[JoelSutherland]

I don't think you read the article.

"Schools should recognize the legitimacy of AAVE as a language for their students, and teach those students to recognize when and how to switch between AAVE and American English as appropriate. But most schools don’t do that. They simply teach students that the way they speak is wrong. Don’t talk this way; talk our way.

Wheeler says we’re still not doing right by children who grow up with AAVE. “The consequences are that students are being terribly misassessed in our schools. Teachers think that black kids are making mistakes, when really they’re re-creating what they hear and learn at home,” Wheeler says. “They’re counting as mistakes things that are patterns and rule-based, so [the students are] being placed in lower reading groups.”"

The point of recognizing AAVE is not to teach it as a replacement language. It's to treat it similarly to Spanish for example. By recognizing where kids are coming from, the system will better be able to direct them to where they need to be.

[omonra]

Unless these kids are going to be reading books written in ebonics, perhaps they don't belong in higher reading groups?

Same works for Spanish speaking kids - if they don't speak / understand English, they would be placed in remedial classes, right?

Since the world (outside the neighborhood) speaks standard English, they are probably served well to learn that that's what they need to know to succeed. The approach advocated would produce the opposite effect - kids would think that what they hear at home is OK and that the world should accomodate them.

[Cushman]

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

But that's just factually false. Both of these children speak a proper first language at home, and both need to be taught to respond to English questions in English without being taught that their first language is somehow wrong.

[SilasX]

But it still would be right to put both kids (the Spanish- and AAVE-speaking) in remedial English because both are at a low level with respect to American Standard English. The fact that they're good in another language doesn't somehow mean they're at the class's expected level in ASE.

Unless, of course, the class is so young that they can reasonably be expected to learn from mere immersion, at which point the advice of this article is correct, that you should provide the "AAVE-native" students the awareness that there are two forms of English going on, at they have to be able to switch to the standard one and use it in the appropriate context. (Spanish-native students generally figure this out on their own.)

[Cushman]

Not remedial English. ESL. There's a big difference. English class is where speakers of ASE learn the grammatical rules of their language in ASE. Doing that again, or more slowly, will not help someone who does not speak ASE at home. ESL is where a speaker of your native language teaches you ASE as a foreign language, because it is.

Only once they are fluent in ASE (and that should happen rapidly for young AAVE speakers, mind) will English classes geared toward native speakers be productive.

[Crake]

Should we put other native speakers of english with an inability to write a sentence with correct grammar in with the ESL too then? Based on this map of American dialects, it seems like standard english is the lingua franca of many different offshoots of the english language.

http://robertspage.com/diausa.gif

This whole thing seems rather silly to me. Maybe instead of worrying about checking our privilege, we can worry about making sure everyone from all backgrounds is able to communicate in a professional way and graduate high school with a basic grasp of proper english. (your vs you're, etc)

(Because even if you don't want to call it remedial english, that's where they'll end up in college. If you've lived in America for 18 years but want to take ESL in college, they're justifiably going to think you're insane.)

[Cushman]

Yes. If you are trying to teach children "correct" grammar rules that they will go home and unlearn because their peers speak a different grammar, you are getting teaching very wrong and you should do it differently. As has been reiterated exhaustively in these comments, that does not mean you do not teach them SAE. It means you teach it so they actually learn it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but highlighting "your" vs. "you're" indicates you really don't understand what we're talking about here. That is a difference of orthography, of spelling, which is completely unintuitive and frankly stupid to speakers of dialects in which those words are pronounced exactly the same way. Any native speaker, however perfect you consider their English, must be taught spelling by rote. All English is "broken" in that regard. (Did you know there are languages where there is no such thing as a spelling bee, because there is exactly one possible way to spell any word?)

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about people who go home every day and speak a real language, one just as proper, correct, consistent, coherent as your own. Just different. Your insistence that your language is "proper" because it is the language used in formal speech by the rich and powerful is, yes, incredibly unaware of your privilege.

And your calling that "silly" is, o irony, quite ignorant. Did you read the article? Did you read these comments? Did you go on Wikipedia and look up AAVE? Southern American English? Appalachian English? These are not broken forms of English, these are forms of English you do not speak. This is all completely uncontroversial among people who study the use of language scientifically.

[omonra]

Your argument seems to rest on the premise that teaching them in Standard English will imply that ebonics is wrong. And that is somehow bad. I, meanwhile, just don't care. The world will not care about their feelings - and the earlier they learn SE, the better.

I am only interested in what is the most effective way to learn SE (any variety that news anchors speak in Anglophone countries).

I want them to succeed outside the area where people speak ebonics. And I think the best way that would be achieved is if they learn proper English at school, full stop. The difference with Spanish is that spanish-speaking kids simply would not understand English. These kids do. It just seems an exercise in protecting their feelings.

