Talk:African-American English/Archive 8

Poor citations revisited: An appeal for library research

Above, there's the comment:

SMITHERMAN, ROMAINE, COULMAS, and TRUDGILL are used in the body of the text as a cite several times, but it is not anyhwere else (refs section), so we only have their name and a page number. We need title, publisher, etc to turn this into a proper footnote. These appear to be books or academic papers and someone familiar with them need to supply the info so proper refs can be generated. Lead needs to summarize the article too. Rlevse 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said.

I examined three books by Smitherman's and found every "Smitherman" quote to have been (very scrupulously) taken from just one of them. Something similar has to be done for Romaine, Coulmas, and Trudgill. Each of these three has written quite a lot; finding the quotations may not be a trivial task. If you see a book by one of these three authors that is the source for one or more of the quotations, of course adjust the article accordingly. But if it isn't the source, please edit what follows in order to save work for others. Thank you. -- Hoary 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if anybody is interested, the contributer to these poor citations is a user named Melanix. Unless this contributer has changed usernames, they have not returned to Wikipedia since they made these edits in December 2006. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote "About '80 to 90 percent of American blacks' speak AAVE “at least some of the time" is taken from a source that is dated by 35 years, and therefore cannot serve as a source to assert the frequency of AAVE among African Americans presently. Unless someone can offer a more reliable source, I have deleted the sentence. Kemet 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the references to Trudgill and Romaine. I didn't find the proper Coulmas reference but her 2005 sociolinguistics book had some similar statements and I found a couple of resources on JSTOR and google books to fill in the other gaps. The longer these remain as such, the more compelling it is to mark them as uncited (rather than poorly cited). Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Trudgill

The quotations are not in any of:

Coulmas (citations removed)

The quotations are not in any of:

• The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Blackwell, 1997). -- Hoary 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Language and Economy (Blackwell, 1992). -- Hoary 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speakers' Choices (Cambridge, 2005) Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Romaine

The quotations are not in any of:

• Bilingualism (Blackwell, 1989). -- Hoary 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bilingualism, 2nd ed (Blackwell, 1995). -- Hoary 06:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Book from Universal Publishers

A recent edit introduced a lot of material from or about a book I'd never heard of by an author I'd never heard of from a publisher I'd never heard of. Of course there are many fine books, authors and publishers I've never heard of, and I decided to investigate. This book is from Universal Publishers, which says: Our authors subsidize the cost of bringing their book to market by sharing some of the preparation costs. Uh-huh. This page says First is the digital vanity press, of which prominent examples are Xlibris, iUniverse, and Universal Publishers. Like other vanity presses, these companies require the author to pay the initial set-up costs for a book’s production,... [http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Legal-Prostitute-Nevada-Brothels/dp/B00107ANF4 Here] is a demonstration of how low Universal Publishers' standards can be.

This particular book may be good, for all I know. But if it's good I wonder why it isn't published by a university press, or by Blackwell, Wiley, Erlbaum or whoever. As it is, we were being asked to take seriously Travis's bald assertions merely because they were published in a grandly titled book. (It's not often that a book has "treatise" in its title.) And that won't wash, which is why I'm about to delete the whole thing. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee in particular, bizarre referencing in general

In the past, Ƶ§œš¹ clearly knew what he was doing, so I really don't want to revert, but I don't understand this edit. A large reason is that I don't understand its reference to "harvcoltxt|Lee|1999|p=??". Ƶ§œš¹ is defending an additional attribution to "Lee 1999" by some IP. But if the IP has "Lee 1999", surely she can specify the page. Meanwhile, there's no indication anywhere of what "Lee 1999" is, despite its provision of a link (one going nowhere).

The introduction of author-date referencing within footnotes, with each author-date reference going exactly nowhere (some explained below; others like "Lee 1999") seems utterly bizarre to me. Footnotes, OK. Author-date, OK. But why author-date within footnotes? And if you have author-date, why link them to nowhere?

I'm hoping that whoever did this (and I didn't look in the edit history) has some Grand Plan, but if so this article needs "INUSE" at the top at the very least. In its present state, I fear that it lives down to some of the claims tiresomely made for it by the Cosby enthusiast all those months ago. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For a second, you scared me. I thought I had failed to include the full reference to Margaret Lee's "Out of the Hood and into the News: Borrowed Black Verbal Expressions in a Mainstream Newspaper" in American Speech. The link goes nowhere because I goofed on the syntax (switched last and first names). In Lee (1999) Funky is mentioned on page 373, 374, and 383 and is part of her data that she uses. The IP may have been guessing but they happend to be right. Although I've got a pdf of the article, I hadn't really taken a good look at it till now. I guess if we're going to use any page numbers it would be 381-386. I've edited the article accordingly. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Ebonics

I noticed that the first line of this article starts, "African American Vernacular English (AAVE) – also called Ebonics,..." If they are the same thing they should be in the same article. It appears that much of the content in Ebonics is either a duplicate of what's here, or deals with the use of the term "ebonics" rather than the variety of English it refers to. After posting the merger tags I see that it appears that the articles were split some time ago. If editors think there's a good reason to keep them split I'm fine with that too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The flip answer is that they're not the same thing. The more careful one is that they usually do refer to the same thing, but that while "AAVE" is a neutral and uncontroversial term, "Ebonics" is one that comes either with strong (and also in the opinion of most scholars wrong) intellectual connotations, or with strong sociopolitical connotations, or both. If the term "Ebonics" merits an explanation, it needs more than a rushed explanation. I think that what it gets now is about right (although I see that somebody has mangled the section titles since I last looked).

AAVE is a distinctive form of nonstandard English that's unusual in being (i) widely spoken, (ii) not in decline, and (iii) (via music etc.) very familiar to many non-speakers. Perhaps these factors have encouraged its study. Whatever the reasons, it has been widely studied. In a worthwhile two- or three-hundred-page book about AAVE, the putatively academic concept of Ebonics typically gets a mere paragraph or so, and the pedagogic/political brouhaha about the recognition of Ebonics as a language typically gets a very few pages. These matters are peripheral to the language. If this material were reintroduced within the AAVE article, the AAVE article would be seriously lopsided. It's therefore a good idea not to reintegrate the two articles. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't support a merger since the content of the Ebonics article is separate and notable, perhaps the title is a bit confusing. Periodically, I look at what links to Ebonics and editors most often link to it intending to refer to the phenomenon described in this article. Perhaps Ebonics can be renamed to Ebonics (something in perentheses) and Ebonics can serve as a redirect to here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that something isn't right here. While the AAVE article is encyclopedic, the Ebonics article is an odd hybrid of (a) an encyclopedic article about a (very dubious) theory, and (b) a kind of disambiguation page for a problematic term, mostly pointing back to AAVE. See this earlier discussion (or at least the first part of it, before it descends into prejudice and bickering) on other possible divisions. One problem is that if "Ebonics" were to be a redirect to AAVE, then AAVE would need a hatnote for "Ebonics (Pan-African)" or even for "Ebonics (disambiguation)" -- and all in all you'd get about as much disambiguation and redirection and general confusion (perhaps more) as you get now. Or anyway you would unless I lack the imagination/intelligence to think of the really good solution that awaits discovery. ¶ I do think that the term "Ebonics" is now too conspicuous within the AAVE article. I wouldn't want to suppress it, but it's so conspicuous as to make people wonder why the article isn't simply titled "Ebonics" (what with all those Google hits etc.). I hesitate to make it less conspicuous in fear of the wrath of all those right-thinking editors who might well trot out their clichés about "political correctness" (the standard term for challenges, however reasoned, to conservative/retrogressive received wisdom). ¶ On balance, I think it's better to keep things the way they are and remember to search for and check links to "Ebonics", redirecting many of them to AAVE. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking through this article, "Ebonics" is used only a handful of times in reference to the Oakland and San Bernardino incidents when they actually used the term Ebonics (as opposed to using "AAVE" dozens of times throughout the article). The main difference between either of the options you've mentioned and the status quo is that, in the former, people are made aware of an Ebonics (Pan African) article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But consider the very start of the article:

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) – also called Ebonics, African American English, Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV) and Black Vernacular English (BVE) – is [blah blah]

I'd prefer to skip "Ebonics" completely here; or if it must be included then something like:

