Download Some Standard Features of AAVE

Some Standard Features of AAVE
(And Their Implications for Education)
Django Paris
1
AAVE in Society and Education
The fact is that most African Americans do talk differently from whites and Americans of
other ethnic groups, or at least we can when we want to. And the fact is that most
Americans, black and white, know this to be true. (Spoken Soul, 4)
Rickford and Rickford (2000) make this simple statement toward the beginning of
their celebrated book on African American Vernacular English (AAVE). They are not,
of course, saying that all African Americans are AAVE speakers, or that all AAVE
speakers are competent in only that dialect. What they are getting at, though, is the
crucial fact that many African Americans can and do use a distinctive variety of English
in their everyday speech. Furthermore, they are making the critical point that this is a
well known fact among various racial and ethnic groups in American society. None of
these facts present problems in and of themselves, yet coupled with historic and
continuing racial bias (and the economic and psychological fallout of that bias) many
problems begin to surface. AAVE is intimately connected to African American people
and culture. It is, then, often impossible to separate racial discrimination from linguistic
discrimination, a point made by sociolinguist John Baugh (2000) in his book Beyond
Ebonics.
Combating this racialized linguistic discrimination has been one of the major
projects of sociolinguistics over the past forty or so years (though this tradition reaches
back quite a distance, see Bloomfield, 1927). Since William Labov’s (1973) landmark
Atlantic Monthly article, scores of linguists and sociolinguists have joined the Black
English cause. The foundation of this work can be summed up in Labov’s 1969
2
statement, “The concept of verbal deprivation has no basis in social reality” (201). As a
consequence of this work, there are volumes of research dedicated to AAVE grammar
and use. Not only has this work proven the systematicity of AAVE, it has also given
those of us in the applied language fields the material to take into policy debates and
educational practices in schools.
Unfortunately, though some minds and practices have changed as a result of this
work, general societal perception has not. The Oakland Ebonics controversy (see Baugh,
2000; Perry & Delpit, ) proved that. The result is that the situation remains dire for
students in our schools. Policy, curricula, and teacher knowledge about AAVE remains
insufficient to honor and use AAVE as an important resource in language and literacy
education. Over the past two decades some educational research has produced
pedagogical and curricular innovations for AAVE speakers (Heath, 1983; Lee, 1995,
Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ball, 1999, for example). This work, however, must be pushed
further and disseminated into the practices of many more of our classrooms1.
My interest in understanding the history, use, and grammar of AAVE peaked last
year when I was researching, developing, and implementing a curriculum unit in a high
school English classroom serving students whose home languages were Spanish, AAVE,
Samoan, and Tongan. All of the students in the class were at least bilingual or
bidialectal. All of the students in the class were also in the bottom quartile of student
achievement in the school. The unit, called the Power of Language, attempted to get
students thinking, talking, reading, and writing about their language worlds. One of the
goals was to highlight the functionality of both standard and marginalized ways with
For a review and critique of this work see Paris 2004, unpublished master’s project, and Paris 2004,
unpublished paper.
1
3
words, to look at the practices of style shifting and code switching in speaking and
writing, and to discuss historic and continuing linguistic discrimination and power.
Although we did a lot of important work, I realized during the unit and after that simply
knowing that all varieties and languages are equal, how to recognize some basic AAVE
grammatical features, and understanding some basic sociolinguistic (and general) history
was not enough to do the research and design work I was attempting.
Two student comments from the first day of the unit highlight the reason that
educators (teachers, curriculum designers, administrators, and policy makers) need more
knowledge about AAVE. On the first day of class I put up a variety of sentences written
in the different languages and dialects spoken in the class (Standard American English,
AAVE, Spanish, dialects of Spanish, Chicano English, Tongan, Samoan). Students
answered a variety of prompts designed to get at attitudes, beliefs, and understandings.
In the larger group, an African American student called the SAE sentences “the language
of the teachers”. Another African American student called the AAVE sentences “the way
we talk”. The conflict between the language of the teachers and the way we talk in the
lives of these students became the starting point for our work.
My hope is that a greater understanding of some of the major linguistic features
of AAVE will inform my research on AAVE discourse, curriculum design, and work
with teachers. That is, along with many researchers and teachers who work with AAVE
speakers, I need to be able to distinguish errors in language use from differences in
language use. Even further, I need to be able to help students know the systematicity of
both AAVE and Standard American English (SAE) to combat continuing linguistic
prejudice.
4
In what follows, then, I will look at a few of what Rickford (2000) has called
grammatical signposts of AAVE. These are features I hear and see in student speaking
and writing. The research on each of these features in immense. The linguistic and
extralinguistic factors (such as class, race, gender, and age) at play in language use are
overwhelming. Therefore, I will not attempt even close to a full rendering of any one
feature, but rather will discuss each in the depth necessary for educators to grasp the basic
morphological, phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic behavior of each
feature. It should also be mentioned that there is variation in the use of these features
among and within speakers and that some features are shared with other non-standard
dialects.
