language

[jbor]

on 20/3/03 11:40 PM, Malignd at malignd at yahoo.com wrote:

>> 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.

> Standard in the sense that if you look up a
> word in a
> dictionary, you'll find a standard spelling.
> 
> Standard in the sense that if you want to find the
> correct way to conjugate a verb, you'll find a
> standard answer.

Language is a means of communication. African-American English uses
linguistic markers to differentiate temporal and modal categories just as
effectively as "standard" English does.

>> 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.

> The point is I'm not echoing
> their sentiments and what
> outcomes are the same?

Well, the attitude of the conservative politicians and media is that since
African-American English isn't a "real" or "proper" language (i.e. because
it's "mangled" and "aberrant", an "argot") then it needn't - or mustn't - be
acknowledged, respected or addressed in the educational process (except as a
"deficit" which students will have to "overcome"). Because their low
achievement in standardised literacy tests isn't recognised and treated in
terms of linguistic development, the students who communicate in AAVE as
their home language invariably end up in remedial classes alongside students
who have learning difficulties or behavioural problems. They are thus often
excluded from mainstream curricula, and as well as this they have to put up
with the stigma of being labelled as both culturally and intellectually
inferior. Is it any wonder that they try to buck the system or extricate
themselves from it at every opportunity?

> Imagine what you will.  "Dawg" for "dog" is an
> aberrant spelling.  It's a statement about the
> spelling, not about the person who spelled it.

But you're applying a standard derived from formal written English in order
to dismiss what is essentially a phonetic transcription of an oral
vernacular as "aberrant". The distinction you're making is originally an
attribute of pronunciation rather than of spelling, and certainly not of
grammar. 

Spelling has absolutely nothing to do with spoken English - nor with
grammar, prescriptive or otherwise for that matter. If it did, then every
morning when you order your "kawfee" and "baygl" at "Stawrbox" with your
"MLA starl berk" and your "Noo Yawk Tarms" under your arm your language use
is "mangled" and "aberrant" too.

> Since I've been speaking of spelling throughout, it
> would seem clear I'm referring to written English.

You've been referring to "language" and "grammar" throughout as well. But
this is the issue precisely. You've been trying to apply one set of
stylistic conventions (written mode, formal register, productive skill) to a
totally different medium of communication (oral mode, informal register,
receptive & productive skills).

> And if the "standard" is imaginary, what is it, then,
> so remarkably keeping newspapers, scholarly works,
> non-fictional prose, etc., etc., spelling words and
> conjugating verbs so similarly?

Conventions of usage in particular contexts. Just as the language used in
informal conversational exchanges is often characterised by colloquialisms
and other idiomatic expressions, sentence fragments and predominantly
non-grammatical utterance, ellipsis and prolepsis, redundancy and
circumlocution, semantic prosodies, non-verbal sounds and gestures, and
elisions, liaisons and assimilations of sounds etc etc. To me, "dawg" and
"dog" seem pretty similar as far as graphophonics goes. The most striking
difference between the usages there is a semantic one, surely?

best