How is it not broadly accepted or utilized? There are whole communities that speak it almost exclusively.Its not broadly accepted/utilized, not systematic, not formalized in any way, in fact I would say that even calling it black vernacular or ebonics gives it a sense of unity that doesn't exist. There is zero uniformity amongst the few population groups that actually employ it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93962276/T...Martin-AutopsyShiping Bao_sl said:The external genitalia present descended testicles and an unremarkable penis.
I think that you're missing the point of people's ire. It's not that Jeantel massacred what they consider English to be, that happens all the time and a lot of communities that aren't black do it. Visit the Benseonhurst, Jersey, Boston, Kentucky and you will find powerful accents that immediately give you a sense (Stereotype) of that person, or where they come from. The difference is, most people, not all, but most, from those communities, when they go into a place where they are clearly out of their home community, they typically feelself consciousabout their inability to reach an accent neutral state. They see their inability to speak with the same eloquence as those educated better than themselves as a drawback. I see this all the time in the corporate world. People who don't have a good grasp on "proper" English will take writing classes, or speech classes, or accent neutralization courses. Because they see their little idiosyncrasies as a disadvantage, because they recognize that the hegemony is different from their culture, and adaptation toitis far easier than asking it to adapt to toyouor your small subset.Obviously you're all fluent in English, and yet you clearly haven't perfected the language yet. I'm not judging here, you don't have to perfect the language. All of those mistakes didn't interfere with the meanings you were trying to get across, so from a communicative point of view you can keep making those mistakes. Jeantel can communicate just find with the people she interacts with on a daily basis. It's not a "right" English vs "wrong" English dichotomy here, it's lots of grey areas that only ever have meaning based on the context in which they are used.
Let's move this away from any possible concept of racism for Americans and reframe it as an equivalent question:Is Scots a language or a dialect?Its not broadly accepted/utilized, not systematic, not formalized in any way, in fact I would say that even calling it black vernacular or ebonics gives it a sense of unity that doesn't exist. There is zero uniformity amongst the few population groups that actually employ it.
Slangy English with an accent, or a distinct language of its own?This is the storie o the birth o Jesus Christ. His mither Mary wis trystit til Joseph, but afore they war mairriet she wis fund tae be wi bairn bi the Halie Sp?rit. Her husband Joseph, honest man, hed nae mind tae affront her afore the warld an wis for brakkin aff their tryst hidlinweys; an sae he wis een ettlin tae dae, whan an angel o the Lord kythed til him in a draim an said til him, ?Joseph, son o Dauvit, be nane feared tae tak Mary your trystit wife intil your hame; the bairn she is cairrein is o the Halie Sp?rit. She will beir a son, an the name ye ar tae g?e him is Jesus, for he will sauf his fowk frae their sins.?
Aa this happent at the wurd spokken bi the Lord throu the Prophet micht be fulfilled: Behaud, the virgin wil bouk an beir a son, an they will caa his name Immanuel ? that is, ?God wi us?.
Whan he hed waukit frae his sleep, Joseph did as the angel hed bidden him, an tuik his trystit wife hame wi him. But he bedditna wi her or she buir a son; an he caa?d the bairn Jesus.
I agree completely. Like I said, I don't think we should be teaching "Ebonics" in schools or accepting it as a valid alternative to "conventional" English. Whether it's fair or not, people who hear someone speaking like Jeantel will make assumptions about that person's intelligence. Speaking what many would consider to be a "lower" standard of English plagued with what we know to be mistakes, we assume they are operating on a mentally inferior level. Similarly, every time I read a moronic expressly racist comment on this thread, I make assumptions about that person's rationality and intelligence. Jeantelshouldwork on speaking "proper" English. It would absolutely help her in the long run. But it doesn't mean she's not currently communicating with her peers in a manner that is clear and understandable to them, which is the purpose of language after all.Language
Ebonics? I'm old enough to remember when it was called Jive.
Wait, so at 17 TM has tattoos?I know it's just standard ME jargon but I thought it was pretty funny:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93962276/T...Martin-Autopsy
Exactly.I don't think anyone is just mad at her for being dumb. I think most people here will openly say that's a failure on our part, our education system. What people are angry at is she is PROUD of it. And the adults who are educated and should KNOW better, support that pride. (And I know some will stretch this into a systemic problem in black culture, where they idolize bad habits, I won't comment on that, because frankly I can't make a call beyond anecdotal observations. I'm just speaking about THIS case. The amount of pride swirling around Jeantel's "boldness" is deeply disturbing. I'd be, frankly, pissed if I heard a normal Italian praising Snooky for her "boldness" and what a "proud" Italian woman she was.)
Because some inner city communities utilize it doesn't mean its broadly accepted or utilized, in fact its because it is entirely relegated to the poorest, most uneducated sectors of our society, and eschewed by the broad culture, that I say its not formalized or broadly accepted/utilized, which means its not a language. There are no governments who perform their duties in Ebonics. There is nowhere, on planet Earth, where Ebonics is used as the sole method of communication. There are no systematized formal methods for teaching someone to speak Ebonics. English is systematic and formalized. Despite there being many versions of it, there is one or two official versions of it which is taught globally. Ebonics shares none of these characteristics. No one can teach you how to speak Ebonics in such a manner that no matter what community of Ebonics speakers you interact with, they can comprehend what you are saying. There are no classes in China to teach Chinese people how to speak Ebonics. There are no classes in France to teach French people how to speak "Ebonics". If I wanted to take Swahili, I could, and I could go to Africa, and I could speak with some degree of reasonable understanding, virtually any Swahili based dialect in the continent. Ebonics. Shares. None. Of. These. Traits. Calling it a language is a politically motivated watering down of what the term language means. It is racist to call Ebonics a language, because its the same low expectations soft bigotry that you see from academics on these sorts of issues all the time.How is it not broadly accepted or utilized? There are whole communities that speak it almost exclusively.
By "not systematic", are you saying that there is too much variation that exists within what we would consider "Ebonics"? Hell, there is tremendous variation in "standard" English, too. I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in a French Canadian city. My version of English is different from yours in some (admittedly minor) ways. English can vary a lot from state to state, or even city to city, but they're all "English" just the same.
What do you mean "not formalized"? Do textbooks need to be written explaining grammatical and vocabulary features before a language is considered a language?
From that articleSlangy English with an accent, or a distinct language of its own?
Dialect. It has no systematic formula, no one to teach it, its not broadly accepted, no governments use it as a primary language within which they conduct business, etc.It has been difficult to determine the number of speakers of Scots via census, because many respondents might interpret the question "Do you speak Scots?" in different ways. Campaigners for Scots pressed for this question to be included in the 2001 U.K. National Census. The results from a 1996 trial before the Census, by the General Register Office for Scotland,[2] suggested that there were around 1.5 million speakers of Scots, with 30% of Scots responding "Yes" to the question "Can you speak the Scots language?", but only 17% responding "Aye" to the question "Can you speak Scots?".[citation needed] (It was also found that older, working-class people were more likely to answer in the affirmative.) The University of Aberdeen Scots Leid Quorum performed its own research in 1995, cautiously suggesting that there were 2.7 million speakers, though with clarification as to why these figures required context.[54]
well... we did tell the brits that ;-)So bad grammar plus pop culture can be a dialect or language? I fucking refuse to accept that shit.