
African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes - fogus
http://www.stanford.edu/~zwicky/aave-is-not-se-with-mistakes.pdf
======
lionhearted
I'm kind of casually fascinated with language, so when I came across a few
papers on AAVE, I dug in and read both viewpoints.

It's a long debate, but the most interesting thing that this particular
Standford piece didn't mention - this style of English evolved from poor,
white Southern farmers in the U.S. You wonder how different the debate would
be if it was about Southern/poorer English instead of Northern/wealthier.
There'd be different allies and opponents on both sides, different arguments,
and so on.

It's not hard to imagine some of the people most fiercely mocking AAVE would
be its biggest champions, and some of its supports would be its largest
detractors. Presenting the argument as a black/white thing makes it very
different than presenting it as a geographical thing, or a rich/poor thing, or
a formally educated/not thing, or an industrial/agricultural thing.

~~~
wheels
One really odd observation that struck me when spending some time in southern
Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana) a couple years back: "AAVE" has
had a significant influence on the English of southern Africans and other
elements of black American culture are prevalent as well: hip-hop, basketball
and, even, somewhat comically, fried chicken.

It really got my attention just after arriving when the brother of the bride
to be, whose wedding I was there for, said while getting in his car, "Let's
bounce."

Were I a sociologist I think studying the flow of culture from black Americans
to southern Africans and trying to separate out the distinctively African
elements of black American culture vs. the distinctive black American elements
of southern African culture would be fascinating.

~~~
mahmud
African American culture is decimating African culture, IMO. I am from East
Africa and these days it's rare to find any of our old art forms. As far back
as the 70s, we had Reggae replace most of the indigenous pop music, and these
days the reggae is giving way to hiphop.

------
pg
The argument here is in effect that no vernacular variant of any language
could possibly embody a mistake. Which is true for some definitions of
mistake, and false for others.

The problem with the definitions that make it true is that there's a slippery
slope from dialects to idiolects. How many people have to speak a dialect for
it to count as a dialect? You can't have any threshold, or you get weird
consequences in hypothetical cases, like all the speakers of a dialect dying
off except one. So if you decide that no vernacular can embody mistakes,
you're bound to conclude that nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so
long as they do it consistently.

~~~
stcredzero
_You can't have any threshold, or you get weird consequences in hypothetical
cases, like all the speakers of a dialect dying off except one. So if you
decide that no vernacular can embody mistakes, you're bound to conclude that
nothing any individual does can be a mistake, so long as they do it
consistently._

But lots of disciplines involving living things have problems like this. You
can't "define" species. A species is a historical happenstance, which can only
be precisely defined in retrospect with minute information we usually never
have access to. You can spend all day coming up with corner cases and boundary
conditions where any such attempt breaks down. But that's like deciding if a
particular boulder in Panama is a North American one or a South American one.
Just because those terms break down in boundary cases and are not like
mathematics doesn't mean those terms aren't useful.

Things pertaining to human beings and culture are even more prone to this.

In the case of African American vernacular, there are sizable populations with
high degrees of consistency in their patterns of speech. Quite far away from
boundary conditions.

Another thing I've noted, since dating an African American woman and attending
family gatherings with her, is that the manners and rules of social conduct of
rural African Americans are more complex than I am accustomed to. When I am
with her family, I have to _think_ about how I'm going to excuse myself and
navigate leaving a room. Otherwise, I never think about this. I reflected on
this, and realized that it reminded me of watching Masterpiece Theater as a
child. I'm probably witnessing throwbacks to French and English culture from
centuries ago, still rippling though rural Louisiana.

Homo Sapiens are complex -- period. Even many so-called "country bumpkins."

~~~
pg
I don't disagree with anything that you say here, and yet you seem to be
disagreeing with me, which is odd.

You seem to think I'm naively making some argument that depends on the words
breaking down at boundary conditions. Actually I'm not. I believe a language
spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real a language as one
spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're treated is a
matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language.

~~~
stcredzero
_I believe a language spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real
a language as one spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're
treated is a matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language._

I was also trying to provide support to the notion that, "the difference in
the way they're treated is a matter of politics." Often, I'm replying to 3rd
parties or countering common misconceptions in my "replies," which is probably
trying to say too much in one post as well as leaving too much implicit.

In other words, I am grinding an axe here, but it's not directed at you.

A language spoken by exactly two would be very difficult to study. There are
problems analogous to studying a species with only the last two individuals
from which to draw data. I think there is some mechanism here that links the
softer fields inextricably with politics. There is less academic "territory"
to occupy, and so there is a handicap to the political power of academics who
study that particular data, while at the same time, there's also often
increased power that stems from scarcity. (Dead sea scrolls.)

EDIT: All human endeavors are linked with politics. "Softer" fields tend to be
more encumbered.

------
tokenadult
Yes, and General American standard English is not the Queen's English with
mistakes either. This information should be well known to anyone who has taken
even one linguistics course, but it does still come up as a misconception to
be argued against, as the interesting submitted article does. Similarly,
English as spoken in India is not a variety of British English with mistakes,
nor is standard Australian English any better or worse than standard English
in Britain or in the United States.

