|
|
|
|
|
|
by blocking_io
4831 days ago
|
|
|
Your comparison of second language speakers to native speakers of AAVE continues to be insulting and wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by "superior" here. There's an English language with its grammar rules, and there are common mistakes or detachments from widespread usage patterns which people make in English. This is wrong. There is not 'an English language'. There is Standard American English, Scouse, Glaswegian, Received Pronunciation, Jamaican English, AAVE, and dozens of others, many of which you would find harder to comprehend than AAVE. What would be the reason some of these should be institutionalized with four-letter acronyms and research programs and, I have no doubt, juicy grants? As I keep explaining, this article does not advocate AAVE speakers should not be taught SAE, but that by recognising their native language they can be taught SAE better. |
|
|
Of course there isn't. If you are asked "do you speak English?", you have no idea what they are talking about. If you come into a bookstore and see a shelf named "Books in English", you ask the seller to point out to you which books are in Glaswegian, when one in Jamaican English, which ones are in AAVE, which ones are in Scouse... No way there's something that everybody actually calls "English". Got it.
>>>> As I keep explaining, this article does not advocate AAVE speakers should not be taught SAE
I am at loss why you keep explaining something that nobody doubted anyway. Teaching standard English does not preclude juicy grants for studying AAVE and "recognizing it" and "teaching better". I'd be happy to know how exactly better would it be? The article is pretty scarce on the details except for one method that basically eliminates the word "wrong" from the teacher's vocabulary and instead instructs the student that "we do it this way". I am not sure why this would be any different, but for this alone there's no need to even have a concept of AAVE as it seems...