Some Standard Features of AAVE
As Rickford and Rickford mention, “the verb be is one of the most celebrated
features” of AAVE (2000, 113). A good starting point, then, is with one non-use and one
use of the verb be.
Zero copula
Consider the following AAVE sentence and its italicized SAE translation2:
She the first one that started us off (Labov, 1972)
She’s the first one that started us off
Anyone familiar with standard English syntax (structure) will notice that the copula is or
contracted ’s is missing from the AAVE sentence (is or are are called copulas as they
couple a subject and a predicate). The fact that she is can be contracted to she’s turns out
to be very important in the systematic rule for this feature. Anytime SAE can contract
2
SAE translations will be provided in italics after each AAVE example.
5
the is or are, AAVE can delete it altogether. So where SAE can shorten the verb, AAVE
can leave it off completely. AAVE cannot delete the past tense was and were (so We_
going to go to the store yesterday is an impossible sentence), nor can the copula be
omitted at the end of a sentence (so That’s were they_ is also impossible). A final
constraint is that AAVE cannot leave off the first person present tense form am (so I good
at spelling is not possible).
It is also important to note that AAVE speakers are not obligated to leave out
the copula. Many AAVE speakers use the copula in some linguistic and social contexts
and do not use it in others (see Labov, 1972, 65-129, for a vast analysis of this subject).
The main point here is that zero copula is an important systematic feature of AAVE.
Invariant or Habitual be
This is a feature that is truly unique to AAVE. Invariant refers to the
morphological (the study of word forms) fact that the verb be does not vary according to
its subject. Habitual refers to the tense (time) and aspect (the way actions are conducted)
meaning of this use of be. The tense and aspect has to do with the semantics or meaning
of be in this construction. Consider the following sentence:
You be runnin in the street too much (Baugh, 1983)
You are habitually/usually running in the street too much
Notice that be does not change to are and that SAE translation is not simply You are
running in the street too much. The habitual nature of be here connotes an aspect of
habitual action. This feature also comes in a durative variety. That is, it can be used to
describe an action that occurred over a period of time, but which is not necessarily
6
habitual (see Baugh, 1983, 70-74, for a detailed discussion of durative be). The
following sentence displays this durative be:
We be tired from the heat, but he just made everybody keep on working
(Baugh, 1983)
We were tired over a stretch of time from the heat, but he just made everybody
keep on working
It is important not to confuse this habitual be with copula deletion. He runnin in the
street and He be runnin in the street differ quite a bit semantically. So to do She be right
around (where the contracted ’ll of she will has been omitted) and She be right (as in, She
is usually right).
One final note on constructions using invariant or habitual be. The following
sentence has a special aspectual use of steady with the habitual be:
We be steady running (Baugh, 1983)
We are usually running in an intense, sustained manner
Steady here is not equivalent to steadily, but instead carries the added aspectual meaning
of an event which is sustained and intense. This use of steady is completely unique to
AAVE (see Baugh, 1983, 1999, for the definitive discussions of this feature).
Absence of third-person singular present tense s
Consider the following example:
It seem like every corner I drive around (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
It seems like every corner I drive around
Notice that the third person singular present tense s has been dropped from seem. Where
SAE uses the base form seem for every subject (I/you/they) except the third person
(he/she/it), AAVE actually uses the base form for all subjects. In this way, AAVE
7
actually makes the morphology more consistent. That is, where SAE adds the suffix s (or
occasionally es as in goes) to only one form, AAVE remains true to the general rule.
For irregular verbs like have, AAVE simply keeps the base form with third
person singular subjects in the present tense.
She have three kids (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
She has three kids
Multiple negation
Multiple negation is often viewed as one of the reasons AAVE is illogical.
After all, following the logic of multiplication, if you put two negatives in one sentence,
then it must become positive. As Burling (1973) points out, it is better to think of
multiple negation as addition instead of multiplication. That is, the more negatives you
add to a sentence, the more negative it becomes. In this way, multiple negation actually
strengthens the negative meanings of a sentence. The following are examples:
She wasn’t no young lady, neither (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
She wasn’t any young lady, either.
I don’t want nothing nobody can’t enjoy (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
I don’t want anything nobody can enjoy
In both examples, the added negatives strengthen the relative negative meaning. Yet,
what are the grammatical rules at work? In Labov’s (1972) famous chapter on this
subject he coins the terms negative attraction or negative concord to describe how this
feature behaves. Simply put, the negative is attracted to any of the indeterminates any,
ever, and either that appear in a sentence. No matter where they are, indeterminates
8
become negative in a negative construction. So anything becomes nothing, any becomes
no, either becomes neither, and ever becomes never.
