Talk:African-American English/Archive 5

Article layout

I'm almost afraid to bring this up for fear of more ballooning but I disagree with much of the new layout that the mediator has put forth. Granted, the layout wasn't too hot before, but I think we ought to agree on an ordering of sections here and then change the article.

I'd say the preferable layout (IMO) is something like:

• Overview
• Grammatical features
  • Phonology
  • Aspect marking
  • Negation
  • Other grammatical characteristics
• Lexical features
• Social context
  • Origins
  • (Controversies)
  • AAVE in Education

Notice that the linguisticky items are more-or-less together as are the sociologicky things. Also, although this is not obvious to non-linguists, the general convention when discussing the linguistic aspects of a language/dialect is to do the phonology first and then move on to things like morphology, syntax, etc and I believe Wikipedia generally follows this convention. The current version puts phonology at the end, which I disagree with. The current version also splits up the social context seemingly just to make a full section by itself titled "controversies"; something I disagree with and have disagreed with and I can certainly add to my prior disagreements by saying that splitting it up this way is kind of sloppy. There can be a subsection in the Social context titled "controversies" but separating it makes it seem as though the controversies aren't in regards to the social context.

And to be clear, Steve, I think it would behoove you as "mediator" to refrain from any but the most agreed upon edits. I hope it's clear now why that is. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aeusoes1's comments about the layout. I agree that the controversy is purely about the place of AAVE in society, not about its linguistic description. Also, I would say most of the controversy is centred on education. The arguments about its use elsewhere are marginal compared to the debate in education, which is the main place any decisions having actual effects can be made. That doesn't mean there's nothing to say about its status in society generally, it just means that the term "controversy" really isn't appropriate to describe it, because few real decisions can be made, although I would welcome being corrected on this point. I also agree with covering the phonology first: it's more basic. It makes sense to go from the most basic facts to the most complex, and to begin by studying the subject synchronically. Joeldl 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on the layout.

I agree with the rest of what you say, for the most part. I won't go into a enumerate bother you with a tedious enumeration of the differences, except for one comment.

Yes, there exists well-intentioned and more or less well-informed criticism of the use in schools of AAVE. However, it's pretty obvious to me that a lot of the criticism of its use in schools is merely an extension and outgrowth of ignorant beliefs about AAVE itself. (Increasingly, this looks wilfully ignorant, in view of the easy access via the web to well-evidenced, logically argued, and clear explanations of what AAVE actually is.) A lot of this "controversy" seems trivial, the equivalent of mere talk-show blather. But so far that it's worth describing, it shouldn't be whitewashed. (Tedious) example: the "notable" if incoherent criticism by Cosby of AAVE use includes a clear reference to AAVE as "crap". -- Hoary 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [poorly written bit corrected, plus some elaboration, both in dark red Hoary 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]

Well, we four (at least) are agreed. Better layout. And I believe Hoary's point is important. Pinkville 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Recap: so the argument had been between you four and and Wikidudeman, where y'all assert that a standard layout for the article is required by its linguistic subject matter. Fine. Now, within this "standard layout" concept once appeared to be, FMIIW, some academic exclusionism of the Cosby reference? I (out of plain interest in linking things, and on some basic principles, and some experience editing here) have backed Wikidudeman up on that point, on the condition that the proper context be given. Finally, Hoary appears to concede that despite his low opinion of the criticism: "so far that it's worth describing, it shouldn't be whitewashed." Great! (Elementary note, "criticism" naturally refers to the usage of AAVE, not its "existence"). Now the million dollar question: Granted that y'all are happy with the article's "new" structure, are you four in agreement on developing the "cccccontroversy" section and applying some general context to what the controversy is really about and so forth? -Ste|vertigo 09:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for trying, but you've missed a major point of mine, or perhaps I've missed one of yours. You say: Elementary note, "criticism" naturally refers to the usage of AAVE, not its "existence". It depends what you mean by "criticism". In the context of this article/subject, "criticism" seems to include uninformed complaining. With that in mind: By the first of your pair, I presume you're referring to people who'd say that while it may be OK to use AAVE on the street-corner (or wherever) it's not OK to use it in the classroom (or wherever). By the second, I'm not sure what you mean. I'll take what you say very literally for a moment: I haven't heard of anyone who claims that AAVE should not exist and should be eliminated. But if you're saying that there are no people who criticize AAVE itself, you're plain wrong. Our star English 101 student Mr Govero (for what his opinion is worth) does precisely the latter. That notable expert in education (huh?) William Cosby does precisely the latter. (Tellingly, both of them make a big deal about how metathetic "aks" will be misunderstood by whitey as "axe": Baugh relates how this was also made into an issue on the "Oprah" show, and it does sometimes seem that the know-nothing contingent are reading from the same script.) Cosby even got his Deep Thinking on the intrinsic worth of AAVE into the Wall Street Journal. -- Hoary 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a section dealing with controversy/criticism. There has been before this mediation started. It just has some beefing up to do in the opinions of some. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as the point is understood: dont let structure be an excuse to exert academic exclusionism. We agree that there is some limited controversy. Explain it, deal with it. Show the detractors for how ignorant they are of IPA and phonological analysis. -Ste|vertigo 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Academic exclusionism" my ass.

Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia primarily deals with the facts, so far as they can be ascertained. Until a few weeks ago, this article was a messy, mediocre, but -- aside from routine minor racist vandalism -- fairly stable description of AAVE that didn't linger over the most ignorant "points of view". Along came an editor keen to align the article to his own ignorance, quoting "notable" stupid comments. Not surprisingly, this attempt to turn one corner of an encyclopedia into a dictionary of received ideas was unpopular with other editors. He applied for "mediation", an idea to which the others agreed. (I later regretted having done this.) You, the mediator, turned out to be pretty much a Pécuchet to his Bouvard, brushing aside the fruit of three decades of rigorous study (against which there appears to be no objection other than soundbites by talking heads and "commentators") as a mere "minority opinion". Recently you seem to have moved away from this position and I'm delighted to note the change. But you need to go further.

Please understand this. AAVE detractors are not merely ignorant of such lah-di-dah matters as "IPA and phonological analysis", they're ignorant of grammar and history. They're ignorant of language as a whole. They're too lazy to open a book, read up on the subject, and digest what they've read. Or (as Cosby's career suggests that he is no fool) they are feigning ignorance for commercial gain or some other payoff.

The article now specifies three critics. One predates rigorous studies into AAVE, and its ignorance about language is thus excusable. One is some nincompoop called Govero (utterly unnotable by any standard), who seems to think that AAVE is akin to aphasia and/or linguistic vandalism. One is Cosby, who equates a language with feces. Tellingly, both of the latter wring the same puny joke out of some imagined misunderstanding as "axe" of a metathetic version of "ask". They're all worthless, each in a different way. They can all be excluded, or they can all be exposed for the ignoramuses that they are. -- Hoary 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹ dən ɑːgʲut wɪf miː

With apologies to Ƶ§œš¹ for the likely mistakes in the title, and to everybody else for my possibly impertinent raising of an issue about AAVE rather than going on about a mere epiphenomenon of AAVE.

Ƶ§œš¹, on this edit of yours: I'd agree that [dən] is probably the standard pronunciation, and I'd also sympathize with something you didn't say but perhaps had in mind: that provision of phonetic notation is thus something akin to eye-dialect, falsely exoticizing AAVE. However, in its less common, emphatic use within more or less standard English, I think done is very commonly [dʌn]; certainly I (a non-speaker of AAVE) had assumed that this AAVE use of done was [dʌn] till Green set me right. -- Hoary 03:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the speaker. [dʌn] sounds Southern or Appalachian... but I'm no linguist! futurebird 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! futurebird 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well what seems odd to me is that [ə] and [ʌ] are in complementary distribution in English and some linguists prefer to use one symbol over the other. If Green incorporates a notational convention differing the two and it's obvious that AAVE doesn't simply have [ə] where other dialects have [ʌ] (putting it in stressed syllables and marking an interesting phonetic attribute) then I can agree with that phonetic indicator. All things being equal, it almost sounds like Green is saying that the done in "he done worked" is never stressed. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

She's a bit hazy here (or I am). She distinguishes not between dən and dʌn but between dən and done -- e.g. I dən done all you told me to (p.60) -- nowhere (I think) making explicit what the phonetic/phonemic contrast is. Rather oddly, she uses "BIN" (so capitalized) not to show that it's a lexeme but to show that it's stressed. (Her book is excellent but CUP's copyeditor could have been a bit more stringent; I hope that a revised edition will emerge. Or perhaps I need a revised brain, or anyway more time to read.) -- Hoary 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rough draft of purposed 'controversy section'.

