Talking the Talk:
Ebonics and "Standard" English
by David Cope
Language . . . is not an abstract construction of the learn'd, or of dictionary makers, but is something arising
out of the work, needs, ties, joys, affections, tastes, of long generations of
humanity, and has its bases broad
and low, close to the ground. Its
final decisions are made by the masses, people nearest the concrete, having
most to do with actual land and sea.
—Walt Whitman
Author’s Note: This article and the accompanying research
developed as a result of the 1997 flap over the Oakland School Board’s use of
Ebonics (Black English Vernacular or African American English Vernacular) as a
bridging tool for students who speak variant dialects of the language. The central issue—recognizing the
linguistic realities of some language communities within our society and giving
respect to the “language of the fathers and mothers” while teaching students
ways to bridge the gap to market English—is still a problem for many in
our society. The essay and the
research continue to be relevant, and indeed may spark some understanding of
(and even delight in) the many inventive uses to which English may be adapted.
The
Oakland School Board's recent decision to recognize Ebonics—in linguistic
parlance Black or African American English Vernacular—as the language
spoken by most of its African American students has raised an enormous flap
from the moment the resolution passed.
Media headlines shrieked that this was a ploy to get federal dollars, a
caving-in to lowered educational standards, an insult to African Americans, and
commentators eagerly queued up to be the next to make pronouncements on the
foolishness of the Oakland educators.
The debate became a charade:
today’s pronouncements were retractions, clarifications, or
qualifications of yesterday’s.
Long
aware that the public press and media more often than not jump to conclusions
and distort issues dealing with racial matters, I leaned back and awaited the
delayed but inevitable clarification of these issues. I was also delighted that this should become a public
debate: I’d planned to teach Zora Neale Hurston’s dialect masterpiece, Their Eyes Were Watching God, in my
winter multicultural literature class, and would introduce the issue of language
and its communities as a major critical question raised by the text. Now these concerns would be even more
sharply highlighted by the current debate—and once the barrage subsided a
bit, the questions came into focus: what are the core concerns of Ebonics and
its relationship to so-called standard English? Further, what constitutes a “language,” and how does that
differ from a dialect—and is the distinction important in the long run? Finally, when one speaks of a
“standard” language, what does one mean?
The
Oakland School Board caused, I think, some of its own problems by the poor
choice of language for their resolution.
Describing Ebonics as a “genetic” characteristic among African
Americans, for example, was immediately taken to mean that blacks couldn’t
master the English of the marketplace because as a group they were predisposed
to think and speak this different language. When this word choice became the
center of controversy, Oakland spokespeople quickly pointed out that
“genetically based” referred to “linguistic genesis,” not the supposed
stereotype or genetic fallacy. A
similar problem confronted them in the choice of the word language: how could a
variation on a standardized pattern be seen as an entirely different language?
That
argument continues to rage, but I suggest that when one recognizes the point of
Oakland’s decision to reform its educational policies, the entire argument over
language or dialect becomes a red herring. Toni Cook, spokesperson for the school board, has recently
explained the program to clarify the board’s decision and the reasoning behind
it. First, the recognition of
Ebonics as the language many African Americans speak at home and within their
community structures is a simple recognition of a cultural reality. Connected to this is the necessity of
removing the stigma associated with this kind of usage: in teaching, one does not correct non-standard usage so much as
one teaches the student how to translate one’s
own speech into the language required for success in the marketplace and on the
job. The goal of this
reorientation is to require that students attain mastery of “standard”
English—the language of the market—by twelfth grade. Achieving this goal requires a dual
methodology: teachers and school
workers should be trained to be sensitive to the kinds of emotional messages
they send regarding language usage and to understand how an Ebonic
phrase may be translated into English as a means to help the student.
Certainly
some may dismiss this as coddling the student, but one need only recall the
teacher who marked up a student’s face with a message to her parents to
understand how a negative message does not teach the student the proper way to
learn, but rather reinforces a suspicious attitude about teachers and the
schools themselves. Subtler
changes—from correction to translation—allow the student to
see the dignity of his or her home language while understanding the need to
focus on marketplace English for an eventual career.
Thus
it seems that the Oakland board is trying to provide a pragmatic bridge for
students who’d been unable to grasp the importance of marketplace mastery. In this context, the difference between
a “language” and a “dialect” is an academic red herring. The point is to recognize that
particular kinds of language usage are reinforced within an identifiable group,
and that to be successful in a marketplace which values another kind of
language use, students need to translate their ideas
into that language, to learn how to “talk the talk.”