P.S. This comes from someone who actually was in an ESL (English Second Language) class in high school. And we actually had native-born black kids there - circa early 90s.

[Cushman]

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

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

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

[tsotha]

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

You do realize the point of that was to tap into bilingual education funding, right?

[omonra]

"but this is not the opinion of, among many notable others, the Oakland school board since 1996."

Yes - and they've been considered a joke because of it since 1996. The decision was "derided and criticized, most notably by Jesse Jackson and Kweisi Mfume who regarded it as an attempt to teach slang to children". So my opinion is shared by many prominent black leaders.

[Cushman]

So your answer to my entreaty is "no", then?

[dsfasfasf]

Seriously, you are equating AAVE with Spanish. AAVE is how people of poorer means speak or with less education speak, even if it's not politically correct to say it. Spanish is an actual language hundreds of years old and spoken by multiple nations. By your logic you might as well recognize English slang as an actual language.

-Edit: So for those arguing that AAVE is a dialect, then If I add a few rules to any other language does that mean I've just invented a new language. That is what AAVE is, it is just English with a few additional rules that some people of low socioeconomic mean have learned (reinforced through bad education). Hardly what I would call a new language. Maybe in 500 years if the people speaking it become isolated, right now is just bad English.

In spanish there are people with low socioeconomic means that will also talk a bit different. Even with their own rules for some things. You do not call that a new language to spare their feelings. You call them uneducated and rightly so or else when will they learn if they are not ever corrected? Being politically correct just to spare the feelings of some people is not doing anybody any good.

I know is insensitive but by trying to be too nice problems never get solved.

[greggman]

Some cultures consider non standard dialects just that, "non standard". They don't deride people who speak them as poor or less educated.

For example consider Japan. Nearly every region in Japan has its own dialect. Everyone learns, for lack of a better way to say it, "standard Japanese" which is the kind used by news broadcasters. But, to their friends and family in their hometown they speak their local dialect which is often not understandable by people outside their region.

They know when to speak standard Japanese (for example a job interview) and when it's okay to speak the dialect.

The article is suggesting that AAVE should be considered a dialect and treated the same way. That seems reasonable to me given it's the same in many other countries. It also means respect for the culture of AAVE instead of contempt which seems like a good thing to me. So many people speak it. Why is their culture any less valid than another?

[auctiontheory]

I think that "is the culture that speaks AAVE a valid culture?" is a vanishingly insignificant question compared to the critical real-life problem of providing black inner-city kids the education and communication skills necessary to make it in today's world.

If you graduate from high school speaking only AAVE, you are in big trouble. Students need to learn to speak standard English, whatever else they may or may not speak. Distracting from this huge priority with intellectual arguments about the validity of cultures does these kids a huge disservice.

[kscaldef]

You're arguing against a strawman. The article states that no one is suggesting that students not learn Standard American English. The point it is making is that it is more useful in teaching SAE to recognize that some students arrive at school speaking a different dialect rather than with an incorrect understanding of SAE, and that acknowledging that explicitly is more productive than telling them never to speak their home language.

[dsfasfasf]

>>and that acknowledging that explicitly is more productive than telling them never to speak their home language.

Home Language... Hahahahahahahahah. Seriously, you guys need to lower the BS. It is no more a language then the Spanish Puerto Ricans speak (Some people claim Puerto Ricans speak a dialect of Spanish. Seriously, what the hell? I've had to argue with people that it is just a different accent and some of them are simply mispronouncing some words because of the accent which they quickly loose if they go international). I have a bridge to sell all of you.

[Evbn]

You sound far stupider than someone speaking Ebonics, and all else equal, I would certainly hire an intelligent and peceptive Ebonics speaker and than someone who displays muddled thinking in grammatical SE.

[greggman]

Agree with your first point.

The article is not suggesting teaching AAVE. The article is suggesting not deriding people who speak AAVE at home, teaching them the difference between AAVE and "standard English", why it's important to know the difference, and when it's appropriate to use one vs the other.

[dsfasfasf]

I'm getting tire of this BS.

Give me examples of the "AAVE dialect" that are not just examples of bad English. In Latin America there are a lot of dialects which are called like that simply because a minority of people speak it. But in reality they are full spoken languages (i.e. not just a few rules on top of an existing living language like English) You saying that AAVE is a language is an insult to those dialects like Nahualt and Mayan.

[Evbn]

I stopped reading at "I am tire", as you have shown yourself to be worthlessly illiterate.

[dsfasfasf]

What are you talking about? It is a new dialect. No, it wasn't a typo made at a rush, that is how I spell "tired" in my new dialect. Rather than ridiculing me you should tell me the difference between the dialect I speak at home and standard English which I imagine you speak.

[Afton]

I'm not downvoting you. But your position is untenable, and comes from a misunderstanding about what a language is. It's not that it's not politically correct, it's that it's factually incorrect.

