Ebonics Dialect of English Language - Coursework Example

Fabiola Chayele Hoskins College Writing 26 April Cover Page: Ebonics Dialect After reading my corrections and using that as my guide to completely re-write assignment 1, I improved my essay by furthering Curzan’s descriptivism and explaining why it matters. I also went more in depth with the examples I used on each writer, which helped me build on stronger more accurate exhibits through out my paper. I completely altered my COCA example, making it about Ebonics and the way the usage of the word has increased throughout the years –I felt this was more relevant to my paper. Furthermore, in my first attempt to complete assignment 1, the majority of my grade resulted from multiple syntax issues; therefore, I worked on finding the doer/doing/done to structure my paper. Ebonics Dialect Language is a system of verbal words and written script used by humans to express one’s thoughts. Languages apart from being a tool of communication will normally give individuals specific identities. With people from different ethnicities, religions, geographical regions, and even race speak their own languages, it in a way reflects their culture and thereby their identities. Even among the mainstream languages such as English, certain dialects exist based on the above-mentioned four aspects. Scholars define a dialect as a language that is spoken by a “particular” ethnic or religious or regional or racial group that sub-exists as a slight variation of the main language. Ebonics is the term given to one such dialect of English, which are spoken by the African-Americans in the United States. According to the Corpus of Contemporary American English, the word Ebonics is now formally used in spoken language and in newspaper articles (Davies). Formally known as African American Vernacular English (AAVE), this Ebonics dialect is slightly different from the “Standard English” both in spoken and written form. When the dialect is viewed from grammatical perspective, it brings to focus the debate between descriptive and prescriptive grammar. Thinkers such as George Orwell, Anne Curzan, and David Foster Wallace have focused on this debate about English language in their works by providing similar and contrasting perspectives. In the line with the above authors’ perspectives, the way Standard English is implemented as the standard form of English language by overriding dialects like Ebonics, particularly in educational institutions, creates debate that whether prescriptive grammar should be given prominence over descriptive grammar although placing the prescriptive grammar in the pedestal is not fair. Language is an integral part of people’s lives and because of its significance conflicting issues arise. Languages not only provide identities to individuals, it can be used by the individuals to even assert their identities. “Language creates and maintains our communities. Through language, we assert our identities” (Curzan 873). So, it is evident that language can be an omnipresent entity and an identity-giving tool. Among the world languages, English optimally fits both the criteria. English is spoken throughout the world by sizable sections and speaking it provides the speakers a certain identity, and this is applicable to dialects of English as well. However, the varied dialects in English bring into focus another key problem. Basically, any dialect of English that correctly conveys what the user wants to express can be considered as “Correct English.” This point was put forward by Wallace who stated that “correct English usage is, as a practical matter, a function of whom youre talking to and how you want that person to respond-not just to your utterance but also to you” (50). Orwell supports and adds to this point by stating that correct English has “nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes ones meaning clear” (15). Despite such perspectives, proponents of Standard English and prescriptive grammar wish to restrict these dialects including Ebonics, particularly in educational institutions, thereby leading to contentious issues. This normally happens in countries or societies such as the United States where people from different ethnicities, religions, races, and so on live. As they enter and settle in foreign lands, they will try to learn or assimilate with the local culture, particularly language. However, it will be a difficult process leading to certain issues. Although, humans can learn and acquire new languages and even master it, they will predominantly speak and think only in their mother tongue leading to conflicts in certain environments. Curzan validates this perspective by stating, “our home language will always be part of our cognition and, arguably, part of who we are” (873). Furthermore, as above-mentioned, home language also provides them a specific identity. Although, the parents of the children will normally converse in their home language as a natural process, they will also do that purposely to instill in their children the necessity and significance of their native language. Despite such omnipresence and significance of home language in an individual or child’s upbringing, they are expected to sideline it and adopt Standard English and the related prescriptive grammar in certain key situations, particularly in schools. This is practically a difficult exercise because as Curzan states the spoken and written English that children are exposed in a class environment is “stylistically, if not grammatically different from what they speak at home” (873). Speaking of home, the children including African-Americans grasp and develop their home language from their parents and relatives and so it will be imbued strongly in their psyche. This was pointed by Curzan using the words of the linguist Geneva Smitherman, “See, when you lambast the home