I've no doubt that even someone as brilliantly obsessed with deduction as Sherlock Holmes would consider trying to decipher something as ridiculously complicated as ebonics an extremely bothersome task. Ebonics has become a part of American and honestly even international culture nowadays; and everyone feels a certain way about that culture. This includes the government, of course.
Before getting into what the government had to say about Ebonics, it would behoove us to understand exactly what Ebonics is defined as:
Ebonics is a blend of the words "Ebony" and "Phonics." It is originally intended to refer to the language of those who were descendants of enslaved Black Africans particularly in the Caribbeans, West Africa and North America.
The term was first coined in 1973 as such during a discussion between African American Social Psychologist Robert Williams and Linguist Ernie Smith as well as a veritable list of other language scholars and researchers that took place in a conference on "Cognitive and Language Development of a Black Child." The conference was held in St. Louis, Missouri.
Robert stated that his intentions for the term were to give a name to the language of African Americans that acknowledged the linguistic consequence of the slave trade and avoided the negative connotations of other terms such as "Nonstandard Negro English." He states the following:
"We need to define what we speak. We need to give a clear definition to our language...We know that ebony means black and that phonics refers to speech sounds or the science of sounds. Thus, we are really talking about the science of black speech sounds or language."
Williams wrote a book two years later entitled "Ebonics: The True Language Of Black Folks" where he proficiently used the term throughout; especially in his elaborations therein, of course:
"A two-year-old term created by a group of black scholars, Ebonics may be defined as "the linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendants of African origin. It includes the various idioms, patois, argots, idiolects, and social dialects of black people" especially those who have adapted to colonial circumstances. Ebonics derives its form from ebony (black) and phonics (sound, the study of sound) and refers to the study of the language of black people in all its cultural uniqueness.""
Suffice it to say, all that honestly needs to be derived from this portion of the discussion is that Ebonics is a language indicative of the sound and it's general usage by black people.
Since it's birth in 1973 and the minimal exposure it received in 1975 with Robert Williams' publication, the term has remained in obscurity up until 1996. It wasn't even added to the 1989 Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary nor was it adopted by linguists at any point.
I wondered what could've happened some twenty-three years later to bring this term to the forefront of national attention when some have readily anticipated this having taken place in 1973 or 1975. That's when I started reading about the Oakland Ebonics Controversy that took place on December 18th, 1996. For those who have some semblance of memory for what took place therein and those who were not presently aware, maybe this will help things along a bit:
The debate in Oakland was over whether or not Ebonics could be considered so legitimate per it's usage and prevalence at the time that it could be taught as a separate language in classes.The resolution that was passed that particular day mandated that students whose primary dialect was considered that of Ebonics would be privy to instruction in the usage of said dialect; both for the purpose of "maintaining the legitimacy and richness of the language...and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English Language Skills." The resolution also included the proposed increase of salaries of those proficient in both Ebonics and Standard English to the level of those teaching LEP(Limited English Proficiency) as well as the use of public funding to help teachers learn these "skills" themselves.
I placed "skills" in quotations simply because I don't necessarily see where one proficient in both Ebonics and Standard English would be considered "skilled" per se. It's not as if this person is to be considered bilingual as a result of such; so one would presume that I would be against this resolution and the funding it supported. We'll set my reservations regarding this matter to the side for now.
Needless to say, the resolution received a great deal of media criticism and sparked a hotly discussed debate. The popular response to this debate believed that it is widely perceived that African Americans are biologically predisposed to a particular language through heredity; which led them to agree that proficient users of Ebonics as their primary language should be taught as students by programs federally funded that would be traditionally restricted to bilingual populations.
There goes that "B" word again....
For the sake of tossing one or two of his shekels into the pond, Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the resolution outright; stating the following:
"I understand the attempt to reach out to these children, but this is an unacceptable surrender, borderlining on disgrace."
The good reverend's comments were backed by figureheads such as the former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Joe Lieberman.
In a true waffling fashion befitting him, Reverend Jackson of course took an abrupt about face regarding his stance on the resolution altogether; citing his misunderstanding of the manifest of the school district's proposal:
"They're not trying to teach Black English as a standard language. They're looking for tools to teach children standard English so they might be competitive."
