NP Proposition 227 (was Re: NP Ebonics)

[davemarc]

From: Malignd <malignd at yahoo.com>
>
> That Afro-Americans are genetically programmed to
> speak Ebonics is an idea in need of study and
> research, yes.  One might say that.  One might also
> say it's ludicrous and in need of no further study.

I believe the notion that "Afro-Americans are genetically programmed to
speak Ebonics" stems from a misunderstanding of linguistic terminology that
is addressed in the link that MalignD thoughtfully provided

http://www.csa.com/hottopics/ebonics/overview.html

--where a footnote states "Genetic Classification: The grouping and
subgrouping of languages according to hypotheses of genetic relationship,
ie, descent from a common ancestral language. Does not imply a hereditary
(ie, DNA) component to language."

Corroborating information can also be found in the links that I provided
before then:

Linguistic Society of America
http://www.lsadc.org/ebonics.html

University of Massachusetts, Amherst
http://www.umass.edu/aae/position_statement_.htm

Policy Statement of the TESOL Board
http://www.cal.org/ebonics/tesolebo.html

Other Statements from the Center for Applied Linguistics
http://www.lsadc.org/ebonics.html
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/News/9703Dialect.html
http://www.cal.org/ebonics/fillmore.html
http://www.cal.org/ebonics/ebfillmo.html

Anyone who is sincerely interested in learning about African American
English/African American Vernacular English/Ebonics and its recognition in
linguistic and educational circles would greatly benefit from becoming
familiar with all of the above materials, which present facts and
well-reasoned analyses that contrast sharply with the misunderstandings that
seem to have taken hold of much of the public's imagination.

It strikes me that the related "discussion" here has been unnecessarily
difficult.  In this case and in others, participants seem very prone to
arguing rather than conversationalizing.  Challenges to a point-of-view are
likely to be treated as attacks, rather than as opportunities for clarificat
ion or increasing knowledge.

That's why I appreciated the instances when participants took the time to do
some digging into the subject, coming up some very interesting and
informative citations.  And I've got to say that Doug's quotations from
Pynchon's books were very impressive.  So many of his posts have resembled
propagandizing and proselytizing (I think of the Pynchon quoting as
Pynchon-thumping) that I had taken his quotation-finding skills for granted
until this recent round of dialect-related quotations, which blew me away.
(I suspect he's either got a photographic memory or at least some of the
Pynchon ouevre on a database.)

Perhaps we can't all be friends.  Perhaps there's something about the ways
we use and misuse this medium that heightens our potential for conflict--but
if that's the case, perhaps there's also a way we can fix that by
identifying and working on the problems.  Certainly the offline exchanges
that I've witnessed have been much friendlier, on the whole, than these
online exchanges.  I just wish it were easier for more of us to be civil and
appreciative of each other, and not perpetuate and succumb to all the bad
vibes [note possible AAE dialect] that have accumulated over the years.

This has been a public service announcement.  On with the show....

d.