Julianna Warner
11-3-11
Black
English Vernacular in Different Social Spheres
Throughout
history, power struggles among social classes have been tied to the variable
ways in which the language of a particular culture is spoken. This is partly because a certain social group
will tend to be isolated in a way that will allow for it to develop language in
its own ways. Thus, whichever variant is
spoken and developed by the elite or most powerful group will become standard
and expected. In turn, other variants of
the language are marginalized and stigmatized.
Within the English language, there are many well-defined variants. One socially stigmatized dialect in English
is Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Ebonics. Conspicuous differences in language are a
common basis for discrimination in many areas of public life, including
education, criminal justice systems, employment, etc. The development and widespread use of Black
English Vernacular throughout history has led to varied opinions on its
authenticity and legitimacy among different social spheres in the United States
today.
The
word “Ebonics” comes from the combination of two words: “ebony” (black) and
“phonics” (sound, or the study of sound) and, “refers to the study of the
language of black people in all its cultural uniqueness” (Blot 148). BEV is distinct from Standard English in
pronunciation, grammar (syntax), lexicon, and semantics, among other
distinctions. Its consistencies allow
for these distinctions to be made clearly and accurately. They also allow for linguists to study the
dialect as a controlled and systematic alternative to Standard English. Many empirical studies of the language
differences have produced findings that counter pejorative arguments against
BEV. In fact, scholars argue that, “literacy,
language development and use, and language’s ties to identity are inseparable
to social, political, cultural, and economic context,” and that, “literacies
are plural and socially situated” (Sanchez 479).
Contrary
to the common belief that BEV is inferior to Standard English, most
sociolinguists would argue that the two are simply different and that one happens to be what the majority of people in
the United States speak and consider correct.
When it comes to education, however, those differences are seen as
problems which need to be fixed. They
are seen as such because failure to understand Standard English can result in
conflicting expectations of different social spheres, reading problems, and
difficulty competing in the job market and other competitive fields. In order to achieve the educational goals of
our society, we must resolve the conflicts between the two variants of the
English language. According to
sociolinguists who see BEV as a legitimate alternative to Standard English,
there is no simple way to cope with and overcome the structural differences
between BEV as a dialect spoken by students and Standard English as a dialect
which educators are trying to enforce as the sole correct form of the
language.
Children
who speak in English dialects which do not conform to rules of Standard English
encounter many problems when they begin to learn rules of grammar and spelling
in schools. However, it is a reciprocal
ignorance, for both teachers and students are uninformed about each other’s
systems. Both systems are legitimate
within their respective settings and cultures.
Many teachers are hesitant to believe that there are systematic
principles in Nonstandard English. They
consider differences in Nonstandard English to be mistakes due to laziness,
sloppiness, and lack of care. They feel
that their job is to apply structure to formless, chaotic speech and writing
and to enforce rules where there were none before. They fail to see that in order to succeed in
teaching these children, they must understand the fundamental influences behind
their students’ speech patterns. Whether
or not students learn to speak and write in Standard English can determine the
public sphere into which they will be accepted when they are older.
In
order to teach Standard English most effectively, teachers must understand the
dialects of English spoken by their students.
The least educators could do is to avoid marginalizing speakers of BEV
and to approach teaching such students with methods that are more inclusive and
student-oriented. It may be helpful for
educators to know the history of the dialect.
In BEV vocabulary, for instance, some words indicate derivations from
African and Creole languages. Some
sociolinguists see BEV as a Creole language, or a language which develops from
sustained contact between two groups of speakers. By its speaker, a Creole language is
perceived as a natural language. Creole
languages can emerge from Pidgin languages, which, unlike Creole languages,
develop for communication between two groups which cannot communicate
otherwise. A Pidgin language is
perceived as unnatural and artificial by both groups (Lerer). Just knowing these terms and their possible
implications for educators of Standard English could help educators better
understand the backgrounds of the students they teach. In any case, if Black children continue to be
subjected on the basis of their oral traditions by teachers who label Ebonics
as incorrect, impoverished, and deprived, it will be nearly impossible to
incorporate inclusive pedagogical styles into education.
In
1996, the Oakland, California school board passed a resolution which recognized
BEV as a legitimate language (Heilbrunn 17).
Not only did the school board recognize it, but the resolution declared
that children speaking BEV would have a certain amount of instruction in it, as
it was their “mother tongue” (Heilbrunn 17).
Teachers were made to use textbooks written in Ebonics and to learn the
basic constructs of the dialect. The goal of the program was to benefit the
children by making them “bilingual”, but it was seen by many as a way of
allowing for children to pass through the school system without ever learning
the basics of standard spelling and grammar.
Grades went up, but on what criteria?
After receiving much criticism for their resolution, the board later
amended their decision and declared that their program would instead describe
Ebonics as “only a teaching
tool in its effort to build students' self-esteem and to help them learn by
translating their thoughts from Ebonics to conventional English”
(Rodgers). One of the main arguments
against the original resolution was that institutionalizing BEV would put
students at a loss when it came to entering into the job market later in
life. Since the “real world” is socially
constructed, different versions of English have been established as “good” or
“bad” and are seen in these ways when it comes to determining whether someone
is worthy of a position. Those
who deny any educational legitimacy to BEV argue that educating children in
Ebonics is a way of passing on the “chains of ignorance” (Heilbrunn 19).
