I am reading the most fascinating book with Parker right now.
It's called Language Exploration and Awareness, by Larry Andrews. Yes, it's a grammar book. It's also seriously interesting how Standard American English (SAE) and grammar "rules" are actually just social rules that often have the effect of stigmatizing whole groups of minorities and the manner in which they speak by declaring it "wrong" or "improper" use of grammar and language.
Key points I find terribly interesting:
1. SAE "rules" were not actually created for English. Back in the day, when Latin was taught and English actually was not, they decided that they were hearing too many deviations in the manner in which people were speaking English. So they decided to teach the language, though it was the native language of the US, and imposed grammatical "rules" that were made for Latin and other romance languages--hence why a lot of these "rules" don't make any sense in English, yet they make tons of sense for Latin, Spanish, etc. (ex: "Never split an infinitive." This makes sense for Spanish, as is illustrated in the example of "leer," or "to read." If one said, "le con cuidado er" it would make no fucking sense. But, in English--"I want you to carefully read pages 105 to 108..." makes perfect sense.) The rules are seriously outdated and conservative...and they also stand to create division and racism. As you will see in my other interested point--
2. African-American Vernacular English (aka AAVE, or Black Vernacular English--BVE, or ebonics) is often cited as "improper use of English," or "slang." But actually, it is NOT a degenerative language, as it is often described. Instead, it's, "a variety of English that followed a different path to its own pattern of regularization."--Larry Andrews. Obviously, AAVE is not all-encompassing of African Americans any more than SAE is all-encompassing of all Anglo-Americans. However, SAE is no more "correct" than AAVE, as it too is derivative and follows no clear pattern or rule structure...so why are people hyper-critical of AAVE? Frankly, I think it's shrouded racism--by labeling that way in which someone speaks as "ignorant," you slyly sneak in the idea that the person him/herself is ignorant. There is nothing linguistically incorrect, but socially...
I only wish I'd read this book a few years ago, when I got into an argument with some jag-off that said anyone speaking "incorrect" English was a follower of "gangsta culture."
I would be interested to know what Lauren thinks of this, as she is devoting her time and life to the study of linguistics.
2.05.2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It's true. I remember my Russian professor talking about this stuff.
I don't bother "correcting" my students when they say things like "I want you to carefully read pages 105 to 108." (In fact, I probably wouldn't even notice.) If I can understand what they mean, it's a huge achievement. :)
Jamie -
If that interests you, I've got a great book called "Language and Society" (and many on the subject)that has more than a few very interesting chapters (each chapter deals with a different topic).
I have much to say about what you've written here (love it), including some clarifications. One question though - you can't "split" an infinitive in the romance languages.. it's just one word.. so why would there be a rule about it? It's a bit of linguistic folklore that our rules came from the classics - and it's rejected by today's linguists, so I'm curious as to what Larry's background is.
The rest of my commentary will be delivered shortly. :) I have too much to say to type it into this comment box in one shot (and my computer frequently works against me, randomly choosing to clear what I've typed - frustrating).
Okay, here goes.
Standard American English (SAE) - the "proper" language that we're taught in at school, the language of power in this society - is a different variety of English than African American Vernacular English (AAVE). AAVE is not "bad English". Jamie is not correct in stating that neither of these languages follow clear patterns or rule structures though - they both do (all languages do, in fact there is a phenomenon known as "Universal Grammar" that is fascinating but nonetheless a digression from the current topic). AAVE has its own grammatical characteristics, some that are the same as SAE's and some that are different. It has many grammatical structures in common with African languages. Actually, some speculate that it may be a creole of English and African languages. It's a point of contention in the linguistic community.
Nonetheless, it's disgusting how many people hear the word "ebonics" (just another word for AAVE) and think "lazy, uneducated English" when really, it's its own language (at the least its own dialect). Those who speak it generally know SAE as well (as they have to in order to succeed in our country), making them bilingual (or bidialectal as the case may be). The discrimination against AAVE speakers has two roots: ignorance and.. well, ahem, ignorance. That is to say, not knowing what AAVE is (being blissfully unaware it exists, as when one belongs to the dominant culture it is never *necessary* to be knowledgeable about anyone else's culture) and as Jamie pointed out, racism.
Back to "bad English" for just a minute - linguistically speaking, there is no such thing. There are grammatical "irregularities" in prescriptive and descriptive language. Just an interesting aside. Check out "Language: Its Structure and Use" as a broad introduction to linguistics.
And the book I recommended in my previous comment is actually called "Language in the USA", edited by (my favorite) E. Finegan and J. Rickford. You want to read it. It introduces the major themes in sociolinguistics and has a section on "genderlect" that you need to read. Unless I'm thinking of a different book.. either way it has at least a chapter on language, gender, and sexuality. Also a section on language policies (for example, discussion of "English only!" policies that are inefficient and ineffective). Not all of the chapters are fabulous though. They're all written by different authors and, well, some of the authors suck at life. I mean, at writing. But most are really, truly, fascinating. At least to nerdy linguistics freaks like me. :)
I should note that people who are critical of AAVE might be so because of the financial ramifications of accepting it as a different dialect/language. Schools would be required to fund language support services for AAVE speakers who aren't on level with their SAE-speaking peers. There have been bi-dialectal reading-support programs developed, but despite studies touting the effectiveness of these programs in closing the literacy gap, schools refuse to adopt them. The public doesn't want to finance something they see as support for Black English.
This is similar to the reluctance to support dual language bilingual education (academic instruction in native language and target language) even though dual language programs allow English language learners a faster acquisition of English (isn't that what they claim to want?!), on-track grade-level learning, support of their native culture (and acknowledgement of the worth of their native language and culture), and the chance to be academically bilingual & biliterate - something that has known cognitive benefits.
Wow, Lauren's getting all smart over there at Hamline. :)
That's what I thought. For example, verb conjugation follows some different rules in AAVE.
Also, our cognitive abilities seem to be based in large part upon our ability to use language. In my experience with other languages, it is a new way of thinking.
Score. Thanks for the info. I'll definitely check that book out. I'm seriously intrigued by the social ramifications of language--and I love having smart friends. :-)
Post a Comment