Yet
there’s a further question: what
is meant when we refer to a language as “standard”? When we speak of standard English,
are we referring to contemporary usage, to the languages of the various authors
of the curriculum, to language that “follows the rules?” Is Shakespeare, for example, writing in
standard English? Are his latinate
grammatical phrases, his enormous and often arcane vocabulary standard? If not, why do generations of students
struggle with his language and master it—beyond the questions of plot,
character, and dramatic construction?
Why do poets and scholars who know the English language most intimately
prefer the bard’s own usage instead of a modern adaptation? Even more problematic, what do we do
with Chaucer? Henry V may explain
to his Katherine that he would have her learn “how perfectly I love her, and
that is good English,” but what does one do with an English whose “shoures” are “soote” and bathe
“every veyne in swich licour of which vertu engendred is the flour”? The answer is obvious:
few are initially comfortable with the strange, alien English of
Elizabethan England, and even fewer find instantaneous pleasure in the lilting
speech of six hundred years ago—yet these are two of the greatest authors
in the canon, masters of complex and subtle communication, and as any
Chaucerian or Shakespearean knows, familiarity breeds delight.
I
suggest, then, that when we refer to what has been called “standard English,”
what we are really referring to is market
English—the kind of usage expected for success in a career. Such a changed perspective removes the
implied superiority of standard and
more realistically names the role that particular encoding of English serves in
our culture. The language itself
is a far more complicated thing that the kinds of coding English teachers or
cultural commentators call standard:
it is a growing, changing thing whose customary usages change as surely
as the passing of years. One may witness this phe-nomenon
by observing the vocabulary and sentence structures of different eras in the
writings of the prose masters. Try
reading, for example, Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620), Locke’s “Second Essay on Civil
Government” (1688), John Stuart
Mill’s “On the Subjection of Women” (1861), and Martin Luther King’s famous
“Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963) in sequence. Except in the celebrated periodic sentence of King’s
fourteenth paragraph, one will note a gradual but certain progression toward
shorter sentences with less dependent clauses, more and more efficient (and
shorter) paragraphs, a greater attentiveness to defining abstractions in terms
of specific concrete examples as a means to improve clarity, and changing
customs regarding punctuation.
More importantly, the samples show that the “standard” English of one
period becomes a prose style difficult of access to later readers: not only does the concept of
standardization ring false in the face of language’s distinct propensity to
change and redefinition, but it quite simply privileges a conceptual stasis
that misunderstands that growing, changing code. Even more important to this discussion is the fact that
language grows most effectively in dialect, slang, and such linguistic usage as
Ebonics. Speaking of slang, Walt
Whitman noted that non-standard English is a major source of the revitalization
of the language:
Slang . . . is the wholesome
fermentation or eructation of those processes eternally active in language, by
which froth and specks are thrown up, mostly to
pass away; tho occasionally to settle and permanently
to crystallize. To make it
plainer, it is certain that many of the oldest and solidest words we use, were
originally generated from the daring and license of slang.
So
it is with Ebonics: consider the Ebonic words that have become part of common parlance in
the past thirty years—rock and roll, jazz, hip, cool, gig, jive, dig, mojo, kick, slip, lay it on me, rip-off, cool out, chill,
uptight, wannabe, the Man, rap and rapping, dissing,
signifying and testifying, among others.
Beyond vocabulary, there’s a truly lyric give and take in Ebonic dialogue, a sense that language should jump and
pause with dramatic subtlety, that tone is as important as pronunciation and that real clarity grows
through that multifaceted emphasis.
Thus,
as I approach teaching Zora Neal Hurston’s
masterpiece, I will ask my students to learn how to translate, just as I asked
them to translate Hamlet when they
first met Shakespeare, and I’ll expect that the essays they write for my class
be constructed in the market English that will give them greater access to real
careers. Despite this recognition
that the English of the marketplace is important for one’s material success and
marketplace communication, however, I also know that “standard” English is a
misnomer when applied to the greatest masterpieces of our literature, that
language itself is a much larger thing than the set of rules so often cited as
evidence that there’s a “right way” and a “wrong way.” And the Oakland school board, whatever
its failings in writing a clearly phrased policy, seems to have it right: when Ebonics speakers need a job, they
need to learn to talk the talk—to translate
into the language of the marketplace.