In contrast to those who scoff at the legitimacy of Nonstandard
English, those who believe that dialects such as Ebonics should be taken more
seriously view them from their linguistic history as systematic syntheses of
linguistic-cultural traditions. They
also believe that speakers of BEV are in a position to teach speakers of
Standard English if the latter are willing to listen. Ebonics is a particularly unique English
dialect in its origins and its pervasiveness.
It is a synthesis of West African and European linguistic cultural
traditions. It is neither sloppy nor
broken, as it is a relatively uniform dialect spoken by the majority of black
youth in most parts of the United States today.
It is most consistent among 8- to 19-year-olds who regularly participate
in the “street culture of inner cities” (xiii Labov). Children who grow up around speaker of BEV
learn it in the same way that Standard English is learned by children who grow
up around speakers of Standard English.
Children learn languages by hearing and imitating. In no language (Standard English included) is
it necessary for children to understand all of the rules and reasons behind the
words, pronunciation, sequence, etc. that they use. It is only later (in school) that they learn
these rules and are able to apply them to the decisions they make about the
speech they use.
Therefore,
just as many people who speak Standard English do not know its inherent rules,
many speakers of BEV follow patterns out of habit, and not out of
understanding. So, just as it is seen as
important to instruct children on the rules of Standard English, many
sociolinguists believe that the same should be true for speakers of
Ebonics. Not only do educators see it as
important to know the constructs of the “correct” way of speaking, but they
also see learning these constructs as a way of making a basis for learning
other more complex material later on. In
any case, studies have shown that when students who grow up speaking Ebonics
learn Standard English, their ability to go back and forth between the two
dialects represents better overall linguistic resources than those held by
monolingual white children. Therefore,
it can be seen as an advantage for children to know Ebonics, as long as they
are introduced to the right educational opportunities.
Legitimacy
of BEV varies among different cultural spheres.
In the educational sphere, instead of being discarded as incorrect, BEV
should be seen for what it is: a system of language that is “governed by
lexical, syntactic, semantic, and phonological rules” (Green 216). “Intervention” programs have been established
in public schools to help students master the reading, writing, and speaking of
Standard English. This is considered
important because certain employment and educational contexts do not accept BEV
as appropriate or legitimate language.
Speakers of BEV continue to be victims of educational malpractice. For many people (businesses, educators,
etc.), BEV is a conspicuous sign of intellectual, verbal, or cultural
deprivation which should be fulfilled and fixed. Because this view is held by such a large
population, it must be taken into account when considering questions about how
we will prepare students for the challenges they will face later in life.
In
a different sphere, Ebonics is widely expected and accepted. In certain types of media, “sounding black”
is essential in becoming successful. In
this sphere, BEV is acknowledged and thus integrated into performances which
are enjoyed by speakers of Standard and Nonstandard English alike. While some media (such as sitcoms, stand-up
comedies, etc.) portray BEV as authentic and appropriate some of the same types
of media portray speakers of the Vernacular as uneducated, unaccomplished, and
even dangerous. It is impossible to
separate these spheres without dealing with large areas of overlap. In any case, it is important for speakers of
both Standard and Nonstandard English to take part in recognizing each other’s
uses of language as useful, legitimate variations, but that in certain spheres,
one is more appropriate than the other.
Although
BEV is a structured and systematic dialect of English, teaching Standard
English rules to speakers of BEV is the best option in terms of providing them
with tools for mastering circumstances of the “real world” of job markets and
other competitive fields. Our society
must take BEV into account when considering the trajectories of education in
general and the English language specifically because doing so could help
inform our understandings of its history and our responses to it today. Through educating students whose first
language is not the dominant variety, we must instill in them the idea that BEV
is not inferior, and should not be eliminated and erased, but that because
Standard English is spoken by the majority, it must be part of the education
that provides them with the skills they need to compete with the rest of
society. The goal of educators should
not be to remove African American cultural and linguistic identity, but to
create a more student-centered and inclusive approach to linguistic education.
Julianna,
This paper offers an
umbrella of the many problems defining BEV/Ebonics and its relationship to
standard English use. Your points are well made and well-taken. You negotiate
carefully between the contexts for language use (school, home, public culture,
etc), and in a longer treatment you might have differentiated even further in
your brief discussion of authentic street culture, for instance. Your claim
here that BEV must be taught in coordination with standard English is at once
compelling and it barely scratches the surface of the full problem, which you
recognize, and which has no easy answers. I applaud your engagement with this
tough problem and your clear-headed discussion of this sometimes controversial
topic.
GRADE: A
Works
Cited
Blot, Richard K. Language and Social Identity. Westport,
CT. 2003.
Green, Lisa J. African American English: A Linguistic
Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
2002
Heilbrunn, Jacob. “Speech Therapy; Ebonics: it’s worse than you
think”. New Republic. 1997.
Labov, William. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the
Black English Vernacular.
University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
Lerer, Seth. The
History of the English Language [video recording]. Teaching Company. 1998.
Labov, William. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of
Pennsylvania Press, PA. 1973.
Sanchez, Deborah, M.
“Hip-Hop and a Hybrid Text in a Postsecondary English Class.” Journal
of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 2010