re Re: re Re: re Re: SLSL language

[calbert at hslboxmaster.com]

> 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.

jbor:

> That's not quite what you were claiming, of course.

I don't know what got into me........thanks for clearing that up......

geez.....


 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.

Crap..........the issue is not the "authenticity" of the language 
spoken by any one group, it is whether or not it is appropriate to 
"break out" certain demographic groups from the "mainstream" 
educational process, and treat  their  travails to master the 
dominant language of the society and economy in which they will 
be competing with some kind of other educational  paradigm....this 
is not an issue of "race" or "relative superiority of cultures" - the kid 
in Woonsocket, R. I.  (one of the few hard core french speaking 
pockets of the nation) faces the same "trauma".....


> > 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.

No, it is a type of "communication" which enjoys the same roots in 
"functionality" but suffers from an absence of the "uniformity" which 
facilitates such a  functionality across time......because the 
PURPOSE of such "coded" langauge, as we have agreed, is - on 
occasion, exclusion.....


> It isn't. No living language is "well fixed across time". 

Really? I admit that any language with 400,000 words and counting will have "incorporated" much
which has a  "temporary" quality. However, I would also argue that 
English has maintained a broad set of functional standards that 
have remained constant for over 250 years.......I don't have great 
difficulty reading the English Romantics, for instance.....

Furthermore, I can learn  greek and latin by employing the 
grammatical standards which have survived for millenia, and then 
proceed to read the works those cultures generated. (Given that 
these languages were  also modified by various users, there will be 
exceptions - of course)..........The same  tools make church 
slavonic available  to those with the energy......

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.

My experience in environments where African Americans have 
come together from different parts of the country suggests 
otherwise........In prep school, the ABC kids from the deep south 
weren't distinguished from their urban  counterparts by virtue of 
much more than language......TO argue that there is no 
differentiation is like arguing that african american culture is 
monolothic.......

> 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.

This is presumptious, and needlessly antagonistic.....I have not 
loaded the terms "argot" or "dialect", I use those words to 
distinguish that we are, in fact, dealing with a subset of a larger 
entity.....When I was 11, I spoke Swedish AND German MUCH 
better than I spoke  English - so why do you keep wanting to insist 
that my feelings for  english are the result of some kind of blind 
conditioning? 


> > 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.

So people cannot CHOOSE to assimilate to a functional level 
without "surrendering" their identities? This must always be 
"coercive"? What about those  orthodoxes (hassidim, sikhs for 
example) who strike such a balance on a regular basis?

> 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.

Not necessarily......Economics, in the crudest sense, invades 
every practical aspect of our lives, including education......the time 
and money involved are not boundless.....I make  NO COMMENT  
WHATSOEVER as to the "value" of  another culture and  language -
 I reject as a  premise that such consideration is either practical,  
OR productive in the  public educational environment.....It bothers 
me not a  whit if a functional graduate chooses to turn his/her back 
to the "system" - it eats me alive to think that so many don't have 
the choice........


> 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.

In the best of worlds, there would be a highly motivated and kind 
tutor for  EVERY child who might need one.....now we need to 
accomodate that  wish to systems which have less than 10k per 
year to spend on each student. Sadly, education funding is a zero 
sum game.........If you wanted to impose a national service 
obligation on young adults with a education option, feel free to 
come to me for the first signature on your petition....

> > 
> > 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.

In practical terms, that is meaningful.....

 Their lack of English has nothing whatsoever to
> do with their professional ability, qualifications or achievements.

My friend who used to slop food on my plate in college was a 
former concert pianist..........the folks who tried to get the local 
IHOP up and running were former  physicians.........my buddy in  
the language lab, a former engineer.........In the context of life in the 
Soviet Union, they were well equipped - here they became 
ciphers....

> > 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.

If you believe that these languages don't function in some kind of 
hierarchical manner, you are  deluded.....and furthermore, it is the 
'cultural balkanization' of vast areas with putatively common 
interests, which allows the Anglo-American culture to dominate the 
practical affairs of the planet....again, I don't say that because I 
think such cultures "inferior", I say that to illustrate one problem 
which makes the "competition" so tilted.....

" The
> English spoken in Scotland, or London's East End? Or the argot you
> speak?"

Hey, I weep for the yobbos too.......but "my" argot gets me  
around, not only much of the anglo american sphere of cultural 
dominance, but some of the other areas as well....and again, given 
that I look at language as a tool, I find that "result" positive...


love,
cfa

> 
> best
> 
>