Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
The question for me is whether ebonics constitutes a radical enough difference from other dialectical/ cultural variations on the language - by which I mean, the above is true of anyone, no matter where they're from. No one speaks standard English, absolutely no one. Thinking of myself, I can write in standard English as well as idiosyncraticly... my parents both have very thick accents (West country (UK)/ rural Irish) and in no way speak anything like standard English, but everyone in my family writes in standard English - 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? I know plenty of people of Jamaican origin who write in standard English, or if they write in patois, they began to write it after they finished school, as an assertion of identity or as a idiosyncratic, creative way to express themselves. They all know the rules, however, and are happy to abide by them where necessary. I use Jamaican because, in it's thicker variations, can be radically different to the way non-Jamaicans speak.
So the question, to re-iterate: On what grounds may we say ebonics is more than a dialectical variation on English? What, then, precludes us from teaching Glaswegian children to write as they speak?
|
I have to agree with Glice here. EVERYONE'S spoken language (for purposes of the discussion, I'll restrict this to English) is peppered with colloquialisms and idioms, their pronunciations varied by accents and regional custom. It's almost a 'personalization' of the existing standard of English, in so far as such a standard exists. Ebonics, which really is in essence a dialect, is simply an easily translatable variation of formal English. Its prevalence within certain communities does not preclude neither the need nor the ability to learn and implement 'formal' English.
The claim that it is difficult to discard ebonics in favor of formal English within an academic setting simply because it is the dialect children are exposed to on the home front can likely be applied to 75% of the American population. A multitude of factors influence how a child learns to speak: his region, the education level of his parents, the parents' occupation, the schools, the diversity of the area, etc. It is simply a matter of adaptability - like any other academic lesson, the use of 'proper' English is an acquired knowledge that requires an active learning process.
In addition to that, a majority of a child's day is spent not with his family, but in school, with educators and peers. So if anything, he's more likely to pick up the speaking habits he's exposed to in an academic setting than those in an informal setting.
My point is, whether or not you use proper English in the appropriate setting is a simple matter of individual choice.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago, and while I realize that my 'dialect' doesn't deviate nearly as severely from formal English as ebonics does, the way my parents speak and the way I speak differ completely. None of the following is a criticism, but my parents are blue-collar workers with high school educations who are simply not academically oriented people. Therefore, they tend to use a lot more colloquialisms and idioms than I do, and hardly give a thought to grammar. They have distinct Chicago accents as well. I on the other hand sound rather different to them - I don't really have a Chicago accent, because it's rather integrated with the use of the dialect, and once one drops the dialect, the accent sort of naturally falls away. This did not happen with any special linguistic training - I've been educated in Chicago my entire life, in public schools. Once you actively attempt to learn an implement a particular way of speaking, however, it's akin to riding a bicycle - you either can do it, or you can't.
Or should I say, will, or won't.
This might sound racist, but I do put the ebonics issue down to laziness and/or histrionic displays of 'reclaiming roots.' Just as Glice pointed out, children in the UK are not allowed to write in their regional dialect - it is not a 'right' they are entitled to simply because of their place of origin. It is not a right because it's not an ISSUE. Standardized formal English is EXACTLY that - standardized. It is entirely exclusive of all other mitigating factors, and its very nature is based on its universality (again I use that term loosely for purposes of the discussion).
I don't use calculus or chemistry outside of school, but I learned it. I swear like a truck driver outside of work, but I don't utter a single curse while I'm there. Why? Because I learned what is appropriate when and where.
Ebonics is an attempt to assert cultural identity in a sphere in which it is unnecessary and overblown. It is a playing card born of racial tension in America, nothing more. If you are a person of average intelligence, regardless of race, ethnicity, or geographic location, there is no excuse
and I mean NO excuse
for not learning formal English. End of story. And no allowances should be made for it.