Talk:African-American English/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Lexical features

I haven't read Geneva Smitherman's Black Talk, but I think these derivations are questionable, particularly for 'jive', supposedly from Zulu. There were essentially no slaves taken from what is now South Africa, so this seems unlikely to me. For 'hip' and 'dig' my Shorter OED lists the former as 'unknown etymology' and lists the latter under the standard definition of dig, with no African origin. I don't know how reliable Smitherman is, but if anyone has access to this book, could you please check these derivations? Makerowner 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have access to this book. Smitherman is not and does not claim to be an etymologist. Her etymologies are few, casual, and tentative. The place to look is the splendid new multivolume American dialect dictionary whose title eludes me for the moment. (DARE, maybe?) I have access to that as well -- or rather, I have access to the part of it that has been published; it's still incomplete. Soon, soon. -- Hoary 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the etymologies are unreliable, I say delete them Any objections? Makerowner 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I very strongly agree. Look in the archive of this talk page, and you'll see that when I wasn't battling the insistence on presenting the know-nothing PoV in this article I was questioning and then deleting putatively AAVE coinages.

Look, I've only just got to the building that houses the dictionary. I'll look into the dictionary some time in the next 24 hours. However, I first must attend to the demands of the "real world", and also of course any new silliness (and I don't have you in mind!) on this page. Can you wait a little? -- Hoary 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Just post here when you've had a chance to check. Makerowner 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes just now, but I haven't polished the edges as I have to rush off away from the computer and into the real world. Bye for a few hours! -- Hoary 11:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Wolof is a much more likely candidate for borrowing than Zulu! Makerowner 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As a student of the Zulu language, I'd like to note that words beginning with the prefix "i" (such as the 'ijaiva' example previously posted) are words borrowed from other languages -- usually English. So this word probably came from the U.S., not the other way around. 63.138.11.3 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that a lot of this African etymology stuff is, and will likely remain, at the level of educated hunches. For all I know some proponents of Ebonics (in Williams's original sense of that word) too lightly added a pile of far-fetched derivations, but those aside there does seem to be a small number of words that a number of serious scholars dispassionately think may well have come from Africa. What they can't do is show enough evidence for this to impress the editors of DARE or the OED, both of which (a) are reluctant to add anything smelling of folk etymology, and (b) usually present no etymology rather than a dubious etymology. -- Hoary 05:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New Cosby quote discussion.

I'm making this here because discussing how the Cosby quote should be put into the article above was too difficult to navigate through all of the unrelated material. Joe says that Joe is opposed to the Cosby quote being called "famous". The fact is it did get a lot of media attention when it was said and caused a basic uproar among afrocentrists who criticized Cosby. It does fit the definition of "famous".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"famous" has other meanings besides "well-known" that tend to rub off on it: 1 a : widely known b : honored for achievement 2 : EXCELLENT, FIRST-RATE <famous weather for a walk>, according to Merriam-Webster. We already have "notably" doing the job you want "famous" to do. Joeldl 00:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not liking the new place for the par mentioning Cosby. It's a (half a?)paragraph ultimately describing criticisms in a section that doesn't deal explicitely with criticisms.

I agree with arguments against using the word "famous." It's a notable example, partly because it's recent, but it's not famous. Also, Hoary, I think if you'd like to illustrate that Cosby doesn't know what he's talking about, I feel it would be appropriate if you somehow indicated that most critics of AAVE don't know what they're talking about. This would, of course, be told in as objective a manner as one possibly can objectively state that another is ignorant. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You can exchange "famous" with any other words that are synonymous with "well known" if you want. "memorable", "notable", "well known", "bodacious", "prominent". And Aeuseous1, Try to keep that discussion in it's relevant part of the talk page. I don't want this part of the talk page to be crowded with stuff that isn't relevant to the formating of the Cosby quote.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aeusoes1, I'll defer to your view on where to put the Cosby quote half-paragraph. Feel free to move it back where it was. Joeldl 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You can exchange "famous" with any other words that are synonymous with "well known" if you want. "memorable", "notable", "well known", "bodacious", "prominent"... or for example, infamous, notorious. 2. "Formating" of the quote? There's much more involved than mere formatting, as this last comment of yours (re: "famous") demonstrates. Pinkville 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how about "conspicuously inane"? -- Hoary 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Ƶ§œš¹, maybe I shouldn't have picked on Cosby for ignorance. But I believe it's Cosby alone who accepted the WSJ shilling for writing about "Igno-Ebonics" (his term): ignorance seems something that Cosby is obsessed with and makes a livelihood out of. -- Hoary 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem saying.."As Cosby stated in his infamous pound cake speech"Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a start, but how about infamously inane pound cake speech? -- Hoary 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think using words like "infamous" will just make this page look like a joke. Joeldl 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, Your comments are not constructive and are simply made to coax some sort of aggressive response from me. Please try to make constructive comments. Thank you.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl, What words would you prefer in place of "infamous"?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Most notably, in his Pound Cake Speech..." Joeldl 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, "widely reported" Joeldl 04:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying "Most notably, in his Pound Cake Speech..." doesn't give the implication that the pound cake speech itself was notable. "widely reported" doesn't have the same "zing" to it either. The Pound cake speech was "famous" or "memorable". Not to imply "good" but to imply it was well known and received vast media attention. How about just "well known"?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But we established earlier that it didn't receive vast media attention. Not a single mention, not the tiniest squeak, in for example the Guardian (certainly willing to provide articles on goofy behavior by US celebs). -- Hoary 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to get involved in dtermining the extent of media coverage, except to say that I remember hearing about it when it happened. I didn't know the speech had a name, though. I don't think there's any reason to give it zing. If it is established that it received considerable media attention at the time, I don't see why we would go beyond just saying that. I heard about it the same way I heard about the Japanese guy winning the hot dog eating contest. I think "well known" confers a degree of permanent relevance on the speech that isn't in keeping with the ephemeral nature of the media coverage. I could be proven wrong if WDM could establish that it's continued to be written about a lot in the media and elsewhere the same way Bush's "mission accomplished" speech has been, say. Joeldl 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's now. It happened a few years ago. There isn't much media attention from it anymore, but when he made the speech it was covered by most news outlets. I remember seeing it on CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, etc. You can still find it on the websites of CNN and The WashingtonpostWikidudeman ^(talk) 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the "most notable criticism" isn't necessarily notable. The biggest mouse is still a mouse. There isn't much going on in the notable criticism of AAVE category. In this sense, "most notably" can certainly be accurate. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Aeusoes1, I replaced a sort of flowery sentence about "aks" with the one in the social context section now. I added the statement about ain't myself, but I wonder if these forms can be described as particularly stigmatized. Are there forms that are particularly likely to set the Bill Cosbys off? Joeldl 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New Cosby version: Most notably, Bill Cosby, in his Pound Cake speech, criticized members of the African American community for various social behaviors including exclusive use of AAVE[.] Three points:

• "Behavior" is uncountable in my idiolect.
• If Cosby's rant is the most notable criticism there is, the level of such criticism must be even feebler than I'd imagined.
• This is a euphemistic description of what Cosby said, which clearly referred to AAVE (and not just exclusive use of it) as "crap". It increasingly seems that the article is designed (a) to pump up Cosby as some sort of notable pundit on the use of AAVE, which he isn't, yet (b) to gloss over what clearly shows that he's full of the crap he sees in others.

-- Hoary 09:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Voyager 1 and the intricate grammar of AAVE

Me, above, on the citation of Bereiter and Engelmann, Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool (1966):

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

Ƶ§œš¹ in response, above:

As for B & E, if I remember correctly, there actually had been plenty of linguistic research on AAVE and the concept that languages cannot be "better" than others had been accepted by linguists well before then. So B & E ignored the linguistic consensus just as much as people do today.

They ignored one linguistic consensus, but they could very reasonably have been unaware of a second one (or, if you prefer, of the application of the first one).

I wrote that I note that its publication predates the huge majority of serious research into AAVE. I knew that there was good analysis in the 60s but was hazy about which was which and precisely when it all took place. Some more reading of Baugh's excellent Beyond Ebonics reminds me.

The major work of scholarship that examined and described the intricate grammar of AAVE was William Labov's "The Logic of Nonstandard English", a forty-plus-page paper published in volume 22 of something with the not obviously made-for-Hollywood title of Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics in 1969. Well over thirty years later, its effect clearly hasn't reached at least one of the most vociferous editors of this page. But we should give it two or three years to reach the sleepier of university linguistics departments. As for pedagogy, even the kind that gets published by Prentice Hall, we should perhaps give it five years and certainly no less than two years.

Let's be stringent and say two years. That's 1971, five years after the publication of Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool.

I don't say that Bereiter and Engelmann ignored (let alone refuted) what we -- uh, well, most of us -- now know about AAVE. They can't be expected to have known it.

There's no point in citing books from the 60s as examples of what is intelligently believed now. -- Hoary 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, B & E aren't a good source for what they're connected to since they're more an example rather than a verification. Your criticisms of the age of their work also prevents serious use of it as a source. However, I believe it does show, if nothing else, that the attempts to use schools to change AAVE usage has been going on for quite some time. One possibility is to mention their work in the article, which would beef up the criticism aspect and compare it to the beliefs held now by educators/people. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw, please. . . . Here's what the article says:

AAVE has been the center of controversy on issues regarding the education of African American youths and the role it should play in public schools and education, as well as its its place in broader society. Educators have held that attempts should be made to eliminate AAVE usage through the public education system. Criticisms from social commentators and educators have ranged from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech [Note that cites an example that's over forty years old and predates Labov's paper] to arguments that its use, by being considered unacceptable in most cultural contexts, is socially limiting. [No citation] It is usually argued that incorporating AAVE in schools would only impede the academic progress of young African American children [Note that cites an "English 101" paper by some nincompoop who talks of AAVE as "this speech deficiency" and "this mutilation of the English language".]

At least three citations are needed, two are supplied. One is so old that its writers can't be blamed for lacking an elementary understanding of AAVE; the other by somebody so crass (and bigoted?) as to choose remain ignorant of AAVE and whose criticism of the role/use of AAVE is clearly related to his ignorance of AAVE itself.

Meanwhile, mention that Middle America's beloved Cosby referred to AAVE as "crap" is expunged.

