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"can make bold, bowl, and bow homophones". Bow as in bow-tie? •Jim62sch• 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought so, but we need to be careful with heteronyms. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I haven't read Geneva Smitherman's Black Talk, but I think these derivations are questionable, particularly for 'jive', supposedly from Zulu. There were essentially no slaves taken from what is now South Africa, so this seems unlikely to me. For 'hip' and 'dig' my Shorter OED lists the former as 'unknown etymology' and lists the latter under the standard definition of dig, with no African origin. I don't know how reliable Smitherman is, but if anyone has access to this book, could you please check these derivations? Makerowner 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm making this here because discussing how the Cosby quote should be put into the article above was too difficult to navigate through all of the unrelated material. Joe says that Joe is opposed to the Cosby quote being called "famous". The fact is it did get a lot of media attention when it was said and caused a basic uproar among afrocentrists who criticized Cosby. It does fit the definition of "famous". Wikidudeman (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
New Cosby version: Most notably, Bill Cosby, in his Pound Cake speech, criticized members of the African American community for various social behaviors including exclusive use of AAVE[.] Three points:
-- Hoary 09:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Me, above, on the citation of Bereiter and Engelmann, Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool (1966):
Ƶ§œš¹ in response, above:
They ignored one linguistic consensus, but they could very reasonably have been unaware of a second one (or, if you prefer, of the application of the first one).
I wrote that I note that its publication predates the huge majority of serious research into AAVE. I knew that there was good analysis in the 60s but was hazy about which was which and precisely when it all took place. Some more reading of Baugh's excellent Beyond Ebonics reminds me.
The major work of scholarship that examined and described the intricate grammar of AAVE was William Labov's "The Logic of Nonstandard English", a forty-plus-page paper published in volume 22 of something with the not obviously made-for-Hollywood title of Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics in 1969. Well over thirty years later, its effect clearly hasn't reached at least one of the most vociferous editors of this page. But we should give it two or three years to reach the sleepier of university linguistics departments. As for pedagogy, even the kind that gets published by Prentice Hall, we should perhaps give it five years and certainly no less than two years.
Let's be stringent and say two years. That's 1971, five years after the publication of Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool.
I don't say that Bereiter and Engelmann ignored (let alone refuted) what we -- uh, well, most of us -- now know about AAVE. They can't be expected to have known it.
There's no point in citing books from the 60s as examples of what is intelligently believed now. -- Hoary 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Aw, please. . . . Here's what the article says:
At least three citations are needed, two are supplied. One is so old that its writers can't be blamed for lacking an elementary understanding of AAVE; the other by somebody so crass (and bigoted?) as to choose remain ignorant of AAVE and whose criticism of the role/use of AAVE is clearly related to his ignorance of AAVE itself.
Meanwhile, mention that Middle America's beloved Cosby referred to AAVE as "crap" is expunged.
As it stands now, the article presents no evidence for what it suggests: that there are reasoned objections to the use of AAVE. It gives the wrong impression that the objections it cites are well informed, whereas almost certainly they're to a large degree the result of excusable ignorance (Bereiter and Engelmann) and willful ignorance (Govero). -- Hoary 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen on the page any criticism of the user of AAVE that's worth more than a glance. I don't say it exists; I just haven't yet seen it. I find it hard to believe that there could be any recent criticism of AAVE itself that's neither ignorant nor stupid.
Bereiter and Engelmann can hardly be expected to know what they're talking about (which is not their fault), Cosby doesn't know what he's talking about, Govero doesn't know what he's talking about. Cosby strikes me as going gaga and Govero as a batshit insane Little Lord Fauntleroy, but it seems that we're compelled to present the goofball "side of the story". If for some reason we can't simply quote Cosby and Govero uttering the idiotic comments ("crap", etc.) that explain their motivation for the part of what they say that's less obviously wacko, then how about this:
-- Hoary 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's sometimes claimed on this talk page or in the everchanging article itself that certain "educators and social commentators" (or similar) have no particular beef with AAVE itself but criticize the extent of its use. (After his telltale word "crap" is politely removed, Cosby is made to sound like this.)