That fact should not obscure from them the great treasure found in what
Toni Morrison has called “the speech of our mothers and fathers.”
Associated
Links
Overview of the Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Ebonics_controversy
The Oakland School Board
Resolution: http://linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/ebonics-res1.html
The Revised Oakland School Board
Resolution: http://linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/ebonics-res2.html
* * * *
Black
English Vernacular (BEV) / Ebonics
and The English of the Marketplace
BENEATHA You
didn't tell us what Alaiyo means . . . for all I
know, you might be calling me Little Idiot or something . . .
ASAGAI Well . . . let me see . . . I do
not know how just to explain it . . . The sense of a thing can be so different
when it changes languages.
—Lorraine
Hansberry, A Raisin in The Sun
In the discussion of African American language, some writers
have obfuscated the tone and style of Ebonics. Good-natured endeavors to explain the persistence of Ebonics
in African American culture have become crippled. In attempting to refute the negative views of black
language, some neo-radical linguists of the 1960s adopted the idea of black
language as nonstandard and inflicted a confusion
about our culture that has proved difficult to eliminate. They not only accepted the dialectical
structure of American racist ideology, which sees white as standard and others
as non-standard, even substandard, but borrowed from the twisted formulations
of a supremacist logic. . . The genius of the Africans
who created this unique linguistic response to their environment cannot be
gainsaid. Yoruba, Asante, Ibo,
Hausa, Mandingo, Serere, and Wolof had to combine
elements of their language in order to communicate with each other and the
English. Ebonics was a creative
enterprise, out of the materials of interrelationships and the energies of the
African ancestral past.
—Molefi Kete Asante, The Afrocentric
Idea (57)
i cant
count the number of times i have viscerally wanted to
attack deform n maim the language that i waz taught to hate myself in/ the language that perpetuates
the notions that cause pain to every black child as he/she learns to speak of
the world & the "self." yes/ being an afro-american
writer is something to be self-conscious abt/ &
yes/ in order to think n communicate the thoughts n feelings i want to think n communicate/ i haveta fix my tool to my needs/ i
have to take it apart to the bone/ so that the malignancies/ fall away/ leaving
us space to literally create our own image.
—Ntozake Shange, foreword from Three Pieces
African
American English: A Select
Bibliography
Sociolinguistic
Background
Hall, Jr., Robert A. Pidgin and Creole Languages. Ithaca: Cornell U P, 1966. [Hall's book is a basic introduction to
the terminology and areas of language study involved in recognizing and
understanding pidgins and creoles (phonology, ortho-graphy,
morphology, syntax, vocabulary and idiom). He goes on to discuss the linguistic, social, and political
significance of such language use, yet is thoroughly aware that his book is an
early formulation in a burgeoning field:
"the actual work of exploration has only begun," and the
"importance [of studying these languages] for linguistic theory is
great," especially in "further investigation of their relation to
social structure" (147).]
Hill, Kenneth C., ed. The Genesis of Language.
Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1979.
[This anthology contains rigorous discussions of the process of pidginization and creolization
among Africans of the Carribbean. I have commented on three of the
essays contained herein, below:
Gillian
Sankoff's "The Genesis of a Language"
points out that, unlike ordinary language formation (such as when a child
learns how to construct language by learning from adults), pid-
ginization and creolization
are necessary phases in the construction of a new language "both in the
personal and institutional sense"—involving the creation of a shared
language among disparate populations thrown together through the institutions
of slavery or indentured labor (as in Atlantic and Pacific plantation
cultures). Sankoff
ex-plains the process of pidginization and creolization by pointing out that the conditions of
plantation culture created "a catastrophic break in linguistic
tradition" in which people were "cut off from their native language
groups" with no shared second language and in a situation where "the
size of no one language group was sufficient to ensure its survival." In this cauldron, people had to invent
a shared language through these processes.
Sankoff also points out that once there are wantoks––in
Tok Pisin, a sizable group
of speakers sharing a language—"pressure . . . to participate in new
languge learning" is "probably . . .
somewhat reduced" (25). These
points are well taken, though one must be careful of stating the last claim
without a caveat: those noting a reduced pressure to create new language
should be wary of neglecting the continuousness
of the process, whether at the initially frenetic pace or in the general
and continuous invention of words & reinvention of meanings for established
words. Even when cultures are
relatively stable, new words, meanings, and word combinations result as
generational markers and through introduction of new technology or any influx
of people with even minutely different speech habits.
