NationStates Jolt Archive

The English language does not have a cultural institute out there that tries to maintain its 'purity'. The French and Spanish languages do, and no doubt other languages have such standards being constantly imposed as well. English is a conglomeration of many languages. We rarely come up with our own words for things when we can just as easily Anglicise the words already existing. Bok Choy. And so on.

English, as all with all languages, is a living, and ever changing creature. Someone from Australia can not claim to speak 'proper English' any more than someone from Jamaica, or England. English has been adapted in countries around the world, and is 'correct' in all its differences.

Now. If you agree with this so far...what about other forms of English? Ebonics for example. Is this a valid dialect of English?

If so, should speakers of this, as with other dialects (Jamaican, Australian, Newfoundland English for example) be compelled to learn the dominant English dialect and communicate in it for specific purposes (letters, essays, speech in school)? Or should these dialects be respected, and be allowed to thrive despite the connotations that certain dialects (or accents) are somehow low or high class compared to others?

Discuss.

There is a difference between written and spoken english. Even then, I think a little dialect "bleed" is a good thing.

Also, I think people need to accept that the meaning of words already in the english language is fluid, and should stop trying to freeze the meaning of words.

I am not sure about ebonics though. I think it is more of a marketing tool than a bonafide dialect.

Let me simplify the issue using Ebonics as the main example.

Should Ebonics be valued as a form of English just as valid as any other form that is spoken? If so, why, if not, why?

The English language does not have a cultural institute out there that tries to maintain its 'purity'. The French and Spanish languages do, and no doubt other languages have such standards being constantly imposed as well. English is a conglomeration of many languages. We rarely come up with our own words for things when we can just as easily Anglicise the words already existing. Bok Choy. And so on.

English, as all with all languages, is a living, and ever changing creature. Someone from Australia can not claim to speak 'proper English' any more than someone from Jamaica, or England. English has been adapted in countries around the world, and is 'correct' in all its differences.

Now. If you agree with this so far...what about other forms of English? Ebonics for example. Is this a valid dialect of English?

If so, should speakers of this, as with other dialects (Jamaican, Australian, Newfoundland English for example) be compelled to learn the dominant English dialect and communicate in it for specific purposes (letters, essays, speech in school)? Or should these dialects be respected, and be allowed to thrive despite the connotations that certain dialects (or accents) are somehow low or high class compared to others?

Discuss.
:eek: Not the Ebonic Plague again! [ Runs away! ]

:eek: Not the Ebonic Plague again! [ Runs away! ]
Kehhee...very punny.

*wonders how official documents would look in "13375p33k"

Kehhee...very punny.
:D

What is it with General and utterly shameful jokes today?

There is a difference between written and spoken english. Even then, I think a little dialect "bleed" is a good thing.

Also, I think people need to accept that the meaning of words already in the english language is fluid, and should stop trying to freeze the meaning of words.

I am not sure about ebonics though. I think it is more of a marketing tool than a bonafide dialect.

quick moron question.... ebonics? I have no clue what that is.

To answer the question properly.

I think we need to have a standardised written English, as sometimes individual dialects can be nigh-on unintelligable to people from outside the location it is commonly spoken, and letters/emails/etc that by their nature are more likely to be sent further away would read like a mass of jibberoo to the recipient. If EVERYONE done that, written communication would be obscenely difficult. As for the spoken language however, I like the different dialects, words etc that have been incorporated into local variants of the language. it's nice to have the distinction.

Should Ebonics be valued as a form of English just as valid as any other form that is spoken? If so, why, if not, why?

No because Ebonics is not a bona fide dialect. In fact it is a silly concept, created to stir up political trouble and sell records.

If you asked: "Should Gullah be valued as a form of English just as valid as any other that is spoken?", then the answer would be yes.

But not ebonics.

Unless, I'm mistaken, Ebonics does not inflect verbs for person, which could be considered an improvement, since there is no need for such inflection in English (due to the presence of personal pronouns).

i pretty much agree with Sinhue on ebonics, more of a marleting tool than an actual dialect. Perhaps a proto-dialect though, not yet fully one but on it's way to being one.