Here is a rough draft of a purposed controversy section that I believe should be in the article. This is what I would add to the current controversy section.

---

Controversy

AAVE is the center of a lot of controversy due to it's use among African American youths and the role it should play in public schools and education as well as it's social context. Social commentators have argued that teaching AAVE in schools would only impede the academic progress of young African American children. Others have argued that AAVE is nothing more than a "vastly impoverished version of Standard English" Most notably comedian and actor Bill Cosby criticized AAVE in his famous Pound Cake speech where he said...

“ I can’t even talk the way these people talk. “Why you ain’t where you is go, ra.” I don’t know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with, “Why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this. ”

Obviously this is just a rough draft with more material to be added later.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I would revise that section. Some of the major changes include:

• Incorporating the paragraph describing criticism that's already on the page.
• Change the reference from the Lee Walker piece to this Raymond Govero article. Govero demonstrates a much greater awareness of the issues he discusses than Walker.
• Replace Manguel with Bereiter and Engelmann. Manguel, in addition to his lack of authority in the matter, has said only one thing about AAVE and I don't think he is a good representative of that viewpoint. Engelmann especially has written many books on education.
• Explained Cosby's criticism rather than quote it.

In Education

AAVE has been the center of controversy on issues regarding the education of African American youths and the role it should play in public schools and education, as well as its social context. Educators have long held that attempts should be made to eliminate AAVE usage through the public education system. Criticisms from social commentators and educators range from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech to arguments that its use, by being considered unacceptable in most cultural contexts, is socially limiting. It is usually argued that incorporating AAVE in schools would only impede the academic progress of young African American children . The strongest criticisms of AAVE, both its use and its speakers, has come from other African Americans. Most notably, Bill Cosby, in his recent Pound Cake speech criticized members of the African American community for various social behaviors including exclusive use of AAVE.

This would all fit well before the paragraph that begins "changes in formal attitudes..." Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems good to me, although I don't see the need for "both its use and its speakers". While it's true that some people may also be criticizing its speakers, that seems to imply that criticism of AAVE is motivated by a desire to criticize its speakers. That's probably not our conclusion to draw. It seems relevant to mention the criticism of other social behaviours the way you do with respect to Bill Cosby, though.Joeldl 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck it out since I agree that this needn't be the conclusion we draw... although the source does say "It cannot be denied that some of the most scornful and negative criticism of AAVE speakers comes from other African Americans." Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, how about "criticisms of the use of AAVE"? Joeldl 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but that would then imply that African Americans don't criticize other aspects of AAVE. It's probably fine the way it is now. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Usually, the people who criticize it want people to use Standard English instead, at least some of the time. So it's not so much that they want people to change AAVE to something different as it is that they don't want people using it, or don't want them using it in certain situations. Can you give me an example of criticism that's illustrative of what you're talking about. Joeldl 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. The Cosby quote might illustrate my point but I think it's easy to argue that he desires, as you said, replacing AAVE with Standard English at least in certain situations. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I concede that this isn't a very important point, except as far as having a section called "criticism" is concerned. "In education", I think, conveys the main focus of the criticism and I think that's a good title for the section section to put it in. Joeldl 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to create your own section for that otherwise the citations get jumbled.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I believe the Cosby remark should be quoted so that the readers can draw their own interpretations. Not an editor interpreting it for them.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we can discuss the wording of the explanation and perhaps reach a consensus on it so that it is the interpretation of several editors rather than just one. Remember also that the PCS article has the full text of the speech for more curious readers. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, what is meant specifically by the "social context" of AAVE? Joeldl 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Where?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about your draft in the section called "Controversy". Sorry, maybe I put my question in the wrong place. Joeldl 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By "Social context" I mean it's place in society. I.E. many African American youths using AAVE instead of standard english. I guess that doesn't have to be there really.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "as well as its place in society more broadly"? "Social context" wasn't clear to me. Joeldl 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe, your hitting on the proper point. There needs to be a general treatment about how AAVE fits in with the debates within black culture. The focus on rewriting existing sections is out of sequence IMHO. Ste|vertigo 01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres the concept:

"AAVE has survived and thrived through the centuries also as a result of various degrees of isolation. This isolation in particular was and is a social isolation, and based in the racism begun with the slave era. As such, AAVE is often the most prominent example of a separate black culture, within greater American culture. As such, the usage of AAVE is a matter of some debate, given the changing social status of the black population as a whole after the Civil Rights Movement. Critics have charged that the usage of AAVE is less an aspect of distinction as it is a mark of poverty and low social class - a mark which critics claim is, to some degree, a hindrance to black prosperity within society, rather than a help. These criticisms are part of a larger internal debate within black American culture that deals in large part with black stereotypes. -Ste|vertigo 01:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Was naming this section title "Joe's" a way of asking me to butt out? Joeldl 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC) I'm quite happy with aeusoes1's draft, basically Joeldl 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Not at all. I thought it was yours. I simply wanted to not use a full header from the article. This is the talk. -Ste|vertigo 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I guess you're saying you thought aeusoes1's draft was mine. Joeldl 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I think your comments are quite helpful and to the point. -Ste|vertigo 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I like aeusoes1's draft because it points to very objective facts, and is focused on AAVE. The main controversy has been in education. Also, I think it's good to keep this section's length to a minimum. I agree with the comments that this article should primarily be about linguistics. My comment about "its place in society more broadly" was just to say that that phrase should replace "its social context", which I thought was vague. Joeldl 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Planting is more fundamental than pruning. We dont "keep things to a minimum" as much as we grow rapidly - forking if necessary. -Ste|vertigo 03:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm saying forking is appropriate here. Joeldl 12:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally the twig needs to grow a bit more before it can be cut off from the main branch. Is there enough here on the controversies yet to split ("fork" here is a bad word that implies a pov-based separation). -Ste|vertigo 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should put the rough draft into the article and work on it from there.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Are we going with what Wikidude put forth, my revision or what? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What does Hoary think? -Ste|vertigo 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We can put yours up first and then maybe add a few aspects from mine into it once it's up. We can start a new discussion on how it should be presented after it's up.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer Aeusoes1's draft. It seems more neutral, and is more informative for at least two reasons: it says that there's a range of criticism from less extreme to more extreme, and it explains some of the reasons for the criticism. Also, I don't think that putting in the whole quote is worth it. It's disproportionate (people looking for information about AAVE shouldn't be forced to read through all that, in my opinion), it can be summed up easily (and fairly, in my opinion) the way Aeusoes1 does, and it can be found through a link. Also, I think that it's right to use the word "assert" to remind people that it's just a claim, especially when linguists are in fact practically unanimous, as we've heard mentioned here repeatedly. I don't think that that's partial. Joeldl 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A nugget from this new version: Criticisms from social commentators and educators range from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech.... "Range": present tense, though perhaps that's just a typo. Cited source: a book published forty-one years ago. If you're going to mention Cosby, who "notably" said this or that, why not add that he referred to AAVE as "crap"? -- Hoary 01:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because it's more inflammatory than descriptive. I might need to change the source cited, not because it's old but because it is a source that argues that AAVE is deficient rather than saying that some people argue that it's deficient. Citations should back up statements, not illustrate them, right? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, That's not right. If someone makes a claim somewhere then you can cite that actual claim and not cite someone claiming they made that claim. For instance if someone says that AAVE is deficient then you can cite that actual person and explain what they said.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, you can do that, but in this case the claim is not that AAVE is deficient or that a person has made that statement but that numerous people have asserted it to be so. I think it might be better to cite Baugh or some other text that discusses the issue. Another possibility is to cite multiple examples and label them as examples (people from X have made claim Y; for example ^[1], ^[2], and ^[2]). Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On the book (which I haven't read): I'll take your word for it that it argues that AAVE is somehow deficient. I note that its publication predates the huge majority of serious research into AAVE. Citing this book may explain how public opinion was or has been molded. As for its value in presenting a present-day argument about AAVE, it seems a bit like citing a description of the moons of Saturn from a work on astronomy, however seriously researched, that predated the sending of Voyager 1 to take a closer look at Saturn.