Rodney
Moag's "The Systems Perspective: The Genesis of Language" cites Voorhoeve's claim that creolization
soon develops a distinctive culture involving an "oral literature, . . .
dance, special religious practices, food, etc"; citing Stewart, he points
out that "in situations where the creole does
not operate in a relationship to an apparently related standard, it functions
as a vernacular rather than a dialect" (65). Much of the proof that follows these initial claims involves
demonstrating that creole languages—defined by
some creolists as "unnatural
languages"—function much like so-called "natural"
languages. This attempt to link
two "kinds" does nothing to demystify language formation, accepting a
dichotomy that in its most insidious form privileges "standard" languages
as something static and shared by all.
It is most important at this point that proponents of
"standard" languages realize that their mode of exchange is fluid as
well—and that in fact the distinction is patently false, that all
language is continually reforming itself.
The greatest value of studying pidginization
and creolization is that in these subjects we may
more closely observe the reformulation of vocabulary and grammar as it occurs
in any language where two cultures must meet.
Mervyn C. Alleyne's "On The
Genesis of Language" seems early in the essay to accept creolization not
as a typological class of languages or as a necessary stage in the process of
all language reformulation involving two or more cultures in contact, but as a
class of languages formulated in the 19th century (90-91), yet later on, in
discussing the relationship of a pidgin, creole, and
post-creole formulation and the extent to which one
may see a continuum or progression of one from another—and between the
poles of "maximally discrete linguistic systems in coexistence" and
"a maximally homogeneous system in monolingualism"
(105), he uses the term specifically in the sense of process.
Despite
this apparent confusion, Alleyne's basic claims are
challenging and important. First,
he claims that creolization occurs differently under
differing circumstances, involving such variations as
the degree of contact the individual has with speakers of the other language
and one's place in the social hierarchy, as well as the extent to which
speakers of the dominant or standard language withdraw after emanci-pation, etc.
In some cases, the result is diglossia,
"preserving one language which is the upper language and another which is
the crystallizaztion of the interlanguage
phenomena" (105); in others, the interlanguage
phenomena serves as the base for development of a new language "when the
upper language in the contact situation disappears for whatever reason"
(105). Alleyne
notes that the degree of prestige enjoyed by the creole
depends on the autonomy of the "language situation in which it
exists" (107). Further, the
extent to which they become independent languages depends on "the sense of
being codified and used in official domains" (107).
Alleyne does not address the more particular situation
experienced by African Americans in the United States, in which diglossia results from the continued presence of the upper
language in official domains, but in which the creole
population's dialect is continuously reinforced through de facto segregation in one's personal life: family, church, social and
entertainment situations, and for many, in terms of demographic
location—continued ghettoization. This seems a situation between the diglossia
situation involving the continued / continual presence of the upper language and the situation of autonomy involving
post-creole language formation, and as such requires
different negotiational strategies for language use
and integration. For these, one
must turn to Baugh, Hale-Benson, and others.
Trudgill, Peter. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction.
New York: Penguin,
1974.
[Trudgill's book remains a classic early statement of
linguistic theory, but the chapter on "language and ethnic group"
(57-83) is the specific point of focus here. As noted in the definition of creole, Trudgill
supports the thesis that Black English derives from an English creole rather than from a synthesis of British English
dialects; he further claims that BEV "functions today as a separate
ethnic-group variety which identifies its speakers as being black rather than white" (76). He also points out that African American children have a
double burden in the school system, having to master bidialectalism
and an appreciation of the occasions for code switching as part of their
education. In this context, Trudgill recommends that teachers "have some knowledge
of the linguistic correlatives of social stratification, and of the child's
dialect" in order to avoid the psychological damage of teaching so-called
standard English in a judgmental manner, and to give children greater
linguistic (and consequently, greater social) mobility (80-82).
Language and Literary Theory
Asante,
Molefi Kete. The
Afrocentric Idea. Philadelphia:
Temple U P, 1987.
[Asante's
book traces tropes and rhetorical modes of discourse in African American
culture, showing how these are related to African forms. The book is particularly useful for its
discussions of culturally significant mythoforms
involving self-discovery, healing the sufferers, the nurturing genre associated
with the motherless child, and the rhetoric of resistance and return. Such concepts as kuntu (the word employed as a
sanctifying force) and nommo
(antiphonal call and response as cultural unifier) are also useful as cultural
markers.]