Yeah okay.
Due to the controversy and gross misunderstanding of the initial proposed resolution, Oakland's School Board passed an amended resolution on January 15th of the following year. One of the more recognizable changes was the omission of the phrase "Genetically Based;" a term that was no doubt one of the bottles of lighter fluid tossed into the fray in the debate over the initial resolution. The phrase was widely misunderstood(or implied contingent upon your stance on this matter) to mean that African Americans have a biological predisposition to a particular language. It was argued and explained rather that the phrase referred to genetics in the linguistic sense of reason. The phrase was removed and replaced with wording that states African-American language systems "have origins in West and Niger-Congo languages and are not merely dialects of English.
Fine then.
So what say the Linguists here since that whole "linguistic sense of reason" was so widely misunderstood? I mean, someone has to substantiate why people were wrong for thinking that a teacher would start off his classroom introduction in this manner:
Note the appearance of the teacher in this cartoon. Shirt not tucked into his slacks, clothing rather dingy as evidenced by the brown splotches and flies that orbit him, teeth missing, not cleanly shaven, and only Heaven knows why that band aid is there on his right arm. The creator of this cartoon was clever in the fact that he/she was able to illustrate what no doubt some if not most black people that used Ebonics were viewed as.
What can be thought was likely already pondered.
What was pondered may have already been perceived.
What is perceived may have already been visualized.
What one visualizes may yield a cartoon such as this one.
A number of grouped linguists and other associated organizations have issued statements in their support of the recognition of African American Vernacular English as a legitimate language system.
The Linguistic Society of America stated the following:
"The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African-American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as 'slang,' 'mutant,' 'lazy,' 'defective,' 'ungrammatical,' or 'broken English' are incorrect and demeaning." "There is evidence from Sweden, the U.S., and other countries that speakers of other varieties can be aided in their learning of the standard variety by pedagogical approaches which recognize the legitimacy of the other varieties of a language. From this perspective, the Oakland School Board's decision to recognize the vernacular of African-American students in teaching them Standard English is linguistically and pedagogically sound."
So the Society argues that this had to be legitimized to protect against a lot of the negative connotations that many have placed on Ebonics per their own perception of it's usage. They also claim that there is a standard variance for this language; a "standard issue" of sorts, I suppose that other countries may benefit from learning. In lieu of their beliefs, I suppose this is a way to "protect the shield" maybe. I would only venture to inquire about who would protect those proficient in the language that place themselves in this characterization; be it knowingly or in ignorance of the occurrence of this? There is no armor for those willing to do harm to themselves.
Representatives from Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages(TESOL) have issued the following statement regarding the matter:
"Research and experience have shown that children learn best if teachers respect the home language and use it as a bridge in teaching the language of the school and wider society."
Hm.
"Home Language" must refer here to whichever language the child is raised under and exposed to rather than simply "what is taught at home;" because we know what arguments that would lead to. I am inclined to agree with this claim to some degree; and not just contingent upon the research and experience that these teachers use to substantiate it. I think that a respect and understanding of the language therein by a teacher for his/her pupils will give the children more comfort with the teacher; which would then make the "bridging" between that child's language and that of the school he/she attends and society they interact with daily a smoother transition instead of a painstakingly awkward undertaking.
Not saying. Just saying.
A linguist from North Carolina State University by the name of Walt Wolfram(how cool is this guy's name? Two animals in one last name cool) made light of what the Oakland Ebonics Controversy exposed in three critical points:
- The intensity of people's beliefs and opinions about language and language diversity.
- The persistent and widespread level of public misinformation about the issues of language variation and education.
-The need for informed knowledge about language diversity and its role in education and public life.
I couldn't agree more with these three points. In fact, I'm not surprised that these three facts were exposed as a result of this controversy and the debates that ensued; and I'm sure many of you aren't very surprised if at all either.
There is truth to each of those three facts; even to this very day. We all have at one point expressed our opinion about something in a manner one would perceive as obnoxious and abrasive...