As it stands now, the article presents no evidence for what it suggests: that there are reasoned objections to the use of AAVE. It gives the wrong impression that the objections it cites are well informed, whereas almost certainly they're to a large degree the result of excusable ignorance (Bereiter and Engelmann) and willful ignorance (Govero). -- Hoary 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've said that it's fine to discuss the quality of all criticism. Focusing just on Cosby is a bit unfair to him because it would then imply that he is the only critic who doesn't know what he's talking about. If you somehow can't use Baugh (a source you say discusses criticism) to do this and you really feel that Cosby's inadequacies in the matter should be addressed then the way to do it is to say it in the article, not imply it with selective quotations. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen on the page any criticism of the user of AAVE that's worth more than a glance. I don't say it exists; I just haven't yet seen it. I find it hard to believe that there could be any recent criticism of AAVE itself that's neither ignorant nor stupid.

Bereiter and Engelmann can hardly be expected to know what they're talking about (which is not their fault), Cosby doesn't know what he's talking about, Govero doesn't know what he's talking about. Cosby strikes me as going gaga and Govero as a batshit insane Little Lord Fauntleroy, but it seems that we're compelled to present the goofball "side of the story". If for some reason we can't simply quote Cosby and Govero uttering the idiotic comments ("crap", etc.) that explain their motivation for the part of what they say that's less obviously wacko, then how about this:

AAVE has been the center of controversy in the education of African American youths and the role it should play in public schools and education, as well as its its place in broader US society. Educators have held that attempts should be made to eliminate AAVE usage through the public education system. [A cite will be needed here.] Some columnists and educators have ignored the well known fruits of over thirty years' study of the grammar of AAVE and instead have continued to assert, typically with the feeblest of evidence, that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech [Credit to the "English 101" twit Govero.] Others assert that its use is unacceptable in most contexts and thus that it is socially limiting. [Add a citation.] It is sometimes argued that incorporating AAVE in schools would only impede the academic progress of young African American children [Add a citation.]

--Hoary 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that that is an objective and neutral tone? If you don't, then I recommend you be more serious and less sarcastic. If you do, then my apologies for putting it bluntly but that is not an objective or neutral tone. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, now that you ask me, I have to agree that it's not an objective or neutral tone. I apologize for the lapse in objectivity and neutrality, and blame irritation caused by persistent attempts to elevate mere ignorance and bigotry to the level of a valid, quote-worthy "point of view" or "position".

At the same time, I maintain that the corresponding part of the article in its current state is unsatisfactory, for the reason given above and below. Perhaps you, I or both of us could work on an intelligent synthesis of the best of what's in both versions (plus perhaps an infusion of "criticism" that's less obviously dated or asinine). -- Hoary 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I now see you'd already pulled Bereiter and Engelmann. You got ahead of me there. -- Hoary 02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite understandable. Perhaps the best thing to do is have a paragraph explaining the misunderstandings that critics exhibit. Start with a rough draft here in the talk page and we'll work from there. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. The big problem, though, is that these "criticism of AAVE in education" seem inextricable from criticisms of AAVE itself. As an understanding of AAVE gradually reaches all but the staunchest of sticklers for truthiness, the remaining critics seem to be no more than flakes. I'm not sure how best to express this without arousing the ire of the "mediator". -- Hoary 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just do a starting draft in the talk page. Don't worry about the mediator. He lost credibility for me when it became obvious how he plays favorites. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And you lost credibility just now by the personal remark. In no way should my pointing out how basic NPOV trumps your conceited concept of RS be construed as playing "favorites." Certainly you have made your favorites known. Dont be a hypocrite. -Ste|vertigo 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was this edit which is unsourced, untrue, and the inclusion of which in the article is complete conflict of interest for someone in your position. That's what really did it for me. You also haven't explained why this mediation is even public in spite of both the mediation policy and the preference of several editors to have it private. Is it just coincidence that you've ignored my inquiries on why this isn't private and that Wikidudeman expressed that he wanted it to be public?

And I fail to see how I'm a hypocrite for "playing favorites" when I'm not the mediator. I am at much more liberty to take a side than you. You're a mediator and part of your job is to not take sides. It's not hypocricy, it's the discriminating standards for people in different positions. Deal with it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In your PoV, what you term "basic NPOV" trumps what you regard as a "conceited concept" of an insistence on reliable sources. Your enthusiasm for presenting a variety points of view, admirable in itself, seems to extend to unsupported assertions in op-ed pieces, comedy routines, etc., based on lazy assumptions disproved decades ago: assumptions that are quickly dispatched in such very introductory and "reader-friendly" books as this one (recommended). -- Hoary 07:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deal with it. If you think all criticism of AAVE usage is based in some misunderstanding or myths about language in general, then deal with that phenomenon of "language myths" in an article and reference it in this one. -Ste|vertigo 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on myths about language in general and based on myths about AAVE in particular. Yours is an interesting idea, but it would mean that Wikipedia would incorporate an encyclopedia of discredited ideas. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it's something that should be started so lightly. Let's consider an example from the article. We read: Criticisms from social commentators and educators have ranged from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech^[20] to..... That note 20 cites something written by Alberto Manguel, a novelist and essayist (hardly a "commentator", and certainly not an "educator"). I haven't read that piece and have never claimed to have read it; I'd guess that nobody else here has read it either, as nobody has dug up its title. Pullum writes of it: [Many people] also think [AAVE is] an impoverished version of English with a lot of grammatical mistakes. Alberto Manguel wrote [...] that black English is 'nothing but a vastly impoverished version of Standard English.' He gives no evidence for that at all. Now, Pullum may have been lying to the enthralled Australians as they huddled around their wireless sets. Let's assume for a moment that he wasn't. If Pullum wasn't lying, what Manguel says is at about the same level as my saying that your sister is ugly: their truth-values aside, both remarks are offensive, and say more about the speaker than the putative subject. Back to the truth value of what Manguel said. It may take as much as twenty minutes of sustained reading effort to figure out how utterly wrong it is; it takes about twenty seconds in any of a pile of books about language to see that (to take one of many examples) AAVE adds a use of "been" to refer to the distant past; ergo, the assertion that it's "nothing but a vastly impoverished version" of SE is simply wrong. Why should any encyclopedia article present "criticism" as obviously dopy as this? (Incidentally, my apologies to your sister, rudely coopted for rhetorical purposes.) -- Hoary 08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I recognize that despite our best intentions, it is impossible to be entirely NPOV on any given subject. Please explain your POV in relation to AAVE. Makerowner 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the use of AAVE, and its premisses

It's sometimes claimed on this talk page or in the everchanging article itself that certain "educators and social commentators" (or similar) have no particular beef with AAVE itself but criticize the extent of its use. (After his telltale word "crap" is politely removed, Cosby is made to sound like this.)

I'm willing to believe that such people and such opinions exist, and I'm willing to have them presented in a Wikipedia article. But I haven't encountered them yet. It's my impression that if you investigate what appears to be criticism of the use of AAVE, you pretty soon find that it's based on the same old ignorance of AAVE itself. It argues from false premisses.

This isn't just my impression. The entry for "Black English Vernacular" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language rightly accords the criticism/controversy stuff a small place at the end, immediately before the conclusion. Here's what it says:

“ [M]any misconceptions about BEV prevail, especially that it is simply 'bad English' and that it holds African Americans back in education and employment opportunities because of this. The dominant issue for BEV is a stereotype that equates non-standard usage with stupidity. Its negative consequences continue to affect the prospects of black American children. Because BEV is devalued and misunderstood, uninformed citizens (including many teachers with excellent intentions) continue to denigrate it in favour of standard [American English]. Few such educators, whether or not they have a training in linguistics, have learned about the history and nature of African-American English, and fail therefore to appreciate its diversity and logical integrity as a long-established variety of the language. ”

(Mention of "diversity" reminds me of a major shortcoming in the WP article. By contrast, diversity is emphasized in the BEV article within OCEL.)

That criticism of the "use" of AAVE stems from misunderstanding of AAVE itself seems to be a lot more than a mere hunch: the OCEL article presents it as a straightforward fact. -- Hoary 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, with the right references, it seems appropriate to me to give the reactions of some linguists to the worst things you hear about AAVE, like that it's "intrinsically deficient". Joeldl 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Er . . . OK, but I was making a different point: that what's purported to be criticism of the extent to which AAVE is used is often based on prejudices about AAVE itself. I had thought that this was so; the OCEL says it is so. (Or anyway was so: the book is now about 15 years old.) -- Hoary 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The popular belief that lower-status speech forms are "mistakes" is not limited to AAVE. You find the same prejudice about a lot of nonstandard dialects. I think something about what linguists think is already in the section "social context". What information are you proposing including that's not mentioned there? Joeldl 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC) I think the OCEL allows authors to be more argumentative than an encyclopedia would. I haven't seen it in a long time, but I think the articles are signed, for example. Joeldl 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias have signed articles. Pinkville 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica) have signed articles, and yes OCEL does too. But its articles seem pretty bland to me, certainly not argumentative. Yes, Joeldl's right about popular stigmatization of basilects in general. What I'm suggesting is that (a) either articles are found that make critical comments about the use of AAVE while not criticizing AAVE, or (b) the article shows that critical comments about the use of AAVE are based on beliefs that AAVE itself is somehow bad. -- Hoary 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of Cosby quote/Including actual quotations from cosby.

Currently the section about criticism of AAVE and the use of AAVE is located in the "Education" section. However this isn't the right place for it. When Cosby criticized the use of AAVE in his speech he wasn't criticizing it's use in education but it's use in general. Having his speech and other criticism in the "education" section doesn't make sense. Moreover, Why keep removing the actual quotes from his speech? Why can't they be included? The reader needs to get an idea of exactly what Cosby was saying and from the mouth of Cosby himself and needs to make an interpretation of it that way.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover I object to the paragraph starting with "Changes in formal attitudes regarding the acceptance of AAVE as a distinct dialect correlated with advancements in civil rights." appearing right after the section of criticism of use of AAVE including Cosby's criticism. Cosby didn't make any implications that AAVE isn't a distinct dialect or any such thing. So having such a section about "Changes in formal attitudes regarding the acceptance of AAVE as a distinct dialect" doesn't make sense.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why I suggested you write an overview section dealing with controversies within black culture in general. Im not sure any of us is in fact up to the task, but certainly thats whats required. I know Joe and others have suggested that education be the only focus of criticism, but that would only exclude all other matters of culture. -Ste|vertigo 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "eliminate AAVE through the education system" shows that the topic of the section is appropriately named. I challenge others to find criticism of AAVE that is not related to education (Cosby's is since he was speaking at an event in celebration of brown vs board of education and his only credential on the matter is his doctorate in education). Until then I'm proven wrong, I'll be maintaining that there isn't formal criticism of AAVE outside the context of education. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Originally, through lack of attention, I hadn't realized to what extent Cosby's criticism was related to education. This quote: "Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this?" is almost certainly an indirect reference to the debate about AAVE in education, since that's about the only place anybody has tried to "move ahead" on AAVE. Joeldl 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting and non-trivial challenge. For my part, I challenge others to find post-1980 education-related or other criticism of AAVE that does not stem from discredited beliefs about AAVE itself (notably, the discredited belief that AAVE is grammatically or otherwise defective). -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoary (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Wow, HagermanBot was fast with that. -- Hoary 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "criticism of AAVE" does that include recognition of AAVE in the school system? Joeldl 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, "AAVE itself" obviously doesn't include that, but "post-1980 education-related or other criticism of AAVE" does. NB I'm not saying that no such criticism exists. It's not a matter of you not coming up with any and me then crowing "Nyah! You lost, I won!" Indeed, I think such criticism does exist. But it's not as common as I had thought, or as common as the article seems to suggest. I'd be interested in seeing it. -- Hoary 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹, Stop reverting me.

