Comments on: True Legends

By: Dean's World

Dean's World — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:39:07 +0000

More Linguistics Thoughts
When I opined recently on the matter of Black Vernacular English, sometimes known as “Ebonics,” I was immediately deluged with criticism. This I expected; it’s what always happens. Although I did learn a couple of things this tim…

By: Mossback Culture

Mossback Culture — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:13:40 +0000

Misunderstanding Oakland
A few years ago, the chronically mismanaged Oakland School Board tried to grab some state and federal ESL money by claiming their students were native speakers of a non-English language called “Ebonics”. Unaware of this motivation, Dean Esmay tries t…

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:24:27 +0000

Sorry, dude, but you’re in major denial. The original resolution made it very clear that they intended to teach in “Ebonics” and claim bilingual education funding. The first reason they gave for teaching Ebonics was to preserve the “language,” not to improve the kids’ mastery of standard English (that was the SECOND reason).

The notion that someone would say “genetically based” and mean “genetically related to something I forgot to mention here” does not pass the laugh test, but even if it did, so what? It still wouldn’t be true. BEV/AAVE is genetically related to standard English, not to any particular West African tongues. I’d love to hear the names of the “linguists” who supposedly found otherwise. This is old, black pride stuff, not linguistics.

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:24:23 +0000

Having read both the original Oakland declaration that you cite from, and their immediate clarifications that you characterize as “backpedaling,” I see no reason not to believe that the Oakland school board was telling the truth when they said that their primary goal was to use the compare-and-contrast methodology that studies have shown work well in other languages and societies, and that they did not truly intend to do primary instruction in the native language.

I further see no reason not to believe them when they said the “genetic” bit was poorly phrased and that they did mean that what was termed “ebonics” was genetically similar to African languages in the linguistic sense–said similarity, by the way, some linguists say they can find going back to the 1700s.

If my categorizing this is a logical “trap” that I fell into, you’re guilty of assuming that anything the Oakland school board said to clarify or correct their marks was automatically dishonest. I choose to take them at their word, and to believe both the statements of the linguists who supported the district in the immediate aftermath of the debacle, and the teachers who said their real goal was never primary instruction in ebonics but rather recognition and use of compare-and-contrast to improve test scores in Standard English.

I can’t think of anything to add to that, really. Sorry to disagree with you. ;-)

By: Patterico's Pontifications

Patterico's Pontifications — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:44:46 +0000

Dean Esmay’s Surprising Post on Ebonics
Dean Esmay has a fascinating post that makes a surprising but compelling case that: 1) Ebonics is really a language (or, at a minimum, a valid non-standard dialect); and 2) the refusal to recognize it as such retards black children’s…

By: Bloggledygook

Bloggledygook — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:31:50 +0000

You talkin’ ta me?
There’s a wee barn burner going on over at Dean’s place on the whole Ebonics thing. Xlrq seems to have a few, well, problems with Dean’s thesis so check out what he has to say

By: SayUncle : I’m all bilingual n’ shit

SayUncle : I’m all bilingual n’ shit — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000