Yes, this use of the term "crap" does seem more inflammatory than descriptive; one merit of noting it is that it helps readers judge for themselves [this seems to be a notion highly regarded hereabouts] the reason for the speaker's worries about the use of AAVE, the other is that it helps readers judge for themselves whether the speaker is a reasonable, well informed person whose views (so far as they are coherent at all) merit being taken seriously. In my opinion nothing Cosby says backs up anything about AAVE or its use, though it certainly could back up an assertion that ignorance of language is rampant, that ageing public figures say the durndest things, or similar. -- Hoary 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Same for Raymond Govero. This chump doesn't just sound like an English 101 student, when he wrote the essay the article cites he actually was an English 101 student. (But I suppose our "mediator" would say that his "opinion" is just as "valid" as that of, say, Geoff Pullum.) Perhaps Govero had spent rather too high a proportion of his valuable time at Armstrong Atlantic State University polishing his invective and too little studying, but for whatever reason he describes AAVE as a "speech deficiency" and a "mutilation of the English language". Of course, you may agree that AAVE is a "speech deficiency" and a "mutilation". What you may find a bit harder to do is to claim that his criticism of the use of AAVE is independent from his opinion of the intrinsic worth of AAVE (which, any linguist that I know of would say, is no higher or lower than that of standard English, Newfoundland English, Lithuanian or Telugu). -- Hoary 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was under the impression from WDM that Govero was a more reputible source. Govero's a pretty poor source right now anyway. As for B & E, if I remember correctly, there actually had been plenty of linguistic research on AAVE and the concept that languages cannot be "better" than others had been accepted by linguists well before then. So B & E ignored the linguistic consensus just as much as people do today.

As for saying in a sentence-long summary of PCS that Cosby called AAVE "crap," I think "criticized" gets the point across in an objective fashion. I turn the question back at you and ask, other than an attempt at poisoning the well what is the point of adding that he called it "crap"? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the second point. "Criticizing" your use of language may include calling it crap, but to me at least "criticizing" primarily implies constructive use of the intellect, which in turn generally implies at least a minimal effort to educate myself on what the person is talking about. Why aggrandize Cosby's blather with the word "criticize"?

Cosby appears to have the very traditional and rather sad tendency to stigmatize the basilect. His "criticism" of the "use" of AAVE comes from that. As I said several screenfuls ago (in the last archive page), when it comes to talking about language, he has his head, uh, in a position that (readers are free to decide for themselves) is up his ass. OK, if his opinions are worth showing at all, let's show him with his head in this interesting position. More politely, to pretend that he's neutral about AAVE itself and merely disagrees with its wide use is to misrepresent the part of what he says that's clearest.

In view of the deep, deep respect evinced on this talk page for this beloved figure of US telly, I have augmented the quote from Cosby so that readers can see Cosby in more of his rhetorical glory. -- Hoary 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph seems a bit inflammatory, with the reference to "crap". Also, it seems to me that the sentence "Educators have long held..." is overbroad. Maybe limiting language should be introduced, either by using language that shows that not all educators hold this view, or by saying somehow that the focus — for most of these educators at least — has been exclusive use of AAVE. Joeldl 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph mentioning Cosby to be more representative of what he actually said. Simply stating he called Ebonics "Crap" is out of context and does not represent his actual implications. I quoted a sentence from his speech instead to make it in context.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl, It may seem "inflammatory" to you but there are a lot of things on wikipedia that others would consider offensive. If quoting one word of Cosby is "inflammatory" then what must the entire article on the pound cake speech be? I don't see quoting Cosby here as inflammatory. It gives a good representation of his views.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph, other than the first sentence and the thing about "aks", perhaps, duplicates the information in the second paragraph, where it's given treatment proportionate in length to its importance (especially Cosby). The first sentence about it being a basilect is already implicit in the coverage under "Social context", so if anywhere, it should be worked in there. Also, I think that the "aks" example doesn't belong just before a general opening paragraph about AAVE in education, and should be worked in under "Social context" if it's really necessary. Basically, I think that paragraph doesn't belong there. Joeldl 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it to reflect that, but I don't want to become too directly involved, so if you're not happy with it, WDM, feel free to revert it. Joeldl 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, I just added a short quote of what Cosby said.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the last part to a place that seems more appropriate. I've removed the quote because I don't want to take responsibility for it, but if you want to put it back, I'm not trying to prevent you. Joeldl 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[Added: I'd like Aeusoes1's opinion on moving the end of the paragraph he wrote up to "Social context". It may be that I'm wrong about that.Joeldl 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]