It seems every time I make a contribution to this article you revert it. If I add citations, You revert it. If I correct spelling, you revert it. If I change the name of a section title to something that correctly identifies with the article body, you revert it. And your only edit summary is "rv". That's not an edit summary. You need to explain WHAT you're reverting and WHY you're reverting it. If you just want to change 1 thing in an edit I make then don't revert it. Make that change by editing the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, your citation to support the claim that "Criticisms from social commentators and educators have ranged from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech" is of a piece by Alberto Manguel. I believe that it is this Alberto Manguel. He's a writer of fiction and essays (who incidentally didn't go to university and whose CV shows no sign that he has studied language to the degree necessary needed to assert intelligently that anything is an intrinsically deficient form of speech). How is he a social commentator or educator? I'm surprised that you don't mention the title of his piece within this magazine. Have you not read it? I haven't read it, but I have read Pullum's description of it. -- Hoary 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll not refrain from reverting anyone if I believe it's warranted. Even if Manguel were credible and had said more than one sentence-worth of material on the subject (both things that are not true), that is not the place to use him as a citation. I've already explained why in the talk page. I've also explained why the title of that section is appropriate and needn't be changed. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as has been pointed out previously, that since the relevant point here is the extent of criticism, it's more appropriate, if possible, to have a citation from a reputable academic source (satisfying Wikipedia criteria) surveying criticism of AAVE and/or its use in education or elsewhere, than to have an illustrative example of the criticism. This could also serve the purpose of evaluating the quality of criticism, although we should be careful to choose language, insofar as possible, that is reflective of a consensus of such surveys. Joeldl 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe, lets not get carried away with any exclusionist concept of RS. Who's "reputable" and who's not can be debated within the article. NPOV (the balanced presentation of all views on a subject) trumps RS for a good reason. -Ste|vertigo 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting using references, if possible whose reputability is not questioned, which themselves effect a synthesis of the most prominent views expressed concerning AAVE, instead of us having to do it. I think you can find extreme views on just about any topic. (Somebody gave the example of the earth being flat.) Citing an example of such a view is not proof that it is widespread or representative. What is proof, in the sense of an encyclopedia article, is a citation of a respected researcher who says that it is widespread or representative. If such references can be found, they are the best we can use. If those sources think certain proponents of one point of view are notable or representative, that would be good reason to mention those primary sources as well. All of this is assuming such sources are available — I think other editors here are likely to be better able to identify them than I am. Joeldl 08:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary is missing the entire point(as usual). I get tired of repeating myself over and over just so I can be ignored and strawmen created from my arguments. Cosby isn't my source! Obviously "Cosby" himself would not be a reliable source for an article on linguistics. If I were to say "AAVE is crap" and cite Cosby for evidence of this that would violate RS. However the only thing I'm doing is saying "Cosby said this". I'm not making any assertions about AAVE in the article, I'm only making assertions about the controversy surrounding AAVE and what people have said about it. Cosby is not my source. The source is the publisher of his speech. Which is a very reliable source. The same applies for the rest of the sources of controversy surrounding AAVE. So not only does WP:V agree with me but so does WP:NPOV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This "point" of yours has already been shown for the vacuity that it is. Pinkville 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's kind of funny to see you worrying about Reliable sources here - and someone even gave you a barnstar for your concerns on that issue... Amazing. Pinkville 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think my points are invalid then you also believe wikipedia policy is invalid. Because my points coincide with wikipedia policy. If you believe wikipedia policy is invalid then maybe this isn't the right place for you.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If our former Mediator gets through with what he's attempting then you may be right. In the meantime, give it up. No one buys it. Pinkville 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't consider Cosby to be your source, then you wouldn't cite him as such in the article. I understand the distinction you are trying to make but it comes off as misleading and nitpicky. Cosby is the intellectual authority you are appealling to when you quote him and that is what makes him your "source." At the moment, I can't really think of a more appropriate word. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonig to assume good faith on that comment, Ƶ§œš¹. I'm going to just assume you aren't intentionally ignoring my posts and you simply overlooked what I posted. To clear things up i'll repost what I said so you might be able to catch it this time. I'm not making any assertions about AAVE in the article, I'm only making assertions about the controversy surrounding AAVE and what people have said about it. Cosby is not my source. The source is the publisher of his speech. Which is a very reliable source.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note some of the new policy regarding sources, and how it relates to this article:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

I don't think Bill Cosby is known for his fact-checking. I would also like to note what Jimmy Wales has to say about "Crackpot articles":

(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect

(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.

The Cosby quote seems to fall under (b). Makerowner 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cosby's ideas are not crackpot. Firstly. Secondly, Cosby isn't the source. I must have said this a dozen times. The source is the publisher of Cosby's speech.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what is Cosby? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, nobody will dispute your assertion that you have repeated yourself.

You say: Cosby's ideas are not crackpot.

What, the "pound cake" stuff again? They are so confused that it's hard to derive any sense out of them. But here they are, with commentary. A quick reminder for those too busy to click that link:

• He appears to claim that he's doing something that he says he can't do.
• He says he doesn't know who the people are that he's talking about, but then claims to talk from first-hand experience about a family that exemplifies them.
• He twice appears to imply that AAVE isn't English (an assertion that would put him together with the original promoters of Ebonics in the original meaning of that term, but almost nobody else); he tacitly admits that code-switching is possible, but his whole schtick seems to deny that code-switching is possible.
• He appears to confuse (a) the organizational constraints of flight-control English with (b) linguistic requirements for communicating flight-control information. The former is a (very sensible) conventionalization of the latter.
• He appears to assert that a speaker of AAVE cannot be a doctor, but (of course) presents no evidence for this. Or maybe he asserts that AAVE isn't up to the task of doctoring, another assertion for which he presents no evidence.
• Taken literally, he equates (a) AAVE, an abstraction, with (b) feces, a substance.

Well, Dude Man, if his ideas (crackpot or otherwise) are moderately coherent, perhaps you can summarize them for us here, and also point out where I've gone wrong in my description of them above.

Are they perhaps "not crackpot" because, in his incoherent way, Crosby appears to feel the truthiness of your own nutty notion, as expressed a month ago, that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are [sic] limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE, and that AAVE has a lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas? Even if we take "basic English" not as this but instead as an attempt to express the concept of "Standard American English", ideas such as this will be brushed aside by anybody who has read any of dozens of well-informed books about language. (Try Bauer and Trudgill's Language Myths. It's really easy to read.)

Or perhaps I misunderestimate you. OK: which book have you read? -- Hoary 08:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You have claimed dozens of times that Cosby is not your source, but we have all expressed our disagreement. If we accept your logic, then quoting a book is using the publishing company as a source, not the author. Cosby is clearly the source of the opinions expressed. Makerowner 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cosby would only be the source if I was using his assertions as an argument for what he said. I'm not. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee H. Walker: Just another nutball?

Here's the start of the op-ed piece by Walker, linked to within the section on "AAVE in education":

“ The Ku Klux Klan could not have come up with a better plan to impede the academic progress of young black children than the idea of teaching Ebonics as a separate language. ”

1. Oh really? The KKK are pretty stupid and unimaginative, but alas they're not that unimaginative. I wish they were. However this (to take just one example) was a hugely more effective way to impede kids' academic progress.
2. What's this talk of "teaching Ebonics as a separate language"? I hadn't heard of any notion of teaching AAVE as a separate language. Who was talking of doing that?

-- Hoary 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did some digging, too. Walker has no academic credentials and is principally know for his involvement in a couple of right-wing propaganda organs. It's probable that he's black, though, so I guess for some people that makes him a credible source on AAVE. Lame. Pinkville 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I hadn't even thought of looking up Walker: I was merely attempting to assess his sanity via his bizarre first sentence. But here he is. Having been big in retail, he's now the head of some "conservative" outfit called "New Coalition", and is a name on all sorts of things, e.g. he's "a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute", which the not always reliable Wikipedia tells us "is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which asserts that global warming is a myth". (So perhaps all those thermometer readings are just a commie plot?) Pretty humdrum depressing right wing stuff. -- Hoary 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of attribution and crackpots

While the "mediation" process here is in a bit of a lull, our "mediator" is busy elsewhere. Odd things are going on at Wikipedia:Attribution. This, in case you're not up to date on such matters, is pretty weighty stuff: This new merged policy page has replaced Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (which, you'll recall, were often cited as two of the three pillars of WP, the other being NPoV). And yup, This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. [...] When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Feel free to look at the history yourself, but here's a brief summary (provided for those who, like me, read top to bottom rather than bottom to top):

• 04:09, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo, "rewrite"
• 04:13, 24 February 2007 Robert A West "Undid revision 110505964 by Stevertigo"
• 04:20, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo "restore - take it to talk if you have an issue"
• 04:21–04:33, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo series of six edits in the section "Reliable sources", none with an edit summary
• 04:56, 24 February 2007 Gerry Ashton "Revert material that belongs on talk page, not in the policy"
• 09:41–09:43, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo series of three edits, one of which has the edit summary "Explain the ambiguity. The subjective nature of the definition need to be acknowledged and clarified"
• 10:41, 24 February 2007 Marskell "rv rambling essay"

So what's it all about, then? That last set of three edits by Stevertigo replaces one paragraph with eight (one of which is a quotation from elsewhere). Here's the last but one of the paragraphs that our mediator wants to get in:

“ NPOV trumps all other standards on Wikipedia for a good reason, in that given two sides in a topic, both must be represented. This is done without mischaracterising their views as either "nonbelieving" or "crackpot" (again using the example of science and religion), though it is fair to characterise majority and minority views. ”

Ah. Let's suppose for a moment that Pullum et al. are in the minority in believing that AAVE is just as fine a linguistic tool as Standard American English. (I really don't know if this is true, but my inner Ambrose Bierce would not to be so surprised to find it was indeed true.) Then, per Stevertigo, it's quite OK to say that Pullum's is the minority opinion. The "other side" of this topic? Step up Alberto Manguel. Apparently Manguel wrote in 1998 that AAVE is "nothing but a vastly impoverished version of Standard English". Now, it seems to me that "crackpot" is a pretty good term for somebody who either ignores or chooses to remain ignorant of easily available knowledge on a subject that he writes about so publicly. (It's not that he doesn't like books: His WP article tells us that he has thirty thousand of them. But then again maybe he just likes the sight of their serried spines.)

