After reading this, do you agree that Ebonics is a legitimate language? Why or why not? What did you learn about the Oakland Resolution after reading this? What questions do you have about the resolution? Do we need a resolution like this in Georgia?
No, I don't believe Ebonics is it's own language. The best way I can say why is straight from the article, "If we can sign or talk to one another then we have the same language; if we can't, then we don't. It's that simple." I do believe that Ebonics is a dialect and should be recognized as one. I can usually understand people who speak with a thick Ebonics dialect, so I don't think they're speaking a different language.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused on what side the Oakland resolution is on. I know it's about "street slang" but that's all I could grasp. Every time I think I had it I read a sentence that confused me. Can anyone help me out?
I do think that Ebonics is it's own language, just as American Sign Language is accepted as a langauge. ASL and Ebonics both use English words, but put those words in different tenses, use different grammatical structures, and the users of both languages have created their own slang beyond American English slang. I'm not a linguist, but if ASL is accepted as a language, then Ebonics should be as well. I thought the example given in the text about Swedish and Norwegian was quite compelling. Those two languages are so similiar that speakers of both languages can understand each other, but they are still classified as two distinct languages. In the cases of Ebonics and ASL, speakers of English are not going to be fully aware of the message being communicated through Ebonics and ASL unless it is translated to them or they have a way to translate the message. It seems pretty clear, then, that they are distinctive languages.
ReplyDeleteOur definitions of Dialect vs. Language need some serious overhauling since their meanings are essentially the same depending on whom you ask. Traditionally, dialects are mutually comprehensible variations within a given language, but lately the term has become political and can mean whatever the user wants it to mean. The example of Chinese 'dialects' stems from a desire to have the country seem united as one, despite obvious inferences to the opposite. The example with mutually comprehensible Scandinavian 'languages' is equally political; why have two countries when they speak the same language?
ReplyDeleteTraditionally, the litmus test for whether or not something is a language has been mutual comprehensibility. I can't understand Chinese; it is its own language. I can understand Daniel Wilkinson; his is a dialect. There are examples of languages posing as dialects and vice versa, but as the ones listed in the article, I can assure you that ALL of them are politically motivated.
In order to call it a language proper, it will only be fair to say that I speak Georgian, making me tri-lingual. Perhaps I will put that on the next resume...
I remember this being a huge topic of conversation for most of my middle school years in the 90s. Teaching Ebonics in juxtaposition with 'standard English' in California was on the lips of every education professional- I remember having class discussions about this in my english classes and hearing my mom talk about it. The article we read detailed the sided media coverage and what a lasting impression printed word makes. I think people were afraid that Ebonics would become an 'accepted' language and this is why this issue was met with much resistance.
ReplyDeleteBut I think Ebonics is a language. I too thought the point about the languages of Norway and Sweden was compelling and can see how that idea has taken hold in our society also in a very political sense.
No I also do not think that Ebonics is a language because it is mutually comprehensible to those who speak English. But American sign Language yes I think that is a language because it is not comprehensible to those who understand and speak English. Ebonics I feel is just a dialect because is a type of slang used in the US. It a dialect of English.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenn in her statement that Ebonics is a dialect of English. My first real experience of being around people for long periods of time who speak Ebonics was last semester while teaching Early College. When some of my students would speak Ebonics I still pretty much understood what they were saying even though I couldn't personally speak it. It is a from of English that uses different/extra slang words.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the people using Ebonics think of it as slang. I certainly cannot speak for them, but I have spoken to students using, what I assume to be Ebonics, and had to ask for clarification. They couldn't clarify themselves in Standard English, which I thought was odd. Is it because they don't have the vocabulary to explain themselves? I don't think I can agree with that question. I think it is because they think the word/words they are using contain the meaning they've learned. Maybe the question is, when does slang become an accepted form of communication? Are "cool" and "awesome" still considered slang if they are used in a context different than their dictionary definitions?
ReplyDeleteChristy brings up a very interesting point. Over time, will certain Ebonics words just be added to the English dictionary? I remember when "bling" was added to the English dictionary a couple of years ago.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that Ebonics is a dialect of the English language. It is an evolving dialect that comes from English. I can mostly understand it, though at times it can be hard, just like at times it can be hard to understand someone speaking with an extrememly think Southern accent.
Some people have called it a dialect and some a language, and technically speaking everyone is right. Until we can get a definition that everyone can agree on and stick with it, the language vs. dialect debate will continue to waste everyone's time.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said in the other blog post, every knew language begins by being slang or vernacular, which then progresses into dialect, and then into language. Where a language/dialect is at any given moment and where the line is drawn between the two is anyone's guess, but the debate itself is an argument over semantics. You want to call it a language? Fine. Is it a dialect to you? That's Ok too. Both have historical and/or political examples that can be argued if you have the time.
I am not completely sure if I understand exactly what the Oakland Resolution is? Can someone please explain?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that this resolution set fourth that Ebonics is a true language- it accommodated for the instruction of African American students in Ebonics in a culturally responsive way. This not only changed what was going to be taught in schools and the language it was being taught in but it also legitimized a language for an entire community that had been oppressed since their introduction to the county.