language that kids bring to school, you ain just dissin dem, you talking about they mommas!” (qtd. by Curzan 873). Despite such strong foundation of Ebonics dialect, African-Americans are expected to sideline it and absorb Standard English in certain official environments including School. Standard English and prescriptive grammar are valued more than dialects, but the thinkers Wallace and Curzan take a critical stance. Both of them, being evidently descriptivist, term the implementation of Standard English and sidelining of dialects, particularly Ebonics, as a racial act. Although, Wallace accepts the preeminence of Standard English or Standard Written English (SWE), he critically and derisively accepts it. “In this country, SWE is perceived as the dialect of education and intelligence and power and prestige, and anybody of any race, ethnicity, religion, or gender who wants to succeed in American culture has got to be able to use SWE…You can believe its racist and unjust” (Wallace 54). It appears that SWE is the dialect of the American elite, which is perpetuated as “Standard” by the same thereby directly and indirectly leading to racial discrimination. Curzan provides an additional perspective to this argument about political and social reasons by focusing on the prescriptive grammar of Standard English. “It is a dialect that has been elevated to the standard for social and political reasons, not because it is grammatically more logical or better” (Curzan 872). When prescriptive grammar of Standard English might not be able to make it better English, questions arise about its implementation. Certain sections opine that prescriptive grammar can have faults and so blindly holding on to it without constructive discussion is not a right precedent. Wallace uses the words of MIT’s Steven Pinker to show how prescriptive grammar incorporated Standard English is unquestionably followed, “Once introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no matter how ridiculous” (qtd. by Wallace 43). At the same time, considering the above-fact that prescriptive grammar and Standard English might not be sound in all aspects, it is crucial to accept that those other dialects are not inferior. This perspective was pointed out by Curzan who stated, “Nonstandard varieties are not illogical or any less rule-governed, in the descriptive sense, than Standard English” (876). Standard English with prescriptive grammar has extensive formal vocabulary, and set of stylistic conventions, but at the same time, it cannot be put in a pedestal without any questions. Curzan opines about the need for Standard English by stating, “A standard variety of a language facilitates communication across dialects and provides a useful written medium for publications” (875). It is like having set norms, so people from different backgrounds can use it, without showing distinctions. In addition, having Standard English and prescriptive grammatical rules can prevent “corruption” of the language, which can happen if words and phrases from various dialects are incorporated. “Usage rules often function as a gatekeeper, slowing the entry of new forms into written Standard English” (Curzan 873). Despite number of positive things going for Standard English and prescriptive grammar, the key point that is stressed by all the three thinkers is that languages undergo changes which cannot be restricted. As Curzan points out “All living languages change, and change is not decay” (875). Orwell adds to this perspective by opining, “language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes” (1). On the other hand, Wallace provides a slightly different perspective by pointing out how restricting change can lead to repercussions. “My own humble opinion is that some of the cultural and political realities of American life are themselves racially insensitive and elitist…which are toxic to the project of ever actually changing them” (Wallace 54). In that direction, it is imperative for the American society, particularly education institutions and its teachers, to facilitate an environment where Standard English and prescriptive grammar can be critically analyzed by the students, even while allowing them not to sideline their dialects. “Teachers need to educate themselves about the fundamentals of language as well as dialects and open up genuine conversation in their classes about prescriptive usage rules and grammar more generally” (Curzan 877). Orwell validates this argument by stating that people in general and students in particular when they think in a logical and even abstract manner, they will be more prone to think and express about those things in their dialects, “unless they make a conscious effort to prevent it” (15). To sum up, from the above-discussion, it is evident that dialects such as Ebonics will continue to exist and will be used. At the same time, Standard English and prescriptive rules are also crucial. So, instead of placing Standard English on a pedestal without any challenges, institutions and teachers should allow dialects and at the same time teach the prescriptive grammatical rules thereby empowering the students to think critically about all of them. Work Cited Curzan, Anne. “Says Who?: Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar.” PMLA 124.3 (2009): 870-79. Print. Curzan, Anne. “Teaching the Politics of Standard English.” Journal of English Linguistics 30.4 (2002): 339-52. Print. Davies, Mark. “The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990- present.” Corpus, n. d. Web. 25 April 2015. Orwell, George. “George Orwell, ‘Politics and the English Language,’ 1946.” George Orwell, n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. Wallace, David Foster. “Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage.” Harpers Magazine, Apr. 2001. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. Read More