Gates,
Jr., Henry Louis. The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary
Criticism. New York and
Oxford: Oxford U P, 1988.
[Gates,
Jr.'s famous study traces the motif of signifying back to its West African
roots and examines several African American texts for their use of this motif
and technique of re-reading others.]
Lexicon and Grammatical
Characteristics
Baugh,
John. Black Street Speech: Its
History, Structure, and Survival. Austin: U of Texas, 1983.
[Baugh
first establishes the premises and methodology of his study, then discusses
"specialized lexical markings and alternation" (including the
argument concerning code switching v. style shifting, topic-related shifting,
syllable con-traction and expansion, variable forestressing
of bisyllabic words, and hyper-correction); "Unique Grammatical Usage"
with discussion of syntactical constructions and their functions; and
"Phonological Variation" (including suffix variations, consonant
cluster reduction, and is and are variation). He then proceeds from these
distinctions to draw conclusions regarding educational insights, impediments to
employability, etc. The book also
features an extensive bibliography of sources; I found it to be the most
up-to-date and useful study of all these presented here.]
Dillard, J. L. Lexicon of Black English.
New York: Seabury,
1977.
[In
the context of establishing a social significance for the lexicon of BEV,
Dillard examines terms of sex and lovemaking, religion and the church, music,
terms derived from the street hustle (prostitution, gambling, narcotics), terms
derived from voodoo and conjure, etc.
His book ends by postulating that literary sources may be useful tools
in uncovering the history and linguistic connections of BEV, but that students
of the language should be cautious about making generalizations based on these
sources.]
Major,
Clarence, ed.
Juba to Jive: A Dictionary of African American
Slang. New York: Penguin,
1970, 1994.
[Just
as Black English employs grammatical variations from Standard English, so too
the dialect thrives on its vocabulary, and this is a comprehensive attempt to
capture the unique and perennially changing vocabulary that is largely
responsible for the brilliantly coded and metaphorical quality of spoken
usage. Major draws on over two
hundred years of unique terms, covering four areas: early rural slang, musical terms from the period of
1900-1960, contemporary street slang, and working class language. Terms are defined with approximate dates
of their appearance in usage, and there are cross references
to similar terms and examples of usage in context.]
Black Language in America: Origins, Characteristics, Education
Hale-Benson, Janice E. Black Children: Their Roots, Culture, and Learning Styles. Revised ed. Baltimore
and London: John Hopkins U P,
1986.
[Hale-Benson
begins by briefly considering the African Background, then
discusses the relationship between culture and cognition for three chapters;
chapters 5-7 develop a theory of education for African Americans based on
differing cognitive styles based on culture and cognition derived from their
West African heritage:
At times
the expressive styles of Black children . . . may be the cause of tension
between teachers and Black children in educational settings. These culturally
specific expressive styles may be related to academic failure, increased
disciplinary problems, placing black children in low-expectation academic
tracks, and the early termination of academic careers.
. . . . It is imperative that educators conceptualize these expressive styles .
. . so that an educational model can be developed to . . .imbue Black children
with the competencies they need to survive and be creative . . . [and to]
change the way Black children are perceived and treated in the educational
process. (103-04)]
Bentley,
Robert H., and Samuel D. Crawford, eds.. Black Language Reader. Glenview, Ill., and Brighton,
England: Scott, Foresman, 1973.
[Bentley
and Crawford organize their book in five sections: "What is a Dialect," "The Origins,"
"Black Language Today,"
"Down Where It's At:
Reports from Five Teachers," and "Where do we go from
here: Language and
Education." Although this is an older book, the articles by Ossie Davis, Wayne O'Neill, and James Sledd
are all useful in clarifying political and political-psychological issues
inherent in the relationship of Black English to Standard English. Many articles bring a humorous
recognition of the slang of the late sixties-early seventies, which in turn
leaves one pondering how quickly the language changes.]
Dillard, J. L. Black English: Its History and Usage in the United
States. New York: Random, 1972.
[Dillard's
early study begins by investigating the troubled relationship of Black English
to the academic establishment, then considers the structure and history of
Black English, ending with a prophetic note: pointing out that the Black language is "forever being rediscovered and new solutions for the resultant
problems are being sought" (265).