Our "mediator" points out that NPOV (the balanced presentation of all views on a subject) trumps RS for a good reason. This notion doesn't appear in WP:NPOV. It is, however, very close to something that the "mediator" is simultaneously (and so far unsuccessfully) trying to insert within a different policy page. So he seems keen to align this AAVE article with principles of Wikipedia that he has freshly adjusted to his own taste.

Irish jokes tells us that Irish jokes are a class of jokes based on a stereotype of the Irish people as unintelligent. I won't argue with that. Yes, such a stereotype exists. Ergo, the idea that Irish people are unintelligent is not merely that of a tiny minority. Yet Irish people rightly does not present this "side" of a "controversy" about Irish people. That's because no sane, sober person attempts to argue it. The alleged stupidity of Irish people, the alleged defects of AAVE: the two notions have about the same significance. It's probable that nobody continues to argue for either PoV in anything worth citing, though crackpots continue to argue from one of these goofy notions and perhaps from the other as well. -- Hoary 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But we dont have a black jokes article, so wheres the comparison? Are you calling Cosby a racist? Or simply irrelevant? -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AAAAGH! How many pages worth of comments have we produced on this talk page to convince the Great Mediator (nod to the Great Communicator) and the Wicked Dud Man^(sp) of just that point?! How silly are we? They have all the force of irrationality behind them, and irrationality trumps reason all too often. More specific to your post, your Irish example is precisely why I'm opposed to even a "controversy" section in this article (or any article dealing with a people, or a culture, etc.) - it's nothing more than having a section devoted to bigotry related to the subject, in this case, Bigotry directed towards AAVE and its speakers. Is there something notable about the fact that there are people who are thoughtless enough, stupid enough or selfish enough to adopt such bigotries (about any given people/culture)? Do we have to quote such people too? And for balance? As an aside, Postmodern theory has provided a wonderful legitimising notion for all sorts of nuckleheads (to borrow a key term of critical theory from a beloved source on this page): there is no truth, just diffferent viewpoints - warring ideologies, etc. What a crock of shite! Pinkville 12:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mr. Vertigo has removed this article from the mediation list. I guess we're all mediated? His work here is done, and now doody calls elsewhere. Pinkville 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that hole thing was a lot of fun; now can we fix the article? I also oppose a controversy section, for basically the same reasons, but I think the article should emphasize the popular opinion of AAVE, because this is an important part of its speakers' experience of it. It should be made clear, obviously, that linguists reject all these criticisms. Makerowner 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, Pinkville and Asshoes have repeatedly deviated from talking about the issues here to making personal remarks against me. Naturally I dont have anything fancy or clever to say in retort, nor am I much interested in their complete obliviousness to NPOV on such a basic and elementary Wikipedian principle. Mediation has not succeeded and rather I think arbitration is in order. Lots of useless discussion that I will not read. -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've read the first few posts then there's nothing new in these new posts. They're repeating the same old arguments that I addressed weeks ago. I agree that arbitration might be in order. I just didn't want to go that path. I would of preferred discussing it here but it seems that didn't work.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

End of Cosby discussion vote

I move that we table the "social criticism"/Cosby discussion on this talk page. If Wikidudeman still feels the need to argue with the editors who disagree with him, we all have our user talk pages. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• In favor
  • Aye. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}
  • Agree Makerowner 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup. Pinkville 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Not particularly. See below. UMassCowboy 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Objections to the end-of-discussion vote immediately above

• Oppose

Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and a majority vote doesn't mean you can take action. Secondly..What do you mean by "table"?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tabling means that they dont want to discuss it. Its a topic for common plebes who dont understand the linguistic legitimacy and genius of AAVE and therefore dont need to be represented. -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I oppose not discussing it anymore. You can't simply make a vote not to discuss something anymore. That's absurd. Saying "Let's vote not to discuss this anymore" is a way to avoid dispute resolution and a way to avoid actually making any progress in the page in dispute. If you don't want to discuss changes then you should not be allowed to make them.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well look at if from their point of view. Theyve been over this a thousand times, but they are still holding to the view that Cosby is an immaterial source as far as linguistics is concerned. For them, the context is the study of language, not the common discourse or misconceptions. Those dont need to be explained or dealt with. Where I agree with them, the pompous airs notwithstanding, is that some consensus on the article's development has to take precedence over someone with an agenda who wants to make a point rather than explain things. Face it, you do come across as someone with a WP:POINT , even if I think NPOV backs you up in this case to some limited extent. In that respect it would be best if you left it alone, or sought help from the Arbcom based on OWN and NPOV. Even though NPOV might favor inclusion, their greater focus will be on the matter of your POINT. Naturally the other side feels personally attacked by attacks on AAVE, and as such the discussion for the most part been polarised and noncomunicative. You're speaking different languages. The language of cultural poltics and the language of linguistics are different enough to be scary to the other.

Unfortunately youre not approaching this from a sociological view. It may be better to focus on studying the area you are interested in more, and approach it from a sociological perspective. It is of course ironic that Wikipedia loves memes, and the Cosby comments are no doubt a meme of sorts. You would think that your opposition would know well enough how to deal with such comments such that they could write enough context to frame them. But that gets into the discussion of whether Cosby is ignorant - something they naturally dont want to deal with, because for all his claimed ignorance, Cosbys comments represent a view which is popular, or at least funny. Im tired of being insulted by Asshoes and Hoary and Pinkville. Ive got better things to do. -Ste|vertigo 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I'm trying to put it into the article is to maintain NPOV and prevent undue weight. I have no "points" to make.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not so sure. I suspected not, but chose to suspend that assessment in accordance with AGF etc. For example what do you mean by "prevent undue weight?" What weight can a trivial piece of info like the Cosby bite have in relation to the formal study of how languages evolve. It has relevance, no doubt, but unless its framed in precisely the right way its easy to see that piece of information as extraneous. If you are not approaching the subject from a neutral point of view then everything you add will appear suspect. I suggested adding context simply because that would require you and them to meet in the middle on the issue of social context. If they are not interested in that aspect, its incumbent upon you and your language skills to make its relevance apparent to them. I for one am not going to make that task a priority. -Ste|vertigo 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cosby quote is far from trivial. I would like more emphasis on it and more emphasis on criticism of the use of AAVE but it seems the other editors don't. "preventing undue weight" means making the implication in the article(by refraining from putting anything contrary) that there is no controversy surrounding AAVE and there are no people who critique it's use. What the other editors are "interested" in is not my concern. My concern is making this article neutral. My concern is the readers.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to see the discussion go to the wayside without the potential for an easy compromise. There is no doubt that discussion of AAVE as "unrefined" is notable. However, the closest the article comes to discussing the "controversy" is discussion of Oakland, yet the situation in Oakland was purely one of educational standards and treating "Ebonics" as an individual language. It had nothing to do with social criticisms of AAVE.

Cosby has long been a critic of certain social mores prominent in poor African-American communities, including so-called excessive childbearing, failure to refrain from AAVE use, and reliance on welfare. Now, ignoring for the moment the question of his authority on the matter, he is lending a voice to a very real controversy: people think that AAVE sounds "ignorant" and bidialectal users should not use it.

Perhaps the best solution here is to provide an accurate summary of the real issues at hand. There is a non-academic belief that AAVE is "unsophisticated" and "ignorant." A proper encyclopedic entry would discuss that view and detail the division between experts in linguistics and the general population. This is an excellent example of when the uneducated public is simply wrong, and this article would be lacking if it failed to address this point.

Then Wikidudeman can throw his Cosby reference out there and those who know the facts surrounding AAVE use can demonstrate that it is not "ignorant," "unsophisticated," or whatnot. This article can discuss the controversy more than what is found in the last paragraph of the "Social Context" section, and we can all get on with our lives and have a better Wikipedia at the end.

I, of course, welcome all criticisms. I'm still a tad new at building wiki-bridges. UMassCowboy 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to Wikidudeman and Stevertigo. I should have sectioned off comments, not deleted them.

Tabling in this context means temporarily setting discussion aside. Things have been pretty heated and it might help to wait a while to let people gather resources and cool off a bit.

And Stevertigo, I appreciate your attempts at promoting cooperation, but don't call me Asshoes. That is behavior unbecoming of an editor, especially one on the mediation committee. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I will support a temporary break from debating this as long as you don't remove the Cosby quote from the article. If however you take the one symbolism of neutrality from the article then all deals are off. I would be forced to continue discussing this and taking other relevant steps to ensure neutrality.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, you appear to imply that removal of the incoherent quote by Cosby would render the article biased. What bias would this be? (Rationality, perhaps?) -- Hoary 10:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've spent the last 3 weeks explaining that. If you want my explanation then check the archives. I'm tired of going in circles over and over with you. If you want a waltzing partner then you're looking in the wrong place.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no Cosby quote to remove from the article right now. If you mean mention of Cosby then I can agree to that. I'm not of the opinion that mention of Cosby should be altogether removed but you are sadly incorrect if you think that omitting mention of him would remove neutrality. There is already mention (although scant) of the social context and Cosby is simply the only example. This is much more a matter of depth, not neutrality, and even if it were, Cosby is not going to fix that. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably have no more appetite for reading through that stuff than you have, Dude Man.