ReplyDeleteI am sure there are many more facets of the issue that transcend into much of of the ideologies of the Black community and can't speak to the full impact the resolution had. I am not totally even sure if it was every really set in to action.
All I know is that I don't understand Sign Language unless I'm taught the meaning of the signs, and I do know a little sign language and understand how to use it...but if I were to sign to someone who never signed before they wouldn't be able to understand me. I understand Ebonics because I speak and practice the same language that it originated from, even though it takes some concentration. I do think that Lee is right about the argument going on forever, especially with the English majors. And Lee was right in assuming that I was talking about the language of Spanish-my Spanish speaking roommate wasn't from Spain but Brazil-which is why I was trying to guess where she was from-she has a different dialect than most around here.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we necessarily need a resolution like this in Georgia. People just need to learn to be more accepting. A resolution might cause more divides and predigests in our society
Recently, some female students in my 11th grade AP Literature class began to speak "gibberish." It consisted of speaking quickly, but it was clear that only certain people "knew" the language while others did not. Essentially, this "gibberish" is created by adding the letters "d" or "g" in certain parts of each word. Does this make it an officially recognizable language?
ReplyDeleteThis situation parallels declaring Ebonics an official language or not. Unfortunately, even after reading this own article, I have not formed and official opinion. I agree with much of Lee's first posting, concerning the distinct differences between language and dialects.
My host teacher is very quick to make his students aware that he truly frowns upon any resemblance of slang in his classroom. I disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I bring this up is because I can recall in the early 00's when ebonics seemed to be a hot topic. Should it be recognized or shouldn't it be recognized? During this period of time, ebonics became the subject of satire, from Saturday Night Live skits to political cartoons, the thought of the legitimacy of ebonics was quickly diminished through humor and laughter. But, it isn't as if it is a concept that someone created and thought it would be a joke to spread around the world. Just like slang, it can be used in a sophisticated way that is important in increasing cultural awareness and personal style to the way people speak and write.
I agree with Jennifer that having a resolution like that could create more problems than it would solve. As far as ebonics being a language, I have to side with those who feel it's a dialect. When I think of ASL, I feel that is a different language. I studied ASL during my undergraduate. I recommend that if you feel it is not a language you never suggest that to someone who uses ASL.
ReplyDeleteWe have been taught to connect with our students in anyway we can to help them understand concepts. If our students understand concepts better in the classroom through use of Ebonics than I think it should be used, BUT I believe if it is used in the classroom it also needs to be accompanied with standard English. Once the students understand the topic at hand it should be translated. If our students don't learn standard English they will have even more obstacles to over come in their lives that will hinder them from being successful.
ReplyDeleteErin brings up a very good point. Whether our we like it or not, Standard English is the accepted form of communication in professional environments. To best help our students, we need to make sure that they understand that, whether they like it or not. And maybe someday they can help to change that. Teaching them things through Ebonics and then translating it to Standard English could be very helpful too.
ReplyDeleteI think Ebonics is a dialect of the English language, but not a language in itself. I don’t speak Ebonics, and I certainly can't understand it some of the time, but I do understand the words and the flow of those words. It makes me think of the movie, Airplane, when there are two Black men are speaking strong Ebonics and the flight attendant is a white female and chimes in. It shows how out-of-place she is when speaking the dialect. I know the movie is meant to poke humor, but I would also feel out-of-place speaking Ebonics as a white female. I do think that incorporating Ebonics though was a way to bring about cultural awareness. (The movie pokes fun at everything you can think of.)
ReplyDeleteI didn't truly understand the Oakland Resolution when I first read the article. I did understand after reading my classmates' comments, and I do think that if we created a Georgia Resolution, it would probably cause more conflict than good, but not all conflict is necessarily bad. If we didn't have conflict in the world, we would not be as culturally aware or accepting as we are today. I still, however, believe that Ebonics is a dialect of English.
ReplyDeleteLee's request of an overhaul in the definitions of "dialect" and "language" is indeed correct. Southern English has a few set rules and constructions that borrow from the areas of Britain where the first immigrants came from. Where is the clamor for its recognition? We see at this point, I hope, the politically charged nature of this problem. Who gets the recognition and why has everything to do with the prevalent sympathies of those who make the decisions in educational policies, not linguists. I think it best for the educational set to leave this issue for the linguistic academicians and continue to value each child as an individual (complete with whatever language they have) and to hold them all to the same high expectations. There's a time and a place for all sorts of grammars.
ReplyDeleteIn the course of my own teaching, do I stand up there and speak like a news anchor? Of course not. Those 11th grade boys who are more focused on their vocational projects will have even less interest in Ambrose Bierce if I am Tom Brokaw with a lit book in my hand. My ain'ts, double negatives, and double modals are prevalent in all of their now somewhat diminished glory partly because I can't stop them, and partly because the kids need them because I need to show myself as a real person who can get into some literature and be a decent example. We all share things in common with our students, and language is one of the easiest to use in the course of making ourselves approachable to those who need the extra help to get the info at hand. I don't shun "Standard" English, either, though; I'll be the example code-switcher.
ReplyDelete