I'm willing to believe that such people and such opinions exist, and I'm willing to have them presented in a Wikipedia article. But I haven't encountered them yet. It's my impression that if you investigate what appears to be criticism of the use of AAVE, you pretty soon find that it's based on the same old ignorance of AAVE itself. It argues from false premisses.
This isn't just my impression. The entry for "Black English Vernacular" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language rightly accords the criticism/controversy stuff a small place at the end, immediately before the conclusion. Here's what it says:
“ | [M]any misconceptions about BEV prevail, especially that it is simply 'bad English' and that it holds African Americans back in education and employment opportunities because of this. The dominant issue for BEV is a stereotype that equates non-standard usage with stupidity. Its negative consequences continue to affect the prospects of black American children. Because BEV is devalued and misunderstood, uninformed citizens (including many teachers with excellent intentions) continue to denigrate it in favour of standard [American English]. Few such educators, whether or not they have a training in linguistics, have learned about the history and nature of African-American English, and fail therefore to appreciate its diversity and logical integrity as a long-established variety of the language. | ” |
(Mention of "diversity" reminds me of a major shortcoming in the WP article. By contrast, diversity is emphasized in the BEV article within OCEL.)
That criticism of the "use" of AAVE stems from misunderstanding of AAVE itself seems to be a lot more than a mere hunch: the OCEL article presents it as a straightforward fact. -- Hoary 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently the section about criticism of AAVE and the use of AAVE is located in the "Education" section. However this isn't the right place for it. When Cosby criticized the use of AAVE in his speech he wasn't criticizing it's use in education but it's use in general. Having his speech and other criticism in the "education" section doesn't make sense. Moreover, Why keep removing the actual quotes from his speech? Why can't they be included? The reader needs to get an idea of exactly what Cosby was saying and from the mouth of Cosby himself and needs to make an interpretation of it that way. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is why I suggested you write an overview section dealing with controversies within black culture in general. Im not sure any of us is in fact up to the task, but certainly thats whats required. I know Joe and others have suggested that education be the only focus of criticism, but that would only exclude all other matters of culture. - Ste| vertigo 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems every time I make a contribution to this article you revert it. If I add citations, You revert it. If I correct spelling, you revert it. If I change the name of a section title to something that correctly identifies with the article body, you revert it. And your only edit summary is "rv". That's not an edit summary. You need to explain WHAT you're reverting and WHY you're reverting it. If you just want to change 1 thing in an edit I make then don't revert it. Make that change by editing the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note some of the new policy regarding sources, and how it relates to this article:
A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
I don't think Bill Cosby is known for his fact-checking. I would also like to note what Jimmy Wales has to say about "Crackpot articles":
(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect
(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.
The Cosby quote seems to fall under (b). Makerowner 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude Man, nobody will dispute your assertion that you have repeated yourself.
You say: Cosby's ideas are not crackpot.
What, the "pound cake" stuff again? They are so confused that it's hard to derive any sense out of them. But here they are, with commentary. A quick reminder for those too busy to click that link:
Well, Dude Man, if his ideas (crackpot or otherwise) are moderately coherent, perhaps you can summarize them for us here, and also point out where I've gone wrong in my description of them above.
Are they perhaps "not crackpot" because, in his incoherent way, Crosby appears to feel the truthiness of your own nutty notion, as expressed a month ago, that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are [sic] limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE, and that AAVE has a lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas? Even if we take "basic English" not as this but instead as an attempt to express the concept of "Standard American English", ideas such as this will be brushed aside by anybody who has read any of dozens of well-informed books about language. (Try Bauer and Trudgill's Language Myths. It's really easy to read.)