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) – also called African American English; with some ambiguity Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), Black Vernacular English (BVE); and controversially Ebonics – is [blah blah]

though I recognize that this is longwinded and am unenthusiastic about it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why skip it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a loaded term. Used as first intended, it has a much wider meaning than AAVE; used for what we term AAVE with an awareness of the meaning originally intended, it implies acceptance of a dodgy theory; used without any awareness of its original intention, it's often pejorative. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that "Ebonics" is the only term many people are familiar with to refer to the speech of African Americans. Mixed with the low prestige AAVE has, it's not surprising that there's a common negative connotation with the word but that's the social baggage people carry. For people with a positive or neutral attitude towards AAVE but are either unfamiliar with or unwilling to enunciate the thirteen-syllable term, it's not pejorative. Similarly, Nazi is often pejorative but it has a non-pejorative definition. That people sling the term around during heated political arguments doesn't mean we should avoid it in our article on Nazism.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested or wanted to suggest that the AAVE article should avoid the term "Ebonics". I've suggested that "Ebonics" should not be given the prominent treatment that it gets right now. Perhaps "pejorative" was too strong; for me (very likely atypical), when "Ebonics" is used as a synonym for AAVE it's often in the context of piffle about either how its speakers are too lazy etc to talk proper, or how it's just a collection of slang. Since December '06, the NYT seems to have used it just once, in the first sentence of this article and where it may well mean what's perceived as an aggressive use of aggressive slang rather than a lect. Admittedly "AAVE" is not such a common term, but however common or rare it is, it's a four-syllable term (cf the three-syllable "USA"). ¶ So what do you want to do with the term "Ebonics"? -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the idea of making Ebonics redirect to here and renaming the Ebonics article Ebonics (Pan African). That's only if we're in the mood to change things. People don't link to Ebonics all that much and going through the "what links here" page every so often isn't terribly time consuming. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? I don't see a clear consensus to maintain the status quo, but I don't see agreement on what to do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're keeping the status quo for now. There's too little consensus to make any changes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the status quo but move "Ebonics" to the end, or to near the end, of the list of other terms used for AAVE. -- Hoary (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags. I suggest that, at a minimum, Hoary's suggestion would improve the clarity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

I've just now removed most of the to-do list. Here's what I removed, with my comments:

Add info about usage of the word "Nigger"

...added by User:Davron at 00:29, 1 November 2007; "N-word" changed to "Nigger" by 71.220.108.144 at 03:59, 22 November 2007

Neither the word "nigger" nor the euphemism "n-word" is specific to AAVE. And if it were specific to AAVE, I'd reject the suggestion for the reason given below.

add the word "mad" as "a lot" or "really"

...added by User:Davron at 00:29, 1 November 2007

Add "alright" as "iight", "ight" "aight" "ite" and/or "arite"

...added by User:Davron at 00:29, 1 November 2007

AAVE is a lect, and the individual lexical items specific to a lect are of rather trivial importance compared with other aspects. (Thus for example Cockney -- a fairly good article till it starts listing names -- rightly doesn't dwell on mush, etc.)

Explain why this article isn't crap.

...added by 64.222.149.167) at 22:56, 12 March 2008

PDFTT.

-- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the references formatted per WP:CITET? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered to check! Later, later. Or of course you're welcome to have a look. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Phonology

If AAVE truly does differ very little over a wide geographical area, then surely it has a common phonology that can be put into tables? Consonants, vowels, diphthongs, all of that, like any other distinctive English dialect. Also a more complete description of vowels before liquids as well as vowels without liquids. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can expand on the phonology, though if I understand things correctly, the phonological inventory is nearly identical with Standard American English. If the article doesn't make that clear, it should. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But is it closer to General American or Southern American English? Does it have the cot-caught merger? Does it have Southern-style front short vowel tensing? I could ask lots more questions, but it would help to have charts and sample word lists with IPA guides, à la English phonology, Australian English phonology, etc. Where I live has virtually no AAVE speakers, so solid absolute information (and less relative information) would be helpful. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, AAVE is a fascinating (and often quite beautiful) dialect. I want to know all about its logic and structure in a way as methodical as possible. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you're interested, you can check out Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular by William Labov. I started to incorporate stuff from it a little while ago but got too busy with school. I might do some more this summer. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Found it on Google Books, but it's only a preview with many missing pages. I don't have practical access to academic libraries. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Jive"

(See here for a civilized but disappointingly inconclusive earlier discussion on this.)

This article doesn't mention "jive", but Jive is a disambig that points here.

Without actually bothering to open any book (yet), I hazily recall that "Jive" is used for any or a mixture of: (i) the slang of AAVE, (ii) the verbal sparring, joking, etc. that AAVE is famous for, (iii) AAVE. And that as (iii), it's either (a) a jokey but rather amiable term (cf the Rickfords' use of "Spoken Soul"), or (b) the result of this or that misconception of AAVE (that it's a mere collection of slang, that it's some kind of weapon against non-speakers or even speakers, etc.).

This ought to be looked into, preferably before the next, um, how shall I phrase this, opinionated and underinformed person arrives here. Because there's clearly bizarre about having one page acting as a disambig to a second which then doesn't mention the title of the first.

At the same time I realize that WP isn't a dictionary and as for articles that attempt to tease out incompatible meanings I'm not happy with the Ebonics article (but am less unhappy about it than about any alternative yet suggested). -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"African American" Vernacular English

As an African American who does not speak "African American" Vernacular English, I find this name to be a misnomer. I believe most will agree that this variant of the American English language is not an African American variety of the American English language. This dialect is commonly used (but not always used) among the hip hop community, those who are undereducated, and those who are impoverished. This being so, i believe that the article should reflect this fact and not give the impression that AAVE is just an African American dialect that spilled over onto other races. (Jvclark2 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

But it's not a matter of what most will agree. After all, a large number of people who are aware of AAVE, perhaps even most of them, believe that it is defective: an assertion that is plain wrong, as is carefully explained in a number of books and as is agreed among scholars. (Or again, a huge number of US citizens believe that evolution is "just a theory" and that the world was made in so many days. They're wrong too.)

You say: This dialect is commonly used (but not always used) among the hip hop community, those who are undereducated, and those who are impoverished. Yes, I agree. But are you also claiming that it is seldom used among the well educated or unimpoverished? If so, I'd like to see evidence for this assertion. It's certainly not what is said by the authoritative books (written by tenured linguists, published by university presses) that I have seen. -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

From the writings of John R. Rickford, the author of African American Vernacular English - Features, Evolution, Educational Implications, AAVE is generally spoken by "younger lower and working-class speakers in urban areas and informal styles." While I am certain that there are some African Americans who do not fit in this category yet still speak this way, I believe one can conclude that most who speak AAVE are as Rickford suggests, youth who learned how to speak from those who are undereducated. Even if they eventually break out of the poverty cycle and eventually become professionals, they still have decades of exposure to this dialect. It has less to do with a person being categorized as African American and more with being exposed to a culture which tolerates or even embraces ignorance. This is comparable to how Americans speak American English which was broken off from England. One would speak American English because they grew up in America or a place strongly affected by American culture. It is completely independent of what race you are labeled so the name of the dialect should reflect this. Yes, I am aware that it would take more that an article from Wikipedia to change the name but article should at least show how the name is not completely accurate. (Jvclark2 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't see a problem in making it clearer that non-African Americans may speak AAVE as well and that many African Americans don't speak it, but giving the impression that AAVE is "an African American dialect that spilled over onto other races" is, well, correct. African Americans learned English from southerners and, upon African American migrations to other parts of the country, took their southern-style dialect with them. Apparantly, other groups have since picked up the dialect and, when you mix in a little social injustice, you've got the workings of a sociolect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

From the writings of John R. Rickford, the author of African American Vernacular English - Features, Evolution, Educational Implications, AAVE is generally spoken by "younger lower and working-class speakers in urban areas and informal styles." I'd be grateful if you would either write out the entire sentence and summarize the paragraph in which it appears, or provide the precise reference so that ("my" library permitting) I can look it up. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Typically Bidialectical

There is no evidence cited here that speakers of AAVE are "typically" bidialectical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.6.51 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be a controversial assertion, but I'm basing that on my experience living in the American South, mainly metropolitan areas. Do you think it needs to be supported with a reference? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fain

In the table under Aspect marking there is a suggestion that finna may be descended, at least in part, from "would fain (to)." Fain would I see a citation to support this. I've refrained from flagging it with a {{fact}}, but until there's a cite I will suspect that this is OR and should be removed outright. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and tag it. That way other editors are more likely to notice that it's unsourced and may find sourcing for it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proficiency in the standard dialect vs. eradication of culture

Looking at this from the outside, I cannot help but see a logical flaw in all arguments presented by either side. One side is fighting for it and only it, while the other seems to be fighting to rid the world of it. What for?! Proficiency in the standard dialect is a basic need for successful existence in any environment and does not constitute the eradication of any other dialects. The ability to communicate with everyone in one's country is a key skill that certainly ought to be taught in classrooms and any opposition to it is a false cause used for political gain, public relations, or simply to satisfy a desire for causing chaos. How families speak at home is their own private business, but their kids should certainly complete school with the ability to fill in paperwork, speak to people from other neighbourhoods, and read and write standard correspondence and literature. The eradication of AAVE is *not* a prerequisite for this. The ability to switch between dialects at will, depending on the situation, is a valuable social skil, but the inability to switch to a common or formal dialect to facilitate commmunication when necessary is extremely hampering. Aadieu (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think there aren't people here who agree with you on this? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there are people who are fighting to rid the world of AAVE, but I don't know of people "fighting for it and only it". Any names? ¶ Further, although I'm not a speaker of AAVE and don't even have any friends who speak it, when I hear it I have little trouble understanding it. Switching to "a common or formal dialect" may be a good idea for other reasons (e.g. communicating effectively to people for whom English is a second language), and I suppose there are people whose first language is English but who genuinely don't understand AAVE; however, I suggest that a lot of the claimed inability of north Americans to understand AAVE may be fictional or, when real, self-imposed (a self-willed rejection of a perceived basilect). AAVE doesn't seem to me to differ more from standard US English than do several other US dialects, for example the splendid one in the voice-over that starts Blood Simple and that always baffles me for the twenty seconds or so it takes my mind to adapt to the phonology. ¶ Though we shouldn't be talking here about AAVE, but only about the article about AAVE. -- Hoary (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bi-dialectal