Now as for compelling people to speak the major dialect of English and use it, they already are and I see no way to change this as it is the nature of societies. I don't believe one can use the force of law to force the use the dominant dialect and prohibit the use of the minor dialects, at least in a society in which the government is responsible to the people.

I would probably advocate that we should do the same with English as the Germans have done with their language. There is a 'high' German language, which is grammatically rigid and well defined that is used for official purposes, and is also what is taught to foreigners. In addition all native Germans will speak at least one, sometimes more, of the local dialects.

For writing, it depends on the nature of the message. If it is mum leaving a note for the son to clean up his room, then local dialect is fine. If it is a job application for a multinational company then 'high' german should be used.

I would argue that BBC English should be adopted as a worldwide 'standard' English, though this could be substituted by CNN or some such. What matters is that there is a worldwide exposure to this language and a point of reference that people respect and understand.

The term 'ebonics' itself is problematic, as there is no consistent 'black english'. That spoken in the USA is different to that of Jamaica and they are both different to Nigeria etc.

This has some interesting stuff on ebonics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English

i pretty much agree with Sinhue on ebonics, more of a marleting tool than an actual dialect. Perhaps a proto-dialect though, not yet fully one but on it's way to being one.


Now as for compelling people to speak the major dialect of English and use it, they already are and I see no way to change this as it is the nature of societies. I don't believe one can use the force of law to force the use the dominant dialect and prohibit the use of the minor dialects, at least in a society in which the government is responsible to the people.
Maybe there's something dialectics could tell us about it, eh? Anyone know Hegel? :)

i pretty much agree with Sinhue on ebonics, more of a marleting tool than an actual dialect. Perhaps a proto-dialect though, not yet fully one but on it's way to being one.


Nah, how can it become one. It is the only instance I can think of (although there must be others), where there has been an attempt to create a dialect from the top down.

As AB, rightly points out, to begin with it does not reflect usage of black english speakers outside the US, but also, and more problematically, it cannot even be said to reflect the usage inside the United States either.

To buy into ebonics, you would have to but into the premise that: a) black americans in Miami, Chicago, New York, LA, &c. shared a virtually identical dialect; and, b) that their use of dialect had more in common with black americans in widely separated geographic areas than it did with their non-black neighbors in the same geographic area of substantially the same socio-economic class.

That is, to say the least, highly unlikely.

Frankly, the only common thread I can ascertain for 'ebonics' is rap records and hollywood movies. Neither of which make a compelling case for it to be considered a bona fide dilect.

Sinuhue, have you ever met an Outharbour Newfy? Their dialect is old and their accents so thick that you could mistake as being some foreign language.

But I would never want to have a law madating that they have to use "normal english" when communicating with anyone not from their outharbour. I think Academic institutions like Oxford, Harvard etc. have appointed themselves as guardians of the English language, and the English speaking world accepts this. These are the institutions that are reffered to for answers when etymological, phonetic and gramatic questions regarding what is "proper english"

Fortunately for us, these institutes don't have the power to enact laws the way their more official French and Spanish counterparts do. Its worked very well so far, except for the American penchant for inventing their own unique spelling for words, and even the pronunciation of a certain letter of the alphabet (hint: Its the last of the alphabet)

I Alien Born's suggestion about using the German system. It does work, but its success is due in part at least to German stubborness. My grandmother spoke fluent Old High German. Its the most beautiful sounding German dialect I've ever heard. It is closer to the german of the late middle-ages, a couple hundred years before Goeth and Schiller started codifying and defing "true German. Hearing some one it or any otther German dialect is like going back in time. I'm glad that in Germany, the dialects have been allowed to continue and even flourish.

What we've done for the past few centuries seems to have worked pretty good though. If it ain't broke don't fix it. ;)

No because Ebonics is not a bona fide dialect. In fact it is a silly concept, created to stir up political trouble and sell records.

If you asked: "Should Gullah be valued as a form of English just as valid as any other that is spoken?", then the answer would be yes.

But not ebonics.
as i understand it "ebonics" was an attempt by the school district of ....berkely?...california to get bilingual money for its poorer schools. if ebonics counted as another language then the black students could qualify them for more money