~~~
wheels
The gramatical differences between "high" forms of British and American
English are comparatively small. Certainly the dialectal variations within
each country are further departures than standard American English is from
standard British English. In each the differences are more of preference and
still usually considered correct in the other.

A more apt example would be Swiss and high German, which are (aside from the
fact that Swiss Germans are also fluent in high German) mutually
incomprehensible. To a high German speaker, Swiss German sounds decidedly
silly and has moderately different grammar. However since there's no
conflation of social class with the Swiss German dialect, the comparison of
Swiss and high German is much less politicized than AAVE and standard American
English.

Austrian German, on the other hand, is virtually identical to standard high
German grammatically – it just sounds funny and has a few regionalisms in its
vocabulary: kind of like the difference between American and British English.

~~~
mkelly
Linguistically, there's no agreed-upon rule for what makes a "dialect"[1].
What I heard from Linguistics people is that they're all just separate
languages, some with and some without a written form.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#.22Dialect.22_or_.22lan...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#.22Dialect.22_or_.22language.22)

~~~
fhars
My usual half-serious stance on this is that a language is just a dialect with
an army. But this does of course break down in the case of Icelandic, which is
definitely a language, but has neither, but clearly captures tha fact that
answers to these questions are to a large part political. When I was younger,
there was a language called serbocroatian, spoken in one country and written
with two different scripts...

------
xiaoma
I think the important point is the utility of language, not its "correctness".
Regardless of the political issues involved, speaking the "standard" language
or the prestige language is an asset in most circumstances.

Speaking Ebonics would make it harder for a doctor to win patient trust,
harder for an interviewee to get a job, harder for a politician to win in most
districts and even harder for a defendant to get a favorable judgment. Any
teacher who ignores this fact does a disservice to the students.

~~~
wrs
Probably true, but irrelevant to the article, which is about how more
effectively to teach Standard English by recognizing that some students start
from a different dialect.

~~~
xiaoma
I don't think that's what the article was about at all. The article was
essentially an attack on press coverage the author wasn't happy with. Its
focus was more political than pedagogical.

From the article: _"Yet opinion writers proceeded to fall upon the topic like
starving dogs attacking a bone. They ridiculed, they sneered, they frothed,
they flamed, they raged, they lived off the story for weeks._ "

This kind of language just doesn't show up in secondary education guides. It's
clearly about demonizing the opposition.

------
DanielBMarkham
Listened to a great series of lectures on the story of human language a while
back: <http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1600>

I learned two things that are equally true and somewhat self-contradictory. 1)
Language is a continuum, not a rigid thing. There is no right or wrong
language. If you are communicating you're doing it right. 2) Most all
societies have a "high" language and a "low" language. Sometimes there are
multiple layers. People who want to move in better circles learn to conform
and work fluently in the "high" language.

The continuum question was especially interesting. Is Old French just bad
Latin? Or is it a different language? What about those languages that have one
spoken form and two written forms? The same language with different names
because of political considerations? Lots of neat history and trivia here. I
really enjoyed the series.

------
jeromec
Regardless of the school board debating the potential validity of AAVE, I
think it's misguided to experiment with asserting such "correctness" to teach
kids that will grow up in a world that doesn't regard it as such. Save such
philosophy for later academics, where the author/speaker can make a conscious
choice of use - similar to the stylistic, but "incorrect", use of 'But' or
'And' to begin a sentence.

~~~
loup-vaillant
This is not philosophy at all. This is purely technical. The differences
between AAVE and standard English (or should I say American?) are
_consistent_. They are spoken by a lot of people. They follow precise rules (a
grammar, actually). They're not erratic. So you can't call them "errors". The
only other choice is to conclude that AAVE is a language —or a dialect.

Telling that to kids can only have good effects. First, it is telling them
that they're not retarded —and neither are their parents. Second, it makes a
clear separation between AAVE an standard English. They are two separate
dialects, so, students should learn both. Third, if speaking standard English
is "correcting errors", it may be percieved as a loss of Identity, "acting
white" or whatever. If it is "speaking another language", this can't really be
seen as such. For instance, I don't lose my French identity by writing
English.

If the entire world sees AAVE as incorrectly spoken English without
investigating furter, the entire world is simply mistaken. Kids should learn
to _correct_ the entire world's mistakes, not to _do_ them.

