6 ms·

This is called relativism and it’s a natural position to take if you think there are no useful prescriptive standards, only descriptions of how people act. I g

This is called relativism and it’s a natural position to take if you think there are no useful prescriptive standards, only descriptions of how people act. I guess that might be appealing for some people, but for others the ideas of quality and correctness are important. Unfortunately this has been mixed up with discussions about race which makes it basically impossible to publicly support any sort of language standards.

bedobi 5y ago
> ideas of quality and correctness are important Quality and correctness are important! And AAVE does have and enforce both. If you answered a question like "where be the car?" with "it be on the road" or "it's on the road" when in fact it be in the garage, you would be grammatically incorrect. I bet you have no idea what habitual be even is or how it works. (I didn't) And it all begs the question, why, in the US, is Standard American English (which is overwhelmingly native to white people, and usually the ones with the most privileged positions in society at that) more quality and correct than any other variety? Is there something magical about their speech that makes it quality and correct? Keep in mind English itself is a hodgepodge of butchered other languages. Is Australian English not quality and correct? How come grammatically standard English, just spoken with an African American accent, is still not quality and correct?
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  It’s considered incorrect because the combined cultural output of the previous five centuries established an educated baseline as to what is considered proper. It’s not simply an arbitrary designation or a consequence of “privilege” and culture isn’t just an empty variable that is selected randomly. The point about Australian English is irrelevant. Australian English is correct in Australia and incorrect in America, just as American spellings are incorrect in Britain. Language is culture-specific. Again, if you have no interest in the idea that some things are correct and others are incorrect, this will not appeal to you. But that is a postmodern relativistic position and not one that everyone agrees with. Even if none of that is appealing to you, the simple fact that is the overwhelming majority of the US agrees that a certain dialect is “proper” English. It’s unclear to me why a small percentage of the population would be justified in having their dialect be on equal terms with the society-wide one. This really has nothing to do with race inherently and the same situation applies to say, Appalachian dialects.
  - wxnx 5y ago
    The notion of a standard language is a modern idea (not in the sense of modern vs. postmodern, but historically). The idea that the only valid basis for distinguishing between dialects is geography strikes me as odd, but suppose we accept it as a premise. Why is it less valid to allow correctness to be defined, say, with respect to local borders as opposed to the borders between countries?
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      I didn’t say it was geography. American culture is mostly separate from Australian culture. As the US is a unified cultural element, it’s not surprising that a single standard had been established. The downsides of the lack of this are easy to observe: just look at the EU. No single unified language, no unified market, less economic power. Making a Netflix for America requires 1 language, while making a Netflix for the EU requires 29. China isn’t pushing Mandarin everywhere just for chauvinist “cultural superiority” reasons. It ultimately comes down to politics and economics.
  - fenomas 5y ago
    This seems like a very strange position to take. For one, I think what you're attacking here is usually called "descriptivism", as opposed to prescriptivism. Relativism is already a term of art in linguistics for something unrelated. For two, it's hard to follow what point you're trying to make. If you think Australian English is correct in Australia, why not similarly say that AAVE is correct in a place where people speak it? Do Australians make up a "culture" in some way that people who speak AAVE don't?
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      AAVE is correct in a place where people speak it? I didn’t say it wasn’t. Certainly dialects are “correct” in their specific regions. That isn’t the same thing proposed by the original commenter, who insists that it is correct everywhere. It would quickly become unwieldy if every cultural subgroup wanted their dialect to be given equal standing with the majority’s agreed-upon standard. Communication would become impossible. Political fracturing would probably happen.
- nanis 5y ago
  > And it all begs the question Does it beg or prompt the question? I ask because the meaning of the rest of the paragraph changes depending on which one you meant to use. I am an immigrant in the U.S. I do my best to communicate with everyone else in a common language. It does not matter what the common dialect is at any given time. The benefits of using the common dialect are independent of how it came to be the common dialect.
rsynnott 5y ago
It seems to be more or less uniquely an American issue? As far as I know, no-one is going around demanding that people from Yorkshire or Kerry or other places with significant language variation speak standard English. > ideas of quality and correctness What does this mean, for English? For instance, you say "I guess"; that's a neologism, and would probably upset really extreme prescriptivists. Where should the line be drawn?
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  I don’t know enough about the UK to give you an educated answer. It’s my impression that variations are mostly in the accent and vocabulary, not the actual conjugation of verbs like “to be.” Is that correct? The conflict would be if Kerry dialect speakers started insisting that the BBC write articles in their dialect and not in the society-wide one.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    > It’s my impression that variations are mostly in the accent and vocabulary, not the actual conjugation of verbs like “to be.” Is that correct? No, not necessarily. Some examples here: https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/grammatical-variation-across-the-uk# https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/gram... > The conflict would be if Kerry dialect speakers started insisting that the BBC write articles in their dialect and not in the society-wide one. Kerry's in Ireland, not the UK. However, the BBC has had newsreaders with regional dialects for a while (since WW2!: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-north-england-voice-overturned-bbc-tradition-180967208/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-north-england-... ) In terms of written news, the BBC has news in West African Pidgin (which is on the cusp between being a dialect and a language; it's comprehensible to English speakers): https://www.bbc.com/pidgin https://www.bbc.com/pidgin . They also have some content in Scottish English (a dialect) and in Ulster Scots (generally considered a separate language, but largely comprehensible to English speakers).
- tclancy 5y ago
  This can’t possibly be only American unless you’re suggesting chavs and kevs stopped existing overnight.