As I remember, you seemed to start by saying there was something seriously wrong with AAVE and that Cosby gave voice to this idea: that (i) to say AAVE was inherently as good a language/lect as any other was to express a pro-AAVE opinion and (ii) to show that it was "unsophisticated", "rudimentary", etc. was to express an anti-AAVE opinion of more or less equal significance in a "controversy" over AAVE.

If this were indeed so, then not mentioning the alleged "rudimentary" nature of AAVE and its lack of "sophistication" would indeed constitute a breach of neutrality in coverage of the "controversy". The trouble is that nobody except those who are doggedly ignorant* still believes that it's a matter of opinion. It's not mere opinion, it's theory; and it's theory only in the sense that evolution is theory.

* You may get the impression that I think you are ignorant of these matters. If so, I regret to say that you're right. I don't like to be under this impression. I'd be happy if this impression evaporated. Yes, do please prove me wrong: please tell me which books you have read about AAVE.

Well, do you concede that there is no such "controversy" over the quality of AAVE (which in itself does not imply that there are no controversies surrounding AAVE), or are you the linguistics equivalent of a creationist or flat-earther?

The former, I hope and for now presume. Now we move on to another reason you have given for quoting Crosby: that regardless of the quality of what he said, he is "notable" and it got into the news and therefore it too is "notable". I disagree with that too, but just for the extent of this one paragraph I'll concede that you're right here. How is its omission a breach of neutrality? To me, it seems like incomplete coverage, no more. -- Hoary 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alleged mistreatment of the "mediator", contexts for this article

• SV says: Im tired of being insulted by Asshoes and Hoary and Pinkville. You may wish to consider how your effort to "mediate" compared with mediation as described and as agreed to. I for one found your efforts to be very much less mediation than a probably well-intentioned but peculiarly impatient and inattentive attempt at troubleshooting, complete with snap judgments.
  • Fair enough. -SV
• SV says: Theyve been over this a thousand times, but they are still holding to the view that Cosby is an immaterial source as far as linguistics is concerned. For them, the context is the study of language, not the common discourse or misconceptions. The context is primarily the study of language, yes; but it's also sociological, political, etc. Cosby is incoherent and negligible at any level.
  • Its ironic that what you criticise as incoherent was largely understood, in the context of humour, by a black audience. Hm? -SV
• SV says: Unfortunately youre not approaching this from a sociological view. Right there. Dude Man seems to have been relying on whatever happens to be easily googlable and easily digested. That's no way to approach issues, linguistic, sociological, or other.
• SV says: Naturally the other side feels personally attacked by attacks on AAVE, in which "the other side" seems to mean "those who oppose what Wikidudeman is trying to do" and therefore includes me. My response: Rubbish, I feel nothing of the sort. But anyway this kind of thing is not debatable. I have little or no idea of the motivation of anyone who has recently been posting here, and don't much care. I do have some idea of their respective knowledge and understanding of AAVE.
  • Rubbish indeed. -SV
• SV says of comments such as Cosby's: You would think that your opposition would know well enough how to deal with such comments such that they could write enough context to frame them. But that gets into the discussion of whether Cosby is ignorant - something they naturally dont want to deal with, because for all his claimed ignorance, Cosbys comments represent a view which is popular, or at least funny. Well, SV, you and I have different ideas of what's funny. (If I want US humor, I'll take Pryor or Colbert.) Sure I can deal with a discussion of whether Cosby is ignorant: so far as he is even understandable, either (i) he is ignorant, or (ii) he's acting ignorant (I really don't care which). But he's not very understandable, and this alone is sufficient reason for his comments not to merit attention. I can frame Cosby's comments, but I really don't see that they merit the effort. Why? Well:
  • Oy the effort. -SV
• SV says: What weight can a trivial piece of info like the Cosby bite have in relation to the formal study of how languages evolve. That's not exactly how I'd phrase it, but it's good.
• SV says: You're speaking different languages. The language of cultural poltics and the language of linguistics are different enough to be scary to the other. Not true. I've been reading Baugh's book Beyond Ebonics; it combines both. I happen to have studied sociology, which is relevant to cultural politics. Just give me cultural politics as written by somebody who is well-informed, open minded, and balanced.
  • I was hoping you would do some of the writing. I am agnostic on the subject. -SV

You talk of contexts. Right then, the contexts are those of:

• a conspicuous basilect (and basilects are stigmatized)
• a conspicuous ethnolect (and the US remains racist)
• generations of ridicule of Black talk
• increasing understanding of lects among those who actually read (and write) books about them
• popular ignorance of, or ignoring of, code-switching
• de facto segregation of US education (worse, failure even to honor Plessy v Ferguson) and chronic poor educational opportunities for Blacks
• recognition of particular problems in the acquisition of literacy by Black kids
• innovative attempts to overcome these problems
• the intellectually dubious (if well intentioned) formulation of the [original] notion of "Ebonics", with its rather unfortunate naming
• the rush to ridicule "Ebonics" (in more or less its original meaning), largely by those who show little sign of knowing what it's about
• the lazy misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of what the proponents of "Ebonics" (in the original sense of the word) actually wanted in schools
• chronic tension between assimilationist and separatist factions within Black US society
• the correct understanding that recognition of "Ebonics" (meaning AAVE) as a distinct first language would cost US education systems a pile of money
• rosy myths about the ease with which earlier generations of people speaking different languages or lects learned standard English and integrated within mainstream US society
• anti-intellectualism in American life [hmm, that phrase has a familiar ring to it], and the lack of interest in reading or hearing what actual linguists (etc) would say about AAVE, and the dismissal of these people as pointy-heads, etc.; the insistence by those who haven't read and thought that the truthiness as revealed to them by their moms, TV stars, tabloids, etc., is as worthy as are facts approached by others.

Those are just a few of the contexts, off the top of my head. Given a few hours, I might tinker with them, aggregating one or two, deleting one or two, adding more. And even after that, I might not have got them right: I don't claim to know all the answers on the status of AAVE and am open to intelligent arguments. I'm sure that, given time, the contexts can be reformulated and summarized by people who are at least averagely intelligent, well read, and energetic. It can't be done by people merely starstruck by particular entertainers or by Google hits, etc. -- Hoary 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We all know youre not perfect. But Its a damn good list. -Ste|vertigo 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that a sociolinguist does it. If nobody else steps up for the job, I might have to start it: I probably wouldn't do a good job, but I'm fairly confident I'd do an honest one. However, ignorance, misinformation and irrational prejudice in this area aren't subjects that thrill me. ¶ Incidentally, my list of contexts now looks very poorly expressed, even to me. -- Hoary 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Phonological features again

It seems someone in linguistics has an essay due, because I can hardly find any books on English phonology at my school library these days. Someone went ahead and changed the line on final obstruent devoicing and gives a source, but I haven't been able to check it. I think this section should note that not all of these features occur for all speakers at all times; variation in age, geography, and register affects which variant a speaker uses in a given situation. I also think it should focus on the mesolectal or most common features (eg. not showing [θ]→[t], or at least highlighting that it is rare. Makerowner 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it the recent set of edits by User:Topses that changed

Word final devoicing. Thus, pig sounds like pick and cub like cup (Wardhaugh 2002).

(or something very similar) to

Word final devoicing. Thus, pig sounds like pick and cub like cup, the words do not become homophones however, as the vowels before the devoiced consonants are lengthened. (Wardhaugh 2002).

? If so, note that he/she has just retained the earlier source, possibly checking it to make sure that this new bit is in it, possibly not. Luckily "Wardhaugh 2002" is explained at the foot of the article. Surprisingly its title implies that it's neither about phonology nor about AAVE and that it is instead a general work about sociolinguistics.

Putting aside your very reasonable point about concentrating on the mesolect, this way of referencing sucks. What we have here is an entire book (likely to have at least 200 pages), within which perhaps just one unspecified page says what an earlier editor claimed it says, and which may or may not also say what Topses implies that it says.

Phonology is not my thing. (Hmm, might I have said that before?) But I'll try to check this a bit later all the same. I can't promise to understand all the phonology, but I will be scrupulous in citation. -- Hoary 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wardhaugh is a sociolinguistics text that deals very briefly with the phonological features of AAVE. Topses' edits contradict the source (which may itself be inaccurate). I'll fix that but I look forward to Hoary's scrupulation. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed (?) it according to Green. Green says flatly that word-initial /θ/ is realized as [θ], which disagrees with Wardhaugh (as he/she is (mis?)cited) and certainly accords with my own casual impressions of AAVE. Disappointingly, Green doesn't comment on the difference between realizations of the two SE "th" phonemes as (a) interdental or (b) plosive. (Perhaps it's in part a geographical matter, but she doesn't say.) Green also says nothing about lengthening the vowel.

You chaps (chapesses) know more about phonetics and phonology than me, so please check and see that I haven't made some booh-booh. -- Hoary 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ain't

Sorry to ask what may seem like a dumb question, but in a sentence like "Ain't no white cop gonna put his hands on me," (I took this example from Linguistics: An Introduction by Radford et al.) does ain't mean "there isn't" or "doesn't"? Also, somebody included the example "I ain't know that". Can ain't be used instead of didn't in any construction or are there constraints on its use? The Merriam-Webster writes that ain't used for don't, etc. is restricted to some varieties of Black English. I made a change to the article reflecting this. Joeldl 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Must mean "there isn't": i.e., there is no white cop capable of/who would dare ; I would never suffer any white cop to, etc. The other example sounds regional. Moulv i 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should have suggested a third possibility: "isn't", as in "isn't going to". I must have been tired when I wrote that. Joeldl 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of negative inversion in AAVE (see [1]), It doesn't translate as "There isn't...", but rather as "No white cop is going to put his hands on me" with some sort of special emphasis on the negation. Cadr 15:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I eventually realized that, after writing it. But that means that uninverted, it would be "No white cop ain't gonna...", so ain't means "isn't" just like for everyone else. I guess my problem is that we don't have a sourced example of ain't meaning "don't" or "doesn't", and I'm suspicious that it might not be able to be used in all constructions where don't would be. In fact, I wonder if there might also be variation in its use by person (among those who in other respects use AAVE grammar). Joeldl 09:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we need to find a source for that then.

