NP Proposition 227 (was Re: NP Ebonics)

[davemarc]

From: Malignd <malignd at yahoo.com>

> <<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>>
>
> It is explained there and I judge, from the
> explanation that it was an example of back-pedalling.
>
> If not, what does it say for the linguists who put
> forward the Proposition that they weren't able
> correctly to state what they meant?
>
I think the more relevant questions may be along the lines of "What does it
say about journalists and other authorities who failed to absorb or report
the clarifications?" and "Why, years later, are so many people willing to
accept the
initial fallacious reporting and unwilling to accept the clarifications?"

I've read the one link that MalignD selected and I've read the ones that I
provided.   In http://www.cal.org/ebonics/fillmore.html, Berkeley
linguistics professor Charles J. Fillmore writes about how the public
misimpressions seemed to stem from inaccurate and inflammatory reporting:
"What's really odd in the ebonics case is that people's opinions got formed
by what they read in the newspapers."

According to Fillmore, this seems to apply especially to the
misinterpretation of linguistic terminology having to do with "genetics."
He writes:  "Immediately after the first news reports came out,
representatives of the board said that their resolution shouldn't have been
interpreted as suggesting that black English was biologically innate. This
correction or clarification was repeated daily from then on. Yet more than a
month afterwards we still saw newspaper columns by black speakers of the
King's English saying that they themselves couldn't speak or understand
black English so it surely wasn't genetic."  Please note that the
clarification was made right away--so I'm not sure "back-pedaling" would be
the best word to describe what the board was doing, especially since the
linguistic terminology regarding "genetics" was in use at the time.

Fillmore suggests that one reason for the misunderstanding is that
non-linguists have not yet caught up with the discipline (and I would add,
the jargon) of professional linguists:  "First, there are folk beliefs about
language that differ rather markedly from what professional linguists
believe, and have been trying to teach for sixty or seventy years."  He also
notes the following issue, which Malignd raises:  "But secondly there are
serious problems in the language of the Oakland School Board's resolution,
these made more serious by the nature of the board's resistance to
criticism."

Regarding the latter remark, I would agree with Fillmore and Malignd (and
nearly the whole world) that there were problems with the wording of the
original resolution, but I also take note that the board took pains to
clarify the meaning of the resolution from the very start--verbally and in
writing, issuing a revised and improved resolution within a month.  I think
the board's receptivity to intelligent feedback was commendable.  If only
the media and laypeople were as flexible--years have passed since the
brouhaha and the clarifications, yet the misimpressions still persist.  So
if the writing of the original task force version was poor, what of the
writing of the professional reporters and others who have seemingly ignored
the clarifications for years?  The original resolution was around for only a
month more than six years ago, after all.  It seems the media made the story
into a controversy, milked it, and the public lapped it up--and years later
that's how it stands.

Which brings me to the former remark, about the persistence of many folk
beliefs about linguistics (including folk beliefs that relate to this
"controversy").  I take no issue with that.  Part of the problem is
that linguists and educators haven't made themselves understood as well as
they could, but
another major factor is the resistance of many non-linguists to facts and
sound linguistic reasoning even when the information is spoon-fed to them.

d.