Dillard's conclusion (that if the teaching of Standard English fails,
school systems may have to teach via Black English) either fails to take into
account the fact that the mastery of “standard” English (however alien) is a
prerequisite for employability, or implies that a separate Black economy
employing Black English as the lingua
franca might flourish in years to come.]
Edwards,
Walter F., and Donald Winford, ed. Verb
Phrase Patterns in Black English and Creole. Detroit:
Wayne State U P, 1991.
[This
book features the work of a variety of scholars and, regarding Black English,
covers much of the same ground as Baugh, cited here, although there is more
attention to the relationships of varying dialects: White Southern speech and Black English, the verbal patterns
of black and white speakers of Coastal South Carolina, and copula variation in
Liberian settler English and American Black English. The Creole section continues this comparative pattern of
study. Overall, the book is highly
technical in its approach and features extensive bibliographies of related
sources.]
Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin and Testifying.
Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1977.
[Smitherman's
book begins with an introduction and history of Black
English structure, moving on to Black semantics and modes of discourse,
Black-White language attitudes and "social policy and educational
practice." Her discussion of the modes of discourse is a quick take on
call and response orality, testifying and signifying,
etc.--subjects handled in more detail in Asante and Gates, Jr., noted elsewhere
here. The book ends with three
appendices (Well-known Black proverbs, Exercises in BE sounds and structures,
and a Glossary of Black terms).
Some of these are a bit dated, but the list remains useful.]
Black English Glossary of Terms
and Distinctions
Note: Definitions are mostly derived from
Baugh;
sociolinguistic terms are from Hall, Jr.––both
cited above.
A. Some Sociolinguistic Terms
lingua franca: any language used as a medium of communication among people
who have no language in common (Hall xii).
pidgin: a
rudimentary language developed between parties who share no common
language. To be
a true pidgin, the language's "grammatical structure and its vocabulary
must be sharply reduced" and "the resultant language must be native
to none of those who use it" (Hall xii).
creole: a language derived from pidgin usage and which "becomes
the native language of a speech-community" (Hall xii). Hall notes that:
The only language the plantation
slaves had in common was a pidginized variety of
their masters' tongue: English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese, as the case
might be. As time passed, the
slaves married and raised families; the children of such unions perforce
learned, as their first language, the pidgin that their parents and the other
slaves spoke together in default of any other common tongue. As successive generations grew up using
the new language from earliest childhood, they re-expanded its grammatical and
lexical resources to meet all the needs of their way of living. (xiii)
Mervyne Alleyne
further notes that in the creolization process,
"Atlantic creoles owe much of their structure to the contribution of
African languages" (summarized in Hill ix). Peter Trudgill asserts that
"BEV [Black English Verna-cular] is not in
general derived from British English dialects, but rather from an English
Creole much like that of, say, Jamaica" and that distinctive features of
BEV "are the result of continuing creole
influence" (67). Further,
"even if many of the features of BEV can be found in various white
dialects, BEV itself func-tions today as a separate
ethnic-group variety which identifies its speakers as being black rather than
white" (76).
slang
(also cant,
argot, jargon): unorthodox usage
usually involving a current language fashion, usually involving
"exaggeration, violent shifts of meaning, or . . . repetition" (Hall
xv) producing new metaphors, idiomatic expressions, and terms which sometimes
later become a part of so-called standard usage, as noted by Whitman.
B. Bidialectal
and Bilingual Speech Communities
bidialectal
speech community: a community of speakers who
speak dialect variations of a "standard" language; speakers in this
community may typically "style shift" from the informal dialect to
the standard form when the social context changes, but Baugh points out that bidialectalism is "extremely difficult to master
because of minor linguistic differences" between the linguistic vernacular
and the standard which serves as a second dialect.
bilingual speech
community: a community of speakers who
speak a language different from the dominant language community; these speakers
may learn to "code shift" according to circumstances and in order to
succeed socially and economically.
In practice, many in this kind of community blend codes, as in the
"Texmex" dialects of the American
Southwest.
code blending: as in pidgin, two or more languages are mixed in a way that
allows speakers from different language communities to communicate, albeit
usually in a rudimentary way.
code switching: in bilingual communities, the pattern of switching from one
language to another according to social context. (contrasted to style shifting in bidialectal communities).
style shifting: in bidialectal communities, the
pattern of shifting from one's informal vernacular to the standard dialect used
in formal situations and especially in social contexts that require that
dialect for adequate communication.