Charming, huh? Those who denounce Ebonics for their lack of understanding of how another person speaks or what that other person says is no different than those of us who use the terms "Hick,""White Trash,""Bumpkin,""Nerd,""Coon,""Honkie" or any other offensive term that we racially disparage each other with.
*For the record, I've never been ashamed of being a nerd. I just take it as one's recognition of my profile.*
For longer than I care to recall, there has been a large gap between races and cultures in modern society when it comes to how we communicate with each other. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that we hold a degree of hatred for each other. A lot of times, the lines are very apparent and defined regarding mannerisms and how we carry ourselves individually and as a culture. As cultures exist, they are bound to differ; and the more of a contrast that presents the more we as black people will find ourselves having to make this request of other races that come in contact with us:
Honestly.
Stop doing that.
We understand that there are certain things that we say and certain ways that we say it(some of us given our social atmosphere from any given time to the next); but nothing about that hot switch from one's current vernacular to one perceived as more fitting to address or speak to us as black people is considered endearing in any capacity. It is especially embarrassing when we do it to each other; which is why I hate when those of us that more inclined to a vernacular void of slang or any other manner of speaking are ridiculed and made fun of for doing so. Nothing is more disheartening about this issue than observing someone who tries as hard as he/she can to fit in or break the ice with someone else by talking differently around them. It's not hip, cool or anything else that the kids are saying these days. It's just awkward.
Let's try not to confuse things here: There is a difference between Ebonics and Slang. I agree with the Linguistic Society of America when that state that deeming Ebonics as "Broken English" or "Slang" is very demeaning. I'm not ready to agree with their denouncement of those who say that Ebonics are grammatically incorrect, though; and that is simply because I don't believe that would be a realistic way of looking at the language. Just because someone defined it as a language, that does not automatically make it exempt from grammatical criticism.
The usage of terms such as "Yo,""Dat,""Dis" and "Da" indeed constitute as Ebonics; but they replace the base literal terms "Hey" or "Hi,""That,""This" and "The;" so even if they are accepted and pretty much adopted and fully incorporated into modern language, that does not mean that they are the proper terms to use.That also goes for other replacement terms such as using the word "Be" in place of "Are" or "Am."
You know what I'm talking about, guys:
"I be running." or "I be in there."
The term "Ain't" is the most frequently used of any if not all of these in Ebonics; generally taking the place of "Am Not." The additional tidbit regarding this term is it's frequency in the use of double negatives such as the following:
"I ain't got no clothes to wear."
There's a list somewhere on the internet with a full display of each Ebonics term and it's usage. I'm sure of that much; but the point is that the difference between Ebonics and Slang is that while Slang replaces terms with somewhat similar terms loosely pertaining to the same thing, Ebonics will create a new term that one may at some point have to guess or even decipher the pertinence of given its usage. For example:
Ebonics
"I be murkin those fish sticks."
Slang
"I smashed those fish sticks."
See? Both sentences are expressed to mean this:
"I ate those fish sticks."
Now of course, the terms could also describe the manner in which the food was consumed as well as how quickly this was done or how many were eaten.
Here's the differential:
The Ebonics form of this sentence uses "be murkin" where the person could've said "am eating" or "was eating." The terms used would not constitute proper grammar at all; given the fact that "be" would not be used in place of "am" or "was" and the Ebonics term "murkin" implied to mean eating would easily be interpreted as something else such as murder or some other form of preparation for the food.
The Slang form of this sentence uses the word "smashed;" which constitutes as a correct term as far as it's place in English is concerned. It's usage, however may be just as misinterpreted as one may presume that you smashed your fish sticks before consumption(or that you're a weirdo that doesn't eat his food at all but finds time to let the world know how much you like to smash food). The term "smashed" isn't a misspelled term or one that was created to express something that could've simply been stated.
What is unique about Ebonics is that it can involve proper terms or improper terms in its expression such as "Be"(properly spelled term) and "Murk"(which is actually a properly spelled term as is but usually ends up misspelled when used in its present tense verb form).
Ah yes, Condescending Wonka. This serves as the perfect segue into my next point:
Hey you.