Or perhaps I misunderestimate you. OK: which book have you read? -- Hoary 08:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You have claimed dozens of times that Cosby is not your source, but we have all expressed our disagreement. If we accept your logic, then quoting a book is using the publishing company as a source, not the author. Cosby is clearly the source of the opinions expressed. Makerowner 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the start of the op-ed piece by Walker, linked to within the section on "AAVE in education":
“ | The Ku Klux Klan could not have come up with a better plan to impede the academic progress of young black children than the idea of teaching Ebonics as a separate language. | ” |
-- Hoary 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
While the "mediation" process here is in a bit of a lull, our "mediator" is busy elsewhere. Odd things are going on at Wikipedia:Attribution. This, in case you're not up to date on such matters, is pretty weighty stuff: This new merged policy page has replaced Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (which, you'll recall, were often cited as two of the three pillars of WP, the other being NPoV). And yup, This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. [...] When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Feel free to look at the history yourself, but here's a brief summary (provided for those who, like me, read top to bottom rather than bottom to top):
So what's it all about, then? That last set of three edits by Stevertigo replaces one paragraph with eight (one of which is a quotation from elsewhere). Here's the last but one of the paragraphs that our mediator wants to get in:
“ | NPOV trumps all other standards on Wikipedia for a good reason, in that given two sides in a topic, both must be represented. This is done without mischaracterising their views as either "nonbelieving" or "crackpot" (again using the example of science and religion), though it is fair to characterise majority and minority views. | ” |
Ah. Let's suppose for a moment that Pullum et al. are in the minority in believing that AAVE is just as fine a linguistic tool as Standard American English. (I really don't know if this is true, but my inner Ambrose Bierce would not to be so surprised to find it was indeed true.) Then, per Stevertigo, it's quite OK to say that Pullum's is the minority opinion. The "other side" of this topic? Step up Alberto Manguel. Apparently Manguel wrote in 1998 that AAVE is "nothing but a vastly impoverished version of Standard English". Now, it seems to me that "crackpot" is a pretty good term for somebody who either ignores or chooses to remain ignorant of easily available knowledge on a subject that he writes about so publicly. (It's not that he doesn't like books: His WP article tells us that he has thirty thousand of them. But then again maybe he just likes the sight of their serried spines.)
Our "mediator" points out that NPOV (the balanced presentation of all views on a subject) trumps RS for a good reason. This notion doesn't appear in WP:NPOV. It is, however, very close to something that the "mediator" is simultaneously (and so far unsuccessfully) trying to insert within a different policy page. So he seems keen to align this AAVE article with principles of Wikipedia that he has freshly adjusted to his own taste.
Irish jokes tells us that Irish jokes are a class of jokes based on a stereotype of the Irish people as unintelligent. I won't argue with that. Yes, such a stereotype exists. Ergo, the idea that Irish people are unintelligent is not merely that of a tiny minority. Yet Irish people rightly does not present this "side" of a "controversy" about Irish people. That's because no sane, sober person attempts to argue it. The alleged stupidity of Irish people, the alleged defects of AAVE: the two notions have about the same significance. It's probable that nobody continues to argue for either PoV in anything worth citing, though crackpots continue to argue from one of these goofy notions and perhaps from the other as well. -- Hoary 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, that hole thing was a lot of fun; now can we fix the article? I also oppose a controversy section, for basically the same reasons, but I think the article should emphasize the popular opinion of AAVE, because this is an important part of its speakers' experience of it. It should be made clear, obviously, that linguists reject all these criticisms. Makerowner 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoary, Pinkville and Asshoes have repeatedly deviated from talking about the issues here to making personal remarks against me. Naturally I dont have anything fancy or clever to say in retort, nor am I much interested in their complete obliviousness to NPOV on such a basic and elementary Wikipedian principle. Mediation has not succeeded and rather I think arbitration is in order. Lots of useless discussion that I will not read. - Ste| vertigo 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I move that we table the "social criticism"/Cosby discussion on this talk page. If Wikidudeman still feels the need to argue with the editors who disagree with him, we all have our user talk pages. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Cosby has long been a critic of certain social mores prominent in poor African-American communities, including so-called excessive childbearing, failure to refrain from AAVE use, and reliance on welfare. Now, ignoring for the moment the question of his authority on the matter, he is lending a voice to a very real controversy: people think that AAVE sounds "ignorant" and bidialectal users should not use it.
Perhaps the best solution here is to provide an accurate summary of the real issues at hand. There is a non-academic belief that AAVE is "unsophisticated" and "ignorant." A proper encyclopedic entry would discuss that view and detail the division between experts in linguistics and the general population. This is an excellent example of when the uneducated public is simply wrong, and this article would be lacking if it failed to address this point.
Then Wikidudeman can throw his Cosby reference out there and those who know the facts surrounding AAVE use can demonstrate that it is not "ignorant," "unsophisticated," or whatnot. This article can discuss the controversy more than what is found in the last paragraph of the "Social Context" section, and we can all get on with our lives and have a better Wikipedia at the end.
I, of course, welcome all criticisms. I'm still a tad new at building wiki-bridges. UMassCowboy 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I will support a temporary break from debating this as long as you don't remove the Cosby quote from the article. If however you take the one symbolism of neutrality from the article then all deals are off. I would be forced to continue discussing this and taking other relevant steps to ensure neutrality. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've spent the last 3 weeks explaining that. If you want my explanation then check the archives. I'm tired of going in circles over and over with you. If you want a waltzing partner then you're looking in the wrong place. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You talk of contexts. Right then, the contexts are those of:
Those are just a few of the contexts, off the top of my head. Given a few hours, I might tinker with them, aggregating one or two, deleting one or two, adding more. And even after that, I might not have got them right: I don't claim to know all the answers on the status of AAVE and am open to intelligent arguments. I'm sure that, given time, the contexts can be reformulated and summarized by people who are at least averagely intelligent, well read, and energetic. It can't be done by people merely starstruck by particular entertainers or by Google hits, etc. -- Hoary 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope that a sociolinguist does it. If nobody else steps up for the job, I might have to start it: I probably wouldn't do a good job, but I'm fairly confident I'd do an honest one. However, ignorance, misinformation and irrational prejudice in this area aren't subjects that thrill me. ¶ Incidentally, my list of contexts now looks very poorly expressed, even to me. -- Hoary 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems someone in linguistics has an essay due, because I can hardly find any books on English phonology at my school library these days. Someone went ahead and changed the line on final obstruent devoicing and gives a source, but I haven't been able to check it. I think this section should note that not all of these features occur for all speakers at all times; variation in age, geography, and register affects which variant a speaker uses in a given situation. I also think it should focus on the mesolectal or most common features (eg. not showing [θ]→[t], or at least highlighting that it is rare. Makerowner 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed (?) it according to Green. Green says flatly that word-initial /θ/ is realized as [θ], which disagrees with Wardhaugh (as he/she is (mis?)cited) and certainly accords with my own casual impressions of AAVE. Disappointingly, Green doesn't comment on the difference between realizations of the two SE "th" phonemes as (a) interdental or (b) plosive. (Perhaps it's in part a geographical matter, but she doesn't say.) Green also says nothing about lengthening the vowel.
You chaps (chapesses) know more about phonetics and phonology than me, so please check and see that I haven't made some booh-booh. -- Hoary 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to ask what may seem like a dumb question, but in a sentence like "Ain't no white cop gonna put his hands on me," (I took this example from Linguistics: An Introduction by Radford et al.) does ain't mean "there isn't" or "doesn't"? Also, somebody included the example "I ain't know that". Can ain't be used instead of didn't in any construction or are there constraints on its use? The Merriam-Webster writes that ain't used for don't, etc. is restricted to some varieties of Black English. I made a change to the article reflecting this. Joeldl 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Must mean "there isn't": i.e., there is no white cop capable of/who would dare ; I would never suffer any white cop to, etc. The other example sounds regional. Moulv i 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that AAVE is a "degradation of English", although commonly held by the public, is rejected by linguists. See citations elsewhere in the article (such as Labov) for this. Perhaps the word "unfounded" is a poor choice. But as it stands, the text is more informative than without it. Readers should know what is merely a popular belief, and it is possible and desirable for an encyclopedia to reflect the facts here. Please find a better formulation conveying this information to the reader rather than just doing away with "unfounded". Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
AAVE introduces both inherent ambiguities (phrases in AAVE which can have multiple meanings) and contextual ambiguities (phrases that are ambiguous if the listener doesn't know that the speaker is speaking AAVE). Taken by themselves, these ambiguities constitute a clear degradation of the English language. Whether AAVE, taken as a whole, is a degradation is a matter of opinion, and WP should not by taking sides in the matter. Heqwm 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job to who ever realized that this aricle needs a POV tag. It was undobutably written by a middle-aged white man with no actual interaction with minorities. I found it kinda racist. Slayerofangels 00:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Should this page maybe be (semi-)protected? This vandalism is getting pretty annoying. We do clean it up quickly, but a) it's a waste of our time; and b) people who see the article before we fix it might be offended or misinformed, or simply think badly of Wikipedia because of it. What does everyone think? Makerowner 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to seem some articles that actually warrant protection. This article's 'vandalization' hardly warrants protection. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I was just putting the idea out there. Never mind. Makerowner 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just another way for SOME know-it-all whites to explain to each other what they think they know about us ... comment added at 18:20, 24 March 2007 by 68.201.118.165 ( contributions)
The point is, 99% of us blacks know proper English. So don't think that this is the way we speak all the time. We can talk the proper way anytime we want, but what you call AAVE just seems more expressive to us. Now, black children and some elders are probably the only ones who aren't educated on the proper way to speak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 ( talk • contribs).
Is this article the right place for information on Black rhetorial traditions in the church? For example everyone knows that MLK was a master orator. How dose AAVE inform the stylized speech of Baptist preachers? I'm searching the web now... here's is an interesting paper:
futurebird 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone with the requisite knowledge fill out the third column of the following table? I think it would be helpful to have in the article once filled out. — Lowellian ( reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Standard English | African-American Vernacular English | |
---|---|---|
simple present | I walk. | ?? |
simple past | I walked. | ?? |
simple future | I will walk. | ?? |
present perfect | I have walked. | ?? |
past perfect | I had walked. | ?? |
future perfect | I will have walked. | ?? |
simple present progressive | I am walking. | ?? |
simple past progressive | I was walking. | ?? |
simple future progressive | I will be walking. | ?? |
present perfect progressive | I have been walking. | ?? |
past perfect progressive | I had been walking. | ?? |
future perfect progressive | I will have been walking. | ?? |
— Lowellian ( reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: When Makerowner says "above unsigned post" he is referring to the post of this diff: [2]. I moved that post by anonymous user 68.201.118.165 up above to the heading and dialogue to which he or she seemed to actually be responding. — Lowellian ( reply) 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think people say "I'll walk." They just contract "I will walk"; I think that's as common as adding the "am going to." — Lowellian ( reply) 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't a single direct equivalent, could editors please give several possible equivalents? — Lowellian ( reply) 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Try to think of it this way. Imagine a hypothetical person standing somewhere who speaks only, say, General American. And he or she says, "I'll walk to the store." Now replace that hypothetical person with a different hypothetical person who has the same mood/intent and is in the same circumstances and is identical except that he or she speaks only AAVE. What would that person say? Once we know this, we can fill in the simple future row. Do this for the rest of the phrases in the table, and the rest of the table can be filled out. — Lowellian ( reply) 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Standard English | African-American Vernacular English | |
---|---|---|
simple present | I walk. | I walk. |
simple past | I walked. | I walked. |
simple future | I will walk. | I'm'a walk. |
present perfect | I have walked. | I done walked. |
past perfect | I had walked. | I had walked. |
future perfect | I will have walked. | I woulda walked. |
simple present progressive | I am walking. | I'm walkin'. |
simple past progressive | I was walking. | I was walkin'. |
simple future progressive | I will be walking. | I'm'a be walkin'. |
present perfect progressive | I have been walking. | I been walkin'. |
past perfect progressive | I had been walking. | I was walkin'. |
future perfect progressive | I will have been walking. | I'm'a be walkin'. |
Thank you very much, 68.201.... I appreciate it! It's interesting to see. — Lowellian ( reply) 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be appropriate to include a section on the literary uses of this variety of English? Itsmejudith 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that ebonics is just a pervasion of english. It is not a symbol african culture, but a reminder of the damage that was done when they were forced to relocate to America as slaves. They were poorly educated, and this passed on from generation to generation. In today's world, however, we believe that everyone regardless of race deserves the same basic education and now must try to undo this damage. Even the representatives of the black community, the naacp, concurs and I think it should be contributed to the criticism section. It is at this link http://www.largesock.com/writing/webonics.html and even has works cited. Now, if the naacp agrees with this stance, then that is a big criticism toward ebonics. At this link, http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic-issue.html, someone goes on to say that it should be considered its own language, using the reason as it actually being a "more efficient" system. About as efficient as saying "double plus good" I think. It uses the same words as english, even less, just in a different and degraded way by merely omitting parts of the english system rather than actually incorporating its own innovations. If efficiency is a reason, then by all means we should start taking whole words out of the English language and converting everyone to the Newspeak of 1984. This would result in the desecration of the rich culture of the english language that stretches back centuries, which is the exact point George Orwell was trying to make when he wrote the concept. My point is, the NAACP sees ebonics and its acceptance as wrong and I think it should be incorporated into the article. If "culture" is the reason to support ebonics, than I think we should start teaching authentic african languages than supporting and continuing the rape of the english language. It is all just another reason to not have to learn what has been accepted as the standard but make an unneeded "exception" and making everyone conform to it. I doubt people who use ebonics would actually take the time to learn original african languages, again just an excuse to not have to learn proper english either. While it may be "easier", it leaves them at the status quo of inferior education that african americans fought so hard for in the past.
... added in this series of edits on 17 April 2007 by some IP with this edit history
The article seems to discuss AAVE as if it were just one dialect. I have trouble believing that there's a single dialect that could be called AAVE, or even a single standard for it. For instance, in the Aspect marking section, the article lists phrases such as "he be steady workin'" and "he been had that job", but neither phrase sounds familiar to me. (I'm not a native AAVE speaker myself, but I've had a lot of exposure to it and do sometimes subconsciously shift into an AAVE-like dialect if it seems appropriate.) Also, a lot of the time, AAVE phrases and standard English phrases are interchangeable (in the dialect I'm familiar with, not necessarily all dialects, of course). The standard English phrases may be less idiomatic, but I wouldn't consider them "wrong" AAVE (but not all standard English is AAVE; legalese, for instance, would feel completely out of place). I think the article does a little too much to contrast AAVE from standard English; somebody who isn't already familiar with AAVE might get the mistaken impression that there is much less potential for overlap than there actually is. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we add something to this article about AAVE's impact on American culture, and American culture's response? I'm specifically thinking about a recent episode of Boston Legal. Denny Crane told a Black intern interviewee that he was "articulate." When pressed on the issue, he said that he simply meant the young man did not "sound Black." The implications of this are tied into concepts of "systematic racism" and the perception of accent in America, where people with British or Newscaster-style Midwestern accents are generally perceived as smarter than people with Southern, Wisconsin, Texas, New York, or AAVE-derived accents, while the latter are considered wiser in matters of the heart and personal life in general. Such a section should also reference the Boondocks comic strip and TV show. -- 205.201.141.146 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. So many people looking at this page and no one has discovered that HE FINNA GO TO WORK means "HE'S FINALLY GOING TO WORK." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lex94 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 May 2007.
The leading sentence in this article says that jive is a synonym, albeit one with possible pejorative connotations, for AAVE. Is this true? The disambiguation page, on the other hand, says that jive is a "parodied version" of AAVE. This strikes me as unquestionably false, and should be changed, but there are still other options. Perhaps "jive" has more to do with slang. Have young Black Americans ever spoken of their grandmothers as speaking jive, for example? If not, it would be a strong indication that it doesn't refer to AAVE....Jive is obviously not their preferred term for AAVE, but is there even any indication that linguists acknowledge it as a colloquial one? .... added on 8 May 2007 by 205.212.75.246
Excellent! I'm all about these edits. But seeing the disambig rely on that poor lonely signifying article, obviously the proper thing to do for the time being, makes an additional suggestion come to mind. How about a general article on AA speech, which would of course link to AAVE, and to signifying, and to snapping, fussing, etc. if they ever get their own pages? A lot of laypeople seem to be getting very interested in the subject, in and out of WP; and they're probably looking for some help with the big picture and any terminology they may have heard.
A related advantage: The present AAVE article contains an unusually large amount of information about language politics--and, incredible as it seems, the debate seems to be about whether to include more. It seems like for most language entries on WP, the amount of specific politics info is modest; and more general info on prestige, etc. can be linked to for the reader to consult. But this is American politics, race-related politics no less, so of course there's more information--and consequently the article is very unwieldy. Why not move the prestige politics to a subsection of a general AA speech article (add.: especially since nearly every political or media figure who has commented on AAVE has also failed to distinguish it from other AA speech behaviors), and leave AAVE looking more like a normal language article?
Just a suggestion, if you or any other editor out there thinks it's a good idea. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.75.246 ( talk • contribs) at 16:39, 8 May 2007
Yeah, sorry to have endangered your fragile and hard-won peace there. I realize now that I secretly harbored a somewhat elitist desire. It's just that I've seen a surprising number of articles that are a halfway decent quick source for academic subjects. But really, this has only happened where (a) the subject matter is too esoteric for anyone to even try fucking it up, or (b) it's esoteric enough that the article is dominated by editors who enforce the same rule that professionally encyclopedists do on such matters: NPOV means neutral with respect to the academic sociology of the subject; and if you wish to remedy any Eurocentric, anti-Christian, etc. biases in academia itself, you can fight that battle somewhere more productive. It's a policy that's simple, intelligent--and, as far as I can see, completely illegitimate. WP shows no favoritism for academic sociology; to the extent that its policy is clearly described, "neutrality" is supposed to reflect global sociology in some way.
I guess I was so excited that this policy sometimes accidentally produced good results that I was unconsciously plotting to reconcile populist "neutrality" with academic "neutrality" by sociologically balkanizing WP around the academic articles in order to protect their purity--I figured there could be an article describing the academic consensus about fossils, or whatever, with a nod to dissenters that that's all the article aspired to describe. I'd have been perfectly happy with that; but I've since discovered that my fantasy is a heresy known as "forking" and is decidedly not how WP has decided to organize itself. I still suspect that, while apparently unwieldy, my way might be better for the general public: What could be more valuable and convenient than immediately and clearly discerning what the experts think? As long as we're forced into a Dover-Board-of-Ed style mandate to "teach the controversy," we should at least make things clear for the students. ...In the end, I guess it's really just my idle dream; but I'm certainly grateful that there are people with enough faith in WP to make it as good as it can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.74.125 ( talk • contribs)
There are certainly a lot of edit wars that orginate not over whether or not a concept is academically recognized and studied by reliable sources, but rather over whether or not the concept is somehow "fair" or "unfair".and if you wish to remedy any Eurocentric, anti-Christian, etc. biases in academia itself, you can fight that battle somewhere more productive.
I'm a little reluctant to stir this whole thing up again, but why are there POV tags on this article? I can't see any major issues of bias here; the only thing I've noticed is that the creole origin theory seems to get a little more weight than the retention theory. When I see an article with a POV tag, I tend to be a little less confident in its value and I don't think it's necessary here. I'd like to remove them in a few days, after we've had time to discuss this and hear any objections. Makerowner 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This article dose seem to be somewhat in favour of AAVE, but maybe just some minor re-writing rather than a POV tag is best. MattUK 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a dead link to " Garrard Mcclendon" (sic) and I commented that it seemed to have been added as a joke. However the editor's history argued against that, so I googled Garrard McClendon and found that he is an author and lecturer on this topic, and he seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Still -- until there's actually a Wikipedia article, let's hold off on the link from this one. And I take back what I wrote about the link being a joke. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"can make bold, bowl, and bow homophones". Bow as in bow-tie? •Jim62sch• 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought so, but we need to be careful with heteronyms. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)