3 ms·

[deleted]

jasonmp85 9y ago
"grammatically incorrect" is an arbitrary value judgment, no matter how much you might assert or concern-troll otherwise.
- throwanem 9y ago
  No, it's not. It's just erroneous here; AAVE has an internally consistent grammar just as any other language does. I know quite a few people who code-shift between AAVE and standard American English, just as I do between that and the (admittedly somewhat less different) dialect of my youth. The remainder of Overtonwindow's comment flows from that error and one other, which is to assume that AAVE is a "degraded" form of standard American English. It is not; it has old and many-branched roots of its own, only some of which lie within American English. But who knows? Perhaps Overtonwindow is a more accomplished historical linguist than those on whose statements I here rely.
  - jasonmp85 9y ago
    Yes, clearly. I just meant "… in a vacuum" or "… with the implicit understanding there is some _true_ grammar". In one sense, yes, utterances/productions can be grammatically incorrect with regard to a particular grammar under discussion, but if those utterances/productions can be said to be a part of that grammar, eventually the grammar needs to change to accurately describe the state of the world. (Ultimately I have to think some of this comes down to "misperformance" where the speaker _knows_ their production is invalid. If enough speakers "misperform" but begin to hold the idea that these speech acts are not actually invalid, is that what tips the scales in favor of changing a grammar?)
Karunamon 9y ago
It is a result of the educational oppression and lack of English language and grammar education for African Americans. Assuming for a moment that this is a true or even defensible statement, trying to "fix" it would be an even greater injustice. You can't rightly rip someone's culture away, regardless of how it got there in the first place. Expect any such attempts to go over poorly. Also, keep in mind that the point of language is to communicate. So long as that goal is being achieved, what's the problem? I find this sort of linguistic prescriptivism (thou shalt use these words these ways) to be counterproductive and rather silly.
- anon151516888 9y ago
  >Also, keep in mind that the point of language is to communicate. So long as that goal is being achieved, what's the problem? Because it's a language that pretty much means that they're illiterate and can't actually be understood by normal people. With the other party having to employ mental gymnastics to understand. Let's not beat around the bush here. Not to mention that this "dialect" obscures the intelligence level of the speaker. This will definitely have a negative effect on their opportunities in life.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Not to mention that this "dialect" obscures the intelligence level of the speaker. This is actually a fault of a kind of racism, though. If we accept that AAVE is a dialect of English, with its own rules (and the article appears to make that case soundly), then people not being able to look past that is a symptom of their own ignorance.
toasterlovin 9y ago
> It evolved out of necessity in the absence of education. Citation needed. My main exposure to black American English is through popular music (hip hop / rap), so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but there has been so much change in the vocabulary just in the 20 years that I have been exposed to it that, IMO, there's no way that it can be due to anything other than deliberate linguistic experimentation/innovation. You might be familiar with somebody who experimented and innovated with English in the same way: Shakespeare [1]. [1]: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/macbeth-and-shakespeares-linguistic-innovation https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/macbeth-and-shakespea...
gugagore 9y ago
When groups of people separate (for whatever reason, including social oppression reasons) language drift can happen. It doesn't have to be lack of education that causes language drift. I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You don't have to invalidate the language used by millions of people TODAY (e.g. by calling it a "so-called" language) in order to question why this language emerged. In fact I think that your comment perpetuates a harmful idea that the language that a certain oppressed group uses is not legitimate and broken.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
The paper talks about that, calling it a distinct language is what the Oakland school board did, and this spurred a semantical debate that devolved into exactly what you mentioned, while being a red herring in and of itself. This paper lends credence to it being a valid dialect. Yes, your thoughts could be said of an absence of education in Appalachia too. That doesn't lessen the distinctiveness and perpetuity and acknowledgement of the dialect.
jxramos 9y ago
Applying the same logic of "if X is found in population Z, therefore culture of population Z" for say some objectively negative status such as health effects, mortality, etc, should be "disrespectful" as you say I would hope. "More diabetes? That's their culture" comes off a bit harsh right? Your comment makes me think about the origins of the phrase "blaming the victim" surrounding the Moyniham report.
scott_s 9y ago
The assumption in your first clause is what this article article is refuting.
psychometry 9y ago
You didn't read a word of the paper, did you?