Not you!
Yeah!
You right there.
You over there using Ebonics and Slang to add an extra bit of edge to your tales of strife and struggle in hopes of authenticating your street credibility.
Stop.
You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing whomever you claim to represent with that behavior. If you know that you aren't inclined to that kind of behavior(regardless of whether or not you lived most of your life struggling on the streets), then why are you chopping up terms and using different slang and speaking tones to make us think otherwise? Is there an undisclosed measure of respect that you are looking to exact from us? Is this how you plan to substantiate some unnecessary reputation for appearing intimidating to others? Did you save some time amid all of that acting to recognize a rhetorical question or two? Yes; I said "Rhetorical" instead of "trick" because someone as astute at their inner city musings and hood upbringing is surely smart enough to recognize that term in their vocabulary.
No? Seriously?
Could've fooled me.
And finally to you over there sending those ridiculous text messages, tweets and status updates with abbreviated three and four letter words:
What is wrong with you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
"Wth" is not "With."
"Wen" is not "When."
"Bck" is not "Back."
Maybe I'm not the forward thinker here when it comes to the new age, revolutionary thinkers that forged the concept of abbreviating words with two syllables or less. Either way, I find this extremely frustrating when I get a text message or see a post that reads like this:
"Wen u gon git dat fo mi."
WHAT IS THAT?!?!?!?!
If you meant "When are you gonna get that for me;" then all I can tell you is to keep waiting. Aside from all of the obvious that is illustrated in this grammatical abortion of a sentence, the three large highlights here are the placement of letters that don't belong in certain words. "Get" and "Git" is one. "Me and Mi" is another; and it is absolutely incredible how often punctuation is cast to the wind here; regardless of the tone or inflection implied by the statement.
No matter how we feel about Ebonics, what we can't deny is the fact that it is a prevalent and pretty dominant part of modern culture. Although it may have been created exclusively for African Americans, it no doubt has firmly planted it's roots in a variety of cultures in this day and age. Misspellings and misinterpretations abound, I have recently referred to Ebonics as "The Thinking Man's Vernacular."
Why?
You tell me if you can read an entire story written in this language without slowing down to interpret the meaning.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Before getting into what the government had to say about Ebonics, it would behoove us to understand exactly what Ebonics is defined as:
Ebonics is a blend of the words "Ebony" and "Phonics." It is originally intended to refer to the language of those who were descendants of enslaved Black Africans particularly in the Caribbeans, West Africa and North America.
The term was first coined in 1973 as such during a discussion between African American Social Psychologist Robert Williams and Linguist Ernie Smith as well as a veritable list of other language scholars and researchers that took place in a conference on "Cognitive and Language Development of a Black Child." The conference was held in St. Louis, Missouri.
Robert stated that his intentions for the term were to give a name to the language of African Americans that acknowledged the linguistic consequence of the slave trade and avoided the negative connotations of other terms such as "Nonstandard Negro English." He states the following:
"We need to define what we speak. We need to give a clear definition to our language...We know that ebony means black and that phonics refers to speech sounds or the science of sounds. Thus, we are really talking about the science of black speech sounds or language."
Williams wrote a book two years later entitled "Ebonics: The True Language Of Black Folks" where he proficiently used the term throughout; especially in his elaborations therein, of course:
"A two-year-old term created by a group of black scholars, Ebonics may be defined as "the linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendants of African origin. It includes the various idioms, patois, argots, idiolects, and social dialects of black people" especially those who have adapted to colonial circumstances. Ebonics derives its form from ebony (black) and phonics (sound, the study of sound) and refers to the study of the language of black people in all its cultural uniqueness.""
Suffice it to say, all that honestly needs to be derived from this portion of the discussion is that Ebonics is a language indicative of the sound and it's general usage by black people.
Since it's birth in 1973 and the minimal exposure it received in 1975 with Robert Williams' publication, the term has remained in obscurity up until 1996. It wasn't even added to the 1989 Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary nor was it adopted by linguists at any point.