I think I was wrong about negative inversion placing special emphasis, by the way. I think "No white cop ain't gonna..." would be ungrammatical in AAVE and NI is necessary to make it OK (perhaps because the negation has to precede the phrase with negative concord?) Cadr 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unfounded" in education section

The idea that AAVE is a "degradation of English", although commonly held by the public, is rejected by linguists. See citations elsewhere in the article (such as Labov) for this. Perhaps the word "unfounded" is a poor choice. But as it stands, the text is more informative than without it. Readers should know what is merely a popular belief, and it is possible and desirable for an encyclopedia to reflect the facts here. Please find a better formulation conveying this information to the reader rather than just doing away with "unfounded". Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit. One possible problem may have been that "unfounded" was attached to "feelings". It's hard to come up with arguments for, or to object to the lack of arguments for, "feelings". I've changed that. If there are grounds for intelligent adults who are willing to apply their minds to the study of language (and I mean read introductory linguistics books) to subscribe to this belief, then let's see them. If there aren't, the belief is unfounded, which is a clear word and not a "weasel word" at all. -- Hoary 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AAVE introduces both inherent ambiguities (phrases in AAVE which can have multiple meanings) and contextual ambiguities (phrases that are ambiguous if the listener doesn't know that the speaker is speaking AAVE). Taken by themselves, these ambiguities constitute a clear degradation of the English language. Whether AAVE, taken as a whole, is a degradation is a matter of opinion, and WP should not by taking sides in the matter.Heqwm 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

Good job to who ever realized that this aricle needs a POV tag. It was undobutably written by a middle-aged white man with no actual interaction with minorities. I found it kinda racist. Slayerofangels 00:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't written by a middle-aged white man. It was written by several people: men, white people and the middle aged probably among them. In what way is it kinda racist? -- Hoary 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's far too politically correct if you ask me. Not racist.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? futurebird 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've participated somewhat in the writing of this article, and I am neither white nor middle-aged, and I do have actual interaction with "minorities" (I hate that word, but that's a different story). I don't think the POV tag is really necessary. Makerowner 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. futurebird 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little curious as to why this article as tagged myself. I'm going to ask the question to the poster on his/her talk page, but it's basically this: Do you find the treatment of the topic to be somehow racist or POV, or do you find the idea that the topic exists at all as racist/POV? I don't think either one is true in this case, but I dislike the seemingly reactive POV tags some users place above any type of controversial topic (particlarly related to race, religion or sexual orientation), regardless of notability, citation, sources or treatment of the topic in the article. CredoFromStart 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Should this page maybe be (semi-)protected? This vandalism is getting pretty annoying. We do clean it up quickly, but a) it's a waste of our time; and b) people who see the article before we fix it might be offended or misinformed, or simply think badly of Wikipedia because of it. What does everyone think? Makerowner 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to seem some articles that actually warrant protection. This article's 'vandalization' hardly warrants protection.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to your input to this article. While I disagree with you on most points, I support the fact that you use the proper Wikipedia processes. I'm referring rather to random phrases, often offensive, being added into the article by annonymous users.Makerowner 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's too small to even notice. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Luckily this goofball edit (to name just one) wasn't too small for Makerowner to notice. -- Hoary 11:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because 1 person spots vandalism doesn't mean the amount of vandalism is noticeably affecting the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidudeman. This article experiences slightly higher than average vandalism, but it really is nowhere near the level of vandalism of some other articles on my watchlist. I think it falls pretty far short of justification for locking it. It's a minor annoyance here, not a chronic, destabilizing problem. Ford MF 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was just putting the idea out there. Never mind. Makerowner 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Article based on incomplete research

Just another way for SOME know-it-all whites to explain to each other what they think they know about us ... comment added at 18:20, 24 March 2007 by 68.201.118.165 (contributions)

Precisely what is your beef with the content of the article? -- Hoary 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The information is outdated and stereotypical which causes it to be demeaning.--68.201.118.165 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case at all. This article dose a great job dispelling common myths about the "inferiority" of AAVE using solid concepts from linguistics.I'm really impressed.

And I'm not "some white person" either. Some of grandparents spoke this way and it makes me sad to think that the linguistic heritage that ties my family to Africa could simply die out. When I was a child I was punished if I spoke AAVE. It's a revelation to come to see it as something other than "broken-english." It can be expressive and poetic, it is a a real language, like any other. I hope that this article grows to include even more examples of the history of this dialect.

It seems to be very accurate. I don't know why you feel it is "racist."futurebird 01:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well let me start by saying that I never implied it was racist. In order for it to be racist, the editors would have intentionally meant for it to demean Blacks. I don't feel this is the case at all. I just think they are unaware of the content.

I am a "brother," from a lower/middle-class black neighborhood in the south, and I also have family and friends in pretty much all of the major black cities across America. Now, I am telling you, as a black man, that this article is somewhat inaccurate. Say what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I was offended a little.--68.201.118.165 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out the problems? Or is it more a matter of adding more information about what AAVE is really like? I wish it talked more about how AAVE is used to show solidarity... and the linguistic traditions of historically Black churches where speech is raised to a kind of art form. It's this combination of rhetorical devices and AAVE... I wonder if anyone has written about that? futurebird 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saddened but not at all surprised to hear that it's a little inaccurate. OK, so where are the inaccuracies? You're free to say "They're all over the place and too many to list", but please don't take that as a reason to give up; instead, please give one or two (or more!) examples. -- Hoary 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, 99% of us blacks know proper English. So don't think that this is the way we speak all the time. We can talk the proper way anytime we want, but what you call AAVE just seems more expressive to us. Now, black children and some elders are probably the only ones who aren't educated on the proper way to speak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 (talk • contribs).

What I know of language use in the US pretty much squares with what you're saying (though I'd question a suggestion that there's a monolithic "proper English" in contradistinction to a monolithic AAVE; also, that there's anything linguistically improper about AAVE or indeed any lect). Well ... rewrite the article accordingly! -- Hoary 00:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

68.201...., I don't understand what you think is wrong with the article. The article never claims that black people don't know "proper English" (as you call it) or can't "talk the proper way" (to use your words) (if anything, referring to "proper" English as you do in your post is less neutral than the article's text itself). In fact, the article goes into detail about phenomenon like code-switching. The article already incorporates the information you're suggesting. —Lowellian (reply) 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the anonymous user's comment "The point is, 99% of us blacks know proper English. So don't think that this is the way we speak all the time." highlights a muddle in the article that may be one reason some people think it is inaccurate. I do not think the article is inaccurate as such (but I am no expert either) but it is limited. Specifically, the article takes the perspective of descriptive linguistics and as Futurebird says seems to do a pretty good job of providing a scientific account of AAVE. What it does not do is provide the perspective of sociolinguistics. Whereas descriptive linguistics looks at the phonology, morphology, and syntax of a dialect/language, sociolinguistics looks at the behavior of members of a speech community (i.e. how an actual group of people use language). from a sociolinguist's point of view, what the anonymous user I quote above is saying is that 99% of blacks (more precisely, speakers of AAVE) are also fluent speakers of "standard" (or whatever) English and are skilled at code-switching. This was documented by sociolinguist William Labov and several of his students who researched AAVE. I am sorry I cannot provide any citations - I can look into it. The question for active editors on this article is, do you want the article to limit itself to a descriptive linguistics account, and leave the sociolinguistics of AAVE for another article, or should both be here? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some important citations that would help fill in the gaps:

• Alan Dundes, ed. Mother Wit from the Laughing Barrel
• Thomas Kochman, ed. Rappin' and Stylin' Out
• Wm. Labov, Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular
• Peter Auer, ed. Code Switching in Conversation

The point of course is not that there is a "proper" English which Blacks do or do not know. The point is that like most languages English exists only in the form of many different dialects (each equally "good" at being a language) and that many Blacks are competent (meaning, have mastery in the rules that enable one to produce intelligible utterences) in more than one of these dialects.

Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical traditions?

Is this article the right place for information on Black rhetorial traditions in the church? For example everyone knows that MLK was a master orator. How dose AAVE inform the stylized speech of Baptist preachers? I'm searching the web now... here's is an interesting paper:

• Amen and Hallelujah preaching: Discourse functions in African American sermons
• Understanding African American Rhetoric: Classical Origins to Contemporary Innovations By Ronald L. Jackson, Elaine B. Richardson

futurebird 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of subject certainly belongs in WP. I think that if this article does justice to it and other matters, the article will need to be broken up, but that would not necessarily be a bad thing.

I haven't studied discourse (anything above the sentence level) or sociolinguistics and I'm neither well qualified to work on this aspect of AAVE or (sorry) particularly interested. (One can only be particularly interested in so much.) But I'd very much welcome the input of other editors who have read up and fully digested worthwhile, reliable sources, who know what they're talking about, and who will cite their sources. -- Hoary 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Verb table

Can someone with the requisite knowledge fill out the third column of the following table? I think it would be helpful to have in the article once filled out. —Lowellian (reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

	Standard English	African-American Vernacular English
simple present	I walk.	??
simple past	I walked.	??
simple future	I will walk.	??
present perfect	I have walked.	??
past perfect	I had walked.	??
future perfect	I will have walked.	??
simple present progressive	I am walking.	??
simple past progressive	I was walking.	??
simple future progressive	I will be walking.	??
present perfect progressive	I have been walking.	??
past perfect progressive	I had been walking.	??
future perfect progressive	I will have been walking.	??

—Lowellian (reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This chart isn't really very useful. AAVE has a very different aspect system than standard English, so many of these forms have no direct equivalent in AAVE. Also, your examples are all quite formal. For example, simple future would more likely be "I'm going to walk" than "I will walk" in everyday speech. The above unsigned post is a perfect example of the mindset we're trying to avoid with this article. Thanks. Makerowner 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: When Makerowner says "above unsigned post" he is referring to the post of this diff: [2]. I moved that post by anonymous user 68.201.118.165 up above to the heading and dialogue to which he or she seemed to actually be responding. —Lowellian (reply) 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people say "I'll walk." They just contract "I will walk"; I think that's as common as adding the "am going to." —Lowellian (reply) 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a single direct equivalent, could editors please give several possible equivalents? —Lowellian (reply) 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea, but it does seem odd. Usually when one writes about a certain language or lect X for speakers of language or lect Y, one doesn't explain Y in terms of X but instead X in terms of Y. -- Hoary 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand your point correctly, then wouldn't simply switching the second and third columns achieve what you're saying? —Lowellian (reply) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to think of it this way. Imagine a hypothetical person standing somewhere who speaks only, say, General American. And he or she says, "I'll walk to the store." Now replace that hypothetical person with a different hypothetical person who has the same mood/intent and is in the same circumstances and is identical except that he or she speaks only AAVE. What would that person say? Once we know this, we can fill in the simple future row. Do this for the rest of the phrases in the table, and the rest of the table can be filled out. —Lowellian (reply) 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

	Standard English	African-American Vernacular English
simple present	I walk.	I walk.
simple past	I walked.	I walked.
simple future	I will walk.	I'm'a walk.
present perfect	I have walked.	I done walked.
past perfect	I had walked.	I had walked.
future perfect	I will have walked.	I woulda walked.
simple present progressive	I am walking.	I'm walkin'.
simple past progressive	I was walking.	I was walkin'.
simple future progressive	I will be walking.	I'm'a be walkin'.
present perfect progressive	I have been walking.	I been walkin'.
past perfect progressive	I had been walking.	I was walkin'.
future perfect progressive	I will have been walking.	I'm'a be walkin'.