~~~
jeromec
> _Telling that to kids can only have good effects._

I disagree. I think the mistake you are making is the focus around what is or
is not "error". It's not about that. My friend from Argentina constantly
strives to improve his _American English_ , rather than his AAVE, regardless
of your insistence of the validity of AAVE. He now works in an office on the
17th floor where he hires people, and I knew him when he knew no English. Like
it or not it _does_ makes a difference.

~~~
wrs
I'm guessing your friend learned American English in an environment that
recognized that his native language was something else (presumably a dialect
of Spanish) and took that into account. Should native AAVE speakers not
receive the same treatment?

~~~
jeromec
I don't know what you mean by same treatment, as I'm sure any English course
instructors told him it was _incorrect_ to pronounce the "i" with an "e"
sound.

~~~
wrs
Now I'm guessing you haven't RTFA. The point of the exercise is to teach
Standard English more effectively to people whose native language is AAVE, not
to teach people AAVE.

~~~
jeromec
My mom has a master's degree in Child Development, has been teaching for the
past 15 years, and currently teaches a kindergarten class in Southern
California consisting of inner-city kids of black, white, hispanic, Indian,
and Asian descent. I know a fair amount about this topic, and her views are in
line with mine.

EDIT: I wanted to be sure I had my mom's views correct, so I asked her. To
clarify, she says if a child is speaking ebonics she will explain there are
different styles of speaking, and it depends on your audience. Speaking in
that way is okay at home, for example, but in an academic setting the
"correct" way is to go by the book.

~~~
jeromec
I need to reply to my own post above. I just had a long discussion with my
mom, and at first found that we did _not_ have the exact same views. However,
she now agrees with me that when telling a child speaking ebonics at home is
acceptable, even that is damaging, because it sends mixed signals, and should
not be encouraged. There simply is no benefit to hanging on to usage of
ebonics.

~~~
loup-vaillant
(Warning: I use possibly incorrect stereotypes for the sake of the argument.
Please correct me on them).

I feel we don't understand each other. I'll try to restate what I said in more
details.

What if the kid speaks French? Most likely, he will speak French at home, and
American English at school. Sometimes, he will employ the wrong word or make a
grammatical mistake while trying to exploit similarities between the two
languages. Any professor hearing this will call this an error.

 _But but but, at home we say…_ say the poor boy. If the professor know
French, he may answer _What you say is more like French. In English, we say
this…_. Note this is not an encouragement to abandon French. Merely an
encouragement to learn proper English.

Now, replace French by AAVE (or Ebonics). What has changed? I agree that the
two languages are highly similar. This may be confusing to the kid. There is
two ways to handle this:

(1) Saying to the kid that his last sentence wasn't proper English. This is
very close to saying that he doesn't speak correctly, period. Knowing the way
we speak at home, the kid can easily extend that statement to his parents or
neighbours, and try to correct them, proud of the knowledge he just learned at
school. I think this is dangerous, because this may be perceived a direct
attack on their identity. This can lead the kid's family or friends to
pressure him into _not_ learning proper English, for instance by dismissing it
as "speaking white" or something.

(2) Saying to the kid that his last sentence was AAVE, not English. Making a
sharp distinction between the two. Insisting that at school, you are to speak
English, not Ebonics. So, when the kid get home, he won't try and correct his
parents. He may point out the _differences_ between English and AAVE, but
won't speak of them as _errors_. This is hardly an attack on the identity of
Ebonics speakers. Plus, it makes sense: "black speak" in the "black world"
(home), "white speak" in the "white world" (school and work). As a
consequence, there is less reason for his family or friends to insist that he
doesn't speak proper English.

------
michaelcampbell
Genuine question here; does AAVE have an accepted grammar? I don't mean
necessarily a written canon, but anything that's not "make it up as you go"
ad-hoc style. (And yes, I realize all language has some evolutionary context
to it.)

Without rules, there's no way to break them, and thus no meaning for
"mistake".

~~~
kscaldef
Yes, and that's the subject of TFA.

------
mattmaroon
This seems to make the ludicrous argument that because the mistakes are
consistent they are not mistakes.

~~~
_pius
What is any dialect or derived language but a set of consistent mistakes with
respect to the ancestor language?

A dialect that lacks prestige is no less a dialect for it — that was one of
the points of the article.

~~~
mattmaroon
I was trying to point out that that is a bad way of framing it. To call it a
dialect may be technically correct, if you're merely arguing semantics.

However to accept it as a legitimate dialect is another thing. If your child
spoke that way you would constantly correct them, for their own good. It'd be
much better for all involved to redefine "dialect" to not include something
that devolved from another language via mistakes made by dumb rednecks who
can't understand the concept of a double negative.

If we call that a dialect, then the very word "dialect" is broken.

~~~
_pius
_If we call that a dialect, then the very word "dialect" is broken._

Then, I suppose, the word dialect is broken. :)

There's a long history of vernacular dialects lacking prestige and casting
aspersions on their speakers. Shakespeare, notably, wrote his plays in the
vernacular to connect with his audiences. [1] Chaucer did the same with
Canterbury Tales. [2] Of course we forget that now because we revere those
authors as purveyors of great literature.

 _To call it a dialect may be technically correct, if you're merely arguing
semantics. However to accept it as a legitimate dialect is another thing. If
your child spoke that way you would constantly correct them, for their own
good._

Matt, I'm a young, intelligent, black male in America: I would never let my
kids grow up speaking AAVE exclusively. Trust me. But neither I nor the author
are arguing the prestige of the dialect.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_influence#The_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_influence#The_changing_status_of_the_English_language)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernacular_literature>

~~~
mattmaroon
Another thing just occurred to me. Her article is titled "African American
Vernacular English is not Standard English with Mistakes". She seems to spend
the whole article making the semantic argument that it is instead a dialect.

Are the two mutually exclusive? Can one dialect not be simply another with
mistakes?

~~~
_pius
_Her article is titled "African American Vernacular English is not Standard
English with Mistakes". She seems to spend the whole article making the
semantic argument that it is instead a dialect._

I don't think this is a meaningless distinction. If you believe the author,
speakers of AAVE are speaking a dialect of English that has lower prestige
than Standard American English. If you don't, you think that on a daily basis
they simply screw up the task of speaking Standard American English. This is a
subtle but non-trivial difference: one point of view is about culture while
the other is fundamentally about intelligence.

Because many people hold the latter view, I was taught by my parents to avoid
speaking AAVE. For similar reasons, I was taught to avoid Pittsburghese[1]
even though I grew up with it in school.

 _Are the two mutually exclusive? Can one dialect not be simply another with
mistakes?_

I think it comes down to my earlier question: What is any dialect or derived
language but a set of consistent mistakes with respect to the ancestor
language? More to the point, either all dialects have mistakes or none do. The
only difference I can see is the prestige involved.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_English>

~~~
mattmaroon
Well, I wouldn't say the current speakers of AAVE are literally trying to
speak English properly and making a mistake. I would say that the people who
created it were. And I would say that the people who speak it now suffer for
it just as if they were. Thus for all intents and purposes, it is English with
mistakes, even if technically it is a dialect.

So I guess her argument that mistakes + tradition = dialect seems silly to me.
Even if its true by the dictionary definition of "dialect" it's a harmful
viewpoint to take.

~~~
jfarmer

      I would say that the people who created it were.
    

Languages aren't really "created." Nobody sat down and formulated the rules
that describe AAVE any more than someone took Middle English and decided
modern English would really be better, so let's use that instead.

It's a process that's evolved over a few centuries and has its roots in the
slave trade. There are people who think AAVE owes a lot to the creoles that
formed on Caribbean slave islands like Jamaica.

    
    
      And I would say that the people who 
      speak it now suffer for it just as if they were.
    

They suffer because people with your attitude make them suffer, e.g., calling
them dumb, or saying AAVE is illegitimate or devolved. This is basically the
definition of a low-prestige dialect.

A similar example is the relationship between people who speak French and
people who speak Quebecois.

But be honest: do you really think Quebecois are dumb? Do you think the
language is an illegitimate or devolved version of French? Is it just "French
with mistakes?"

Quebecois' prestige in the French-speaking world has to do with the historical
relationship between French Canadians and France, not the differences in the
language.

As I said in another comment, if the South had won the Civil War, you might
not object to things like double negatives, double modals, etc.

    
    
      Thus for all intents and purposes, it is English with
      mistakes, even if technically it is a dialect.
    

No. As _pius said, one point of view is about culture while the other is
fundamentally about intelligence.

In an educational context the latter is absolutely destructive. If you're
teaching an AAVE speaker SAE and think they're just "making mistakes," you
won't get to the root of the issue, which is that _their internal model of the
language is very different from yours_.