I wondered what could've happened some twenty-three years later to bring this term to the forefront of national attention when some have readily anticipated this having taken place in 1973 or 1975. That's when I started reading about the Oakland Ebonics Controversy that took place on December 18th, 1996. For those who have some semblance of memory for what took place therein and those who were not presently aware, maybe this will help things along a bit:
The debate in Oakland was over whether or not Ebonics could be considered so legitimate per it's usage and prevalence at the time that it could be taught as a separate language in classes.The resolution that was passed that particular day mandated that students whose primary dialect was considered that of Ebonics would be privy to instruction in the usage of said dialect; both for the purpose of "maintaining the legitimacy and richness of the language...and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English Language Skills." The resolution also included the proposed increase of salaries of those proficient in both Ebonics and Standard English to the level of those teaching LEP(Limited English Proficiency) as well as the use of public funding to help teachers learn these "skills" themselves.
I placed "skills" in quotations simply because I don't necessarily see where one proficient in both Ebonics and Standard English would be considered "skilled" per se. It's not as if this person is to be considered bilingual as a result of such; so one would presume that I would be against this resolution and the funding it supported. We'll set my reservations regarding this matter to the side for now.
Needless to say, the resolution received a great deal of media criticism and sparked a hotly discussed debate. The popular response to this debate believed that it is widely perceived that African Americans are biologically predisposed to a particular language through heredity; which led them to agree that proficient users of Ebonics as their primary language should be taught as students by programs federally funded that would be traditionally restricted to bilingual populations.
There goes that "B" word again....
For the sake of tossing one or two of his shekels into the pond, Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the resolution outright; stating the following:
"I understand the attempt to reach out to these children, but this is an unacceptable surrender, borderlining on disgrace."
The good reverend's comments were backed by figureheads such as the former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Joe Lieberman.
In a true waffling fashion befitting him, Reverend Jackson of course took an abrupt about face regarding his stance on the resolution altogether; citing his misunderstanding of the manifest of the school district's proposal:
"They're not trying to teach Black English as a standard language. They're looking for tools to teach children standard English so they might be competitive."
Yeah okay.
Due to the controversy and gross misunderstanding of the initial proposed resolution, Oakland's School Board passed an amended resolution on January 15th of the following year. One of the more recognizable changes was the omission of the phrase "Genetically Based;" a term that was no doubt one of the bottles of lighter fluid tossed into the fray in the debate over the initial resolution. The phrase was widely misunderstood(or implied contingent upon your stance on this matter) to mean that African Americans have a biological predisposition to a particular language. It was argued and explained rather that the phrase referred to genetics in the linguistic sense of reason. The phrase was removed and replaced with wording that states African-American language systems "have origins in West and Niger-Congo languages and are not merely dialects of English.
Fine then.
So what say the Linguists here since that whole "linguistic sense of reason" was so widely misunderstood? I mean, someone has to substantiate why people were wrong for thinking that a teacher would start off his classroom introduction in this manner:
Note the appearance of the teacher in this cartoon. Shirt not tucked into his slacks, clothing rather dingy as evidenced by the brown splotches and flies that orbit him, teeth missing, not cleanly shaven, and only Heaven knows why that band aid is there on his right arm. The creator of this cartoon was clever in the fact that he/she was able to illustrate what no doubt some if not most black people that used Ebonics were viewed as.
What can be thought was likely already pondered.
What was pondered may have already been perceived.
What is perceived may have already been visualized.
What one visualizes may yield a cartoon such as this one.
A number of grouped linguists and other associated organizations have issued statements in their support of the recognition of African American Vernacular English as a legitimate language system.
The Linguistic Society of America stated the following:
"The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African-American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as 'slang,' 'mutant,' 'lazy,' 'defective,' 'ungrammatical,' or 'broken English' are incorrect and demeaning." "There is evidence from Sweden, the U.S., and other countries that speakers of other varieties can be aided in their learning of the standard variety by pedagogical approaches which recognize the legitimacy of the other varieties of a language. From this perspective, the Oakland School Board's decision to recognize the vernacular of African-American students in teaching them Standard English is linguistically and pedagogically sound."