I'd like to reiterate that I'm opposed to inclusion of the quote. Also, if Wikidudeman disagrees with the statement that the speech was "recent", that doesn't make it "famous". I think "his Pound Cake Speech" would do fine. Joeldl 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Could it be that the Dude Man wants Cosby's "criticism" of the use of AAVE to be seen without the "crap" context, because putting it in the "crap" context simply shows Cosby's "criticism" for what it is, the rant of somebody who earns money for parading his ignorance of language and arrogance toward others? -- Hoary 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that Cosby's speech, having been insinuated into the article, now poses serious comfort-level problems to editors who understandably feel the need to marginalise the content. But if Cosby's assessment of AAVE is important enough to insert into the article on AAVE, then by God, represent faithfully (not euphemistically) what he said. He dismissed the lect as the street corner chatter of youths, and called it "crap". Of course, some readers will understand that the inclusion of such "criticism" produces an article that, rather than dealing with the linguistic issues and vital social context of AAVE, is a porridge of science and celebrity trivia.

One point raised several times on this page seems to be passing without much examination, and that is the idea that the usage of AAVE can justifiably be criticised (I'm not sure everyone's on the same page yet about criticism of the lect outright, but let's leave that aside...). Let's be clear what's being tacitly accepted here, because the implication of this notion is that some languages are justifiably less acceptable than others. I think that idea has to be problematised. Pinkville 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't saying such criticism can ever be legitimate. But the statement that AAVE is overtly criticized by some people distinguishes it from some other forms of speech which have low sociolinguistic status but against which negative attitudes are never articulated so explicitly and in such a visible manner. It has objective meaning to say that the criticism has risen to the level of debates among people who are viewed as having some degree of authority outside the academic community, for example among newspaper columnists. Joeldl 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the distinction, but I think it's worth emphasising the illegitimacy of such "criticism" - keeping it well in mind because it's very easy for some to slip into a mindframe that begins to accept the apparent "reasonableness" of such "criticism", especially when dignifying words like "controversy", "debate", etc. are being used to describe it. This is one of the key problems with journalistic reportage, which pretends (usually unknowingly) to be objective and balanced - and it's another reason to worry when (mainstream) journalism is invoked as a positive model for this or any article. Anyway, it was intended as a reminder. Pinkville 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I think the fact that AAVE has equal expressive power to other linguistic systems is capable of being formulated rigorously and demonstrated scientifically, and, I'm sure has been. This can be stated and given references, and that is enough of a warning for people to beware of people who claim that it's intrinsically flawed. There are also some people who don't claim that it's intrinsically flawed, just that realistically speaking, its social status isn't going to change, and people had better be bidialectal. I also wouldn't say that the current standard in English exists only because it's what whites in the US speak — the standard forms of English in England, the US, Canada, Ireland, etc., are all much closer to each other than they are to AAVE or the most marked forms of, say, Yorkshire English. So people who say that realistically, the standard form is going to stay as it is, are probably right. I don't think it's right to put them in the same category as the people who just think "ain't" is bad because you must be stupid if you say it. Joeldl 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. One such newspaper columnist is William Cosby, who has "famously" talked about it as well. In his column, Cosby called it "Igno-Ebonics"; in his speech, he called it "crap". I think and hope that there are columnists who "criticize" the use of AAVE in a way that does not display their ignorance of AAVE itself (let alone their faux-incomprehension of AAVE, their arrogance, etc.). Curiously, I haven't seen one yet. (And as it now stands, the article cites such "people who are viewed as having some degree of authority outside the academic community" as R. Govero, star "English 101" student.) The most conspicuous criticism (and perhaps the typical criticism) of the "use" of AAVE is firmly based on ignorance of what AAVE is. Should this linkage be whitewashed? -- Hoary 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Phonological features

While we're involved in this widespread change of the article, there are a few cleanups or changes I would like to work on.

1. [θ]→[t] is not a regular feature of AAVE (it may occur but is not normal). "[tɛŋ] or [tæŋ] for thing" should be corrected accordingly.

2. "A number of rhotic AAVE speakers do exist, however." I've never heard of this anywhere else. Sources?

3. "For example, "boy" is pronounced as [boː]." Again, I don't think I've ever heard this.

4. "something → [sʌmfɪn]" never heard this. [θ]→[f] seems to me to be limited to word-final position

5. "/l/ is often deleted after a vowel" I think this only occurs after open vowels

6. "After a vowel, a nasal may be lost while nasalization of the vowel is retained. E.g, found may be pronounced fã]" I think this is misleading, because the vast majority of AAVE speakers would not have a. the pride-proud merger (simplifying /aʊ/ to /aː/) b. elision of final /d/, and c. elision of final /n/ (final after /d/ is elided, and leaving its nasalization) all in the same word

7. "Dropping of word initial /d/, /b/, and /g/ in tense-aspect markers, e.g., the pronunciation of don't like own." This seems to me more like a lexical difference than a phonological one. It applies to a very small set: (d)on't, (gonn)a [only after "I'm"), and furthermore, does not apply to such tense/aspect markers as bin, done, or be.