bedobi 5y ago

> ideas of quality and correctness are important Quality and correctness are important! And AAVE does have and enforce both. If you answered a question like "where be the car?" with "it be on the road" or "it's on the road" when in fact it be in the garage, you would be grammatically incorrect. I bet you have no idea what habitual be even is or how it works. (I didn't) And it all begs the question, why, in the US, is Standard American English (which is overwhelmingly native to white people, and usually the ones with the most privileged positions in society at that) more quality and correct than any other variety? Is there something magical about their speech that makes it quality and correct? Keep in mind English itself is a hodgepodge of butchered other languages. Is Australian English not quality and correct? How come grammatically standard English, just spoken with an African American accent, is still not quality and correct?

ceilingcorner 5y ago
It’s considered incorrect because the combined cultural output of the previous five centuries established an educated baseline as to what is considered proper. It’s not simply an arbitrary designation or a consequence of “privilege” and culture isn’t just an empty variable that is selected randomly. The point about Australian English is irrelevant. Australian English is correct in Australia and incorrect in America, just as American spellings are incorrect in Britain. Language is culture-specific. Again, if you have no interest in the idea that some things are correct and others are incorrect, this will not appeal to you. But that is a postmodern relativistic position and not one that everyone agrees with. Even if none of that is appealing to you, the simple fact that is the overwhelming majority of the US agrees that a certain dialect is “proper” English. It’s unclear to me why a small percentage of the population would be justified in having their dialect be on equal terms with the society-wide one. This really has nothing to do with race inherently and the same situation applies to say, Appalachian dialects.
- wxnx 5y ago
  The notion of a standard language is a modern idea (not in the sense of modern vs. postmodern, but historically). The idea that the only valid basis for distinguishing between dialects is geography strikes me as odd, but suppose we accept it as a premise. Why is it less valid to allow correctness to be defined, say, with respect to local borders as opposed to the borders between countries?
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    I didn’t say it was geography. American culture is mostly separate from Australian culture. As the US is a unified cultural element, it’s not surprising that a single standard had been established. The downsides of the lack of this are easy to observe: just look at the EU. No single unified language, no unified market, less economic power. Making a Netflix for America requires 1 language, while making a Netflix for the EU requires 29. China isn’t pushing Mandarin everywhere just for chauvinist “cultural superiority” reasons. It ultimately comes down to politics and economics.
- fenomas 5y ago
  This seems like a very strange position to take. For one, I think what you're attacking here is usually called "descriptivism", as opposed to prescriptivism. Relativism is already a term of art in linguistics for something unrelated. For two, it's hard to follow what point you're trying to make. If you think Australian English is correct in Australia, why not similarly say that AAVE is correct in a place where people speak it? Do Australians make up a "culture" in some way that people who speak AAVE don't?
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    AAVE is correct in a place where people speak it? I didn’t say it wasn’t. Certainly dialects are “correct” in their specific regions. That isn’t the same thing proposed by the original commenter, who insists that it is correct everywhere. It would quickly become unwieldy if every cultural subgroup wanted their dialect to be given equal standing with the majority’s agreed-upon standard. Communication would become impossible. Political fracturing would probably happen.
nanis 5y ago
> And it all begs the question Does it beg or prompt the question? I ask because the meaning of the rest of the paragraph changes depending on which one you meant to use. I am an immigrant in the U.S. I do my best to communicate with everyone else in a common language. It does not matter what the common dialect is at any given time. The benefits of using the common dialect are independent of how it came to be the common dialect.

rsynnott 5y ago

It seems to be more or less uniquely an American issue? As far as I know, no-one is going around demanding that people from Yorkshire or Kerry or other places with significant language variation speak standard English. > ideas of quality and correctness What does this mean, for English? For instance, you say "I guess"; that's a neologism, and would probably upset really extreme prescriptivists. Where should the line be drawn?

ceilingcorner 5y ago
I don’t know enough about the UK to give you an educated answer. It’s my impression that variations are mostly in the accent and vocabulary, not the actual conjugation of verbs like “to be.” Is that correct? The conflict would be if Kerry dialect speakers started insisting that the BBC write articles in their dialect and not in the society-wide one.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  > It’s my impression that variations are mostly in the accent and vocabulary, not the actual conjugation of verbs like “to be.” Is that correct? No, not necessarily. Some examples here: https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/grammatical-variation-across-the-uk# https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/gram... > The conflict would be if Kerry dialect speakers started insisting that the BBC write articles in their dialect and not in the society-wide one. Kerry's in Ireland, not the UK. However, the BBC has had newsreaders with regional dialects for a while (since WW2!: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-north-england-voice-overturned-bbc-tradition-180967208/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-north-england-... ) In terms of written news, the BBC has news in West African Pidgin (which is on the cusp between being a dialect and a language; it's comprehensible to English speakers): https://www.bbc.com/pidgin https://www.bbc.com/pidgin . They also have some content in Scottish English (a dialect) and in Ulster Scots (generally considered a separate language, but largely comprehensible to English speakers).
tclancy 5y ago
This can’t possibly be only American unless you’re suggesting chavs and kevs stopped existing overnight.