Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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