No one is arguing that there is or isn't a class and racial component to who speakers of AAVE are. They are primarily black and poor. But that point is irrelevant. Kids raised where people speak AAVE will grow up speaking AAVE. Simply declaring it 'not a language' gets you nothing. It's not 'just slang', it's a system of speaking with its own set of rules, just like any other language.

[pekk]

Simply declaring that it is a language gets you nothing too. If every minor variation creates a whole new language, then almost no two people with a vocabulary of a few thousand words actually speak 'the same language'.

[Afton]

Sure, and if you want to go down the road of constructing metrics for language, you can. I should warn you that you will likely find it fruitless and arbitrary.

Your point about how every variation makes a language is correct. The term is idiolect. Language (like 'English'), is an abstraction over idiolects. But getting people who want to argue about "correct English" to an understanding of idiolects is more work than I can put into a comment during a work day. I'll try and dig up a general description of the issue and link it here.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect#Idiolect_and_language is the best I could do on short notice.

[Crake]

This.

[nollidge]

> AAVE is how people of poorer means speak or with less education speak

That doesn't make it not a language. What you're saying is that we should base categorize forms of communication based on the social status of their speakers. I hope you can see why that might be problematic.

> By your logic you might as well recognize English slang as an actual language.

This doesn't make any sense. AAVE is not slang, which you'd know if you read the OP.

[antiterra]

> That is what AAVE is, it is just English with a few additional rules that some people of low socioeconomic mean have learned (reinforced through bad education).

Nope: take, for example, the "axe" pronunciation of "ask." You can trace this usage in an unbroken line from AAVE to Southern American English to Modern English to Middle English to Old English. You see, it's not just synthesis that can create a dialect or language, but also retention.

By your argument, Modern English isn't much of a language either. Instead, it's just the result of hundreds of unskilled speakers through the trajectory from Old English to Middle English to Early Modern English not learning how to properly use cases and inserting foreign Latinate words because they couldn't speak OE properly.

[stan_rogers]

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

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

[NoahTheDuke]

You didn't read the article, and you're saying gibberish. Please stop.

[rayiner]

In the U.S., Spanish is also how people of poorer means or less education speak. That doesn't make it not a language.

[anigbrowl]

Not unless they're of Hispanic heritage, in general.

[Lagged2Death]

Define "actual language."

[smsm42]

So should there be AAVE-English academic dictionaries with entries like "ain't: are not", etc.? What about l33tsp34k and txtng spk, u wnt 2gt dctnrz 4 it 2?

[nollidge]

The differences between American Standard English and AAVE are primarily grammatical, not lexicographical. So an AmE-AAVE dictionary wouldn't be very thick.

And Leetspeak, txt-speak, and AAVE are not equivalent entities. Leetspeak is an alternative alphabet, txt-speak is a system of abbreviations and slang, and AAVE is at minimum a dialect.

[smsm42]

Leetspeak can be classified as a dialect too, if you'd like, it has its own words (leet, pwnd, haxor, etc.) and you can find grammar differences if you look hard enough[1].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet#Grammar

[Cushman]

That's pretty unconvincing. Despite the heading "Grammar", it mentions differences that are lexicographic or merely orthographic in nature. The only real grammatical process mentioned is "changing its grammatical usage to be deliberately incorrect" which has some obvious problems. "All your ___ are belong to ___" is an idiomatic expression in Internet Standard English, but that does not a grammar rule make.

[pekk]

You haven't articulated any real objective principle to distinguish when two ways of talking are the same language. The decision seems to be based on politics (in this case politics of race)

[Cushman]

Naturally, there is no such objective principle for me to articulate. Everyone speaks according to the language center of their own brain. Some ways of speech are more different than others; some are so different that communication is hard without speaking slowly, and some still are so different that communication is impossible and you must resort to pointing (and even pointing is not universally meaningful). At some point along the line we call it a different language, but it's not representative of any sharp distinction that exists in reality.

Asking a linguist "are these the same language" is as useful as asking a biologist "are these the same species"; it all depends on what you want to use them for.

(Although I don't particularly see the relevance of that to whether or not leet has a substantially distinct grammar from English, of which I remain unconvinced.)

[mtviewdave]

>So should there be AAVE-English academic dictionaries with entries like "ain't: are not", etc.?

This is already the case in Standard English dictionaries: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint

>What about l33tsp34k and txtng spk, u wnt 2gt dctnrz 4 it 2?

Actually, given how often I see it, I wouldn't be surprised if "U" was the standard English spelling for the second-person pronoun (or at least an acceptable variant), by the end of this century. It wouldn't be the first time an English pronoun's spelling collapsed down to a single letter ("I" was originally "Ic").

[Evbn]

U is logically parallel to I, and is accepted in (India) Indian English.