Proposition 227 (was Re: NP Ebonics)

[jbor]

on 18/3/03 3:30 AM, Abdiel OAbdiel at abdieloabdiel at yahoo.com wrote:

> I hope Robert will explain his use of inverted commas
> over the words "foreign" and "standard." But let me
> say that Ebonics is a language. It is not a foreign
> language in the United States as Spanish and French
> clearly are. 

Only that the terms are problematic. For the speaker of a "foreign" language
that language isn't foreign at all, and so there's a connotation in the
notion which marginalises the speaker from what is "normal" and "acceptable"
in the society. It's like denoting Islam as a "foreign" religion. And there
is no such thing as a single "standard" English, as you've already pointed
out. Legalese or journalese and computer programmer lingo, say, are as
divergent and obfuscatory in their way as any interlanguage spoken by a
second language learner. But I agree with the distinction you make between
Ebonics and Spanish, which is a distinction in terms of derivation,
proximity and comprehensibility also. (The example in this country is
Aboriginal English, which up until now has not been recognised as a language
in its own right, and so has been part and parcel of institutional and
general discrimination against the group of people who use it to communicate
with one another. Traditional Aboriginal languages are recognised as
languages, however, as I guess African languages are over there. I side with
those who recognise Ebonics and Aboriginal English as independent languages
on practical and moral grounds, even if, technically-speaking, they are
dialects of English. Language is certainly not genetic, however, but I
haven't yet had the chance to read the link MalignD posted. I would be
extremely surprised to find any credible linguist arguing that language is
genetic.)

I don't disagree all that much with MalignD on the prescriptive grammar
point either. I think that grammar is a cornerstone of literacy and that it
does need to be taught (to all students), and that the metalanguage of
traditional grammar is the most accessible one available. One problem, as I
see it, is that traditional English grammar derives from Latin grammar, and
Latin is a thoroughly consistent and predictable language, and very
different from English. So it's not a good fit at all. When I was first
introduced to descriptive grammar it was the terminology of traditional
grammar that was used, eg:

I am going for a swim.

"swim" = verb type functioning as a noun

I haven't warmed all that much to the attempts of the functional linguists
to initiate a new metalanguage ("processes" and "participants" etc), and I'd
note that there seems to be a tendency for all systems of grammar to devolve
from description into prescription after a time. All that said, however,
systemic functional linguistics does provide insights into language use and
the construction of meaning in society which traditional grammar doesn't.
And it's true that some will present formal language proficiency as a badge
of superiority and means of discrimination, much as a racist will with skin
colour. I don't think MalignD or Charles were arguing that line, however. If
there's a job which requires a command of a certain style of English, then
that should certainly be one of the selection criteria for that job. But
opportunities to learn to use that code should be made available to all, not
just to "native" speakers. And ESL education (including bilingual programs
where appropriate), and recognition and respect for all students' cultures
and languages, are integral to achieving this.

best