User:Nyttend made this removal of information, citing our policies on citations and POV. I do see the problems, but I think we can fix them without outright removal. We can easily contrast the preceding viewpoint (that is, the claim by some that being bi-dialectal is harmful to an individual's psychology and dignity) with the examples without necessarily undermining what has come before. As for citations, the information shouldn't be too difficult to verify, though we should also be wary of WP:SYNTH. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

usage due to lack of education

This is not a language, as much as it is an abastardization of one. its use only reveals the lack of proper English education by its speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.46.138 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a place to begin a debate about the topic. Is there something about the article you'd like discuss? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The spelling mistakes above are pretty funny! 86.157.191.190 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

AAVE Similar to some English Dialects

Alot of the so-called slang (i recognise that it is not slang, but infact dialect) i hear in my favourite music is the same as many dialects in the UK, 'aks' among others are not unusal to hear here. Is there any direct influence in more modern forms of AAVE from English as oppossed to American? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

American is not a language it's American English, "english" isn't just a nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there has been quite a bit of work done on connecting AAVE with British English (ie, aks, /f/ for /th/) and Irish English (particularly invariant be) dialects. The origins section is a bit substrate heavy at the moment. Perhaps some beefing up could be done to talk more about the possible superstrate influences. 74.251.201.26 (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A little off-topic but interesting (to me)

from a few sections above: ":But it's not a matter of what most will agree. After all, a large number of people who are aware of AAVE, perhaps even most of them, believe that it is defective: an assertion that is plain wrong, as is carefully explained in a number of books and as is agreed among scholars. (Or again, a huge number of US citizens believe that evolution is "just a theory" and that the world was made in so many days. They're wrong too.)"

I wonder if this statement can relate to the "Dao" vs. "Tao" debate in the sense that "Tao" maybe is wrong but has been used more often, while scholars agree "Dao" is generally better, if I'm not mistaken, but Wikipedia prefers "Tao". 129.15.127.254 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the tao/dao of "Taoism"? If so, I know nothing of the Chinese of the period, but as for present-day Chinese I believe (without actually bothering to look up the matter in Wikipedia, let alone a reliable source) that (i) there is no voiced/unvoiced distinction corresponding to the /d/ versus /t/ of English but instead an unaspirated/aspirated "t" distinction (akin to the distinction unconsciously made between the "t" of "disturb" and the "t" of "turn" in many people's speech), (ii) what we have here is unaspirated "t", and (iii) the unaspirated "t" sound was romanized as "t" in Wade-Giles but is romanized as "d" in Pinyin. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nigga

This is a common affectionate term used in AAVE. I still don't understand why it's not mentioned anywhere in this article. I'm black (not that my race is even an issue), I'm a speaker this dialect, and this term is very common among my friends and I. I'll have to look for a reliable source somewhere. It is also used in the phrase "nigga please". If anyone finds anything, let me know. Thanks. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no particular reason why "nigga" should be mentioned, as this article doesn't purport to provide a comprehensive lexicon of AAVE-specific vocabulary. You added the word, and "nigga please", to the article, adding "citation needed"; I've removed them. If you have good reason to think that one or both has particular significance, then you are free to look them up in one or other of the books that deals with AAVE-specific vocabulary and then to add what you find to the article. In the meantime, please don't add words that happen to interest you and that you hope others can read up on and write up -- although if you think the article has some serious deficiency, you are welcome to ask about it here on this talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I support Hoary's hesitency here. I suspect that the use of nigga has more to do with one's register than with the dialect they speak. While there are AAVE speakers who use the phrase "nigga please" I'm sure there are many speakers who do not as well as many people who use the phrase without being AAVE speakers. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The word is generally seen to be vulgar in not just American society, but globally, especially on the western hemisphere. You have to understand that American's are not the only one's reading this. The internet is international and subsequently, Wikipedia is too.

To say it's a common affectionate term is an opinion. You need to provide legitimate resources to support such a theory before mentioning this in the article. Most African-American's don't say this word. The word has a lot of hatred. The question you should be asking yourself is why do you say it to begin with? How did that start? You should really look into that. Also, there are class distinctions within African-American's, and typically, African-American's who user the N Word are less educated and poorer. You can't make it in the real world saying that. People won't take you seriously. The vigor the word has should mean that it shouldn't be said. It's controversial, but like I said, it involves class, and to insinuate this is significant to African-Americans would undermine the majority of African-Americans who are middle class, because it's make them appear trashy and less educated. This may not be how everyone sees it, but it's how the overwhelming majority of professional individuals, black and non-black, see it. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Rappers use that word all the time, and I would say they are "making it in this world". They make more money than any of us could imagine. It's not your place to judge another person my friend. You are in no place to say (actually write) any of the things you wrote in that last paragraph of yours. My anecdotal impression, as a black man, is that this word is very commonly used among young blacks. I don't know if I can find a source to back that up, but I'll be content just knowing it's true. I don't need a source for things I hear every single day. My ears are enough for me. Thanks. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it's used (it obviously is) but whether it's a word intrinsic to AAVE. From what I can tell, it isn't since non-AAVE speakers use it and there are many AAVE speakers who do not use it. The success of rappers has no bearing on whether this word has any special place in this dialect, which is what sourcing should address.

Also, per your recent edit, "nigga" does not differ from "nigger" in this dialect as AAVE is a non-rhotic dialect and therefore would not make this distinction. Both are pronounced the same in AAVE. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would classify AAVE as more partially rhotic. Occasionally R's are pronounced. It's difficult to know when they will be pronounced and when they won't. It's sort of a stylistic thing. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What you're talking about is code-switching (something this article talks a bit about). Most AAVE speakers are bi-dialectal and may speak AAVE and a dialect closer to General American which is rhotic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about "style-shifting" (it's not called code-switching in this case). Please don't patronize me. I mean Black Vernacular English by itself is often partially rhotic. It's kind of like Jamaican English or something. Listen to Dave Chappelle sometime or "Right Thurr" by Chingy. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. You're borderline trolling right now. Don't assume that you know more than people who have done research on AAVE just because you're black and happen to be familiar with pop culture. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done research on AAVE? I'm not assuming I know more; I know I know more. That's all I have to say. Bye bye now. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 208.104.45.20 on this. I think it is less an issue of register and more one of, perhaps, regional dialect (subdialect?)… E-40 and Chingy are purposely-exaggerated examples, but I know Bay Area African Americans often pronounce R where, AFAIK, other non-rhotic dialects would not. For example, I cannot remember the sentence verbatim now, but a store clerk once said something to me like, “Customer service is over there,” pronouncing ova in a manner consistent with many hip-hop tracklistings’ orthography and customer with a final-schwa-thingie, but service with an intervocalic R that I wouldn’t expect in the variety I think of as emblematic of non-rhoticity, RP. Now, given that this was a commercial interaction in a professional capacity, it could be argued it’s a question of register but I have trouble imagining even a New York speaker of AAVE pronounce service like a BBC News presenter. Of course, this is all O.R. and if someone from the cool kids’ table doesn’t write it down, it doesn’t count —Wiki Wikardo 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹, please see Wikipedia:Civility. Don't call someone a troll just because you disagree with his or her beliefs. 208.104.45.20 has every right to express his opinion on this subject. 24.251.33.38 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I was referencing was the anon user telling me not to be patronizing when I corrected him. I was pointing out that his behavior was inappropriate. If I really thought that he was a troll, I wouldn't give him the time of day. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"jive"

The second sentence introduces the term "jive". But the recent edit history will show that this is not enough for one person (with a varying IP number), who wants it introduced in the first sentence as well. (Not instead, as well.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Substituting first person pronoun with third person generic noun

How about phrases like "hook a nigga up" (or "hook a brotha up") and "why you lookin' at a nigga like that?". I think this is an interesting grammatical feature in that it identifies the first person pronoun 'me' as a third person 'a nigga' (or 'a brotha'). I think this should be added to the article, by somebody that knows more about it than me. Kent Wang (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a negative nancy here, but that seems like a feature that is a) not exclusive to AAVE users, b) not used significantly more commonly by AAVE speakers or African Americans for that matter c) a stereotype brought on by hip hop celebrities and characters. In other words, it's more style than dialect, though I could be wrong about that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Having grown up with African-Americans in middle and high school in Texas around 1996-2002, I can attest that African-Americans do use these expressions quite often, and it is not just what I am exposed to through hip-hop. I'm not aware of any other English dialects/styles that use this kind of substitution. Please provide examples. Kent Wang (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While members of cultural groups that speak and interact in particular languages and dialects can provide valuable insights and perspectives, what you're talking about is basically statistical information, which we need reliable sources for. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How about, "Give mommy a hug" or "Give grandma the cookies." Both of these are not AAVE and substitute the first person pronoun with third person generic nouns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.231.34 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. What it basically boils down to is whether nigger/nigga somehow has special status or meaning in AAVE. I could probably use a venn diagram to explain what I think the situation really is, but we shouldn't be putting anything about it in the article without a scholarly source. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

what up dawgs

hey i was just wondering one thing my brothas aint this this, african american vernaclar english, the same thing as Ebonics?, knamsayin? its the black people`s english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josecarlos1991 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ebonics is an article that's vandalized rather often. When not vandalized, it answers your question, brotha. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

White speech?

What is "white speech"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.147.170 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a really good question. I imagine it's the speech of non-blacks, but maybe there's a better way to word it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... that's kind of what I was getting at - maybe you meant to word your response differently, but there aren't two different forms of speech for white people and for black people - you're generalising, as is this article in calling standard (American) English "white speech". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.147.170 (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Even in a specific region and amongst a single racial group, there will be sociolinguistic variation along gender, age, and economic status. I imagine that the meaning behind the statement in the article is that the speech of African Americans parallels the speech of non-African Americans in a given area in that regard. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... not all non-African Americans are White... so the phrase still has little validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.147.170 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So what should we say instead? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Has this helped? (It strikes me as prolix, and can surely be improved.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What if we just called it incorrect or correct English, as I have witnessed people of many different backgrounds speak incorrectly. This article is based on ignorance and stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.195.20 (talk • contribs)

That wouldn't work. People who study language don't use the terms "correct" and "incorrect." As an encyclopedia that attempts to have a neutral point of view, we can't do that either. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Green (2002) seems to be using "mainstream English." That doesn't seem to be objectionable to me, but perhaps others could weigh in. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Prepositional phrases

I've noted that AAVE tends to drop the "of" in phrases like "out the house" which in standard English is "out of the house", or "outta the house" in informal speech. Although this does appear to be a trend in standard English (I think by influence from AAVE). Anyway, is the dropping of the "of" in such phrases in characteristic of AAVE or is "out the house" an idiomatic phrase?Ekwos (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Null prepositions is a feature of AAE, at least according to Craige and Washington. However, there's woefully little research on the topic, and most of what I've found in the literature is along the lines of "we've noticed that this happens, and are going to include it as a feature of AAE, but haven't attempted to explain why."74.251.201.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

African hyphen American Vernacular English

I've just reverted changes from "African American [noun phrase]" to "African-American [noun phrase]".

The latter may well better fit rules of English orthography. However, it's much less used than the former.

Consider "second language acquisition". From time to time that really grates on me and I want to hyphenate the first two words. However, I have never seen it hyphenated in the literature about it -- and it's far more often written out in full than is African American Vernacular English.

See for example [http://www.amazon.com/African-American-Vernacular-English-Implications/dp/0631212450 this book], written by somebody who knows far more about the subject than you or I, and published by a highly reputable concern that employs copyeditors and proofreaders who know what they're doing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's a "simple English" Wikipedia...

....has there ever been a suggestion to make an AAVE "language" Wikipedia? 70.59.140.179 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Simple English is not a dialect of English but a register that is more accessible to children and ESL speakers. Except for a few syntactic particularities, AAVE is very similar to Standard English. So similar, in fact, that very few AAVE speakers would have difficulty with one of the two English wikipedias. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But there are Wikipedias in language varieties that are considered dialects. For example there is one in Norman French, and I'm sure that everyone in Normandy can access the standard French wikipedia. So if you wanted to create one in AAVE there is a precedent. It would be a major endeavour, but it would show respect (respec'?) for AAVE and contribute to raising its profile and status. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Those dialects have a strong literary tradition, which includes a separate orthography. This is not the case with any dialect of English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think AAVE does have an important literary tradition, and I wish someone would write a nice section on literary use for this article. Of course, the appearance of AAVE in literature begins with dialogue written for black characters by white writers, but during the second half of the 20th century black writers developed the literary use. I agree that it does not have a standard orthography different from standard English orthography. But if you look at the Norman French WP articles, they are working with at least three quite different varieties, which don't all have a literary tradition. Anyway, it's up to anyone interested to propose a WP in AAVE, and then if accepted to put in a great deal of effort to get it up and running. I hope it will be taken seriously. The discussion has reminded me of the sequence in Airplane where someone volunteers to translate "Jive" (funny but not exactly encyclopedic). Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I didn't even think about an "in literature" section for this article. I wouldn't call it a literary tradition of works in AAVE, but certainly a tradition of representing AAVE speech. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a long tradition of representing AAVE speech, and more recently there is literature completely or partly written in, or with a style influenced by, AAVE. (The Color Purple for example). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. We've got a good start on an in literature section. Should we move it to be a subsection in the "social context" section? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you've done excellent work in expanding it. I'm happy if it goes as a subsection in the Social context section. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there more than one?

Not all of what people call "AAVE" is the same.

--Vehgah (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For instance, you wouldn't hear an older baby boomer speak "ebonics" which is connected to Hip-Hop culture. Also, people in different regions might use different words and pronounce things differently. Like the difference between a city in SC and Atlanta. AAVE is an over-simplification. --Vehgah (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture

I'm removing

==In popular culture==

* The (1980) comedy film Airplane! has scenes of jive talk with subtitles. Al White is Second Jive Dude and Barbara Billingsley is Jive Lady translator.

because it doesn't increase the reader's understanding of AAVE. If there's some other reason to include it, do please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These "in popular culture" sections are a bane to quality, and especially irrelevant when it comes to language related articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi "bane to quality": I find this kind of comment very snobbish and rather puerile. An article should help to understand the subject. To the non technical person like myself, an example is worth many words. As a matter of fact, before watching the film, I was ignorant of the existence of AAVE, and jive, for that matter. Also, if you had the patience to follow the link, you would discover that there are two links back to this article, under the word "jive". I expect you think that the article on "Airplane!" and films in general are probably a "bane to quality" of wikipedia. From the height of your teaching experience, please justify the sentence "it doesn't increase the reader's understanding".Ziounclesi (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We deprecate "Trivia" sections in articles, but, having mentioned it on this talk page, I have to say I think the Airplane scenes sheds a bit of light on how AAVE has been perceived. So can I work it back in under "Cultural references"? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should've been clearer. We deprecate trivia sections because they're poor ways of including information. I'm hesitent to mention Airplane, in part because it doesn't actually feature AAVE but a crude mockery of it but also because I'm not sure where it would go in the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that was fine. There's been a tension for a long time over this article - which first drew my attention to it - over whether it is a linguistics article about AAVE or an article about the status of AAVE. It really has to be a bit of both, the straight linguistic description that it already does reasonably well, plus an amount of sociolinguistics. Mockery is, whether we like it or not, an aspect of the sociolinguistics. Another aspect is the straightforward opposition to use of the dialect on the part of Bill Cosby and others, and the defence and promotion of the dialect ("ebonics"). I'll have a look at where I think more sociolinguistic info can be put in, and suggest here on the talk page before editing. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see sound sociolinguistics about AAVE: a summary of the sociolinguistic work that's been done on it (and there has been a lot of this). By contrast, cobbling together quotations (however uninformed, bizarre or unintentionally ludicrous) by Cosby and others into a "sociolinguistics" section of the article risks a charge of "original synthesis". -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ziounclesi: I expect you think that the article on "Airplane!" and films in general are probably a "bane to quality" of wikipedia. I can't speak for Aeusoes1, but I do not think this. ¶ please justify the sentence "it doesn't increase the reader's understanding". Let's take a look at this "it": The (1980) comedy film Airplane! has scenes of jive talk with subtitles. Al White is Second Jive Dude and Barbara Billingsley is Jive Lady translator. I see nothing in that which increases understanding. If you do, what is it? Or should we actually write "One editor of this article had never heard of AAVE till they saw the movie Airplane"? ¶ This has nothing about a snobbish attitude toward Airplane: I have a pile of DVDs of "blaxploitation" films; most, perhaps all, have a lot of AAVE. I could list them, but I don't think doing so would have any explanatory value. ¶ Furthermore, Aeusoes1, who knows more about AAVE than I do, says Airplane (which I haven't seen) actually doesn't have AAVE. If it indeed doesn't, then this description of it is wrong and potentially misleading. ¶ Now, it's imaginable that the representation (whether faithful or false) of AAVE within Airplane does show something significant about certain attitudes toward AAVE. If so, what is it? -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question, Hoary, and you've articulated my second concern better than I did. If we contextualize the Airplane! reference into a broader scope of social commentary, then it's more appropriate. We've done that a bit with the Cosby quote, and I suspect that many university libraries (if my own local university is any indicator) have lots of information on the sociolinguistics of AAVE, especially in a teaching context. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A good first stop would be the relevant chapter(s) of Lisa J. Green's African American English: A Linguistic Introduction (CUP, 2002; ISBN 0-521-89138-8). I have a copy (and recommend one to anybody who doesn't) but lack the time to work with it any time very soon. Plus I always have difficulty summoning the patience needed for even a dispassionate summary of the stupid notions that pervade "popular attitudes" and newspaper punditry. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I added an item to the to-do list. I'll see if I can get that text. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've incorporated Green's discussion of mass media portrayals into the article, though I imagine there can be more added to it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I don't seem to be able to get the message across: history and phonetics are fine in a book, but an article about a language with only written examples is rather poor. Have you ever thought that the IPA is a poor substitute for an audio samlpe? This is a hyperlinked world with access to images, sound and video. This article does not even have a link to Media Wiki sources. I represent the casual reader who does not mind all the politically correctness (call it AAVE if you like), but find it wierd that 9 articles out of 10 on wikipedia itself will refer to it as "jive" and some editor "deprecates" a link to a source of examples (the above quoted film). So, leaving out any personal considerations, I have two suggestions:

• find some audio or video examples (if you don't like Airplane, you can point out it is a bad example). Find some good films. Are there no blues singers who sing in AAVE?
• work on the backlinks to articles that lead here. (no dead ends, please, and no bots replacing jive with AAVE through wikipedia (maybe Aeusoes1 can write the pronounciation for AAVE)).Ziounclesi (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about non-linked references, but as far as what links here, compared it to what links to Jive (dialect), it seems like 9/10 articles isn't a thoroughly vigorous study. Audio samples would be nice, but just as all audio samples, they would have to be free license. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I represent the casual reader who does not mind all the politically correctness (call it AAVE if you like): Are you implying that use of the term "AAVE" is "politically correct"; and if so, do you mean to say that various aspects of this article, including the use of the term "AAVE", are left-wing evasions of obvious truths? If not, what do you mean? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

im sory hoary, but it seems as though you are not a casual reader, you use the word bane, and imply, evasion, and much more, you sound like a prude. It's pre-grads like you that want to sound fancy and therefore destroy the quality of wikipedia because nobody can actually connect to what is on the site. Wikipedia is useless thanks to pricks like you. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.227.26 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to make a more careful reading of this discussion. It was I who used the word "bane" and Ziounclesi who referred to themself as a casual reader. I'm not sure who said "imply" or "evasion" or why use of these words (and the education they, well, imply) disqualifies one from casual activity nor what it has to do with one's approach to sexual matters.

If there's a part of the article that you find confusing or worded strangely, point it out. Pricks like me don't intentionally make the article overly fancy. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that AAVE is the same in California, Georgia and New York. I know that in Brooklyn, NY 'Yo, wassup son' is a standard greeting. But is that how fluent AAVE speakers greet each other in other locations? So putting an audio link will only show an audio-snapshot of AAVE at a particular location. Also, (in my view), some users of Wikipedia may cry racism since the observation 'he speaks so well' regarding an African-American implies that he is not fluent in AAVE and thus somehow more acceptable. Meishern (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of factors involved, but the idea is that since not much time has passed since the Great Migration of the early 20th century, the grammatical particularities of AAVE have not diverged much from each other regionally. Certainly urban youth jargon is different regionally, but that's not grammar (and it's not stable). I'm not sure why someone would cry racism if we have audio links connected to examples. If it happens, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sociolinguistic aspects

Itsmejudith, I'd like to address the item you added in the to do list back in January. I've edited the "Social context" section (which is where sociolinguistic aspects would go) to make the positive-negative views more overt, though it was mostly a matter of reshuffling information that was already in the article. I'm not sure if I've done it to your (or anyone else's) satisfaction or what you mean by "weight"

I'm also sure that the second paragraph, which details more of the studies done on AAVE and scholarly opinions regarding it, can be beefed up considerably. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely fine by me. Many thanks for your efforts. In fact I was wondering whether the article was ready for Good Article? The only glaring thing is that we should avoid references in the lede. And we have a good many references and perhaps could do without some, while adding others as you say. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I think we could improve the lede paragraph. Best practice is to avoid notes in the lede because it should only be a summary of material that is properly referenced in the article body. I'm not sure that we're picking out the most important points from the article. Views? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started working on moving citations out, but you're right that the lede doesn't quite summarize the content of the article anymore. I'll see if I can't take a stab at modifying it, and see what people think. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

fluency and mimicry

This was added:

However, 30 years after Smitherman's research, inner-city Caucasian, Asians and Middle-Eastern students comfortably converse with their fellow African-American students, each other and at home using the AAVE dialect. Due to the popularity of hip-hop music, many suburban students in homogenized, primarily Caucasian schools are also fluent in the AAVE dialect. This form of mimicry demonstrates a growing trend of teenagers to emulate their role-models who tend to be fluent in African American Vernacular English.

My guess is that there's some truth to this (although the notion that fluency in a lect is a matter of "mimicry" seems a quaint throw-back to the 1950s). But anyway, it's entirely unsourced. If it, or something like it, can be sourced authoritatively, it can be readded.

Incidentally, the editor who added this paragraph also made this bizarre pair of edits to an article on a related subject. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The addition has a ring of OR verisimilitude. If it's added with a citation, you can bet I'll be fact checking it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I should warn you that I may have a political agenda or be full of hot air. -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There might be some citable research out there on the topic. Of course it is interesting to see what happens when people speaking different lects interact on a daily basis. See Multicultural London English. But any addition needs to be properly sourced. Let the editor see what s/he can provide. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me some time Hoary, I can't get the research paper in 24 hours. Your disbelief that Fortune 500 companies prefer to hire employees who speak standard English rather than AAVE is peculiar. In a global business environment, an employee must be able to communicate in a standardized format with co-workers throughout the world. I am not sure what is so shocking about this concept. Meishern (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Take your time, take your time. -- Hoary (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, I am unable to reference what I wrote (in either article) and so far can't produce the same research paper I used as a basis to edit. I am not a linguist but have an acute memory and know I read an accepted publication in Brooklyn College 15 year ago regarding this topic and paraphrased its conclusions in my edits from memory. The edits I made were not bizarre, perhaps the word 'unpolished' suits better, yet they were not malicious inventions either. Thats besides the point since I can't reference them. I take back (what turned out to be my own hot air) that you 'have a political agenda and full of hot air' and apologize to you. My hat (if I wore one) is off to you for protecting this article from unreferenced information. I am not giving up in my search, now more for my own curiosity than for Wikipedia. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology happily accepted; now let's move on. -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive

As a non-African American, I take offense to calling the way of speaking that is popular by my generation and region (and I'm sure I'm not unique) by such nomenclature. It's probably my misunderstanding, but, if anything, this does not seem to need a separate page from Southern American English, but rather a subsection on that page. If there are marked differences, could they at least be more clearly pointed out because currently it seems that this is a distinction without a difference.24.126.49.186 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, it'll get added to the article, but the distinction between the two is laid out in Guy Bailey's chapter "The relationship between African American Vernacular English and White Vernaculars in the American South" and Patricia Cukor-Avila's chapter "Co-existing grammars", both in Sociocultural and historical contexts of African American English (2001). Right now at least, though, the section on tense and aspect shows a marked distinction between AAVE and SWV. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the title is offensive and racist. I am not African-American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.181.197 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This, along with "African American English" is the most common term. What do you call it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a non--African-American, I take offense to the nomenclature "African American Vernacular English". However, my reasons are quite different from those stated below. It's my understanding that the more modern linguists have dropped the "vernacular" part of the title as it is subtly condescending in tone. None of the other dialects linguists usually write or speak about are labeled "vernacular". We just say "British English" and "American English" for the macro-dialects, and none of the other sub-dialects carry the "vernacular" label. Why are the African-American English speakers labelled differently? What purpose does that word serve other than to emphasize the disrespect many feel towards this native dialect? Clairerzegocki (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea behind adding vernacular is to clarify that this is not the speech of all distinctly African American speech communities. There is, in that sense, a difference between AAVE and what might be called a broader group of Black Englishes. I haven't found anything that argues that adding "vernacular" is condescending; is this something you've seen? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Even without clear indications that linguists working in this area avoid "vernacular" because it may seem condescending, I think that Clairerzegocki may be on to something. Lisa Green skips the "V" of "AAVE"; so does Peter Patrick. A little later, I'll see whether Green explains her choice of name. (Patrick does not comment on his choice.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE WAS RACIST, STEREOTYPING, OFFENSIVE, BULLSHIT. THE PEOPLE WHO PUBLISHED THIS ARE NOTHING, BUT IGNORANT BIGOTS. AMERICANS OF AFRICAN DECENT HAVE NO INHERENT DIFFERENCE FROM ANYONE ELSE, NOR DO THEY NATURALLY SPEAK DIFFERENTLY. WE ARE INDIVIDUALS. WITH INDIVIDUAL TREATS AND BEHAVIORS. THIS IS SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING. WE ARE CAPABLE OF SPEAKING JUST AS ELOQUENTLY AND PROPER AS ANYONE ELSE. SHAME ON ANYONE WHO HELPED WRITE THIS, AND SHAME ON ANYONE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.213.121 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well of course Americans of African descent have no inherent difference from anybody else. And of course they (you) are capable of speaking just as eloquently as anyone else. Precisely where does the article suggest otherwise? -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DoJ seeking "translators"

ill-informed suggestions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Republic of Texas recently added the following paragraph to Ebonics. On August 23, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it is seeking to hire linguists fluent in Ebonics to help monitor, translate, and transcribe the secretly recorded conversations of subjects of narcotics investigations. John R. Rickford, a Stanford University professor of linguistics, has described it as “Black English” and noted that “Ebonics pronunciation includes features like the omission of the final consonant in words like ‘past’ (pas’ ) and ‘hand’ (han’), the pronunciation of the th in ‘bath’ as t (bat) or f (baf), and the pronunciation of the vowel in words like ‘my’ and ‘ride’ as a long ah (mah, rahd).” [Example: I am an editor on wikipedia and I like to read books is translated as: I be an editor on wikipedia an' I like ta read books. sho 'nuff!] The federal Drug Enforcment Administration translators would work out of the Atlanta field office according to a Justice Department request. It's clear from the context that this information, if it is true and if it is notable, would be better suited in this article. However, I'm not sure of either, especially the latter. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) First off, a good removal. ¶ Despite the dismal "example", there's some truth to it. The ABC News article is earnest, if (with "John Braugh" and perhaps more) incompetent. The story says something about the US DoJ. I don't know what it says about AAVE that the AAVE article doesn't already say. And of course it says nothing about "Ebonics" other than to remind us that "Ebonics" remains used as a synonym for AAVE. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Why is the example 'dismal'? Are you honestly going to say that people speaking 'ebonics' do not talk that way? And if they do talk that way, then what is wrong with providing an example of it? Is someone from another country going to understand what this is all about and how it differs from normal English? Seems to me that you are being racist. Republic of Texas (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) By "eubonics" perhaps you mean "Ebonics" and in turn AAVE. I'm honestly going to say that the closest equivalent in idiomatic AAVE to a non-exclamatory sentence in standard English does not involve the addition of "sho 'nuff!" to the end. If you have good reason to believe that I'm wrong, please cite this good reason. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The example is poor and, given the plethora of them in this article, unnecessary; the same with the little detail about AAVE's grammatical features. I imagine the event these articles report could be contextualized into a broader framework about the language ideology surrounding AAVE (something we're still short on)-- why, for example, do people assume translation is necessary between AAVE and the form of English used at the DoJ and not Cockney?--but that may delve into OR territory. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Hoary - I will answer your response in first Ebonics and then into correct, normal English, in case you cannot understand me. Hoary, I gots pimp-tight reason ta believe dat ya iz wrong simply cuz I gots encountered deez peeps in they natural habitats an' dis here iz how dey sound. you know das right! Here iz uh video clip ta show ya an example and shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ymMBEwtRZOg&feature=related. Those peeps simply do nahh know how ta speak proper English; thus, da need fo' translaters iz apparent. Fortunately, dere iz many services available online dat will he`p ya translate English ta Ebonics an' vice versa. Here iz an example o' one. try it out an' ya will see I speak da truth. you know das right! http://joel.net/ebonics/translator.asp. Hoary, I have good reason to believe that you are wrong simply because I have encountered these people in their natural habitats and this is how they sound. Here is a video clip to show you an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ymMBEwtRZOg&feature=related. Those people simply do no know how to speak proper English; thus, the need for translaters is apparent. Fortunately, there are many services available online that will help you translate English to Ebonics and vice versa. Here is an example of one. try it out and you will see I speak the truth. http://joel.net/ebonics/translator.asp. I've got 44 years of living and no one that I know of has ever heard of 'AAVE'. Back in the 70's we used to talk it jive, then it became ebonics, now its just ghetto-rap or other words involving a lot of the letters 'n' and 'g'. (and those fools wonder why no one will give them jobs!). Republic of Texas (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Republic, you fail to cite a single reliable source for your claim, instead citing what hereabouts is euphemistically called "original research" but what I'd call mere truthiness. Yes I know that there are jocular websites that translate from more or less standard English into variants of English as caricatured by the webmasters. So? AAVE (or whatever you care to call it) is a matter of language, and thus within the purview of linguistics, and AAVE is a standard linguistics term. "Ebonics" is not; and indeed it's avoided my most linguists for good reason -- it comes with a pile of unwanted philological baggage. The division of labor here in en:WP between one article titled Ebonics and another titled African American Vernacular English has been firmly established (see this in particular), and your assertion that you happen not to have heard of the latter doesn't bring anything new. Toward the end of your message you seem to be saying that the speakers of what linguists call AAVE and what you ("you" plural, a "we" that you don't explain) call "just ghetto-rap or other words involving a lot of the letters 'n' and 'g'" (and what are the words?) are "fools". If you think that the speakers of AAVE are fools, then the mildest response I can think of is that you are out of your depth here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC) The question I think is pertinent here is whether the DoJ event is notable enough to mention in the article, so I don't think we should get sidetracked about the name of the variety. Republic of Texas, I'm not sure how attempting to write posts in AAVE/Ebonics/Jive, particularly loading it with stereotypical slang, furthers this discussion. By the way, for anyone who seriously sees the "Jive" speak in Airplane with translation subtitles as representative of the actual way anyone speaks, this clip from the DVD commentary firmly unseats that notion. Particularly, one of the actors (Al White) says, "we knew they wanted Jive as a language, which it is not. Jive is only a word here, a phrase there; but then, when you put it all together in a supposed language, it comes out very humorous and funny." (1:12). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I just think this whole topic is funny as hell! lol Why not just start hiring translators that speak hillbilly, and is there a wiki article devoted to hillybilly-speak like there is for ebonics?? This is a terrible waste of tax dollars. I think I will put in my application for ebonics translator. Yes, I think that they are fools. One of the reasons is, do they honestly think someone is going to hire them if they speak that crap? That is almost as bad as parents naming their kids Shanice, Kiara, DeShawn, Marquis and crap like that. All they do is set their kids up for failure. Ebonics is no more a part of black culture than Kwanzaa ('invented' by a convicted felon & sex offender). Republic of Texas (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Since you're not serious about the project, you ought to stop wasting our time. I hear 4chan is hiring. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Several creolists. . . ."

We're told:

Several creolists, including William Stewart, John Dillard, and John Rickford, argue that AAVE shares so many characteristics with creole dialects spoken by black people in much of the world that AAVE itself is a creole, while others maintain that there are no significant parallels.

I think that something like this has been with us since 10 November 2008. In this very recent version, it came with six footnotes:

1. Smith and Crozier (1998:113-114)
2. Wardhaugh (2002:341)
3. Pullum (1997)
4. Poplack (2000)
5. Poplack & Tagliamonte (2001)
6. Rickford (1998)

Of these six, Pullum 1997 and Rickford 1998 didn't point anywhere. I was able to retrieve the referent of the former from the summary of the 10 Nov '08 edit, and added it. I pulled the latter.

So anyway the result is

Several creolists, including William Stewart, John Dillard, and John Rickford, argue that AAVE shares so many characteristics with creole dialects spoken by black people in much of the world that AAVE itself is a creole

-- Ah-hah. I think I understand this. But where does each of these three argue this? Not one single source is specified. --

while others maintain that there are no significant parallels.

I don't even know what "there are no significant parallels" means. Perhaps "it isn't"? (Come to think of it, even "others" is ambiguous. Other creolists? Other scholars? [In view of one of the names:] Other people who like to pontificate?)

Whatever it's all about, the reader hazily infers that it's backed up by the works of such diverse people as Geoff Pullum -- who unsurprisingly (as his interests are rarely diachronic) says very little about genetic or even typological matters in the source that's cited -- and the remarkable Ernie Smith. Pullum believes it's English; as he has reminded us, Smith is very sure that it isn't.

The introduction needs radical revision, I fear. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I can't find something in my notes...

• Stewart, William A. (1964). Non-standard Speech and the Teaching of English. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
• Stewart, William A. (1969), "On the use of Negro dialect in the teaching of reading", in Baratz, Joan; Shuy, Roger (eds.), Teaching Black Children to Read, Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 156–219
• Dillard, J.L. (1972). Black English: Its History and Usage in the United States. New York: Random House.

In these texts, the authors alternate between Gullah and AAVE to show the latter as distinctive and to present evidence for a creole origin.

• Rickford, John R. (1997), "Prior creolization of AAVE? Sociohistorical and textual evidence from the 17th and 18th centuries", Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1: 315–336

This is a relatively recent example of the Creolist position (which originated in the 1960s). This is all, of course, according to these two chapters in Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English

• Mufwene, Salikoko (2001), "What is African American English?", in Lanehart, Sonja (ed.), Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English, Varieties of English Around the World, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
• Bailey, Guy (2001), "The relationship between African American Vernacular English and White Vernaculars in the American South: A sociocultural history and some phonological evidence", in Lanehart, Sonja (ed.), Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English, Varieties of English Around the World, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Splendid. We now have the first half of this sentence (the half whose meaning is clear) sourced. (I hope you like the footnote I've just added.) Now onto the second half, sourced but with unclear meaning. I suggest that we put aside the sources, talk of it being a variety of English, and source that. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

missing ref

The reference of note 15, to "Read 1939" is missing. What is it? trespassers william (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, apparantly I'm the one who added it. It's probably fairly easy to find...fixed — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why ain't they a AAVE version of Wikipedia?

Wes all be knowing dat AAVE be legit idomatically. My qwestshon be: why aint we got no wiki dat be written in de AAVE stylings? Why caint dont they have one in they wiki?

They be havin wikiz in languanges like spanish and German, but how come no AAVE? It be legit. They be a bunch of peeps who be speakin' it. Sos why ain't we gots none?