So the Society argues that this had to be legitimized to protect against a lot of the negative connotations that many have placed on Ebonics per their own perception of it's usage. They also claim that there is a standard variance for this language; a "standard issue" of sorts, I suppose that other countries may benefit from learning. In lieu of their beliefs, I suppose this is a way to "protect the shield" maybe. I would only venture to inquire about who would protect those proficient in the language that place themselves in this characterization; be it knowingly or in ignorance of the occurrence of this? There is no armor for those willing to do harm to themselves.
Representatives from Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages(TESOL) have issued the following statement regarding the matter:
"Research and experience have shown that children learn best if teachers respect the home language and use it as a bridge in teaching the language of the school and wider society."
Hm.
"Home Language" must refer here to whichever language the child is raised under and exposed to rather than simply "what is taught at home;" because we know what arguments that would lead to. I am inclined to agree with this claim to some degree; and not just contingent upon the research and experience that these teachers use to substantiate it. I think that a respect and understanding of the language therein by a teacher for his/her pupils will give the children more comfort with the teacher; which would then make the "bridging" between that child's language and that of the school he/she attends and society they interact with daily a smoother transition instead of a painstakingly awkward undertaking.
Not saying. Just saying.
A linguist from North Carolina State University by the name of Walt Wolfram(how cool is this guy's name? Two animals in one last name cool) made light of what the Oakland Ebonics Controversy exposed in three critical points:
- The intensity of people's beliefs and opinions about language and language diversity.
- The persistent and widespread level of public misinformation about the issues of language variation and education.
-The need for informed knowledge about language diversity and its role in education and public life.
I couldn't agree more with these three points. In fact, I'm not surprised that these three facts were exposed as a result of this controversy and the debates that ensued; and I'm sure many of you aren't very surprised if at all either.
There is truth to each of those three facts; even to this very day. We all have at one point expressed our opinion about something in a manner one would perceive as obnoxious and abrasive...
Charming, huh? Those who denounce Ebonics for their lack of understanding of how another person speaks or what that other person says is no different than those of us who use the terms "Hick,""White Trash,""Bumpkin,""Nerd,""Coon,""Honkie" or any other offensive term that we racially disparage each other with.
*For the record, I've never been ashamed of being a nerd. I just take it as one's recognition of my profile.*
For longer than I care to recall, there has been a large gap between races and cultures in modern society when it comes to how we communicate with each other. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that we hold a degree of hatred for each other. A lot of times, the lines are very apparent and defined regarding mannerisms and how we carry ourselves individually and as a culture. As cultures exist, they are bound to differ; and the more of a contrast that presents the more we as black people will find ourselves having to make this request of other races that come in contact with us:
Honestly.
Stop doing that.
We understand that there are certain things that we say and certain ways that we say it(some of us given our social atmosphere from any given time to the next); but nothing about that hot switch from one's current vernacular to one perceived as more fitting to address or speak to us as black people is considered endearing in any capacity. It is especially embarrassing when we do it to each other; which is why I hate when those of us that more inclined to a vernacular void of slang or any other manner of speaking are ridiculed and made fun of for doing so. Nothing is more disheartening about this issue than observing someone who tries as hard as he/she can to fit in or break the ice with someone else by talking differently around them. It's not hip, cool or anything else that the kids are saying these days. It's just awkward.
Let's try not to confuse things here: There is a difference between Ebonics and Slang. I agree with the Linguistic Society of America when that state that deeming Ebonics as "Broken English" or "Slang" is very demeaning. I'm not ready to agree with their denouncement of those who say that Ebonics are grammatically incorrect, though; and that is simply because I don't believe that would be a realistic way of looking at the language. Just because someone defined it as a language, that does not automatically make it exempt from grammatical criticism.
The usage of terms such as "Yo,""Dat,""Dis" and "Da" indeed constitute as Ebonics; but they replace the base literal terms "Hey" or "Hi,""That,""This" and "The;" so even if they are accepted and pretty much adopted and fully incorporated into modern language, that does not mean that they are the proper terms to use.That also goes for other replacement terms such as using the word "Be" in place of "Are" or "Am."