As noted above, style shifting is difficult to master because of the
similarities between the standard dialect and the variant vernacular
dialect.
topic-related shifting: the habit of shifting from one style (dialect) to another
according to the apparent seriousness of topic or emotional attachment. Baugh notes that
"when topics of great personal importance were raised . . . some speakers
would shift toward standard English while others would not" (61). The pattern of shifting is not
predictable according to topic, but depends on "the speaker's personal
assessment" of it.
C. Lexical Marking and Alternation
hypercorrection: "any linguistic extension which exceeds the
standard," as in pickted for picked. Baugh cites two varieties of
hypercorrection: reinterpretation and regularization. Reinterpretation usually occurs when the speaker is
placed in a formal situation where, unsure of correct usage—or working
for stylistic effect, one hypercorrects, as in
"I likes going to
school." Regularization also occurs when there is a formal language context
and involves the regular addition of -s suffix or an added consonant in -ed constructions, as in "lookted"
or "loveded."
syllable contraction /
expansion: in street speech (Black and other
dialects), the tendency to contract formal pronunciation of some words in the
informal context:
"suppose" becomes "spose"
and "supposed to" is pronounced "sposeda"; "because" becomes "cos" or "cuz," and
"except" becomes "sept" or
"sep." Or: "They jes
kep on pushin cos they knowed he'd back off."
variable forestressing of bisyllabic
words: in informal situations (and
often in more formal situations), a tendency to stress the first syllable of some words whose second syllable
receives stress in standard dialect:
PO-lice; PO-lite, DE-fine, or RE-vise. This pattern is characteristic of Black
and other street dialects.
D. Grammatical Usage
aspectual Steady: steady functions
as an "intensified continuative" in progressive (verb + ing) structures, as in "we be steady jammin" or "she steady be runnin
her mouth." The word
functions as an intensifier which cannot simply be
equated to the adverb "steadily."
future perfective Be Done: use of be done with
past tense verbs to anticipate an action that will be completed—i.e. a
prediction, as in "we be done
washed all the cars by the time JoJo gets back"
(78).
invariant Be: substitution of be for is, am, and are, especially in constructions
involving habitual action or durative (incomplete) events, as in "the
teacher don't be knowing the problems like the parent," or in "them
brothers be playin. . . they be blowin
they souls out" (71).
Invariant be may also substitute for was,
as in "so they be runnin . . . right . . .
really bookin . . . and the police had all the
streets blocked off" (72).
Baugh notes that invariant be forms
occur more often when "all the speakers share the non-standard form"
(73).
is and are variation: absence of these forms of the verb to be in many dialectal constructions: "who he thinkin he be?"
or "they goin to the store"; in some cases,
substitution of invariant be for
these forms.
multiple
negation: the tendency to employ multiple
negatives when negation is called for in informal situations: "they didn't never do nothing to
nobody" or "they can't do nothing if they don't never try"
(83).
perfective Done: a colloquial perfective (i.e. an action completed) marker
shared with other dialects, as in "he done
gone to Georgia."
stressed Been: an emphatic way to note that an action or event has long
been completed, as in "I been
had that job," or "she been told
him she needed the money" (80).
suffix -s variation: variation in the use of this suffix: "we goes" or "they
goes" in some speakers, "he/she go" in others.
Some General Linguistic Terms
Copula: a verb such as to be or
to seem that acts as a direct link
between subject and predicate. In
some formations, BEV is distinguished by the absence of copula:
e.g., "he busy now" or "she nice"; in other
formations, invariant be serves as
copula in BEV.
Idiom:
1. the specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural
character of a language; or 2. a speech form that
can't be understood from the individual meanings of its elements.
Lexicon
/ vocabulary: the words used in a
language. In BEV, there are also
specialized "lexical markers" (see page 12).
Morphology: study of the patterns of word formation in a language,
including inflection, derivation, and the formation of compounds (words
containing two or more lexical meanings, e.g. loudspeaker).
Orthography: the method by which sounds are represented by literal
symbols in a language (letters and combinations).
Phonology: the science of speech sounds, including phonetics (the production, combination, description, and
representation of speech sounds via standard phonetic symbols) and phonemics (identification of smallest
distinguishing units of speech in a language, per map and cap).
Syntax: the branch of grammar dealing with the arrangement of
phrases and sentences in a language.