Sonic Youth Gossip - View Single Post

!@#$%! · 04.08.2006, 08:25 AM

^^^ yes, that's precisely the point (i meant glice's post)

is there enough of a case for ebonics being radically different enough to warrant the leniency that isn't afforded to other linguistic variations on English?

first i wonder about the use of the word "leniency" because... hm, we're not talking about crime and punishment are we? (although language tends to be imparted with the lash of humiliation for the transgressor). i'm not trying to be a deconstructionist wanker though, just to call attention to the underlying framework in which we see conformity with language rules.

"language is companion of empire" was a phrase (poorly translated i admit) coined by grammarian antonio de nebrija in his prologue to the first castillian grammar, aroun 1490 (then he went on to write the first dictionary)... this was very important because the spanish crown had just expelled the muslims from the iberian peninsula and their ships had just landed on the "indies", full of conquering impetus.

i hope i don't sound like i'm speaking in parables but my mind tends to associate images rather than build a case.

i'll jump forward (i hope the connection can be made here):

the reason glaswegian children are taugh standard english instead of london childream being taught glaswegian is, roughly, because they live under british rule (i say "roughly" as there are other factors). but even where british rule is no longer present, such as in ireland, or india, the influence and prestige of the language is sufficient to promote its teaching.

the question then is HOW FAR REMOVED is the variant to justify teaching english AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, rather than assume that the learners already know it00 it's not about tolerating its presumed "mistakes". i posted a link to an article (it's below the poem) in which it's explained how ebonics is not considered by many as a cogent language... system (even naming it is problematic), but "a collection of mistakes"... (this is i guess why i was calling attention to the use of the word "leniency"). yet from the point of view of linguistics, it is considered a variant significant enough to merit special treatment.

i'll quote from the wikipedia:
Proponents of Ebonics instruction in public education believe that their proposals have been distorted by political debate and misunderstood by the general public. The belief underlying it is that black students would perform better in school and more easily learn standard American English if textbooks and teachers acknowledged that AAVE was not a substandard version of standard American English but a legitimate speech variety with its own grammatical rules and pronunciation norms.

the wikipedia article explains the linguistic phenomenon in great detail; if you notice, all objections to the various educational policies proposed come not form linguists, but from politicians, which relates to my faraway nebrija simile.

there is mention also of the bilingual education approach having successful results to teach standard english, yet those initiatives were torpedoed again for political reasons.

i could quote the whole beast here, but better to take a look at the article itself. and then the other one i linked previously.

my question with regards to great britain, about which i know little, has to do with the academic success rate of jamaican immigrants. is it similar? different? are they taught standard english differently from native english children? still, jamaicans in the uk are not totally comparable to afroamericans for a variety of reasons-- immigrants are self-selected populations, usually more willing to assimilate, etc.

i hope i haven't rambled completely aimlessly...

04.08.2006, 08:25 AM	#37
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,466	^^^ yes, that's precisely the point (i meant glice's post) is there enough of a case for ebonics being radically different enough to warrant the leniency that isn't afforded to other linguistic variations on English? first i wonder about the use of the word "leniency" because... hm, we're not talking about crime and punishment are we? (although language tends to be imparted with the lash of humiliation for the transgressor). i'm not trying to be a deconstructionist wanker though, just to call attention to the underlying framework in which we see conformity with language rules. "language is companion of empire" was a phrase (poorly translated i admit) coined by grammarian antonio de nebrija in his prologue to the first castillian grammar, aroun 1490 (then he went on to write the first dictionary)... this was very important because the spanish crown had just expelled the muslims from the iberian peninsula and their ships had just landed on the "indies", full of conquering impetus. i hope i don't sound like i'm speaking in parables but my mind tends to associate images rather than build a case. i'll jump forward (i hope the connection can be made here): the reason glaswegian children are taugh standard english instead of london childream being taught glaswegian is, roughly, because they live under british rule (i say "roughly" as there are other factors). but even where british rule is no longer present, such as in ireland, or india, the influence and prestige of the language is sufficient to promote its teaching. the question then is HOW FAR REMOVED is the variant to justify teaching english AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, rather than assume that the learners already know it00 it's not about tolerating its presumed "mistakes". i posted a link to an article (it's below the poem) in which it's explained how ebonics is not considered by many as a cogent language... system (even naming it is problematic), but "a collection of mistakes"... (this is i guess why i was calling attention to the use of the word "leniency"). yet from the point of view of linguistics, it is considered a variant significant enough to merit special treatment. i'll quote from the wikipedia: Proponents of Ebonics instruction in public education believe that their proposals have been distorted by political debate and misunderstood by the general public. The belief underlying it is that black students would perform better in school and more easily learn standard American English if textbooks and teachers acknowledged that AAVE was not a substandard version of standard American English but a legitimate speech variety with its own grammatical rules and pronunciation norms. the wikipedia article explains the linguistic phenomenon in great detail; if you notice, all objections to the various educational policies proposed come not form linguists, but from politicians, which relates to my faraway nebrija simile. there is mention also of the bilingual education approach having successful results to teach standard english, yet those initiatives were torpedoed again for political reasons. i could quote the whole beast here, but better to take a look at the article itself. and then the other one i linked previously. my question with regards to great britain, about which i know little, has to do with the academic success rate of jamaican immigrants. is it similar? different? are they taught standard english differently from native english children? still, jamaicans in the uk are not totally comparable to afroamericans for a variety of reasons-- immigrants are self-selected populations, usually more willing to assimilate, etc. i hope i haven't rambled completely aimlessly...
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|