You know what I'm talking about, guys:
"I be running." or "I be in there."
The term "Ain't" is the most frequently used of any if not all of these in Ebonics; generally taking the place of "Am Not." The additional tidbit regarding this term is it's frequency in the use of double negatives such as the following:
"I ain't got no clothes to wear."
There's a list somewhere on the internet with a full display of each Ebonics term and it's usage. I'm sure of that much; but the point is that the difference between Ebonics and Slang is that while Slang replaces terms with somewhat similar terms loosely pertaining to the same thing, Ebonics will create a new term that one may at some point have to guess or even decipher the pertinence of given its usage. For example:
Ebonics
"I be murkin those fish sticks."
Slang
"I smashed those fish sticks."
See? Both sentences are expressed to mean this:
"I ate those fish sticks."
Now of course, the terms could also describe the manner in which the food was consumed as well as how quickly this was done or how many were eaten.
Here's the differential:
The Ebonics form of this sentence uses "be murkin" where the person could've said "am eating" or "was eating." The terms used would not constitute proper grammar at all; given the fact that "be" would not be used in place of "am" or "was" and the Ebonics term "murkin" implied to mean eating would easily be interpreted as something else such as murder or some other form of preparation for the food.
The Slang form of this sentence uses the word "smashed;" which constitutes as a correct term as far as it's place in English is concerned. It's usage, however may be just as misinterpreted as one may presume that you smashed your fish sticks before consumption(or that you're a weirdo that doesn't eat his food at all but finds time to let the world know how much you like to smash food). The term "smashed" isn't a misspelled term or one that was created to express something that could've simply been stated.
What is unique about Ebonics is that it can involve proper terms or improper terms in its expression such as "Be"(properly spelled term) and "Murk"(which is actually a properly spelled term as is but usually ends up misspelled when used in its present tense verb form).
Ah yes, Condescending Wonka. This serves as the perfect segue into my next point:
Hey you.
Not you!
Yeah!
You right there.
You over there using Ebonics and Slang to add an extra bit of edge to your tales of strife and struggle in hopes of authenticating your street credibility.
Stop.
You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing whomever you claim to represent with that behavior. If you know that you aren't inclined to that kind of behavior(regardless of whether or not you lived most of your life struggling on the streets), then why are you chopping up terms and using different slang and speaking tones to make us think otherwise? Is there an undisclosed measure of respect that you are looking to exact from us? Is this how you plan to substantiate some unnecessary reputation for appearing intimidating to others? Did you save some time amid all of that acting to recognize a rhetorical question or two? Yes; I said "Rhetorical" instead of "trick" because someone as astute at their inner city musings and hood upbringing is surely smart enough to recognize that term in their vocabulary.
No? Seriously?
Could've fooled me.
And finally to you over there sending those ridiculous text messages, tweets and status updates with abbreviated three and four letter words:
What is wrong with you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
"Wth" is not "With."
"Wen" is not "When."
"Bck" is not "Back."
Maybe I'm not the forward thinker here when it comes to the new age, revolutionary thinkers that forged the concept of abbreviating words with two syllables or less. Either way, I find this extremely frustrating when I get a text message or see a post that reads like this:
"Wen u gon git dat fo mi."
WHAT IS THAT?!?!?!?!
If you meant "When are you gonna get that for me;" then all I can tell you is to keep waiting. Aside from all of the obvious that is illustrated in this grammatical abortion of a sentence, the three large highlights here are the placement of letters that don't belong in certain words. "Get" and "Git" is one. "Me and Mi" is another; and it is absolutely incredible how often punctuation is cast to the wind here; regardless of the tone or inflection implied by the statement.
No matter how we feel about Ebonics, what we can't deny is the fact that it is a prevalent and pretty dominant part of modern culture. Although it may have been created exclusively for African Americans, it no doubt has firmly planted it's roots in a variety of cultures in this day and age. Misspellings and misinterpretations abound, I have recently referred to Ebonics as "The Thinking Man's Vernacular."
Why?
You tell me if you can read an entire story written in this language without slowing down to interpret the meaning.
Let me know how that works out for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment