language

[jbor]

>> I don't agree that there is any significant
>> difference between the regional variations in
>> African-American English and the regional variations
>> in so-called standard American English, or of any
>> other language for that matter. This issue of what is
>> the "dominant" variety of a language depends very much
>> on where you situate your lens, as does the notion of
>> what's "standard" and what isn't.
>>
>> But, again, the argument is not that African-American
>> English should be taught instead of the more white
>> bread varieties of English which African Americans and
>> other language minority students need to master.

on 19/3/03 11:18 PM, Malignd at malignd at yahoo.com wrote:

> A couple of things.  When one continues to use
> "dominant" and "white bread," etc. as adjectives in
> this discussion, one is begging a very large question;
> i.e., that these questions about the efficacy of
> Ebonics vis-a-vis standard English is all about
> keeping the black man down, showing him to be inferior
> and stupid, etc. 

The idea that "standard" American English is the "dominant" language has
been one of the main thrusts of Charles' argument. Yours too, I assumed. If
it isn't, I'm not at all clear what other criterion you're actually using to
assert the notion of a "standard" variety of English. I took up the term he
was using, and addressed it more in the sense of "predominant" than
"imperialistic" or "rapacious", though that case has been made too. For
"white bread" (used once only, I'd add) substitute "standard" or "normal" -
your terms - if they make you happier.

> Such thinking exists, certainly, but
> the insistence on talking about this only in these
> neo-colonial terms locks the conversation onto tracks
> that become obvious, tired, and old very quickly.

Such thinking certainly does exist, particularly amongst the predominantly
conservative politicians and pundits who are making policy decisions and
manipulating public opinion. Point is, you're echoing their sentiments, and
the outcomes are the same. I understand your aversion to talking about the
sociocultural implications of the issues, but they're there and the terms
are apt, certainly more so than the use of "mangled" and "aberrant" to
describe African-American English, and what I can only imagine as your
disingenuousness in claiming these two adjectives as non-pejorative.

> Also, "standard English" is not no more than a
> catch-all, with no more real meaning than "where one
> points one's lens."  You're being willfully
> disingenuous.   

Not at all. Are you using spoken English or written English as the defining
example of this imaginary grammatical "standard" you keep insisting upon?
Receptive or productive skills? Formal or informal registers? There are
enormous differences between oral and written language, and there are
enormous differences in the methods and length of time needed to teach and
learn to communicate using the various language modes. Any prescriptive
grammar is merely a snapshot of how one group of people is using language in
a particular mode (usually written) at a particular point in time. I'd say
you're being disingenuous in trying to apply the grammatical conventions of
written English as the yardstick for judging African-American English, which
is primarily an oral vernacular.

>> Point is, culturally-inclusive programs already
>> exist in many places in the U.S., and did not so long
>> ago in several others, and these initiatives are and
>> were cost-effective. Expenditure on successful
>> education programs actually results in manifold
>> economic and social benefits in the long-term.
> 
> I wonder what you're using to measure the long-term
> benefits of such programs or their relative cost
> effectiveness. Cite?

Literacy tracking data. Research into bilingual and French immersion classes
in Canada (in the '60s and '70s in Quebec I think). Shirley Brice Heath's
ethnographic studies. Stephen Krashen's work. Jim Cummins'. Tove
Skutnabb-Kangas's. For starters and just off the top of my head. Even though
quantitative measures aren't particularly appropriate - certainly
standardised tests and comparative performance stats conceal and distort
more than they reveal - there is a substantial body of linguistic and
educational research available to support the arguments for
culturally-inclusive curricula.

best