It's pretty irrelevant, but I filled it--68.201.118.165 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, 68.201.... I appreciate it! It's interesting to see. —Lowellian (reply) 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While it may be useful to some people, I think putting a chart like this in the article would be a bad idea, because it is an oversimplification. For example, for StEng "I'm walking", AAVE could have "I'm walkin" or "I be walkin" with different meanings that both fit under the StEng equivalent. For the present perfect "I done walked" and "I bin walked" both fit into StEng "I have walked", again with different meanings. It's better to simply define these forms for themselves than to try to "translate" them into StEng. Makerowner 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Literature

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include a section on the literary uses of this variety of English? Itsmejudith 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NAACP

I agree that ebonics is just a pervasion of english. It is not a symbol african culture, but a reminder of the damage that was done when they were forced to relocate to America as slaves. They were poorly educated, and this passed on from generation to generation. In today's world, however, we believe that everyone regardless of race deserves the same basic education and now must try to undo this damage. Even the representatives of the black community, the naacp, concurs and I think it should be contributed to the criticism section. It is at this link http://www.largesock.com/writing/webonics.html and even has works cited. Now, if the naacp agrees with this stance, then that is a big criticism toward ebonics. At this link, http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic-issue.html, someone goes on to say that it should be considered its own language, using the reason as it actually being a "more efficient" system. About as efficient as saying "double plus good" I think. It uses the same words as english, even less, just in a different and degraded way by merely omitting parts of the english system rather than actually incorporating its own innovations. If efficiency is a reason, then by all means we should start taking whole words out of the English language and converting everyone to the Newspeak of 1984. This would result in the desecration of the rich culture of the english language that stretches back centuries, which is the exact point George Orwell was trying to make when he wrote the concept. My point is, the NAACP sees ebonics and its acceptance as wrong and I think it should be incorporated into the article. If "culture" is the reason to support ebonics, than I think we should start teaching authentic african languages than supporting and continuing the rape of the english language. It is all just another reason to not have to learn what has been accepted as the standard but make an unneeded "exception" and making everyone conform to it. I doubt people who use ebonics would actually take the time to learn original african languages, again just an excuse to not have to learn proper english either. While it may be "easier", it leaves them at the status quo of inferior education that african americans fought so hard for in the past.

... added in this series of edits on 17 April 2007 by some IP with this edit history

Thank you for your comments.

I agree that ebonics is just a pervasion of english. I think you mean "perversion". If you do, then you're unaware of the simple facts about dialects in general and AAVE in particular. (If you actually do mean "pervasion" -- a word I don't think I've seen used other than by Max Beerbohm! -- then I agree with you.)

It is not a symbol african culture: I guess you mean "a symbol of African culture". No, I don't think it is either.

Even the representatives of the black community, the naacp, concurs and I think it should be contributed to the criticism section. It is at this link http://www.largesock.com/writing/webonics.html and even has works cited. That page appears to be a grade school essay by somebody calling himself "Johnny Wishbone"; it's not on the NAACP site. It does indeed cite other sources; perhaps you should chase those up rather than bothering with "Johnny Wishbone".

At this link, http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic-issue.html, someone goes on to say that it should be considered its own language, using the reason as it actually being a "more efficient" system. About as efficient as saying "double plus good" I think. It uses the same words as english, even less, just in a different and degraded way by merely omitting parts of the english system rather than actually incorporating its own innovations. This isn't just "somebody"; it's Ralph Fasold. I'd have hoped that anybody bothering to comment on an article here on AAVE would be familiar with Fasold, but it seems not. The string "more efficient" occurs twice; you're probably referring to this one: Such verb forms are frequently cited as evidence of slovenly English. Under analysis, however, they are shown to fit into an impressive verbal system that functions more efficiently than the English system does. Once this becomes clear, it is amazing to see Ebonic presented as inferior to English. Fasold has carefully yet concisely explained something about aspect marking in AAVE, but you don't seem to have read what he wrote. He shows that this is quite unlike using English just in a different and degraded way by merely omitting parts of the english [sic] system rather than actually incorporating its own innovations. On the contrary, he shows that the addition to standard English of "be —in" is the addition of a habitual form. Please reread what Fasold writes.

You end While [AAVE] may be "easier", it leaves [its speakers] at the status quo of inferior education that african americans [sic] fought so hard for [sic] in the past. I think you mean that they fought to transcend it; surely they didn't fight for inferior education.

This talk page is not for the discussion of AAVE; it's instead for the discussion of the article about AAVE. So we shouldn't be discussing this here. But briefly: First, there's no reason to think that AAVE is intrinsically easier (although of course any language or lect is easier for its own native speakers than are alternatives; so for example Beijing Chinese is hugely easier for its native speakers than AAVE is for them). Secondly, you ignore the possibility of code-switching. Thirdly, you don't show how lect and inferior education are linked. Fourthly, it seems bizarre to blame African Americans for the way the US educational system now obviously fails even Plessy v. Ferguson. I suggest that you read the works of Jonathan Kozol; his recent book The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America is particularly illuminating about this. -- Hoary 23:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant perversion, and you are right about my concluding sentence, but I usually do not proofread this was actually before I was leaving for work. And I did not blame african americans, but I am blaming the US system for reinforcing the damage rather than progressing. I glanced over what you said, I am not in the real business of altering articles anyways, but I did think it was important to note that the naacp was not in favor of it. I realize that the link itself is not a credible source but there are works cited down there. I left this for people who maybe could use this, but if I have time I will hunt those sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.132.140.244 (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the amicable reply. To me, it's very strange to think that the NAACP or any organization would or wouldn't "be in favor of" any lect. Lects are linguistic and social facts; other than in very odd circumstances indeed (e.g. the decision to revive/reinvent Hebrew, or of course in a totalitarian society) you can't persuade groups of people to change the way they speak. What you can do is do such things as persuade teachers to use one lect (or even language) rather than another. Maybe the NAACP had/has some position on that. "Johnny Wishbone" cites www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_36/education/ed25.txt; maybe that existed when he cited it, but it doesn't exist now. Here's the NAACP; unfortunately its searchbox wasn't working when I tried it seconds ago. I do however have access to a couple of good books on the social/political aspects of AAVE and I'll look this up when time permits. -- Hoary 04:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a tidbit very briefly quoting the NAACP on the subject: The NAACP called ebonics "a cruel joke," 25 years after declaring it was "a cruel hoax." The article continues: These well-meaning but largely ignorant critics claim that because of cultural deprivation, Black English speakers have linguistic deficiencies, and that thought is restricted because Black English is a deficient, substandard language. (Walter M. Brasch). No further sources, unfortunately. Pinkville 11:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While, again, this isn't really the place to debate the merits and demerits of AAVE, I had to answer this point:

It uses the same words as english, even less, just in a different and degraded way by merely omitting parts of the english system rather than actually incorporating its own innovations.

AAVE is not like Newspeak. The problem with Newspeak was not that it omitted words, but that it omitted entire concepts. On the other hand, AAVE speakers find that they're able to express all the concepts that they need. If they couldn't, they'd invent a way to express them, the same way any speaker of any language handles the situation. Any English sentence can be translated to AAVE, so, obviously, there is no significant omission of concepts going on. The same cannot be said of Newspeak. You're comparing apples and oranges. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one dialect?

The article seems to discuss AAVE as if it were just one dialect. I have trouble believing that there's a single dialect that could be called AAVE, or even a single standard for it. For instance, in the Aspect marking section, the article lists phrases such as "he be steady workin'" and "he been had that job", but neither phrase sounds familiar to me. (I'm not a native AAVE speaker myself, but I've had a lot of exposure to it and do sometimes subconsciously shift into an AAVE-like dialect if it seems appropriate.) Also, a lot of the time, AAVE phrases and standard English phrases are interchangeable (in the dialect I'm familiar with, not necessarily all dialects, of course). The standard English phrases may be less idiomatic, but I wouldn't consider them "wrong" AAVE (but not all standard English is AAVE; legalese, for instance, would feel completely out of place). I think the article does a little too much to contrast AAVE from standard English; somebody who isn't already familiar with AAVE might get the mistaken impression that there is much less potential for overlap than there actually is. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're describing has more to do with code-switching than dialectal variation within AAVE. As you said, a lot of people use standard English to a certain extent within AAVE. As for the two verb aspects you mentioned, I have heard them and I've seen them in the literature. I know that invariant "be" is an innovation from younger, urban AAVE speakers and has been spreading in frequency of use and in contexts in which it can be used. The 'remote phase BIN' is an old feature of AAVE; some of the earliest descriptions of Black speech mention it. Makerowner 12:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is work on on the spectrum of creoles (see Post-creole speech continuum) and also on local variation of languages, which would suggest that what you observe is valid. However I would have thought some of this goes without saying, we can't cover every idiolect! Similarly some of those phrases wuld not have seemed out of place in 1980s England, others would. Rich Farmbrough, 12:44 27 April 2007 (GMT).