How can we get done start a new language wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are easily excited; your energies would better suit some other website, perhaps one of your own. -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This was obviously a troll. You guys need to be better at recognizing it. @Hoary And it's kind of funny how you're labeling and attempting to separate/distinguish groups (age or demographic). - M0rphzone (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, calling a troll a troll is an act of troll-feeding. Sometimes, all it takes is not taking the bait and they move on. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(..why did you guys even bother replying in the first place? You took the bait, but I would've thought there would be funnier replies. That's the whole point of (/reason of the IP) posting something like this - to see others' reactions and laugh your ass off. But too bad nothing funny happened.) - M0rphzone (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, M0rphzone, you have just answered your own question, and perhaps Ƶ§œš¹ and I aren't as stupid as it would seem that you suppose. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully not. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The strongest reason there ain't no AAVE version of Wikipedia is that dialects of English, they part of the same literary tradition. That's why there different ways to depict it in writing (people use eye dialect, spelling pronunciation, and even syntax). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How about ebonics.wikipedia.org? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.181.197 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For several reasons, any one of which is sufficient. Here's one: unlike for example "en", "ebonics" is not an ISO 639 abbreviation. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is Ebonics/AAVE not as official as the Scots Leid option available on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.24.242 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See Language proposal policy, and particularly the list of four "requisites for eligibility". Note that AAVE fails numbers 2 and 3 of these four. And if this answer does not satisfy you, then take up the matter at Talk:Language proposal policy. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Requisite 2: "What? You don't have an ISO 639?!" I guess that response makes sense for people who like to illogically self-reference their formal systems in order to determine a false authenticity to their language. Requisite 3: Please see the Scots Leid home page for an excellent example of a "language" that doesn't pass muster. Even the descriptions of the linguistic forms are written in the Queen's English. It looks disingenuous, that's all I'm saying. I know, I know. Take it up with someone else and lose my anti-bureaucratic nature if I want to post on wikipedia. Sometimes I forget. comment added by 173.71.24.242 (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2011

You seem uninterested in AAVE and only interested in Scots. That's an additional reason to take up the matter elsewhere (if anywhere). Meanwhile, if you would like to contribute encyclopedic material to some Wikipedia article, your anti-bureaucratic nature need not hinder you any more than my own hinders me. If you wish to reply to this, please do so on my talk page, as any further discussion would be irrelevant to the article about AAVE. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pointless and unexplained deletion"

On this.

Let's suppose I'm writing a descriptive grammar of Japanese in which I provide the following.

• Sigoto simasu.
• [He] works.

Plucked out of context, it sounds bare. But in context (e.g. in response to a question about what the man does when he goes to Osaka), it's fine.

Now somebody changes this to:

• Kayoobi-ni sigoto simasu.
• [He] works on Tuesdays.

Well, OK, but there are now more ingredients to gloss/label (though I'm not going to do so here). So I'd remove the bits about Tuesday. I'd be surprised if I then saw my edit reverted with the comment Pointless and unexplained deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely fail to see how your use of a Japanese example has anything to do with AA Vernacular English. The example in the article is "He be workin' Tuesdays", which in standard English is expressed as "He works frequently or habitually on Tuesdays." If we omit the "Tuesdays" part and instead write "He be workin'", you then don't have the information that "workin' Tuesdays" means "working on Tuesdays" (emphasis added). Not only is it a "pointless and unexplained deletion", it deprives the reader of important information. Cresix (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall if the notion that AAVE grammar is constructed so that one needn't have on is backed up by the sources provided (particularly Green 2002). My recent motivation was, as Hoary says, that adding Tuesdays creates extra elements to gloss, which dilutes the basic point about tense/aspect. Nevertheless, I am the one who put in "Tuesdays" and, short of accessing the sources again, I'm willing to trust the earlier version of myself that was closer to them (I must've known what I was doing then); either way, if we have it in the example, we should have it in the gloss. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just in case it helps, "he works Tuesdays", without the "on" is the normal colloquial form in many varieties of British English. So I wouldn't particularly expect "on" in AAVE. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"I completely fail to see how your use of a Japanese example has anything to do with AA Vernacular English."

This type of misreading of an analogy is so common that there should be a name for it. It takes this form:

First speaker: A is to B as C is to D.

Second speaker: What the hell? C is nothing like A! You're saying that C is A. 24.27.63.92 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Tenses and "be"

I see in the table of tenses that it gives "We be singing" as an example of present tense, and "I'm a-sing" as an example of "immediate future" tense (or phase). Is the difference in the form of the verb "to be" due to the different number (singular versus plural) or to the different tense? In other words, does one say "I be singing" (or I be singin') for the present tense, or "I'm singin'"? And for the immediate future, does one say "We're a-sing" or "We be a-sing"? In fact, how does one use the verb "to be" for the different persons and numbers? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is not due to number or person, but (as the table indicates) to a different phase/tense. So the first person singular of present tense would be "I be singing" and the first person plural of immediate future would, I believe, be "We're a-sing." As far as I can tell, be is conjugated for person and number in the same way as Standard English with the exception that were isn't used in the past tense. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not clear from the table. Are you sure?

I realize that "am", "is", and "are" exist, but the speakers also use "be" sometimes where we would use one of the finite forms. So what's the rule?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure, since I put the table there. Would it be clearer if the examples used the same person and verb?

This table and the one below it outline when AAVE speakers use be in ways that are different than Standard English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be clearer if the examples used the same person and number.

The tables don't answer the question (for example) of how one says "I'm here". "I'm here" or "I be here"?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "I be here" is not grammatical in Standard English or AAVE. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, can you even be having "standard" AAVE? It be a pidgin dialect, sos they ain't nothin "standard" 'bout it?!! Do I be verisimilitudinous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much, though "pidgin" isn't very accurate, given the definition of pidgin. One theory of AAVE's origins is that of a slave creole that has become decreolized to become closer grammatically to some form of Standard English, though this is far from an agreed upon explanation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Verb "to fly it" needs explanation

The box of verb conjugations at African_American_Vernacular_English#Tense_and_aspect is great but I can't understand what is supposed to be meant by that use of the verb "fly".

Are these examples of how a person can talk about having flown a plane? I be flying the plane right now. Since I've never heard a pilot talking jive, the example is jarring and leaves me thinking that it has some other meaning that requires slang knowledge that I don't have (and which I don't see explained in the article).

Can someone who understands it add an explanation to the article, or replace "fly it" with a more everyday verb? Thanks. Gronky (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing a junk EL

I've just now removed this from the list of external links and further reading:

• King, Michael (2002). "Ebonics Slang No Substitute for Standard English". Project 21 New Visions Commentary. Retrieved 03-04-2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

That tells us: Michael King is a member of the African-American leadership network Project 21 and an Internet and radio broadcaster in Atlanta, Georgia. There's no claim that he's a linguist. And it's obvious that he isn't one. First, he confuses "slang" (words or a set of words) with a lect. Specifically, he says: Ebonics is not a language. All it is is black slang. Having said that, it doesn't elaborate on it or even give examples. Instead, he launches into the "Ebonics debate" (i.e. of whether or not to use AAVE when teaching small children whose first language -- or maybe in his terms whose "first slang" -- is AAVE). And for this, all he does is summarize the book by University of California-Berkeley Linguistics Professor John McWhorter, Word on the Street: Debunking the Myth of "Pure" Standard English. Offhand I don't know whether or not his summary, as far as it goes, is accurate; what I can say is that the summary hardly starts: King says next to nothing about the content of the book.

I understand that there is a demand for "balance" in WP articles and a certain enjoyment real or apparent "controversy" and also a long-running delight in poohpooing "ivory-tower" intellectualism and speaking from the gut. Now, AAVE is a basilect, and it's a widely known fact of sociolinguistics that basilects are stigmatized (when not seen as amusing). Unlike most basilects, AAVE is not obviously declining; it's used with pride by plenty of its speakers, and these are [gasp!] Black within a chronically race-obsessed nation. But a demand to balance level-headed linguistics with tut-tutting by people who clearly know nothing of linguistics is rather like a demand to balance evolution with "intelligent design", or neuroscience with phrenology. That plenty of the people who tut-tut most loudly are themselves Black (Bill Cosby is prominent) is an interesting sociological fact but it does not make what they say any more credible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in the removal. We weren't using that source anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

99.113.186.64 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

african american vernacular english is a subtly racist misnomer

If not then it would imply that Africans brought to America as slaves learned language for the first time from European slaveowners, verifying the etymology for vernacular and connecting its development of pidginization (or creole-ism), a more political rather than linguistic implication . 'Verna' is 'native' is 'slave born in masters house'.

So AAVE refers to the masters language picked up by the house slave as their pidgin, or native tongue.

This is why there is a segment of the population, linguists, scientists, general citizens, who do not ascribe to AAVE in describing the reality of the existence of a language spoken by african slave descendants of northern central southern america and the carribean; that has a niger -congo grammar but uses an american english lexicon. This must me made clear in this topic. Eliminiate the general term as AAVE, either call it ebonics , or african american language, to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.136.152 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

But instead of waiting for a reply to this message of yours, you vandalized the article. I hope that this was a one-time aberration.

Whatever the language is that is spoken by a large percentage of Blacks in the US, and that has clear differences from Standard American English, it's a language. Ergo, it's a matter of linguistics. You say:

there is a segment of the population, linguists, scientists, general citizens, who do not ascribe to AAVE in describing the reality of the existence of a language spoken by african slave descendants of northern central southern america and the carribean; that has a niger -congo grammer but uses an american english lexicon.

The opinion of scientists in general and of "general citizens" is by the way. The informed opinion of linguists is what matters. The occasional person loosely describable as a linguist has indeed occasionally put forward the notion that what's here called AAVE has a Niger-Congo grammar. I've never seen any sign that this has convinced other linguists. Have I missed something important? I've also never seen a book that shows how this language (however you want to call it) has a Niger-Congo grammar. Can you name one? The level-headed books that do describe this language do indeed differ over what to call it (and this article lists the alternatives), but they all describe it as a form of English. If you think that neutrality requires the removal from the article of names that include "English", and thus a silence over, or refutation of, books by John Baugh, John Dillard, Lisa Green, William Labov, Salikoko Mufwene, Shana Poplack, John Rickford, and others, then you're going to have to change your ideas about neutrality. And if, instead of citing others' published arguments, you would like to argue that for example

[Either] african american vernacular english is a subtly racist misnomer [or] it would imply that Africans brought to America as slaves learned language for the first time from European slaveowners, verifying the etymology for vernacular and connecting its development of pidginization (or creole-ism), a more political rather than linguistic implication .

then you'll have to find some other website on which to do so: this kind of thing is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a public domain, I did not know that it was a scientific journal. As far as the study of african languages, especially the ones spoken in america, this is a relatively new and small research area. My main point, that you glossed over, was the concern with the term AAVE to describe such reality. The use of the term AAVE is not scientific. Please clarify the distinctions between EBonics, AAVE, Black English, Creole, Pidgin, etc. better. Of course if 'you' feel that you have done so and think the 'the scientists' agree with you. Nothing will change and this wikipedia reference to such matters will remain inaccurate. But if, however you are interested in providing to wikipedia users accurate and objective information regarding such matters, let's continue to dialogue (I've seen the bias shown towards Dr. Smith in these discussion forms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.132.46 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia is not in the public domain and it does not belong to the public.

You say:

My main point, that you glossed over, was the concern with the term AAVE to describe such reality. The use of the term AAVE is not scientific.

It's the term that is, or it's one of the terms that are, most widely used among linguists. (Its rivals certainly don't include "Ebonics".) That's good enough. Further, there is virtual consensus among interested linguists that what it describes is a vernacular lect of English that's used by African Americans, and therefore the term seems accurate. As far as I am aware, the notion that this language is not English is only held by a fringe, and only very rarely makes it into print anywhere of consequence, and so should be dealt with accordingly. I'm open to being proved to be wrong about this: please let me know of either (i) any academic book from a university press or comparable publisher that is primarily about this language and treats it as something other than English, or (ii) any serious encyclopedia of linguistics or languages that treats this language as something other than English. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Vernacular", nowadays, has nothing to do with slaves and masters, whatever its etymology. It means "everyday", "colloquial". Which is accurate here, and not racist. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For example, the English, German, French, and other European languages are commonly called "vernacular" when contrasted with the classical languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin). Verna is indeed Latin for a "home-born slave," but the related adjective vernaculus could be (and was) applied to anything "domestic" or "native to a place." The English word vernacular shifts the meaning still further, referring to the practices of "ordinary people in a specific place." The English word implies no trace of a connection to the practice of slavery. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning 'verna', no matter how much a word or term has evolved, that its original meaning is never totally removed from its current usage. Lastly, none of the linguistics sources you cite specialize or show a competence in african language structures. Becuase African- Language Structures are rarely studied in America. Most American linguists are transformationalists (universal grammarians) or pidgin-creolists. Pidgin-Creolist minded linguists validate the AAVE appelation. By looking at linguists who specialize in African structures (Smith, Welmers, Kambon, etc.) or the linguistic properties of the Niger-Congo language family, hopefully you will be able to see why apples are not oranges, even though they both are pieces of fruit! Speaking an African language (called Niger Congo) is not the same as speaking a variety or dialect of English. 99.113.186.64 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying that the original meaning of a word is not totally removed from its current meaning, thanks to a chain of partial overlaps, then of course you're right. This is what happened with what's now the word "vernacular". If on the other hand you want to say that the meaning of a word somehow includes, or necessarily reminds literate users of, its earlier meanings, then just off the top of my head I give you as counterexamples "lumber" (see Nicholson Baker's essay on that one word) and "shambles". (Please also note the "etymological fallacy", here at the Fallacy Files.) ¶ William E. Welmers was a real linguist, best known for his African Language Structures (1973), a book with which I regret to say that I'm unfamiliar but which sounds most impressive. NB it was published before many of today's linguists were born, and linguistics knowledge has advanced. This is no reason to reject it out of hand, but is reason to think hard before citing it. Who are Smith and Kambon? More broadly, whoever your "linguists who specialize in African structures" may be, which university presses -- or academic publishers of similar standing (DeGruyter, Wiley, Benjamins, etc) -- have recently published their work, and where? -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Were is this dialect most common?

and

I highly doubt it, but would an African-American from Seattle in the state of Washington speak in this dialect or the same way as an African-American from Chicago or Detroit?

(Esterhase (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

Idk, probably cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc. (pretty much all major cities). For the dialect difference, I think it depends which area they're from.

On a side note, I'm noticing some changes in the English language such as people not using "on" when they use "depends" as I did in the previous sentence (it sounds pretty normal though). I'm also noticing the decrease in the usage of "that". For example: instead of saying, "The fact is that there is blah blah blah," people just drop the "that" and say, "The fact is there is blah blah." - M0rphzone (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, every natural language changes, and neither English nor the early 21st century is an exception. There are plenty of ways that could be listed. However, I see nothing new about either of your two examples. (And my username hints at my personal antiquity, and likely sensitivity to change from the English acquired in my distant infancy.) Now, if by contrast you'd told me that your young friends were saying "It depends [on] the result of the match" or "That's the car [that] won the Indy 500", I would be surprised. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"African American Language"?

The article starts

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) — recently called African American Language (AAL) also called African American English [. . .]

Which linguists (or others whose terminology merits serious consideration) call it "African American Language"? I googled for the term, and by far the most impressive hit was for U Mass Amherst's Center for the Study of African American Language (CSAAL). The "About us" page there says that CSAAL is headed by Lisa Green, who wrote one excellent book on AAVE (and at least one other relevant book, which I don't know). OK, very impressive. But the page merits reading. It says:

The study of African American language to be carried out in the context of the Center includes at its core linguistic research on the variety known as African American English (AAE), which is spoken, in varying degrees, by a large number of African Americans in the United States.

So it uses "African American English", not "African American language" (small "L"), to refer to what our article calls AAVE.

All this considered, I'd remove the curiously conspicuous reference to AAL pronto, if it weren't for enthusiasm for putting "Ebonics" in boldface (see below). -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I removed it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Ebonics" in boldface?

Here's the start of the article, as of 12 April:

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) — recently called African American Language (AAL) also called African American English; less precisely Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Black Vernacular English (BVE)—is an African American variety (dialect, ethnolect, and sociolect) of American English. Non-linguists sometimes call it Ebonics (a term that also has other meanings and connotations).

Now a series of edits:

• 06:29, 18 April 2013: TheTruthiness puts the link to "Ebonics" in bold (no edit summary)
• 10:14, 18 April 2013: Hoary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_American_Vernacular_English&diff=next&oldid=550933946 removes the six apostrophes, with the edit summary No, there is no need to put the link to Ebonics in bold. Indeed, there's a reason to deemphasize it: unlike the others, it's a fringe term.
• 23:32, 18 April 2013: TheTruthiness reverts, with the edit summary Undid revision 550953584 by Hoary (talk) per MOS:BOLD we do]]

"We do" . . . what? Put all alternative terms mentioned in the lead in bold, perhaps.

"MOSBOLD" tells us that

The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section. This is done for the majority of articles, but there are exceptions.

No mention here of an obligation to use boldface.

It goes on to refer us to WP:MoS/Lead_section for detail. The relevant part is:

Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold

Note that this again doesn't mention an obligation to use boldface. (Further, it's about the first sentence, and the mention of Ebonics comes in the second sentence.)

Within that, "alternative titles" is linked to WP:Article titles. But this says nothing about boldface.

I see no reason to put "Ebonics" in boldface. Yes, it's a significant term, but it's a confusing one. It's correctly mentioned in the first paragraph (and even set off in italics), and this mention, sans boldface, is sufficiently conspicuous. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Percentage-wise, how often do you think a reader will search for "Ebonics" in an effort to get to a page that covers this topic? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea. Ctrl/Command-F searching will quickly find it. Are you suggesting that visually it should be more conspicuous than via a mere italicized mention in the lead paragraph? (Right now it's in bold and italics, and is thus set off more strongly than any of the alternatives.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's bold, italics, and a link. This is technically correct, as terms are normally in italics and MOS:BOLDTITLE prompts us to put it in bold. However, I think we can get away with just two of the three. The nice thing about keeping the bold is that it helps reinforce to the reader that they are in the right place. Would you be all right with bold and a link? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've rethought this a little. OK, bold in order to reassure people that they're in the right place. And then perhaps italics too, in order to set off this term from the others. (Certainly the link should stay.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Black English?

The beginning of this article also calls AAVE African American or Black English. This seems to imply that this is the official dialect African Americans speak, which it certainly is not. If nobody objects, I'll remove it. --Evolvo365247 (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be implied.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)