It is important to note that the semantic intent (the intended meaning) of a
multiple negative is almost always clear in the context of conversation (Rickford &
Rickford, 2000). This is an important pragmatic (the study of language use in structure
and context) consideration for this feature. What might seem unclear in an isolated
written example of a multiple negative in this paper is rarely unclear in actual language
use. It is also worth noting that double and multiple negation are very common in other
nonstandard dialects of English.
Possessive ’s
The dropping of the possessive marker ’s is a piece of morphology common to many
nonstandard varieties of English throughout the world3. It is an incredibly simple part of
AAVE and other nonstandard grammar. Simply omit the ’s when using a possessive
noun as in:
That girl house (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
That girl’s house
What is remarkable about his feature is that it actually simplifies the grammar without
losing any meaning. Possession is shown by the position of girl next to house and so the
’s is unnecessary.
Existential it is
The possessive marker ’s is called a noun inflectional suffix as it is a noun suffix that does not change the
word category of the noun.
3
9
Another feature that is shared by AAVE and other nonstandard dialects of
English is known as the existential it is. The following sentences are examples of this
feature:
It’s a lot of people at the party (Rickford & Rickford, 2000)
There are a lot of people at the party
It’s a test
There is a test or It is a test
The first example is a simple demonstration of the rule. Wherever SAE can use there is
or there are with a noun, AAVE can use its. The second example presents a pragmatic
concern. The sentence is ambiguous when isolated from its context. Of course, within
conversational context speaker meaning would be clear as the two meanings are hardly
equal.
Stressed been
Thus far we have been focusing on structure, meaning, and word formation in
several common AAVE features. The final feature I will discuss has a phonological
component. That is, how a speaker says the word defines what it means in a given
context (so semantics, pragmatics, and phonology are all at play here). These sentences
are examples of stressed been:
I BEEN cleaned that stove (Baugh, 1983)
I (already) cleaned that stove a considerable time ago
We BEEN lived here (Baugh, 1983)
We have lived here a long time
10
This stressed use of been carries with it the meaning of “an action that took place or a
state that came into being a long time ago” (Rickford & Rickford, 2000, 118). It has also
been called the remote time marker. Simply stated, when an AAVE speaker stresses been
it means that the action happened some time ago or the state was created some time ago.
Obviously, it does not necessarily mean the state is over (as in the second example).
Also, note the zero copula in the construction of both examples.
Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Curricula
All of the AAVE features discussed here have come up in the classroom writing
and speaking of my AAVE speaking students. If I and other educators can not
distinguish between differences in language use and genuine errors in language use we
cannot hope to foster pride and competence in either SAE or AAVE. Furthermore, as a
researcher interested in ethnography and critical discourse analysis, I must be able to
render and analyze the words of my subjects as they were spoken and intended. Yet,
beyond my personal research and professional agenda is the larger struggle for linguistic
tolerance as it impacts the social and academic chances of linguistically marginalized
students.
In a recent personal interview with AAVE writing specialist Arnetha Ball,
sociolinguist and AAVE pioneer Geneva Smitherman shared this insightful comment:
Nothing new of substance is known now that we didn’t know 15 years ago about
sociolinguistics and education in the schools. However, what we didn’t realize is
that negative attitudes concerning language are very deep seated.
Smitherman’s statement speaks to the reasons language and literacy educators,
researchers, and policy makers must continue to the work of understanding the histories,
11
grammars, uses, and social positionings of nonstandard dialects and marginalized
languages.
Everything that Dewey (1938), Vygotsky (1975), and Freire (1970) (and the
countless researchers and practitioners who follow in their footsteps) have taught us
about experiential, socially situated, and critical education for marginalized students rests
on a deep understanding of student experience and culture. Language is clearly an
important part of the experience and culture students bring into the classroom. It is a
crucial part of how they make and comprehend meaning in the world. To remain
ignorant of the complex sociolinguistic web associated with students’ home languages
and SAE is to continue to turn a blind eye to distance between the language of the
teachers and the way we talk.
References
Ball, A. (1999). Evaluating the Writing of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students:
The Case of the African American Vernacular English Speaker. In Cooper & Odell (Eds.)
Evaluating Writing. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English
Baugh, J. (1999). Out of the Mouths of Slaves: African American Language and
Educational Malpractice. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baugh, J. (2000). Beyond Ebonics: Racial Pride and Linguistic Prejudice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Baugh, J. (1983). Black Street Speech. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Burling, R. (1973). English Black and White. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: The Macmillan Co.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12
Labov, W. (1972). Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence. The Atlantic Monthly,
June Issue.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 3, 465-491.
Lee, C.D. (1995). A Culturally Based Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching African
American High School Students Skills in Literary Interpretation. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 4, 608-630.
Rickford, J., Rickford, R. (2000). Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13