Black Speech--Language or Dialect?

[Hillary]

An issue up for debate is whether or not Ebonics is a language or a dialect. Linguists accept all languages and dialects, but most non-linguists do not. A language is defined as "legitimately different" from other languages. A dialect is understood (with slight variations in words) among different communities. Ebonics is both English and a different language. Two kinds of languages are abstand (a language so different from others that it would be linguistically considered a language, even if not written) and ausbau (a language that has been reshaped by socio-political standards). Blacks have the power to declare Ebonics a legitimate language.

[Ian]

Another question (not the one we were going to present to the class) that our group discussed is somewhat related to ausbau languages. Would a language that evolved from another, or evolved over time, be considered another language or a dialect of it? For example, would Spanish or French be dialects of Latin, or a completely separate language? Or, could Modern English be considered a different language than Old or Middle English?

[Loren]

Would Ebonics be considered a language or a dialect, and what would be the possibel social significance of the classification?
My response to this was that AAL would not be considered a language of its own. However I do still believe that it deserves it's own distinction and legitimacy as a separate dialect. Strides should be made to inform the public that as a different dialect, it is not below standard english, just unique. However, as Ian stated below, he disagreed and believed that due to the cultural development of the AAL, it has distinguished itself as a language of its own.

[Randie]

I agree with Anjali; Ebonics should be considered a dialect as opposed to a language.

Answering Loren's question, I believe that that the social significance of classifying AAL as a dialect or language would be its rise in legitimacy. Because more and more non-linguists and non-AAL speakers are even considering classifying AAL, it has in turn become more legitimate. If we are considering it to be a dialect or even its own language, then we have validated AAL as something more concrete than slang, which it has often been considered to be in the past. Although it cannot yet be determined, maybe AAL's classification will allow the dialect/language to become more widespread, and will reach communities that had not previously considered it to be anything more than slang.

[Ada]

I agree with Anjali. I consider Ebonics a dialect because it is still similar enough to Standard English for other English-speakers to be able to understand it. Also, people who use Ebonics still learn and are required to learn the rules of Standard English. In China, for example, there are many different dialects throughout the country. However, everyone is still required to know Mandarin, which is analogous to Standard English. The same concept can be applied here.

In response to the second question, I think languages that evolved from another are considered languages when a standard for it is set. For example, Spanish was considered an official language after Antonio de Nebrija wrote the first Spanish dictionary and grammar book. Once a uniform as such is set, languages can be considered official, and not just dialects, because there is a tangible record of that language.

[Rachel]

Anj,

I understand why you would classify Ebonics as a dialect. It is very similar to Standard English, and for the most part comprehensible. However, I consider Ebonics to be a language. In support of this position, I offer the following empirical evidence: I have studied many Romance Languages during my time at THS, including Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese. Most people would agree that each of these languages is unique, and distinguishable from each other.

What differentiates them? I know Spanish and Portuguese are very similar languages. In terms of sentence structure, verb conjugations, and vocabulary, the differences are so slight that I would not classify them as two separate languages. The accents, on the other hand, change the game completely. These different accents are so slight, yet they represent so much. They represent the vastly different cultures of Spain and Portugal (and, as time went on, their colonies). The two separate accents and insubstantial vocabulary differences are enough for the world to accept Spanish and Portuguese as two separate languages and even more so as two separate cultures.

Why, then, is Ebonics considered a dialect? Most people would concede that Ebonics is similar to Standard English, but with the accents and different word usage, there is just as much of a difference between Ebonics and Standard English as there is between Spanish and Portuguese. The issue we as Americans have in separating Ebonics from “English” is the following: We view ourselves as a “melting pot.” We are all diverse individuals with different backgrounds, who share different experiences. Yet, we view ourselves as united. In distinguishing Ebonics from “English,” we ruin our picture of a united front.

The social significance in recognizing Ebonics as a language is that people would be more willing to accept that the errors in Standard English made by speakers of Ebonics are not the result of a stupidity or laziness, but rather, occur because the language they typically use is grammatically different from that of Standard English. As a result, those who spoke Ebonics could take more pride in their native tongue, instead of feeling ashamed for their use of “Bad English.”

[Ian]

YES! Thank you so much Rachel for absolutely writing part of what I was trying to provoke with my question!!!!

I do agree with your points 100%. After reevaluating my opinion on this matter, I would say that I do believe that Ebonics is a language and not a dialect.

My rationale is that I believe the main point that Smitherman's is trying to make is that you cannot look at Ebonics from the traditional linguistic viewpoint, but from the sociopolitical viewpoint. Because of this, Ebonics has more depth than being just a way of communication; it reflects the culture and heritage of African Americans

Thus, I believe that that in recognizing Ebonics as a language, one would also be recognizing the significance of the culture and heritage of a social group that has existed since before the founding of America.

I guess this would be somehwat comparable to the differences between English spoken in America and in England. My fellow former AP US History students may remember that in the great surge of American nationalism in the first half of the nineteenth century, we read about Noah Webster, who wrote an American Dictionary of the English Language which changed many of the overly complex English spelling rules (such as 'theatre' to theater) and adding American words (such as squash).