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. |
This article seems to gloss over all controversy associated with AAVE/Ebonics in the US by merely saying "it happened." Is there a reference that can be included to detail this, as it is relatively important in public perception of the dialect. Gleffler 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I created that ass- redirect to this article. I gotta say I don't have a source other than "the streets". I'v heard people say it many times and if you think about it that's a pretty good source for AAVE. anyone else who's studdied AAVE could prob confirm. I need help on wikipedia:wikiProject Sociolinguistics/Slang! Kɔffee drinks you 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I rearranged some stuff.
under grammatical features was
phonology, lexical
now it's
phono, all the grammar (largest piece), lexical
Kɔffee
drinks
you 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the questionable claim that multiple negation “can be traced to West African languages”—indeed, I’m sure there are many West African languages that use double negatives (that ain’t my area of expertise) but many, many other other non-standard Englishes (to which the first American black speakers of English would have been exposed) also do. And don’t other dialects of English similarly use “to be” without conjugation?
Also, maybe I’m being (overly) pedantic, but would African-American Vernacular English (with hyphen) be preferrable? — Wiki Wikardo 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And I must say, “me fall asleep, massa, and no wake 'til you come” don’t sound like any AAVE I’ve ever heard. Wiki Wikardo 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to have a lot of controversy, so I just thought I'd explain my edits, so they don't seem malicious.
I changed the line on code switching, because it sounded like it was saying code switching is only using different dialects for different social groups. Every time I've heard it used before, it was in reference to bilingual people switching back to their native language in a foreign country for convience (frequently in mid sentence) This seems to be the more common usuage of the word. Altarbo 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
According to this article, intervocalic /ɹ/ may also be dropped e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y" i.e. [stɔi]. Is that supposed to mean that the word is pronounced as if it were spelled "stoy"?
Is there an AAVE Wikipedia? If not can I make one? Cameron Nedland 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that AAVE has a conventional written form which would seem to be a prerequisite for a wikipedia. Numskll 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I just created an account to revert the page, I hope I'm following protocol. -- Arglesnaf 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there other common examples of metathesis apart from ask becoming aks? I ask because that particular example is not restricted at all the AAVE - it goes back to Old English. If we're only talking about isolated examples like that, then it's probably wrong to include metathesis as a feature of AAVE specifically - all English speakers do (and have done) it from time to time. garik 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A fair point:) Well, I've included a rewritten version of the metathesis point, though it's probably not terribly elegant. garik 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This article analyses the grammar and phonetics of ebonics in a way that would be completly incomprehensible to anyone who speaks that language. Similar to when a bunch of white men get together and transcribe Coltrane solos, then write "jazz education" essays about what he was "going for" at the time.
Ebonics is not some well-conceived design of a language. It's an accident--the natural evolution (or degeneration)of American English as spoken by African Americans over many years--and shouldn't be presented as anything else. To dissect the grammatical variations of this speach pattern is to miss the point completely. This language is entirely based on NOT understanding the rules of grammer, and on making mistakes and keeping them in the language. No one sat down and designed any of the rules that this article focuses on, and if you discussed this with a native Ebonics speaker, he wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.
This article is written about Ebonics, by people who don't speak Ebonics, for people who don't speak Ebonics. Solid.
do we have to fix this page? I mean, it's a talk page. Do we have to talk in the standard, and if someone doesn't, do we have to edit what they said to conform to the standard? -- Cheeesemonger 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
He finna [or "fittin' (fi-t&n) nuh"] go to work.
The definition and the application of AAVE seems to associate with southern African-Americans and descendents of southern African-Americans. Does the definition of AAVE not apply to those African-American individuals whose roots were principally outside of the south, such as individuals whose ancestors lived in the north prior to 1865? Perhaps some of the speech of these individuals might be measured in communities having concentrations of such individuals, e.g., Oak Bluffs, Nantucket Island, off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. (To a lesser extent: Edgartown and Gay Head. -Their African-American populations are low; but websites have referred to a historic presence of African-Americans.) Dogru144 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes? No? Maybe? How 'bout this: Why doesn't it move to Oakland_Unified_School_District#Ebonics_controversy and we just leave a link here? Better yet: Why not make a current-event-style article about it? I don't know what the terminology is for a Wiki article on an event that's no longer current. What's in this article is five times longer than the Oakland School Board article, and about a third of the entire AAVE article.
A template that I have just removed alleged that the text that followed contained weasel words. I saw no weasel word, no SGML comment saying that this or that word was a weasel, and no mention on this talk page of how this or that word was a weasel.
Anyone who wants to stick this template back in the article should say which word is, or words are, weasel. -- Hoary 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I read (after markup-stripping):
It seems that the editor who put that {{fact}} tag there wants evidence for the lack of a controversy.
Somewhere there may indeed be an authoritative book whose author credibly asserts that there is no controversy. But I don't think authors of related books would bother to say this. And they don't bother because they routinely, straightforwardly and convincingly demonstrate how AAVE is not "bad". Or anyway, it's easy to show people who are willing to read and consider the arguments presented in three pages or so of text. You'll find one example on pp 29-31 of the Morrow hardback (first) edition of Pinker's The Language Instinct. (The pagination of a paperback is probably different. Well, look near the start of chapter two.) In fact Pinker isn't even a linguist (he's a psychologist), but no linguist is likely to disagree with him here.
If there is a controversy among actual, working, present-day linguists (as opposed to linguists of decades ago, or people from other specialties dipping their toes in linguistics, or the occasional prematurely senile linguist, etc.), where is it? Until this controversy is shown, I'm deleting this request for a citation. -- Hoary 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well said, with very minor reservations. (Linguists can and do point out and discuss problems with the way particular people speak. See the literature on specific language impairment, for example. But they don't assert that sociolects are linguistically deficient.) I'm tired of the demand to give any space to any contrary "point of view" that's merely the recycling of ignorance, perhaps encouraged by the effusions of blowhards who often pride themselves on their lack of curiosity. There are indeed very big questions in linguistics (for example, nativism has recently come under intelligent and reasoned attack), and for these, contrary points of view should be presented; there's no comparable question here. -- Hoary 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Of the last fifty edits, a third has been pure vandalism and another third reverts. More and more I'm feeling like the editors monitoring this page are bogged down with needless vandalism that would be easily remedied if the page were blocked from editing by unregistered users. This page has gotten more than random attention by bad faith editing for quite some time. What do other people think? Would such an act be a soft of sledgehammer for the cockaroch? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say to all who've contributed here that this is a really good, informative article. Yes, it is a bit difficult for people not versed in all the terminology of linguistics to read (and I am one) but it manages to describe this difficult (and potentially controversial, I think) subject in an even-handed and encyclopedic way. And it's impossible to do that without using linguistics termonolgy. I looked it up because I was randomly thinking about some aspect of this dialect and my question was more than answered. Good work! Dina 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better if this article were formatted more like some of the other "variety of English" pages. For example, an IPA chart showing the phonology of AAVE would be nice. The verb system could be described on its own without reference to English, ie. instead of saying " 'he done gone' is equivalent to Standard English 'he went'", we could just say that 'he done gone' is the past perfect form. I'm not adamant about this; if there are any objections I'd be glad to hear them. Makerowner 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE. This is a feature of Caribbean dialects. I also think that the phonological rules diagram is unnecessary and possibly confusing to those without linguistic training. I would like to rewrite this section without the diagram and with corrected rules, unless someone can find a source for the voiceless dental stopping. Makerowner 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the AAVE word "bogus" comes from the Latin word "bogus" which is cognate with the English word "bogus". Either that or every word of AAVE is actually derrived from various Niger-Congo Group A language words which are both homonymous and synonymous with English by pure coincidence. Perhaps this is a situation that calls for Ockham's razor.
My Shorter OECD lists 'bogus' as 'unknown etymology'. I don't think there is a Latin word 'bogus'. I have no opinion about any Niger-Congo derivation. Makerowner 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Something in this article stinks of not following NPOV. Take the following example:
"Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism)."
I'm not entirely sure about calling the evidence "clear," though what concerns me more is the accusation of public feelings as being "unfounded." 67.9.36.176 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Reading through this article, I can't help but feel that it was written with a distinct pro-AAVE bias. The following lines especially struck me as non-neutral:
Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English. Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy, since AAVE, like all dialects, shows consistent internal logic and structure.
To dismiss negative appraisals of AAVE as being due to racial or ethnic bias (even with the "in part" thrown in as some sort of disclaimer) is, in my opinion, irresponsible and even a bit dangerous. I'd like to know which published study or paper found that, without a doubt, "racial or ethnic bias" was behind some people's opposition to AAVE.
The overwhelming controversy and debates concerning AAVE in public schools insinuate the deeper, more implicit deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole.
Insinuations, especially ones that explain away opposition to a topic by accusing those opposed of "deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole," have no place in an encyclopedia. Such insinuations (assumptions, whatever you want to call them) are very dangerous in a politically- and racially-sensitive article such as this one. Statements like this really need to be cited, or else omitted altogether.
Finally, I noticed that something written by Smitherman was cited quite frequently throughout this article; however, the source was not correctly & explicitly cited in the References section. Without the actual Smitherman article to read, I can only assume that it is also written with a strong pro-AAVE bias.
In light of these issues, I've very tempted to tag this article with an NPOV warning. I'll wait for responses to my comments before doing so.
Don't get me wrong - despite these concerns, I still found the article to be thorough, informative & well-written. It definitely answered my questions. Rhrad 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the rant, but this issue is close to me, and I can't stand it when people who don't know what they're talking about continue to spread ignorance about this important aspect of Black culture. Makerowner 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. What is this "basic English"? Do you perhaps mean standard American English? And what do you mean by "rudimentary" -- morphologically impoverished, or something else? The complexity of AAVE words are limited... I'm a bit lost here. Can you tell me what the subject of this sentence is? "Complexity" perhaps? If so, it seems you've interestingly simplifed the paradigm of BE, so that the third-person singular as well as plural form is "are". Or are you taking the noun that's the closest antecedent to be the syntactic subject? Either way, most interesting! [Y]ou rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. Really? I'd thought that the rap CDs I possess were in AAVE and that there were a lot of polysyllabic words in the lyrics. (Copyright considerations prevent me from reproducing a sample here.) It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. You're onto something with education: read Jonathan Kozol. And urban, yes. So? The vast majority of, say, Japanese speakers a couple of hundred years ago were uneducated; does this mean that their Japanese was rudimentary? Just what do you want to say about the relationship between language and education? Criticizing AAVE for it’s [sic] lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. Really? What else has it got to do with? (Incidentally, the standard way to write the genitive pronoun is "its", no apostrophe. At least among the better educated.) I also see absolutely nothing in this article about the fact that a large number of Caucasians also speak something very similar to AAVE. That's a sad omission. I hope that it will be rectified by some intelligent person who has studied language. -- Hoary 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The spelling mistake in 'rudimentary' was mine, though I agree that pointing out the mistake with its/it's is unnecessary. Many well-educated writers have difficulty with that rule, and the meaning was perfectly clear. That said, I disagree with nearly everything else Wikidudeman has posted. 1. You don't actually 'refute' my point in any way: I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. Find a legitimate linguist of the past fifty years who says that AAVE is a rudimentary form of English, then post your viewpoint with citations from that source. Many British English speakers feel that American English lacks 'complexity and refinements', and the French feel the same way about the British, etc. Everyone considers their speech form in some way better than others; this in itself is not necessarily a problem. The scientific study of language is meant to overcome these natural prejudices and allow us to learn more about other people and their cultures by learning about their language. People are of course free to make aesthetic judgements about languages, but to say that one is rudimentary compared to another is to belittle the culture of that language's speakers. 2. Perhaps I didn't explain properly what I meant about slang. Yes, rappers use AAVE, but the main elements picked up by Whites are the slang elements. Many older people with no interest in slang speak AAVE, and many Whites with little knowledge of AAVE use slang that has its origins in Black language nonetheless. 3. I must again stress that AAVE and Black culture are intrinsically tied to Black identity and are therefore connected to race. If someone were to say that the Indo-European language family is rudimentary compared to the Afro-Asiatic, or any other, this is an attack on European culture, and by definition, European identity. This issue is of course more sensitive for Black culture, because it has only been (partially) recognized as legitimate within the last 40-or-so years. 4. AAVE is a dialect of English and uses nearly all words that General American does. To exclude all these words from its vocabulary when searching for polysyllabics is ridiculous. How many polysyllabic words does General American have if you don't count all the ones that it shares with British English? And to say that AAVE words have simple meanings is also ridiculous. If anything, it is the wide range of meanings that AAVE applies to standard English words that separates it from other Englishes. The behaviour known as signifiying constantly applies new meanings to old words. This is also the way that slang works, and AAVE has been one of the greatest sources of slang in the US. Again, I must point out that linguists consider all languages (or language varieties) equally capable of conveying complex ideas. Since AAVE uses nearly all the same words as other Englishes, to say that it cannot convey the same meanings is nonsense. I am glad at least that Wikidudeman can recognize that Chinese is not rudimentary, despite is few polysyllabics; why then can't AAVE be recognized as a 'separate example'? I will keep my posts short if Wikidudeman stops providing me with material. Makerowner 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in some time, and am just noticing the claim that AAVE is somehow "rudimentary" and lacks polysyllabic words. These assertions are ridiculous/outrageous on their face and betray, at best, a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. deeceevoice 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has a strange form of citations that I can't follow. The citations seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link. Wikipedia explains how to correctly cite sources here Wikipedia:Citing sources. It looks like whoever did it was trying to use Wikipedia:Harvard referencing but did it incorrectly. Whoever put those numbers in the aricle should cite the sources correctly. Wikidudeman 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The first part of the first paragraph of the article says "About “80 to 90 percent of American blacks” speak AAVE “at least some of the time” (Smitherman 2". This type of referencing system is totally unhelpful if it doesn't provide any other information. Who is "Smitherman"? Where is his work found? What pages? Etc. If it's a website then reference it as such. If it's a study or journal or book then reference it as such. Otherwise it's meaningless. Wikidudeman 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed {{fact}} from the end of:
This is a complex sentence. Which proposition within it needs a reference? -- Hoary 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the last part of this sentence. Does what remains require a reference, and if so, which proposition within it?
I'm aware that a number of editors say that the article is biased. Have they read and understood the article, have they read and understood basic materials about language (e.g. a very short part of Pinker's popular The Language Instinct, as suggested above), and what cogent, intelligent, well-informed points are they making?
Incidentally, I'm not happy with the article either. Here's an example, chosen pretty much at random: For instance, if a child reads "He passed by both of them" as "he pass by bowf uh dem", a teacher must determine whether the child is saying passed or pass, since they are identical in AAVE phonology. (i) Why transcribe in this way, in which for example the "w" in "bowf" exaggerates the oddness? (ii) Why neither mention that the /t/ is commonly dropped by speakers of fast standard English nor say that this is a feature of deliberate AAVE? (iii) How is this a matter of phonology rather than morphology? More broadly, I think an article about a lect of English should primarily discuss the features of that lect, whereas this article burbles on and on about the consternation that AAVE excites among certain non-speakers -- not a non-issue, but a side issue. -- Hoary 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This article contains numerous examples of Undue weight bias as well as obsolete citations. Citations who's information does not contain the information to the claims they are supposedly citing. For instance the citation done to an article by Kendra Hamilton. Not only is Kendra Hamilton not an expert in the relevant matter but she has done no polls or studies to determine "racism" is the cause of criticism of Ebonics. The only sentence that even hints at that in the article is "Indeed, it may well be one of the last remaining bastions of open bigotry threaded through our culture." which can not be used as a source for the claim in the article "Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias.". [ [1]] Wikidudeman 10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article gives undue weight to the contention that Ebonics should be accepted in everyday speech and is somehow equal in sophistication to proper English. This article contains no references or criticism of Ebonics in any shape or form. This article needs to contain information concerning criticism of use of Ebonics including facts that speakers of Ebonics are generally less educated than speakers of proper english. Some references could be Bill Cosbys "pounkcake speech". It's very shameful that this article does not even mention Cosby's criticism of Ebonics. [ [2]] All it seems to contain are a few authors who hold 1 specific viewpoint and the entire article is basically based on those few authors. Notably "Smitherman". Wikidudeman 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I tidied up the Cosby quote a bit in the Controversy section. I think the quote should stay. It's on-topic, relevant and expressive. Cbdorsett 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with Fordmadoxfraud. I put back the controversy again. Deleting a section entitled "controversy" is not the way to show that there is no controversy. The facts that Cosby is or is not a linguist, is or is not a sociologist, does or does not make a point eloquently, uses or does not use AAVE himself, is or is not a well-known public figure - these are all relevant to his credibility, but not to whether his comments have a bearing on the subject. You guys who keep deleting it - are you suggesting that there is no way to quote public comments on the subject, not even to show that there is controversy? I find it hard to believe that educated people hit writer's block so hard when they see something they personally disagree with. Before you stick me with your branding iron, take a look and see whether I've taken a position with regard to what AAVE is. Language vs. dialect? Should or should not be taught in schools? Language variant or sloppiness? The position I have taken here is that the reading public should be informed. How does Wikipedia do that without telling them? Cbdorsett 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹. Wikipedia is not a democracy. consensus means everyone agreeing on the format of the article not majority vote. Also, The "Scientific method" has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. Cosby is not discussing the validity of Ebonics being a dialect as i've stated 3 times already. The only one being 'strong headed' would be you. Quoting random linguistic books and posting totally off topic passages from them won't get you anywhere. ALso your link is not a wikipedia article. [
[3]] it leads nowhere. If you mean "No original research" then nothing I put in the article is original. It came from Cosby.
Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ford MF, Cosby has had many years experiences in the black community working closely with African Americans on numerous issues. Cosby's criticism is very relevant. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Bill Cosby's quote in this article is as relevant as can be. Currently this article is so POV that it's absurd. This article does nothing put present Ebonics in a positive light and does not provide any alternative viewpoint of Ebonics or criticism of ebonics. Not only does this article (as i've established) use false sources to make incorrect points. But it doesn't even present other viewpoints in a very politically and sociologically charged issue. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm loathe to agree with Wikidudeman about anything in this article, maybe we should include greater mention of 'Public Perception of AAVE', with a clear indication that the opinions expressed in the section are not considered scientific or reliable by experts in the field. This would be the same sort of thing as explaining the views of the Flat Earth society while acknowledging that they are considered to be wrong by nearly everyone else. What does everyone else think? Makerowner 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite the previous debates over POV (whether AAVE is a valid form of communication or not), I think there is another POV problem with the article, though probably not a conscious one. The origin of AAVE is heavily debated in the linguistics community, yet the article only shows the creolist position. Although I am a support of the creole origin theory, I think the theory of AAVE as a preservation of White non-standard Englishes should be represented as well. Makerowner 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The controversy section is in a good place. Being right after "in schools" and right before grammatical features. Putting it at the end of the article would be out of context considering the previous part about the controversy in schools. I will likely be adding more to the controversy section soon. Wikidudeman 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This articles style of citation is not in sync with wikipedia's WP:MOS. The correct way to use citations is shown here WP:CITE#HOW. There are a few accepted ways of citing sources and this article is no consistent in it's citations and one specific common form of citation used in this article is not accepted anywhere on wikipedia. Looks to be a quasi-Harvard reference style or something like that, Impossible to determine anything from it. Wikidudeman 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
SMITHERMAN, ROMAINE, COULMAS, and TRUDGILL are used in the body of the text as a cite several times, but it is not anyhwere else (refs section), so we only have their name and a page number. We need title, publisher, etc to turn this into a proper footnote. These appear to be books or academic papers and someone familiar with them need to supply the info so proper refs can be generated. Lead needs to summarize the article too.
Rlevse 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoary, Wikipedia citations should be formated so that someone doesn't have to google it to find out who the person is and do extensive research just to see what publication the sources is coming from. That's not how wikipedia works. Moreover, Yes, I incorrectly cited that website. If you didn't fix it I will (when I re-add it since you erased it). Attempting to "refute" op pieces from websites criticizing a highly controversial subject such as AAVE as an attempt to exclude all criticism from the page is absolutely POV and very bias. Wikidudeman 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹, If you say you "incorporated more criticism in the social context section" then why did you completely erase the Cosby pound cake quote? I have re-added the pound cake quote to the end of the "History and social context" section since you completely erased it without explanation. Wikidudeman 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1.I did not say AAVE has been 'AAVE has been criticized for its persistence of use' someone else put that in there. If you have a problem with it I will change it. 2. It is unacceptable in most professional social contexts. That's a fact. 3. Many people have proposed teaching AAVE in classrooms to help the children adjust to proper English.[ [4]] 4. Again, None of your arguments address why this page can't become neutral by adding social criticism of use of AAVE from famous social commentators. Not only that but your "Revert" also reverted my deletion of the references used in the article body that don't belong. Wikidudeman 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
is an example of where I was changing the formating of that, I didn't put it in originally. The references I erased were erased for a purpose as I explained three times already. They are 1. Not in format with how wikipedia uses references (doesn't use them in the article body) 2. They already have components in the end of the article in the 'references" section. 3. Only citations should be used in that form where each statement or sentences is cited. That's why I removed them. I hadn't removed all of them YET but I was getting it before you pointlessly reverted it. Your assertion that Cosby is not "qualified" is nothing more than your personal opinion. In MY opinion he is qualified to comment on this issue and his comment does belong. Wikidudeman 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's nothing more than a strawman argument used simply to refute in the very next paragraph. Wikidudeman 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually language can easily be argued for or against and is a cultural production. Comparing criticism of 'use of language' to the 'sun' is absurdity. However, If you want to play semantics Pinkville and say that AAVE as a 'language' can't be criticized then let me rephrase. This article needs criticism of the use of AAVE. Since people 'use' aave in numerous circumstances and the use of the 'language' can easily be criticized and has been. Rather than accusing other users of racism who happen to disagree with you and want the article to become neutral perhaps you should assume good faith and think twice about your faulty position. Wikidudeman 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Phonological features" has many difficult terms. a few explenations would be good. – 213.114.217.37 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering none of the editors to this article are willing to make any compromise in adding the Cosby quote to this article or any other relevant criticism I have no other choice but to request an official mediation WP:M which might be able to help resolve the disputes. All relevant parties must consent to the mediation before it can progress. If you are willing to mediate this topic to help solve the dispute then please say so here. Thank you. Wikidudeman 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I only skimmed through the article, so I don't know, but is there a section on the pronunciation of numbers? My friend (African-American) says "fiteen" instead of "fifteen". Or is that already covered somewhere else in the article? Thanks. Knightskye 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw that the article has a failed RfM. I would have thought that a RfC should be tried first and would bring along some new editors. My comments below are made as if in response to an RfC. I like the article and hope you can quickly come to an understanding about the point you are currently held up on. The referencing needs attention: that is obvious. The range of academic sources referred to seems good, though. I would suggest that, apart from referring briefly to where AAVE is spoken, when and by whom, the article should start with the linguistic aspects. I was interested in knowing more about the dispute between linguistics experts on the origins of AAVE and how much it shares with other dialects of English, how much is derived from African languages and how much is a result of language mixing. Then the article would come onto the sociolinguistics questions. In a section that could be headed "attitudes" commentators like Cosby could be mentioned. The notable point is of course not that Cosby, a non-expert, holds these views but that the media takes an interest in his views. "Schools" could be a sub-heading under "attitudes". The article could have a to-do list on the talk page, starting with the referencing. I'm not watching the page, but please post on my talk page if you want me to contribute further. Itsmejudith 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to remove/alter a pile of stuff.
I'm aware that this section risks becoming very uninteresting, but etymologies should be backed up by specified, reputable works of etymology, rather than mere speculations or real but uncredited scholarship.
-- Hoary 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the naming conventions of Wikipedia, this article should be titled Ebonics rather than AAVE considering Ebonics is the term the majority of English-speakers are familiar with. Again, this would be in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- 24.107.176.113 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not up for a vote and it doesn't matter what the editors prefer. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be named to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle:
“ | Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for [u]readers over editors[/u]; and for a general audience over specialists. | ” |
Wikidudeman (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Controversial names, which tells us If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain; if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes.
"Examined on a case-by-case basis": the expression is grotesque, but the meaning is clear. OK, let's examine this proposal on the basis of its, uh, case.
I'll agree that African American Vernacular English is not a very widely known term, and that neither is AAVE. However, the consitutents African American and English are now standard, and vernacular is widely known among educated people (not only those who are educated in linguistics). Whether African American Vernacular English (below, AAVE) is the best of all terms is not something I want to explore here; because the only suggestion has been to rename it Ebonics, let's instead consider the merits of Ebonics.
Coined some time between 1973 and 1975, Ebonics was a very little-known term until December 1996, when the Oakland (Calif) school board put it in the news. (Even the OED 2nd edition of 1989 didn't bother with it.)
It's still not very well known, it seems. I looked for it among English dictionaries of 1997 and later; here's what I found. (The criticism might be raised that it's a proper name and many dictionaries give space only grudgingly to proper names; I therefore name the proper names that bracket the place where Ebonics ought to be.)
For those who don't know the word, Ebonics is hard to parse. (Bizarrely for a word meaning a dialect or language, it's partly derived from phonics used to mean phonetics.) Meanwhile, AAVE is easy to parse (or at least it is for those who know the word vernacular).
AHDEL is careful to make AAVE its primary term.
Not a single dictionary that I encountered presents Ebonics as a normal and neutral term for the way that many US Blacks speak. (Note for more theoretically inclined linguists: I very much regret this phrase "the way that [XYZ people] speak" with its emphasis on performance rather than competence: I'm trying to avoid "language" and "[dia]lect" and also linguistic jargon.) Instead, it's shown to be a loaded term: it implies that this way of speaking is somehow independent of English, even that it is a separate language. It could be argued that AAVE is similarly a loaded term, implying that this way of speaking is merely a form of English. You may then wish to coolly consider the facts, which are that the overwhelming majority of linguists regard this way of speaking is a dialect (or lect) and not a language, and that the great majority of speakers of other kinds of English have little trouble understanding this way of speaking, certainly much less than they encounter when trying to understand, say, Dutch.
I also speculate that the term Ebonics is particularly beloved by blowhards (on both sides of the "controversy") and that AAVE is less likely to scratch their itches.
Even if I put aside that speculation, I strongly oppose any notion of renaming this article "Ebonics". -- Hoary 13:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm hardly a linguistics scholar - I have a "lay" interest in the subject - but I'm well aware of the distinction between Ebonics and AAVE. If I did not already know of an article in Wikipedia called "African American Vernacular English", I would search for "African American English" or "Black American English" or something similar, but it wouldn't occur to me to search under "Ebonics", unless, not finding any of the other possibilities, I turned to it in desperation (maybe it's just my idiosyncrasy, but I suspect I'm not alone). The trouble is that "Ebonics" is a political term, which is perfectly fine in that field of human activity and thought, but not fine in the context of the study of language... It's a term that is complicated by the assertions of its advocates that it should be taken as a linguistic term, but without the support of linguists. Hoary's argument on the related point makes perfect sense to me, that "Ebonics" is intended to suggest a language independent of English vs. "AAVE" which explicitly makes the connection to English. Regardless, "AAVE" is the term for the dialect, "Ebonics" is the political term used by certain people making claims for a particular conception of African American culture. Consequently, two articles would be best, with redirects as appropriate. Pinkville 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm an African-American, and I don't use the term "Ebonics." In fact, no one I know uses it, except in a dismissive and offhand manner, referring to the ignorance, bias and backwardness of those who, in fact, use it dismissively/demeaningly and as a class- or ethnically charged pejorative. "Ebonics" is, in fact, a recent, colloquial, politically charged term that is unencyclopedic and inappropriate in an academic or scholarly context. Those of us who have studied "Black English" for some time now recognize the label "Ebonics" as a flavor-of-the-month sort of naming convention. It's a term made popular by the recent media fracas in Cali (and elsewhere), but is neither an acceptable nor accurate substitute for "AAVE." (This has been discussed here before.) Given the pervasiveness of the electronic media and the decreasing literacy of particularly American society, we should be wary of affixing shallow, hot-button, media-driven labels to phenomena simply because certain segments of the population (often young and/or not very well-read on a particular subject) may not be aware of them by any other name. That is, in part, what wiki redirects are for. deeceevoice 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Believe whatever you will. I'm a well-read, learned African-American who understands the power of words, and that's just the way I roll. I'm not here to convince you that many consider "Ebonics" a racist term. What I'm telling you is that there are many who consider it so; that's hardly a news flash. "AAVE" is, in fact, value-neutral and is, therefore, far more preferable to "Ebonics." Furthermore, I find your assertions that AAVE is "rudimentary" and monosyllabic hilarious. AAVE is vivid; complex; rule-driven, structurally (like other dialects); often metaphorical; powerful and creative -- precisely why so much of American English (and other languages, as well) is shot-through with our contributions, why the popularity of the African American spoken word is a worldwide phenomenon. Lotsa luck proving that ridiculous assertion. deeceevoice 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Mock Ebonics" in the wake of the 1996 controversy is a topic that has been studied academically. I refer specificallty to an article, "Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racism in parodies of Ebonics on the Internet", published in August 1999 in the Journal of Sociolinguistics. The authors explain their choice of terminology, "We use the term Ebonics, which is often associated with Afrocentricity and political correctness, because both the Oakland Board of Education and the Ebonics parody pages themselves use this term." (I can e-mail this to whoever wants it.) In other words, it's a term used by one political group in promoting Afrocentricity, and by another, what the authors call the "Anti-Ebonics Ideology", in mocking it. Most linguists for most purposes will use AAVE, and most ordinary people use "Black English" or something. To most people "Ebonics" has political connotations: to a small group of Afrocentric activists (not all, certainly) positive, to many more people negative. We try to avoid terms with negative connotations in titling ethnic articles; i.e. we have Roma rather than "Gypsy".-- Pharos 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude Man has put the "Ebonics" article up for AfD. -- Hoary 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any point in further discussion with this guy. The preponderance of opinion here (as well is in previous discussions here -- see the archive) is that the article title should remain as-is. deeceevoice 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That's probably true, Deecee. But an edit conflict meant that I'd already written this: ¶ the assertion that "Ebonics" is commonly understood to be a "political" word and has negative connotations to many people: the evidence for this assertion is presented with considerable detail and care by John Baugh in his book Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN 0-19-512046-9 [hard], ISBN 0-19-515289-1 [paper]). As for the other things Dude Man says, they've already been addressed. ¶ I wonder whether Dude Man has yet managed to read a single intelligent book about AAVE, and if so, which. Baugh's book is slim and goes very easy on technical terms; it's quite palatable even for people who find it hard to read books. On the other hand, it's probably quite beyond those people who find it hard to read anything whatever that disagrees with what they already happen to believe. -- Hoary 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this, the conclusion is that it seems best to me to keep the article title at the current place. Quite simply, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to be based on - largely academic - reliable sources. Seeing as those reliable sources are not using the term "Ebonics", it is probably correct for this page to remain separate, as the term which those sources are using. Nothing wrong with a separate article on the history and usage of this term Ebonics, which, as google shows, is clearly notable in its own right. Moreschi Deletion! 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the article should keep the title 'AAVE', discussion of the name 'Ebonics' might be useful as well. Hoary, I think rather than having a full article devoted to it, the term might be better explained in this article. I haven't read this book by Baugh, but if it has some information on the social/cultural uses of the term, that would be helpful. Makerowner 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ebonics was presented as a label for AAVE to prevent black children being told their speech was "defective" and to instill pride, and to make teachers understand that the student was not simply speaking English badly. This reportedly led to efforts or plans in Oakton, CA to instruct children in Ebonics, which led to people making fun of it, with purported vocabulary lessons. I did not see reference to this backlash. Also it would be enlightening to let people hear how persons in West Africa with limited English experience pronounce English words. From George Mason University, [7] is a series of recordings and phonetic transcriptions demonstrating some of the sources of AAVE, mixed in against the speech samples from around the world. You hear West Africans say "axe" for "ask" and "wif" for with when reading a standard paragraph with agood sample of English speech sounds. It might be a good addition to the article, but it has people from around the world as well, so the listener needs to know which languages are from where. Edison 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not "Oakton" but (rather famously) Oakland, which you'll see gets a mention in the article.
AAVE now benefits from some excellent books. (I'm now reading that by Lisa Green.) If you have a good book about AAVE at hand, do please help to make this a better article. -- Hoary 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
From a purely linguistic perspective, AAVE is no "better" or "worse" than any other dialect of English. It is no less capable of conveying complex information, nor is it any independent indicator of intelligence. It is as richly complex a dialect as "Standard American" and has no deficiencies whatsoever as a means of verbal communication. And there is not a credible linguist who will tell you otherwise.
Any and all criticisms of AAVE rest squarely on dialectic bias and social assumption. The lack of AAVE use in scientific journals or major publications is more a matter of author and audience rather than the capacity of the dialect to convey the same information discussed in Nature or Scientific American. Furthermore, non-speakers of AAVE frequently have a great deal of trouble understanding it because of verb aspect difference with Standard American which precludes using it as a common medium of communication.
Overall, if this article adds any criticism of AAVE, it ought to be labeled clearly as "social criticisms" and must not be represented as linguistic criticism. UMassCowboy 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman has once again decided that he knows more about sociolinguistics and AAVE in particular than the all the other editors of this article combined and all scientific researchers in the field. The To Do List has something about showing social criticism of AAVE, citing the Undue Weight policy. I would like to quote a relevant portion of the text:
The idea that AAVE is somehow deserving of criticism from a linguistic viewpoint is equivalent to the idea that the Earth is flat, from the viewpoint of scientific acceptability. Can someone please remove this so some new editor doesn't mistake it for a decision reached by a consensus of the editors of this article? Makerowner 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To Wikidudeman: How 'bout you stop your tagging this and that, your filing for deletions, comments, mediation, etc. so that you and other editors can go ahead and attend to the first (and only reasonable) request you've made, which is to add and refine the citations in this article. Many fine editors have had to spend valuable time dealing with the brush fires you've set here and there while work that you and everyone else agree is necessary goes unfinished. Pinkville 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well excuse my confusion due to your use of similar words. The fact that I failed a RFM the first time is irrelevant. I learned from my mistake and now I am filing another RFM and hoping the involved participants in the dispute at least make an attempt to resolve this dispute. Proclaiming "I'm right and you're wrong" and trying to rant themselves out of the dispute with paragraphs of unrelated evasions simply won't work. A mediation might work, It's worth a try. I'm taking steps to resolve this dispute. If you think that's a waste of time then perhaps wikipedia isn't the right place for you. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, I don't think there is a real, contested issue here to warrant a NPOV discussion. Cosby might have some interesting personal opinions of AAVE, but he's a psychologist, not a sociologist. He doesn't have authority sufficient to warrant a real debate here. We've all hashed over the various "social" debates here: that it "sounds ignorant," that it isn't "widely used," et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, that doesn't address anything discussed in the article. The article is clearly a linguistic discussion, not a sociological discussion. I imagine this is because of the absolute lack of real sociological substance on this issue. The sociolinguistic implications of AAVE are documented, but I have yet to stumble across support of any sort that would constitute a need for "NPOV" balance.
I'd give up this fight. It isn't worth the energy. There isn't anything here. If you feel like you've found something credible and Wiki-worthy, post it here and we'll review.
UMassCowboy 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The article actually isn't just a "linguistic discussion". If it was it wouldn't mention anything dealing with the sociological aspects of AAVE including the Oakland controversy. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹. After Cosby, Who else? Well firstly Cosby is enough. Secondly, When I added the Cosby piece I had another article which quoted Lee H. Walker criticizing the use of Ebonics. Thirdly, I could easily add other criticisms including Alberto Manguel, Raymond Govero or C. Mason Weaver. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently edited the section on negation to indicate that "ain't" can be used where GAm has "will not". I'm not sure if that is correct. I am not a native speaker of AAVE, but to me, "I will not (won't) go home," and "I ain't go home," are not equivalent. Can anyone either provide a source documenting this use or remove this from the article. Makerowner 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As AAVE is clearly related to Southern English, I am wondering about the speech of historically Northern African American communities. To what extent has this been studied, how different was it from AAVE, and does it still exist anywhere?-- Pharos 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. Jimbo Wales himself has stated...
It mentions ebonics frequently. It was newsworthy. It has it's own wikipedia article. Therefore it's relevant to this article on ebonics. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so that it doesn't get lost to evasions like so much of what I have said in the past has, I will restate your points and my rebuttals...
As of yet no one has given a viable explanation for why criticism of aave and the Pound Cake speech can't be mentioned. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Done for now...
I addressed Hoary's above comment but I accidentally X'd out of my browser before posting it so it all got erased. It doesn't matter anyway because not much of he said addressed my actual points anyway. However, I talked to a member of the mediation committee and apparently our case might not actually go through mediation for a few more weeks even though the committee accepted it, no member of the committee has yet decided to accept it as mediator. Therefore I am going to wait until the case starts going through with mediation before I spend anymore time arguing it. I will however state my final points which have not been addressed as of yet. Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. So far the ONLY arguments that have been brought up are evasive criticisms of the sources themselves not their verifiability which is a big difference. Their criticism of the "factuality" of the opinions of Ebonics or the authority of those who hold them may be justified but their refusal to add them into the article is not. Wikipedia clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V Their criticism does not coincide with wikipedia policy and they have no justification for their refusal to add criticism of Ebonics into the article. Criticizing Cosby himself and throwing insults at him really has nothing to do with his speech being mentioned in the article. I will say it again Bill Cosby is not my source. Cosby said what he said and no one questions that. The source in question if you are even questioning the source should be americanrhetoric.com which is where I quoted the speech from. The speech happened and americanrhetoric.com does qualify as a reliable published source. Criticism of the use of AAVE should not be presented in the article as if it's right or wrong. It should simply be presented as existing since it fits the criteria of WP:Undue weight. Since I spoke with the person who accepted this case on behalf of the mediation committee he has informed me that it could be a while before any committee member accepts this case to actually mediate it. So until then I will go back to what I said earlier...I won't spend my time arguing back and forth in circles with those specific editors who believe this article deserves absolutely no mention of the pound cake day speech or any other criticism of AAVE. I will wait for the mediate process to go through before I make any more efforts with this matter. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This image of the United States filled with the Pan African Flag is used very liberally.
African Americans do not accept this flag as representing them. Why must African Americans be seperated from all other Americans?
It seems that this is a politically charged image to use, and by using it, we are advocating that African Americans accept a seperate nationhood to that of the United States.
I hope we will stop using this image and include African Americans with all Americans.
80.229.242.179 00:00, 14 February 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. |
This article seems to gloss over all controversy associated with AAVE/Ebonics in the US by merely saying "it happened." Is there a reference that can be included to detail this, as it is relatively important in public perception of the dialect. Gleffler 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I created that ass- redirect to this article. I gotta say I don't have a source other than "the streets". I'v heard people say it many times and if you think about it that's a pretty good source for AAVE. anyone else who's studdied AAVE could prob confirm. I need help on wikipedia:wikiProject Sociolinguistics/Slang! Kɔffee drinks you 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I rearranged some stuff.
under grammatical features was
phonology, lexical
now it's
phono, all the grammar (largest piece), lexical
Kɔffee
drinks
you 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the questionable claim that multiple negation “can be traced to West African languages”—indeed, I’m sure there are many West African languages that use double negatives (that ain’t my area of expertise) but many, many other other non-standard Englishes (to which the first American black speakers of English would have been exposed) also do. And don’t other dialects of English similarly use “to be” without conjugation?
Also, maybe I’m being (overly) pedantic, but would African-American Vernacular English (with hyphen) be preferrable? — Wiki Wikardo 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And I must say, “me fall asleep, massa, and no wake 'til you come” don’t sound like any AAVE I’ve ever heard. Wiki Wikardo 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to have a lot of controversy, so I just thought I'd explain my edits, so they don't seem malicious.
I changed the line on code switching, because it sounded like it was saying code switching is only using different dialects for different social groups. Every time I've heard it used before, it was in reference to bilingual people switching back to their native language in a foreign country for convience (frequently in mid sentence) This seems to be the more common usuage of the word. Altarbo 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
According to this article, intervocalic /ɹ/ may also be dropped e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y" i.e. [stɔi]. Is that supposed to mean that the word is pronounced as if it were spelled "stoy"?
Is there an AAVE Wikipedia? If not can I make one? Cameron Nedland 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that AAVE has a conventional written form which would seem to be a prerequisite for a wikipedia. Numskll 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I just created an account to revert the page, I hope I'm following protocol. -- Arglesnaf 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there other common examples of metathesis apart from ask becoming aks? I ask because that particular example is not restricted at all the AAVE - it goes back to Old English. If we're only talking about isolated examples like that, then it's probably wrong to include metathesis as a feature of AAVE specifically - all English speakers do (and have done) it from time to time. garik 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A fair point:) Well, I've included a rewritten version of the metathesis point, though it's probably not terribly elegant. garik 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This article analyses the grammar and phonetics of ebonics in a way that would be completly incomprehensible to anyone who speaks that language. Similar to when a bunch of white men get together and transcribe Coltrane solos, then write "jazz education" essays about what he was "going for" at the time.
Ebonics is not some well-conceived design of a language. It's an accident--the natural evolution (or degeneration)of American English as spoken by African Americans over many years--and shouldn't be presented as anything else. To dissect the grammatical variations of this speach pattern is to miss the point completely. This language is entirely based on NOT understanding the rules of grammer, and on making mistakes and keeping them in the language. No one sat down and designed any of the rules that this article focuses on, and if you discussed this with a native Ebonics speaker, he wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.
This article is written about Ebonics, by people who don't speak Ebonics, for people who don't speak Ebonics. Solid.
do we have to fix this page? I mean, it's a talk page. Do we have to talk in the standard, and if someone doesn't, do we have to edit what they said to conform to the standard? -- Cheeesemonger 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
He finna [or "fittin' (fi-t&n) nuh"] go to work.
The definition and the application of AAVE seems to associate with southern African-Americans and descendents of southern African-Americans. Does the definition of AAVE not apply to those African-American individuals whose roots were principally outside of the south, such as individuals whose ancestors lived in the north prior to 1865? Perhaps some of the speech of these individuals might be measured in communities having concentrations of such individuals, e.g., Oak Bluffs, Nantucket Island, off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. (To a lesser extent: Edgartown and Gay Head. -Their African-American populations are low; but websites have referred to a historic presence of African-Americans.) Dogru144 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes? No? Maybe? How 'bout this: Why doesn't it move to Oakland_Unified_School_District#Ebonics_controversy and we just leave a link here? Better yet: Why not make a current-event-style article about it? I don't know what the terminology is for a Wiki article on an event that's no longer current. What's in this article is five times longer than the Oakland School Board article, and about a third of the entire AAVE article.
A template that I have just removed alleged that the text that followed contained weasel words. I saw no weasel word, no SGML comment saying that this or that word was a weasel, and no mention on this talk page of how this or that word was a weasel.
Anyone who wants to stick this template back in the article should say which word is, or words are, weasel. -- Hoary 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I read (after markup-stripping):
It seems that the editor who put that {{fact}} tag there wants evidence for the lack of a controversy.
Somewhere there may indeed be an authoritative book whose author credibly asserts that there is no controversy. But I don't think authors of related books would bother to say this. And they don't bother because they routinely, straightforwardly and convincingly demonstrate how AAVE is not "bad". Or anyway, it's easy to show people who are willing to read and consider the arguments presented in three pages or so of text. You'll find one example on pp 29-31 of the Morrow hardback (first) edition of Pinker's The Language Instinct. (The pagination of a paperback is probably different. Well, look near the start of chapter two.) In fact Pinker isn't even a linguist (he's a psychologist), but no linguist is likely to disagree with him here.
If there is a controversy among actual, working, present-day linguists (as opposed to linguists of decades ago, or people from other specialties dipping their toes in linguistics, or the occasional prematurely senile linguist, etc.), where is it? Until this controversy is shown, I'm deleting this request for a citation. -- Hoary 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well said, with very minor reservations. (Linguists can and do point out and discuss problems with the way particular people speak. See the literature on specific language impairment, for example. But they don't assert that sociolects are linguistically deficient.) I'm tired of the demand to give any space to any contrary "point of view" that's merely the recycling of ignorance, perhaps encouraged by the effusions of blowhards who often pride themselves on their lack of curiosity. There are indeed very big questions in linguistics (for example, nativism has recently come under intelligent and reasoned attack), and for these, contrary points of view should be presented; there's no comparable question here. -- Hoary 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Of the last fifty edits, a third has been pure vandalism and another third reverts. More and more I'm feeling like the editors monitoring this page are bogged down with needless vandalism that would be easily remedied if the page were blocked from editing by unregistered users. This page has gotten more than random attention by bad faith editing for quite some time. What do other people think? Would such an act be a soft of sledgehammer for the cockaroch? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say to all who've contributed here that this is a really good, informative article. Yes, it is a bit difficult for people not versed in all the terminology of linguistics to read (and I am one) but it manages to describe this difficult (and potentially controversial, I think) subject in an even-handed and encyclopedic way. And it's impossible to do that without using linguistics termonolgy. I looked it up because I was randomly thinking about some aspect of this dialect and my question was more than answered. Good work! Dina 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better if this article were formatted more like some of the other "variety of English" pages. For example, an IPA chart showing the phonology of AAVE would be nice. The verb system could be described on its own without reference to English, ie. instead of saying " 'he done gone' is equivalent to Standard English 'he went'", we could just say that 'he done gone' is the past perfect form. I'm not adamant about this; if there are any objections I'd be glad to hear them. Makerowner 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE. This is a feature of Caribbean dialects. I also think that the phonological rules diagram is unnecessary and possibly confusing to those without linguistic training. I would like to rewrite this section without the diagram and with corrected rules, unless someone can find a source for the voiceless dental stopping. Makerowner 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the AAVE word "bogus" comes from the Latin word "bogus" which is cognate with the English word "bogus". Either that or every word of AAVE is actually derrived from various Niger-Congo Group A language words which are both homonymous and synonymous with English by pure coincidence. Perhaps this is a situation that calls for Ockham's razor.
My Shorter OECD lists 'bogus' as 'unknown etymology'. I don't think there is a Latin word 'bogus'. I have no opinion about any Niger-Congo derivation. Makerowner 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Something in this article stinks of not following NPOV. Take the following example:
"Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism)."
I'm not entirely sure about calling the evidence "clear," though what concerns me more is the accusation of public feelings as being "unfounded." 67.9.36.176 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Reading through this article, I can't help but feel that it was written with a distinct pro-AAVE bias. The following lines especially struck me as non-neutral:
Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English. Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy, since AAVE, like all dialects, shows consistent internal logic and structure.
To dismiss negative appraisals of AAVE as being due to racial or ethnic bias (even with the "in part" thrown in as some sort of disclaimer) is, in my opinion, irresponsible and even a bit dangerous. I'd like to know which published study or paper found that, without a doubt, "racial or ethnic bias" was behind some people's opposition to AAVE.
The overwhelming controversy and debates concerning AAVE in public schools insinuate the deeper, more implicit deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole.
Insinuations, especially ones that explain away opposition to a topic by accusing those opposed of "deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole," have no place in an encyclopedia. Such insinuations (assumptions, whatever you want to call them) are very dangerous in a politically- and racially-sensitive article such as this one. Statements like this really need to be cited, or else omitted altogether.
Finally, I noticed that something written by Smitherman was cited quite frequently throughout this article; however, the source was not correctly & explicitly cited in the References section. Without the actual Smitherman article to read, I can only assume that it is also written with a strong pro-AAVE bias.
In light of these issues, I've very tempted to tag this article with an NPOV warning. I'll wait for responses to my comments before doing so.
Don't get me wrong - despite these concerns, I still found the article to be thorough, informative & well-written. It definitely answered my questions. Rhrad 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the rant, but this issue is close to me, and I can't stand it when people who don't know what they're talking about continue to spread ignorance about this important aspect of Black culture. Makerowner 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. What is this "basic English"? Do you perhaps mean standard American English? And what do you mean by "rudimentary" -- morphologically impoverished, or something else? The complexity of AAVE words are limited... I'm a bit lost here. Can you tell me what the subject of this sentence is? "Complexity" perhaps? If so, it seems you've interestingly simplifed the paradigm of BE, so that the third-person singular as well as plural form is "are". Or are you taking the noun that's the closest antecedent to be the syntactic subject? Either way, most interesting! [Y]ou rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. Really? I'd thought that the rap CDs I possess were in AAVE and that there were a lot of polysyllabic words in the lyrics. (Copyright considerations prevent me from reproducing a sample here.) It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. You're onto something with education: read Jonathan Kozol. And urban, yes. So? The vast majority of, say, Japanese speakers a couple of hundred years ago were uneducated; does this mean that their Japanese was rudimentary? Just what do you want to say about the relationship between language and education? Criticizing AAVE for it’s [sic] lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. Really? What else has it got to do with? (Incidentally, the standard way to write the genitive pronoun is "its", no apostrophe. At least among the better educated.) I also see absolutely nothing in this article about the fact that a large number of Caucasians also speak something very similar to AAVE. That's a sad omission. I hope that it will be rectified by some intelligent person who has studied language. -- Hoary 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The spelling mistake in 'rudimentary' was mine, though I agree that pointing out the mistake with its/it's is unnecessary. Many well-educated writers have difficulty with that rule, and the meaning was perfectly clear. That said, I disagree with nearly everything else Wikidudeman has posted. 1. You don't actually 'refute' my point in any way: I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. Find a legitimate linguist of the past fifty years who says that AAVE is a rudimentary form of English, then post your viewpoint with citations from that source. Many British English speakers feel that American English lacks 'complexity and refinements', and the French feel the same way about the British, etc. Everyone considers their speech form in some way better than others; this in itself is not necessarily a problem. The scientific study of language is meant to overcome these natural prejudices and allow us to learn more about other people and their cultures by learning about their language. People are of course free to make aesthetic judgements about languages, but to say that one is rudimentary compared to another is to belittle the culture of that language's speakers. 2. Perhaps I didn't explain properly what I meant about slang. Yes, rappers use AAVE, but the main elements picked up by Whites are the slang elements. Many older people with no interest in slang speak AAVE, and many Whites with little knowledge of AAVE use slang that has its origins in Black language nonetheless. 3. I must again stress that AAVE and Black culture are intrinsically tied to Black identity and are therefore connected to race. If someone were to say that the Indo-European language family is rudimentary compared to the Afro-Asiatic, or any other, this is an attack on European culture, and by definition, European identity. This issue is of course more sensitive for Black culture, because it has only been (partially) recognized as legitimate within the last 40-or-so years. 4. AAVE is a dialect of English and uses nearly all words that General American does. To exclude all these words from its vocabulary when searching for polysyllabics is ridiculous. How many polysyllabic words does General American have if you don't count all the ones that it shares with British English? And to say that AAVE words have simple meanings is also ridiculous. If anything, it is the wide range of meanings that AAVE applies to standard English words that separates it from other Englishes. The behaviour known as signifiying constantly applies new meanings to old words. This is also the way that slang works, and AAVE has been one of the greatest sources of slang in the US. Again, I must point out that linguists consider all languages (or language varieties) equally capable of conveying complex ideas. Since AAVE uses nearly all the same words as other Englishes, to say that it cannot convey the same meanings is nonsense. I am glad at least that Wikidudeman can recognize that Chinese is not rudimentary, despite is few polysyllabics; why then can't AAVE be recognized as a 'separate example'? I will keep my posts short if Wikidudeman stops providing me with material. Makerowner 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the article in some time, and am just noticing the claim that AAVE is somehow "rudimentary" and lacks polysyllabic words. These assertions are ridiculous/outrageous on their face and betray, at best, a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. deeceevoice 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has a strange form of citations that I can't follow. The citations seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link. Wikipedia explains how to correctly cite sources here Wikipedia:Citing sources. It looks like whoever did it was trying to use Wikipedia:Harvard referencing but did it incorrectly. Whoever put those numbers in the aricle should cite the sources correctly. Wikidudeman 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The first part of the first paragraph of the article says "About “80 to 90 percent of American blacks” speak AAVE “at least some of the time” (Smitherman 2". This type of referencing system is totally unhelpful if it doesn't provide any other information. Who is "Smitherman"? Where is his work found? What pages? Etc. If it's a website then reference it as such. If it's a study or journal or book then reference it as such. Otherwise it's meaningless. Wikidudeman 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed {{fact}} from the end of:
This is a complex sentence. Which proposition within it needs a reference? -- Hoary 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the last part of this sentence. Does what remains require a reference, and if so, which proposition within it?
I'm aware that a number of editors say that the article is biased. Have they read and understood the article, have they read and understood basic materials about language (e.g. a very short part of Pinker's popular The Language Instinct, as suggested above), and what cogent, intelligent, well-informed points are they making?
Incidentally, I'm not happy with the article either. Here's an example, chosen pretty much at random: For instance, if a child reads "He passed by both of them" as "he pass by bowf uh dem", a teacher must determine whether the child is saying passed or pass, since they are identical in AAVE phonology. (i) Why transcribe in this way, in which for example the "w" in "bowf" exaggerates the oddness? (ii) Why neither mention that the /t/ is commonly dropped by speakers of fast standard English nor say that this is a feature of deliberate AAVE? (iii) How is this a matter of phonology rather than morphology? More broadly, I think an article about a lect of English should primarily discuss the features of that lect, whereas this article burbles on and on about the consternation that AAVE excites among certain non-speakers -- not a non-issue, but a side issue. -- Hoary 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This article contains numerous examples of Undue weight bias as well as obsolete citations. Citations who's information does not contain the information to the claims they are supposedly citing. For instance the citation done to an article by Kendra Hamilton. Not only is Kendra Hamilton not an expert in the relevant matter but she has done no polls or studies to determine "racism" is the cause of criticism of Ebonics. The only sentence that even hints at that in the article is "Indeed, it may well be one of the last remaining bastions of open bigotry threaded through our culture." which can not be used as a source for the claim in the article "Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias.". [ [1]] Wikidudeman 10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article gives undue weight to the contention that Ebonics should be accepted in everyday speech and is somehow equal in sophistication to proper English. This article contains no references or criticism of Ebonics in any shape or form. This article needs to contain information concerning criticism of use of Ebonics including facts that speakers of Ebonics are generally less educated than speakers of proper english. Some references could be Bill Cosbys "pounkcake speech". It's very shameful that this article does not even mention Cosby's criticism of Ebonics. [ [2]] All it seems to contain are a few authors who hold 1 specific viewpoint and the entire article is basically based on those few authors. Notably "Smitherman". Wikidudeman 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I tidied up the Cosby quote a bit in the Controversy section. I think the quote should stay. It's on-topic, relevant and expressive. Cbdorsett 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with Fordmadoxfraud. I put back the controversy again. Deleting a section entitled "controversy" is not the way to show that there is no controversy. The facts that Cosby is or is not a linguist, is or is not a sociologist, does or does not make a point eloquently, uses or does not use AAVE himself, is or is not a well-known public figure - these are all relevant to his credibility, but not to whether his comments have a bearing on the subject. You guys who keep deleting it - are you suggesting that there is no way to quote public comments on the subject, not even to show that there is controversy? I find it hard to believe that educated people hit writer's block so hard when they see something they personally disagree with. Before you stick me with your branding iron, take a look and see whether I've taken a position with regard to what AAVE is. Language vs. dialect? Should or should not be taught in schools? Language variant or sloppiness? The position I have taken here is that the reading public should be informed. How does Wikipedia do that without telling them? Cbdorsett 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹. Wikipedia is not a democracy. consensus means everyone agreeing on the format of the article not majority vote. Also, The "Scientific method" has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. Cosby is not discussing the validity of Ebonics being a dialect as i've stated 3 times already. The only one being 'strong headed' would be you. Quoting random linguistic books and posting totally off topic passages from them won't get you anywhere. ALso your link is not a wikipedia article. [
[3]] it leads nowhere. If you mean "No original research" then nothing I put in the article is original. It came from Cosby.
Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ford MF, Cosby has had many years experiences in the black community working closely with African Americans on numerous issues. Cosby's criticism is very relevant. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Bill Cosby's quote in this article is as relevant as can be. Currently this article is so POV that it's absurd. This article does nothing put present Ebonics in a positive light and does not provide any alternative viewpoint of Ebonics or criticism of ebonics. Not only does this article (as i've established) use false sources to make incorrect points. But it doesn't even present other viewpoints in a very politically and sociologically charged issue. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm loathe to agree with Wikidudeman about anything in this article, maybe we should include greater mention of 'Public Perception of AAVE', with a clear indication that the opinions expressed in the section are not considered scientific or reliable by experts in the field. This would be the same sort of thing as explaining the views of the Flat Earth society while acknowledging that they are considered to be wrong by nearly everyone else. What does everyone else think? Makerowner 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite the previous debates over POV (whether AAVE is a valid form of communication or not), I think there is another POV problem with the article, though probably not a conscious one. The origin of AAVE is heavily debated in the linguistics community, yet the article only shows the creolist position. Although I am a support of the creole origin theory, I think the theory of AAVE as a preservation of White non-standard Englishes should be represented as well. Makerowner 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The controversy section is in a good place. Being right after "in schools" and right before grammatical features. Putting it at the end of the article would be out of context considering the previous part about the controversy in schools. I will likely be adding more to the controversy section soon. Wikidudeman 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This articles style of citation is not in sync with wikipedia's WP:MOS. The correct way to use citations is shown here WP:CITE#HOW. There are a few accepted ways of citing sources and this article is no consistent in it's citations and one specific common form of citation used in this article is not accepted anywhere on wikipedia. Looks to be a quasi-Harvard reference style or something like that, Impossible to determine anything from it. Wikidudeman 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
SMITHERMAN, ROMAINE, COULMAS, and TRUDGILL are used in the body of the text as a cite several times, but it is not anyhwere else (refs section), so we only have their name and a page number. We need title, publisher, etc to turn this into a proper footnote. These appear to be books or academic papers and someone familiar with them need to supply the info so proper refs can be generated. Lead needs to summarize the article too.
Rlevse 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoary, Wikipedia citations should be formated so that someone doesn't have to google it to find out who the person is and do extensive research just to see what publication the sources is coming from. That's not how wikipedia works. Moreover, Yes, I incorrectly cited that website. If you didn't fix it I will (when I re-add it since you erased it). Attempting to "refute" op pieces from websites criticizing a highly controversial subject such as AAVE as an attempt to exclude all criticism from the page is absolutely POV and very bias. Wikidudeman 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹, If you say you "incorporated more criticism in the social context section" then why did you completely erase the Cosby pound cake quote? I have re-added the pound cake quote to the end of the "History and social context" section since you completely erased it without explanation. Wikidudeman 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1.I did not say AAVE has been 'AAVE has been criticized for its persistence of use' someone else put that in there. If you have a problem with it I will change it. 2. It is unacceptable in most professional social contexts. That's a fact. 3. Many people have proposed teaching AAVE in classrooms to help the children adjust to proper English.[ [4]] 4. Again, None of your arguments address why this page can't become neutral by adding social criticism of use of AAVE from famous social commentators. Not only that but your "Revert" also reverted my deletion of the references used in the article body that don't belong. Wikidudeman 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
is an example of where I was changing the formating of that, I didn't put it in originally. The references I erased were erased for a purpose as I explained three times already. They are 1. Not in format with how wikipedia uses references (doesn't use them in the article body) 2. They already have components in the end of the article in the 'references" section. 3. Only citations should be used in that form where each statement or sentences is cited. That's why I removed them. I hadn't removed all of them YET but I was getting it before you pointlessly reverted it. Your assertion that Cosby is not "qualified" is nothing more than your personal opinion. In MY opinion he is qualified to comment on this issue and his comment does belong. Wikidudeman 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's nothing more than a strawman argument used simply to refute in the very next paragraph. Wikidudeman 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually language can easily be argued for or against and is a cultural production. Comparing criticism of 'use of language' to the 'sun' is absurdity. However, If you want to play semantics Pinkville and say that AAVE as a 'language' can't be criticized then let me rephrase. This article needs criticism of the use of AAVE. Since people 'use' aave in numerous circumstances and the use of the 'language' can easily be criticized and has been. Rather than accusing other users of racism who happen to disagree with you and want the article to become neutral perhaps you should assume good faith and think twice about your faulty position. Wikidudeman 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Phonological features" has many difficult terms. a few explenations would be good. – 213.114.217.37 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering none of the editors to this article are willing to make any compromise in adding the Cosby quote to this article or any other relevant criticism I have no other choice but to request an official mediation WP:M which might be able to help resolve the disputes. All relevant parties must consent to the mediation before it can progress. If you are willing to mediate this topic to help solve the dispute then please say so here. Thank you. Wikidudeman 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I only skimmed through the article, so I don't know, but is there a section on the pronunciation of numbers? My friend (African-American) says "fiteen" instead of "fifteen". Or is that already covered somewhere else in the article? Thanks. Knightskye 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw that the article has a failed RfM. I would have thought that a RfC should be tried first and would bring along some new editors. My comments below are made as if in response to an RfC. I like the article and hope you can quickly come to an understanding about the point you are currently held up on. The referencing needs attention: that is obvious. The range of academic sources referred to seems good, though. I would suggest that, apart from referring briefly to where AAVE is spoken, when and by whom, the article should start with the linguistic aspects. I was interested in knowing more about the dispute between linguistics experts on the origins of AAVE and how much it shares with other dialects of English, how much is derived from African languages and how much is a result of language mixing. Then the article would come onto the sociolinguistics questions. In a section that could be headed "attitudes" commentators like Cosby could be mentioned. The notable point is of course not that Cosby, a non-expert, holds these views but that the media takes an interest in his views. "Schools" could be a sub-heading under "attitudes". The article could have a to-do list on the talk page, starting with the referencing. I'm not watching the page, but please post on my talk page if you want me to contribute further. Itsmejudith 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to remove/alter a pile of stuff.
I'm aware that this section risks becoming very uninteresting, but etymologies should be backed up by specified, reputable works of etymology, rather than mere speculations or real but uncredited scholarship.
-- Hoary 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the naming conventions of Wikipedia, this article should be titled Ebonics rather than AAVE considering Ebonics is the term the majority of English-speakers are familiar with. Again, this would be in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- 24.107.176.113 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not up for a vote and it doesn't matter what the editors prefer. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be named to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle:
“ | Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for [u]readers over editors[/u]; and for a general audience over specialists. | ” |
Wikidudeman (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Controversial names, which tells us If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain; if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes.
"Examined on a case-by-case basis": the expression is grotesque, but the meaning is clear. OK, let's examine this proposal on the basis of its, uh, case.
I'll agree that African American Vernacular English is not a very widely known term, and that neither is AAVE. However, the consitutents African American and English are now standard, and vernacular is widely known among educated people (not only those who are educated in linguistics). Whether African American Vernacular English (below, AAVE) is the best of all terms is not something I want to explore here; because the only suggestion has been to rename it Ebonics, let's instead consider the merits of Ebonics.
Coined some time between 1973 and 1975, Ebonics was a very little-known term until December 1996, when the Oakland (Calif) school board put it in the news. (Even the OED 2nd edition of 1989 didn't bother with it.)
It's still not very well known, it seems. I looked for it among English dictionaries of 1997 and later; here's what I found. (The criticism might be raised that it's a proper name and many dictionaries give space only grudgingly to proper names; I therefore name the proper names that bracket the place where Ebonics ought to be.)
For those who don't know the word, Ebonics is hard to parse. (Bizarrely for a word meaning a dialect or language, it's partly derived from phonics used to mean phonetics.) Meanwhile, AAVE is easy to parse (or at least it is for those who know the word vernacular).
AHDEL is careful to make AAVE its primary term.
Not a single dictionary that I encountered presents Ebonics as a normal and neutral term for the way that many US Blacks speak. (Note for more theoretically inclined linguists: I very much regret this phrase "the way that [XYZ people] speak" with its emphasis on performance rather than competence: I'm trying to avoid "language" and "[dia]lect" and also linguistic jargon.) Instead, it's shown to be a loaded term: it implies that this way of speaking is somehow independent of English, even that it is a separate language. It could be argued that AAVE is similarly a loaded term, implying that this way of speaking is merely a form of English. You may then wish to coolly consider the facts, which are that the overwhelming majority of linguists regard this way of speaking is a dialect (or lect) and not a language, and that the great majority of speakers of other kinds of English have little trouble understanding this way of speaking, certainly much less than they encounter when trying to understand, say, Dutch.
I also speculate that the term Ebonics is particularly beloved by blowhards (on both sides of the "controversy") and that AAVE is less likely to scratch their itches.
Even if I put aside that speculation, I strongly oppose any notion of renaming this article "Ebonics". -- Hoary 13:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm hardly a linguistics scholar - I have a "lay" interest in the subject - but I'm well aware of the distinction between Ebonics and AAVE. If I did not already know of an article in Wikipedia called "African American Vernacular English", I would search for "African American English" or "Black American English" or something similar, but it wouldn't occur to me to search under "Ebonics", unless, not finding any of the other possibilities, I turned to it in desperation (maybe it's just my idiosyncrasy, but I suspect I'm not alone). The trouble is that "Ebonics" is a political term, which is perfectly fine in that field of human activity and thought, but not fine in the context of the study of language... It's a term that is complicated by the assertions of its advocates that it should be taken as a linguistic term, but without the support of linguists. Hoary's argument on the related point makes perfect sense to me, that "Ebonics" is intended to suggest a language independent of English vs. "AAVE" which explicitly makes the connection to English. Regardless, "AAVE" is the term for the dialect, "Ebonics" is the political term used by certain people making claims for a particular conception of African American culture. Consequently, two articles would be best, with redirects as appropriate. Pinkville 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm an African-American, and I don't use the term "Ebonics." In fact, no one I know uses it, except in a dismissive and offhand manner, referring to the ignorance, bias and backwardness of those who, in fact, use it dismissively/demeaningly and as a class- or ethnically charged pejorative. "Ebonics" is, in fact, a recent, colloquial, politically charged term that is unencyclopedic and inappropriate in an academic or scholarly context. Those of us who have studied "Black English" for some time now recognize the label "Ebonics" as a flavor-of-the-month sort of naming convention. It's a term made popular by the recent media fracas in Cali (and elsewhere), but is neither an acceptable nor accurate substitute for "AAVE." (This has been discussed here before.) Given the pervasiveness of the electronic media and the decreasing literacy of particularly American society, we should be wary of affixing shallow, hot-button, media-driven labels to phenomena simply because certain segments of the population (often young and/or not very well-read on a particular subject) may not be aware of them by any other name. That is, in part, what wiki redirects are for. deeceevoice 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Believe whatever you will. I'm a well-read, learned African-American who understands the power of words, and that's just the way I roll. I'm not here to convince you that many consider "Ebonics" a racist term. What I'm telling you is that there are many who consider it so; that's hardly a news flash. "AAVE" is, in fact, value-neutral and is, therefore, far more preferable to "Ebonics." Furthermore, I find your assertions that AAVE is "rudimentary" and monosyllabic hilarious. AAVE is vivid; complex; rule-driven, structurally (like other dialects); often metaphorical; powerful and creative -- precisely why so much of American English (and other languages, as well) is shot-through with our contributions, why the popularity of the African American spoken word is a worldwide phenomenon. Lotsa luck proving that ridiculous assertion. deeceevoice 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Mock Ebonics" in the wake of the 1996 controversy is a topic that has been studied academically. I refer specificallty to an article, "Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racism in parodies of Ebonics on the Internet", published in August 1999 in the Journal of Sociolinguistics. The authors explain their choice of terminology, "We use the term Ebonics, which is often associated with Afrocentricity and political correctness, because both the Oakland Board of Education and the Ebonics parody pages themselves use this term." (I can e-mail this to whoever wants it.) In other words, it's a term used by one political group in promoting Afrocentricity, and by another, what the authors call the "Anti-Ebonics Ideology", in mocking it. Most linguists for most purposes will use AAVE, and most ordinary people use "Black English" or something. To most people "Ebonics" has political connotations: to a small group of Afrocentric activists (not all, certainly) positive, to many more people negative. We try to avoid terms with negative connotations in titling ethnic articles; i.e. we have Roma rather than "Gypsy".-- Pharos 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude Man has put the "Ebonics" article up for AfD. -- Hoary 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any point in further discussion with this guy. The preponderance of opinion here (as well is in previous discussions here -- see the archive) is that the article title should remain as-is. deeceevoice 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That's probably true, Deecee. But an edit conflict meant that I'd already written this: ¶ the assertion that "Ebonics" is commonly understood to be a "political" word and has negative connotations to many people: the evidence for this assertion is presented with considerable detail and care by John Baugh in his book Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN 0-19-512046-9 [hard], ISBN 0-19-515289-1 [paper]). As for the other things Dude Man says, they've already been addressed. ¶ I wonder whether Dude Man has yet managed to read a single intelligent book about AAVE, and if so, which. Baugh's book is slim and goes very easy on technical terms; it's quite palatable even for people who find it hard to read books. On the other hand, it's probably quite beyond those people who find it hard to read anything whatever that disagrees with what they already happen to believe. -- Hoary 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this, the conclusion is that it seems best to me to keep the article title at the current place. Quite simply, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to be based on - largely academic - reliable sources. Seeing as those reliable sources are not using the term "Ebonics", it is probably correct for this page to remain separate, as the term which those sources are using. Nothing wrong with a separate article on the history and usage of this term Ebonics, which, as google shows, is clearly notable in its own right. Moreschi Deletion! 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the article should keep the title 'AAVE', discussion of the name 'Ebonics' might be useful as well. Hoary, I think rather than having a full article devoted to it, the term might be better explained in this article. I haven't read this book by Baugh, but if it has some information on the social/cultural uses of the term, that would be helpful. Makerowner 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ebonics was presented as a label for AAVE to prevent black children being told their speech was "defective" and to instill pride, and to make teachers understand that the student was not simply speaking English badly. This reportedly led to efforts or plans in Oakton, CA to instruct children in Ebonics, which led to people making fun of it, with purported vocabulary lessons. I did not see reference to this backlash. Also it would be enlightening to let people hear how persons in West Africa with limited English experience pronounce English words. From George Mason University, [7] is a series of recordings and phonetic transcriptions demonstrating some of the sources of AAVE, mixed in against the speech samples from around the world. You hear West Africans say "axe" for "ask" and "wif" for with when reading a standard paragraph with agood sample of English speech sounds. It might be a good addition to the article, but it has people from around the world as well, so the listener needs to know which languages are from where. Edison 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not "Oakton" but (rather famously) Oakland, which you'll see gets a mention in the article.
AAVE now benefits from some excellent books. (I'm now reading that by Lisa Green.) If you have a good book about AAVE at hand, do please help to make this a better article. -- Hoary 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
From a purely linguistic perspective, AAVE is no "better" or "worse" than any other dialect of English. It is no less capable of conveying complex information, nor is it any independent indicator of intelligence. It is as richly complex a dialect as "Standard American" and has no deficiencies whatsoever as a means of verbal communication. And there is not a credible linguist who will tell you otherwise.
Any and all criticisms of AAVE rest squarely on dialectic bias and social assumption. The lack of AAVE use in scientific journals or major publications is more a matter of author and audience rather than the capacity of the dialect to convey the same information discussed in Nature or Scientific American. Furthermore, non-speakers of AAVE frequently have a great deal of trouble understanding it because of verb aspect difference with Standard American which precludes using it as a common medium of communication.
Overall, if this article adds any criticism of AAVE, it ought to be labeled clearly as "social criticisms" and must not be represented as linguistic criticism. UMassCowboy 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman has once again decided that he knows more about sociolinguistics and AAVE in particular than the all the other editors of this article combined and all scientific researchers in the field. The To Do List has something about showing social criticism of AAVE, citing the Undue Weight policy. I would like to quote a relevant portion of the text:
The idea that AAVE is somehow deserving of criticism from a linguistic viewpoint is equivalent to the idea that the Earth is flat, from the viewpoint of scientific acceptability. Can someone please remove this so some new editor doesn't mistake it for a decision reached by a consensus of the editors of this article? Makerowner 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To Wikidudeman: How 'bout you stop your tagging this and that, your filing for deletions, comments, mediation, etc. so that you and other editors can go ahead and attend to the first (and only reasonable) request you've made, which is to add and refine the citations in this article. Many fine editors have had to spend valuable time dealing with the brush fires you've set here and there while work that you and everyone else agree is necessary goes unfinished. Pinkville 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well excuse my confusion due to your use of similar words. The fact that I failed a RFM the first time is irrelevant. I learned from my mistake and now I am filing another RFM and hoping the involved participants in the dispute at least make an attempt to resolve this dispute. Proclaiming "I'm right and you're wrong" and trying to rant themselves out of the dispute with paragraphs of unrelated evasions simply won't work. A mediation might work, It's worth a try. I'm taking steps to resolve this dispute. If you think that's a waste of time then perhaps wikipedia isn't the right place for you. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, I don't think there is a real, contested issue here to warrant a NPOV discussion. Cosby might have some interesting personal opinions of AAVE, but he's a psychologist, not a sociologist. He doesn't have authority sufficient to warrant a real debate here. We've all hashed over the various "social" debates here: that it "sounds ignorant," that it isn't "widely used," et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, that doesn't address anything discussed in the article. The article is clearly a linguistic discussion, not a sociological discussion. I imagine this is because of the absolute lack of real sociological substance on this issue. The sociolinguistic implications of AAVE are documented, but I have yet to stumble across support of any sort that would constitute a need for "NPOV" balance.
I'd give up this fight. It isn't worth the energy. There isn't anything here. If you feel like you've found something credible and Wiki-worthy, post it here and we'll review.
UMassCowboy 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The article actually isn't just a "linguistic discussion". If it was it wouldn't mention anything dealing with the sociological aspects of AAVE including the Oakland controversy. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹. After Cosby, Who else? Well firstly Cosby is enough. Secondly, When I added the Cosby piece I had another article which quoted Lee H. Walker criticizing the use of Ebonics. Thirdly, I could easily add other criticisms including Alberto Manguel, Raymond Govero or C. Mason Weaver. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently edited the section on negation to indicate that "ain't" can be used where GAm has "will not". I'm not sure if that is correct. I am not a native speaker of AAVE, but to me, "I will not (won't) go home," and "I ain't go home," are not equivalent. Can anyone either provide a source documenting this use or remove this from the article. Makerowner 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As AAVE is clearly related to Southern English, I am wondering about the speech of historically Northern African American communities. To what extent has this been studied, how different was it from AAVE, and does it still exist anywhere?-- Pharos 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. Jimbo Wales himself has stated...
It mentions ebonics frequently. It was newsworthy. It has it's own wikipedia article. Therefore it's relevant to this article on ebonics. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so that it doesn't get lost to evasions like so much of what I have said in the past has, I will restate your points and my rebuttals...
As of yet no one has given a viable explanation for why criticism of aave and the Pound Cake speech can't be mentioned. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Done for now...
I addressed Hoary's above comment but I accidentally X'd out of my browser before posting it so it all got erased. It doesn't matter anyway because not much of he said addressed my actual points anyway. However, I talked to a member of the mediation committee and apparently our case might not actually go through mediation for a few more weeks even though the committee accepted it, no member of the committee has yet decided to accept it as mediator. Therefore I am going to wait until the case starts going through with mediation before I spend anymore time arguing it. I will however state my final points which have not been addressed as of yet. Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. So far the ONLY arguments that have been brought up are evasive criticisms of the sources themselves not their verifiability which is a big difference. Their criticism of the "factuality" of the opinions of Ebonics or the authority of those who hold them may be justified but their refusal to add them into the article is not. Wikipedia clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V Their criticism does not coincide with wikipedia policy and they have no justification for their refusal to add criticism of Ebonics into the article. Criticizing Cosby himself and throwing insults at him really has nothing to do with his speech being mentioned in the article. I will say it again Bill Cosby is not my source. Cosby said what he said and no one questions that. The source in question if you are even questioning the source should be americanrhetoric.com which is where I quoted the speech from. The speech happened and americanrhetoric.com does qualify as a reliable published source. Criticism of the use of AAVE should not be presented in the article as if it's right or wrong. It should simply be presented as existing since it fits the criteria of WP:Undue weight. Since I spoke with the person who accepted this case on behalf of the mediation committee he has informed me that it could be a while before any committee member accepts this case to actually mediate it. So until then I will go back to what I said earlier...I won't spend my time arguing back and forth in circles with those specific editors who believe this article deserves absolutely no mention of the pound cake day speech or any other criticism of AAVE. I will wait for the mediate process to go through before I make any more efforts with this matter. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This image of the United States filled with the Pan African Flag is used very liberally.
African Americans do not accept this flag as representing them. Why must African Americans be seperated from all other Americans?
It seems that this is a politically charged image to use, and by using it, we are advocating that African Americans accept a seperate nationhood to that of the United States.
I hope we will stop using this image and include African Americans with all Americans.
80.229.242.179 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)