re Re: re Re: re Re: SLSL language

[jbor]

on 16/3/03 9:07 AM, calbert at hslboxmaster.com wrote:

> 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.

That's not quite what you were claiming, of course. But on this point,
so-called "standard" American English is not standard across white
communities spanning the U.S. either, and it varies in the same ways
(pronunciation, word stress, sentence intonation, vocab. etc), and probably
to as great a degree, as African American English does. As far as I can see
in this argument, the only real difference is the colour of the skin of the
people doing the speaking.

> 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....

This is the argument that it is an "inferior" medium of communication. It
isn't. No living language is "well fixed across time". That African-American
English isn't "broadly accepted" by you doesn't mean that it's not broadly
accepted by linguists working in the field. Or, more importantly, by those
who use it on a daily basis to communicate.

> 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... 

Again, you are situating yourself and your language as superior. For you,
the language spoken by African-Americans is fascinating and strange. But
it's not really a proper way of communicating. It's an "argot". That's a
very condescending attitude.

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

Not sure what you mean. Any policy or system of assimilation means that
people are forced to conform to imposed rules or standards of conduct,
whether they want to or not. It can only be enforced punitively.

> 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........

You keep trying to imply that I'm against the teaching of English as a
medium of communication! You aren't going to teach anyone anything if you
start off by telling them that their language and culture are inferior.

> 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?

English is still the main medium of instruction. But there are ethnic aides,
and parent helpers, and bilingual dictionaries and workbooks, and listening
tapes, and all manner of ways to make the classroom a culturally inclusive
environment. All it takes is for the teacher to validate the student's home
language every once in a while, and this can be achieved in all sorts of
ways. The curriculum is already organised to cater to the diverse needs of
individual students and groups of students. Newly-arrived migrants and
refugees require and do receive Intensive English instruction for a period
of time, and their teachers are assisted by bilingual aides and resources.
We have Community Languages classes and teachers too, where lessons are
taught in syudents' first languages for one or two lessons a week, and I see
no reason why African American students (or Aboriginal students here) should
be excluded from such programs. For the umpteenth time, no-one is advocating
that "standard" English be thrown out the window.

>> 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........

No, it doesn't. It just means that they won't be recognised and licensed,
and that they'll probably end up driving a taxi or working on a production
line. Their lack of English has nothing whatsoever to do with their
professional ability, qualifications or achievements.

> I would  suggest that there is a  difference between
> speaking a local version of a dominant  language and  speaking a
> "discreet" foreign language....

Is the "dominant" Arabic the one spoken in Morocco or the one spoken in
Iraq. What about Croatian and Serbian, or Mandarin and Cantonese? The
Spanish spoken in Spain or in Argentina or Mexico? Or Catalan. The English
spoken in Scotland, or London's East End? Or the argot you speak?

best