re Re: re Re: re Re: SLSL language

[calbert at hslboxmaster.com]

> > Says a broadly accepted standard of usage.
> > Language is, after all, a means of communication.


Jbor beefs:
 
> So your argument is that the users of African American English don't
> understand one another?

I would argue that its usage is not standard across african 
american "communities" spanning the US...and, furthermore, that, 
if you include ALL african english speaking groups, the disparity 
widens.

 Or that it isn't a broadly accepted standard
> of usage within their community? Please.

I  am not fluent in any particular variety of  AAE, though I have been 
exposed to a few  strains, so I am not equipped to argue this to 
any extent. Clearly "locally" standards  emerge, but given that they 
are often types of "code", it is easy to imagine that they are not 
meant to be broadly accepted as a matter  of  "functional 
principle"....and they are certainly not  well fixed across time....

> I don't think anyone here has advocated that Ebonics be taught in
> place of "standard" American English, only that it be recognised and
> acknowledged as a legitimate mode of cultural expression.

I think we disagree here only with respect to HOW such 
"recognition" is manifested........Just as it oversimplifies (and I do 
apologies for intimating such) your position by  saying that you 
seek  to have it "taught in place of", I think a similar effect is at 
work with the issue of "recognition". My feelings about its place in 
education in now way inhibits my fascination and admiration of any 
argot... 

 I think the
> real sticking point for some is the suppressed realisation that
> Ebonics is a subversion of "standard" American English, rather than a
> marker of social and cultural inferiority. To be able to manipulate
> and flout the "rules" of a language (often in such a way to point up
> inconsistencies and illogical preconceptions within those "rules", and
> to purposely and successfully offend speakers of the dominant "argot")
> requires a pretty solid understanding of the base language. Of course,
> for subsequent generations of speakers that knowledge of the base
> language gradually disappears, because the new code does function
> perfectly well on its own and the kids are immersed in it on a daily
> basis. Thus the children aren't able to switch back to the alternate
> code when it's appropriate to do so for the discourse context, and
> this is where the problems arise in education, employment etc.

I think you are absolutely correct....

> It's quite possible that the distance between the two codes will
> continue to grow, perhaps to a point where they become mutually
> incomprehensible. In fact, this is precisely how languages do develop.


As long as we don't "lose" the  practitioners along the way.....not 
all   assimilation is bad....

> This is rubbish. Language is merely a medium of communication and
> instruction. The same conceptual knowledge and skills can be conveyed
> and learnt via Ebonics as via English. Or Spanish. Or Windigo. Or any
> language.

But when  communication occurrs outside the conveyance of 
knowledge and skill, say when it simply seeks to communicate 
information, then accepted usage is what allows the english 
speaker in Bangalore to understand the one with whom he 
communicates in Watts........as a practical matter,  how do you 
teach the teachers all the various argots  they may need  to employ
in a  NY City classroom  for example? In a  class with kids from 
chinatown, Brighton Beach, and harlem - which "argot" do you 
privilege?

 African-Americans (who can't switch to the dominant language
> code) are disadvantaged in the job market in the same way that
> newly-arrived migrants and refugees are. If Bojan or Lakshmi were
> surgeons or engineers back in Bosnia or Sri Lanka the fact that they
> don't speak English doesn't make them any less of a surgeon or
> engineer.

It surely does here........The AMA keeps licensed foreign 
physicians off the rolls here to controll  supply....In order  to satisfy 
local  licensing requirements, my guess is that foreign physicians 
have to attain a  VERY HIGH level  of language competence. I don't 
know what the situation is for engineers, but as a practical matter, 
it wouldn't raise any hackles  if an employer insisted that an  
applicant's language  skills were unsuited to the task  intended.....

> 
> It's exactly the same for African-American children as it is for a
> second- or third-generation American child who grows up in Little
> Italy and speaks only Italian at home and in her or his wider
> community until he or she starts school, and who continues to speak
> only Italian in those contexts.

yes and no.....I would  suggest that there is a  difference between  
speaking a local version of a dominant  language and  speaking a  
"discreet" foreign language....and I  would  further point  out that 
public schools in "Little Italy" are likely  to be  JUST as  prickly 
about standard grammar as  those in Scarsdale.....and I want 
nothing less for the kids in  S. Central......

> > This debate  also overlooks one  of the very functions of argot,
> > which is EXCLUSION.
> 
> Of course one of the motivations behind the use of Ebonics is
> exclusion. It's a form of protest.
> 
> > Those who employ it are  specifically
> > looking to confirm a bond which is NOT universal.
> 
> English isn't "universal". Get over yourself.


One day.......one beautiful day.........

and why is this "over myself"? technically english  is my second 
language.....and here is something else, MATE - I don't recall  a 
whole lot  of appreciation for my  Swenglish when I arrived in 
Aus.....it was pretty much sink or swim as I recall......

love,
cfa 
> best
> 
> 
>