I was wondering about the variation in dialects for AAVE as well. In my experience, AAVE is spoken differently in Detroit than it is in Los Angeles or Atlanta, for example. AAVE is not my first dialect but I picked it up in adolescence. An example that stands out to me is the use of "say" to introduce quotations. I have never heard this in my life, the variation I knew in AAVE is "was/be like", as in "she be like 'blah blah'", which I'm sure isn't a melding of SAE into AAVE. This said, of course there are dialectal variations, but it would seem that dialectal variations are what create separate dialects. SAE as a dialect is pretty uniform, as are other regional dialects. Is AAVE the same way, as in a Midwestern AAVE or a New England AAVE? What degree of variation would constitute a different dialect altogether?--Marinabreeze 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't speak AAVE at all, but luckily I have Green's book (recommended!) at my side. One of the first points that she makes (pp. 1–2) is that yes, there is regional variation. However, this isn't something that she dwells on. Not only don't I speak AAVE, I also don't speak SAE; however, it's my impression that this "quotative" use of like is common in the informal speech of people (particularly younger people) whose English is, or is close to, SAE. So although it wouldn't have come from what we might call "core" SAE, it's imaginable that it does come from majority speech. (This use of like is of considerable interest to linguists. Google for "quotative like" and see. Incidentally, hedging like is used by God.) -- Hoary 07:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sociological impact

Can we add something to this article about AAVE's impact on American culture, and American culture's response? I'm specifically thinking about a recent episode of Boston Legal. Denny Crane told a Black intern interviewee that he was "articulate." When pressed on the issue, he said that he simply meant the young man did not "sound Black." The implications of this are tied into concepts of "systematic racism" and the perception of accent in America, where people with British or Newscaster-style Midwestern accents are generally perceived as smarter than people with Southern, Wisconsin, Texas, New York, or AAVE-derived accents, while the latter are considered wiser in matters of the heart and personal life in general. Such a section should also reference the Boondocks comic strip and TV show. --205.201.141.146 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He finna go to work.

This is ridiculous. So many people looking at this page and no one has discovered that HE FINNA GO TO WORK means "HE'S FINALLY GOING TO WORK." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lex94 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 May 2007.

What? No, it definitely means "He's fixing to go to work" (i.e., he's about go to work). I heard AAVE speakers say "fixin' to" to mean "about to" all the time, and it naturally contracts to "finna to" in rapid speech. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was Lex94's attempt at a witticism. I was not amused. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jive

The leading sentence in this article says that jive is a synonym, albeit one with possible pejorative connotations, for AAVE. Is this true? The disambiguation page, on the other hand, says that jive is a "parodied version" of AAVE. This strikes me as unquestionably false, and should be changed, but there are still other options. Perhaps "jive" has more to do with slang. Have young Black Americans ever spoken of their grandmothers as speaking jive, for example? If not, it would be a strong indication that it doesn't refer to AAVE....Jive is obviously not their preferred term for AAVE, but is there even any indication that linguists acknowledge it as a colloquial one? .... added on 8 May 2007 by 205.212.75.246

Thank you for deftly bringing up a very good point. I've just now looked in four linguistics books about AAVE; "jive" appears in the index of only two of them. Lisa Green (African American English p14) doesn't use the term herself but says that it "refers to cool talk or talk used to put someone on"; Geneva Smitherman (Talkin That Talk p84) says that in the 60s and 70s "black speech events, such as signifying, shucking, and joke telling, were caricatured as 'jive talk' and 'ghetto speech' in 'Dyn-O-Mite' television shows and in the local and national press." So I see no reason to think that jive has been seriously used as a synonym for AAVE, and I have good reason to think that it has been used to mean something else. I've just edited this article accordingly, and I'm about to attend to Jive. -- Hoary 10:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm all about these edits. But seeing the disambig rely on that poor lonely signifying article, obviously the proper thing to do for the time being, makes an additional suggestion come to mind. How about a general article on AA speech, which would of course link to AAVE, and to signifying, and to snapping, fussing, etc. if they ever get their own pages? A lot of laypeople seem to be getting very interested in the subject, in and out of WP; and they're probably looking for some help with the big picture and any terminology they may have heard.

A related advantage: The present AAVE article contains an unusually large amount of information about language politics--and, incredible as it seems, the debate seems to be about whether to include more. It seems like for most language entries on WP, the amount of specific politics info is modest; and more general info on prestige, etc. can be linked to for the reader to consult. But this is American politics, race-related politics no less, so of course there's more information--and consequently the article is very unwieldy. Why not move the prestige politics to a subsection of a general AA speech article (add.: especially since nearly every political or media figure who has commented on AAVE has also failed to distinguish it from other AA speech behaviors), and leave AAVE looking more like a normal language article?

Just a suggestion, if you or any other editor out there thinks it's a good idea. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.75.246 (talk • contribs) at 16:39, 8 May 2007

I think an article about what might be called AA speech in general, with summaries about signifying, snapping, etc as well as morphosyntax and the rest, would (or could) be a fine idea. Most of this is outside my own areas of expertise (I'm not AA and I haven't studied sociolinguistics). Given enough time and energy I think I could do a pretty competent job of it (probably with some ghastly errors, but anyway something that could easily be fixed by somebody more knowledgable than myself). So all you have to do is give me the time and energy.....

On societal stuff in the existing article: If you look at even earlier discussions (now "archived", see the links at the top), you'll see that even after you've discounted comments that are blatant trolling, racism or miscellaneous stupidity, there are users loudly claiming that (i) the premiss that AAVE is a lect that can be treated as straightforwardly as any other (Newfoundland English, [British] Received Pronunciation, etc.) is actually the expression of a point of view (no less subjective than the PoV that AAVE is "defective"); and/or that (ii) the "controversy" over AAVE (AAVE itself, the extent to which AAVE is "taught" in schools, etc.) is of much more interest to most people using a general encyclopedia than are the linguistic features of AAVE. So, to simplify a bit, in the fairly recent past this article has been a battleground between (a) people who think that AAVE should be dispassionately described (AAVE partisans or similar in the eyes of the other side), and (b) people who think that controversies over AAVE should be more prominent (recyclers of ignorance, or trivia-obsessed, in the eyes of the other side). The article in its present form is I think the result of an undeclared truce.

It's obvious to me that AAVE is an urban basilect and also the lect of an ethnic group that's discriminated against. No surprise, then, that it has low prestige. However, some people hereabouts still claim in all seriousness (and considerable ignorance) that it's inherently defective (all the stuff about how "lazy" speakers drop the ends of words) and that its low prestige comes from this. So even an attempt to write about its prestige is likely to be difficult. However, you're very welcome to try.

I strongly advise you to get a user ID and to use it. (Easy, free!) -- Hoary 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to have endangered your fragile and hard-won peace there. I realize now that I secretly harbored a somewhat elitist desire. It's just that I've seen a surprising number of articles that are a halfway decent quick source for academic subjects. But really, this has only happened where (a) the subject matter is too esoteric for anyone to even try fucking it up, or (b) it's esoteric enough that the article is dominated by editors who enforce the same rule that professionally encyclopedists do on such matters: NPOV means neutral with respect to the academic sociology of the subject; and if you wish to remedy any Eurocentric, anti-Christian, etc. biases in academia itself, you can fight that battle somewhere more productive. It's a policy that's simple, intelligent--and, as far as I can see, completely illegitimate. WP shows no favoritism for academic sociology; to the extent that its policy is clearly described, "neutrality" is supposed to reflect global sociology in some way.

I guess I was so excited that this policy sometimes accidentally produced good results that I was unconsciously plotting to reconcile populist "neutrality" with academic "neutrality" by sociologically balkanizing WP around the academic articles in order to protect their purity--I figured there could be an article describing the academic consensus about fossils, or whatever, with a nod to dissenters that that's all the article aspired to describe. I'd have been perfectly happy with that; but I've since discovered that my fantasy is a heresy known as "forking" and is decidedly not how WP has decided to organize itself. I still suspect that, while apparently unwieldy, my way might be better for the general public: What could be more valuable and convenient than immediately and clearly discerning what the experts think? As long as we're forced into a Dover-Board-of-Ed style mandate to "teach the controversy," we should at least make things clear for the students. ...In the end, I guess it's really just my idle dream; but I'm certainly grateful that there are people with enough faith in WP to make it as good as it can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.212.74.125 (talk • contribs)

I think I agree with the anon user here, particularly about

and if you wish to remedy any Eurocentric, anti-Christian, etc. biases in academia itself, you can fight that battle somewhere more productive.

There are certainly a lot of edit wars that orginate not over whether or not a concept is academically recognized and studied by reliable sources, but rather over whether or not the concept is somehow "fair" or "unfair".

(I do not, however, agree with your stance on forking, mostly because when there's a controversial topic, it's hard to determine who the experts are, or at least which camp of experts is the "consensus" camp. Also, even on a definite academically agreed-upon topic, non-forking really cuts down on vandalism, outrage, and general disruption by the disgruntled 10% who disagree with the majority of academics for whatever reason - a minor sacrifice IMO for less work and less chance of false information getting in there.) </side comment>

The NPOV tags, the "I'm offended by this" comments in the talk archives.... they all seem to miss the point of the article, which is to sum up the breadth of reviewed, verified knowledge on the article's subject, not to right a perceived injustice. But maybe I'm just rambling. × CredoFromStart 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tags

I'm a little reluctant to stir this whole thing up again, but why are there POV tags on this article? I can't see any major issues of bias here; the only thing I've noticed is that the creole origin theory seems to get a little more weight than the retention theory. When I see an article with a POV tag, I tend to be a little less confident in its value and I don't think it's necessary here. I'd like to remove them in a few days, after we've had time to discuss this and hear any objections. Makerowner 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tags. If anyone objects, please discuss it here. Makerowner 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article dose seem to be somewhat in favour of AAVE, but maybe just some minor re-writing rather than a POV tag is best. MattUK 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Garrard McClendon

I removed a dead link to "Garrard Mcclendon" (sic) and I commented that it seemed to have been added as a joke. However the editor's history argued against that, so I googled Garrard McClendon and found that he is an author and lecturer on this topic, and he seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Still -- until there's actually a Wikipedia article, let's hold off on the link from this one. And I take back what I wrote about the link being a joke. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Two unrelated subjects presented as one

"AAVE also has contributed to Standard American English words of African origin ("gumbo", "goober", "yam", "banjo") and slang expressions ("cool," "hip," "hep cat" "bling"). In areas of close socialization between speakers of AAVE and other groups of people, a greater number of non-black speakers exist." Gumbo, goober, etc., are not dialectical but rather direct borrings from a native tongue. Cool, hip, etc., are dialectical/vernacular slang. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Dictionary of American Regional English is the only authority worth bothering with for matters such as this, and don't have immediate access to a copy of it right now. So I'm not going to comment on the facts. However, I'd point out that it's imaginable that "gumbo" etc entered AAVE (or proto-AAVE) and thence entered Standard English. -- Hoary 07:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proto-AAVE likely; those words have existed in English for quite some time. The OED is actually the best source, and I'll be adding some refs from the OED.

In any case, we really are doing an apples and oranges bit with that section. I'll probably just remove the "and". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

which bow?

"can make bold, bowl, and bow homophones". Bow as in bow-tie? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, bow-tie. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought so, but we need to be careful with heteronyms. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)