8. "wedding → [wɛdɪn]" relatively minor note: intervocalic /t/ and /d/ after a stressed vowel are pronounced [ɾ]in almost all varieties of North American English, AAVE included

More generally, I think this section should like to some other Wikipedia articles about English phonetics. For example, The page Phonological history of English diphthongs has sections on the rod-ride and pride-proud mergers that occur in some AAVE. The lack of the cot-caught merger and (especially for older, rural, Southern speakers) the lack of the horse-hoarse merger and happy-tensing could be explained as well. I will go ahead with this changes in a few days if there are no objections. Makerowner 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much objection to most of what you propose, although I actually got number 6 from a source but it didn't specify the vowel that would be nasalized. Number 7 does indicate that it's just in tense-aspect markers (that's not very many words) and it's a phonological change in them or, at least, a change in the phonetic realization of them.

It's important to mention the dental fricatives thing even if it's not all speakers or at all times (and mention of the variation would be appropriate). In addition to code-switching, it has been argued that AAVE exhibits what's called a post-creole speech continuum. Thus speakers exhibit a range, depending on situation, between basilect forms of AAVE and Standard English. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think mention of the post-creole continuum might be useful, although creole origin for AAVE is not universally accepted, so it would have to be doubly hedged (ie. Some linguist say AAVE is descended from a Creole...some of them say that it is now a post-creole speech continuum.) Of course, with the continuum, most speakers lie somewhere in the middle. [θ]→[t] would certainly be a basilectal feature if it even occurs, and I don't think it should be listed as a "standard" feature (although there is of course no real standard AAVE). For #6, please add the source, if you still have it. I meant by my post that it seemed unlikely to me; if it has been documented by linguists, obviously that is irrelevant. As to #7, I think the fact that this rule only applies to two words, and doesn't apply to three others in the same class seems more like lexical variation. There is no simple rule that can transform the GAm forms of these words into AAVE. If /d,b,g/→ 0 at the beginning of tense/aspect markers, we would have */ɪn/, */ʌn/ and */iː, which I think we can agree is not the case. I'm going to go ahead and change 2, 3, 4, and 8; we can decide about the rest later. Makerowner 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I didn't notice before. Final obstruent devoicing usually leaves a long vowel, doesn't it? So 'pig' and 'pick' would not be homophones, they would be [pɪːk] and [pɪk] (also many AAVE speakers have the 'Southern drawl', where lax front vowels are triphthongized before voiced consonants, so we would have [pɪjək] and [pɪk]. Makerowner 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that aspect of final obstruent devoicing. It mostly depends on the ordering of the phonological processes. So if the lengthening rule applies after the devoicing then it doesn't appear. I don't feel comfortable speculating too much on the matter though. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text:

Vowels may be nasalized and nasal consonants lost: run and end may just be in the first case an r followed by a nasalized vowel and in the second case a simple nasalized vowel with no pronunciation at all of the final nd. The diphthongs in words like find and found may be both monophthongized and nasalized, and the words may lack any pronunciation of the final nd. Consequently, find, found, and even fond may become homophonous, all pronounced with an f and a following nasalized vowel.

The "may"s may be important as all plausible AAVE pronunciations may not be the most common ones. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My school library has a few books with some good descriptions of AAVE phonology, so I'll check about final obstruent devoicing. As for the nasalized vowel in 'found', where is this quote from? Please add the citation to the article. I think in dealing with the continuum of pronunciations, the article should start with the 'middle' or most common ones and mention the basilectal ones, specifying their rarity, geographical extent, etc. The acrolect is of course GAm, and therefore does not need description in this article. Makerowner 04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say

This article is real well done! Great job. It must have been a lot of hard work. JJJamal 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did "cool" come from?

Can anyone here help me find some sources on the origins of this word? I'm talking about the early origins, the word is older than the jazz era in american history.

I hear old Baptist preachers using it and they don't know much about "Jazz." This makes me think it's and old word... I'm asking because this page is crawling with linguists. But I mean that in a good way. futurebird 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)