[deleted]

"grammatically incorrect" is an arbitrary value judgment, no matter how much you might assert or concern-troll otherwise.

throwanem 9y ago
No, it's not. It's just erroneous here; AAVE has an internally consistent grammar just as any other language does. I know quite a few people who code-shift between AAVE and standard American English, just as I do between that and the (admittedly somewhat less different) dialect of my youth. The remainder of Overtonwindow's comment flows from that error and one other, which is to assume that AAVE is a "degraded" form of standard American English. It is not; it has old and many-branched roots of its own, only some of which lie within American English. But who knows? Perhaps Overtonwindow is a more accomplished historical linguist than those on whose statements I here rely.
- jasonmp85 9y ago
  Yes, clearly. I just meant "… in a vacuum" or "… with the implicit understanding there is some _true_ grammar". In one sense, yes, utterances/productions can be grammatically incorrect with regard to a particular grammar under discussion, but if those utterances/productions can be said to be a part of that grammar, eventually the grammar needs to change to accurately describe the state of the world. (Ultimately I have to think some of this comes down to "misperformance" where the speaker _knows_ their production is invalid. If enough speakers "misperform" but begin to hold the idea that these speech acts are not actually invalid, is that what tips the scales in favor of changing a grammar?)

Karunamon 9y ago

It is a result of the educational oppression and lack of English language and grammar education for African Americans. Assuming for a moment that this is a true or even defensible statement, trying to "fix" it would be an even greater injustice. You can't rightly rip someone's culture away, regardless of how it got there in the first place. Expect any such attempts to go over poorly. Also, keep in mind that the point of language is to communicate. So long as that goal is being achieved, what's the problem? I find this sort of linguistic prescriptivism (thou shalt use these words these ways) to be counterproductive and rather silly.

anon151516888 9y ago
>Also, keep in mind that the point of language is to communicate. So long as that goal is being achieved, what's the problem? Because it's a language that pretty much means that they're illiterate and can't actually be understood by normal people. With the other party having to employ mental gymnastics to understand. Let's not beat around the bush here. Not to mention that this "dialect" obscures the intelligence level of the speaker. This will definitely have a negative effect on their opportunities in life.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Not to mention that this "dialect" obscures the intelligence level of the speaker. This is actually a fault of a kind of racism, though. If we accept that AAVE is a dialect of English, with its own rules (and the article appears to make that case soundly), then people not being able to look past that is a symptom of their own ignorance.

toasterlovin 9y ago

> It evolved out of necessity in the absence of education. Citation needed. My main exposure to black American English is through popular music (hip hop / rap), so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but there has been so much change in the vocabulary just in the 20 years that I have been exposed to it that, IMO, there's no way that it can be due to anything other than deliberate linguistic experimentation/innovation. You might be familiar with somebody who experimented and innovated with English in the same way: Shakespeare [1]. [1]: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/macbeth-and-shakespeares-linguistic-innovation https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/macbeth-and-shakespea...

gugagore 9y ago

When groups of people separate (for whatever reason, including social oppression reasons) language drift can happen. It doesn't have to be lack of education that causes language drift. I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You don't have to invalidate the language used by millions of people TODAY (e.g. by calling it a "so-called" language) in order to question why this language emerged. In fact I think that your comment perpetuates a harmful idea that the language that a certain oppressed group uses is not legitimate and broken.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

The paper talks about that, calling it a distinct language is what the Oakland school board did, and this spurred a semantical debate that devolved into exactly what you mentioned, while being a red herring in and of itself. This paper lends credence to it being a valid dialect. Yes, your thoughts could be said of an absence of education in Appalachia too. That doesn't lessen the distinctiveness and perpetuity and acknowledgement of the dialect.

jxramos 9y ago

Applying the same logic of "if X is found in population Z, therefore culture of population Z" for say some objectively negative status such as health effects, mortality, etc, should be "disrespectful" as you say I would hope. "More diabetes? That's their culture" comes off a bit harsh right? Your comment makes me think about the origins of the phrase "blaming the victim" surrounding the Moyniham report.

scott_s 9y ago

The assumption in your first clause is what this article article is refuting.

psychometry 9y ago

You didn't read a word of the paper, did you?