Jump to content

Talk:Ebonics (word): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
smith edits; added the words 'of the' between the words 'crux' and 'issue' on first line of para two, corrected spelling of the word genetically by adding 'g' in front of 'enetically'
response to analysis of Hoary
Line 295: Line 295:


::IP, you say: ''I think Hoary's off his meds again?'' It's not good to get into a habit of saying things such as this, as various editors of this encyclopedia (other than myself) are, or pretend to be, most upset to be referred to in such a way. (Personally, I don't care. I just wonder if you are asking or saying.) ¶ That trivial matter aside, you ask, or wonder, ''how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of desecenadts of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedants and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place.'' The question is bizarre. Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that (if you're diachronically inclined) can be plotted back to Early Modern English. (Of course the history of a language is of no concern whatever to any infant who's learning that language.) Such is the consensus among linguists. If you disagree, you may care to write a book saying why the consensus is mistaken. If the book found a reputable publisher, I'd read it with interest. CUP, OUP, and Wiley-Blackwell are among the publishers that are putting out surprisingly large numbers of books on linguistics; good luck persuading one of them to bring out your book. Until such theories come out via a university press or similar, I'll pay them no attention. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
::IP, you say: ''I think Hoary's off his meds again?'' It's not good to get into a habit of saying things such as this, as various editors of this encyclopedia (other than myself) are, or pretend to be, most upset to be referred to in such a way. (Personally, I don't care. I just wonder if you are asking or saying.) ¶ That trivial matter aside, you ask, or wonder, ''how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of desecenadts of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedants and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place.'' The question is bizarre. Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that (if you're diachronically inclined) can be plotted back to Early Modern English. (Of course the history of a language is of no concern whatever to any infant who's learning that language.) Such is the consensus among linguists. If you disagree, you may care to write a book saying why the consensus is mistaken. If the book found a reputable publisher, I'd read it with interest. CUP, OUP, and Wiley-Blackwell are among the publishers that are putting out surprisingly large numbers of books on linguistics; good luck persuading one of them to bring out your book. Until such theories come out via a university press or similar, I'll pay them no attention. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Hoary's analysis
Ernie Smith writes
In the neuroscience area of medicine there is a brain injury or disease called subdural hematoma. According to Weiner and Goetz, one of the clinical manifestations of this brain injury or disease is "a depressed level of consciousness" (1994:45). Weiner and Goetz indicate that the "depressed level of consciousness can occur before focal findings, and may have trivial or no trauma history." There are two types of subdural hematomas, the acute subdural hematoma and the chronic subdural hematoma, and they are classified according to the interval of time that occurs between the instance of a head injury and the development of clinical manifestations. Of these two subdural hematomas, the chronic subdural hematoma: "is more common in patients with cerebral atrophy (i.e. the elderly and alcoholism)" (Weiner and Goetz 1994:223). Also, however, studies of the prolonged use of cocaine have produced irrefutable evidence of the tremendous brain damage (cerebral atrophy) that can occur from such use. This suggests that ‘alcoholism’ is not the only form of 'substance abuse’ that can be associated with cerebral atrophy as the underlying mechanism of chronic subdural hematoma.

I have initiated my response to User Hoary’s critique with a discussion of subdural hematoma because I suspect that therein lies the etiology of his or her patently deficient critical thinking skills. This response will show that, while the User Hoary’s critique purports to be about Ebonics, actually his/her critique has nothing to do with Ebonics: User Hoary’s critique is about ‘a lect of English’ which implies, inherently, that the language of Black Americans is a dialect of English, and, thus, is genetically related to the West Germanic language family to which contemporary American English belongs. Now the User Aeusoes1 has stated: “This is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, not a forum for discussion and not an outlet for original research or original analysis. If we talk about anything, it should be how to improve the article. Let's get back on topic, folks.” — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet

I agree, one hundred percent, with User Aeusoes or Ƶ§œš¹: “If we talk about anything, it should be how to improve the article”, and I agree that, when I say, ''I think Hoary's off his meds again?'' it's not good to get into a habit of saying things such as this because various editors of this encyclopedia (other than myself) are, or pretend to be, most upset to be referred to in such a way. I want to improve that article. The problem is this: The User Hoary seems to be unfettered in his/her ability to make slyly disparaging remarks and insults. The User Hoary drew first blood by making jest of typos and what he or she deemed to be my lack of ideally competent English composition. I refused to be insulted and replied with an appropriate slur of my own. If Wikipedia will keep a tight check on the rabid insults of User Hoary, I will, likewise, refrain from making such denigrating retorts. In Black American culture ‘playing the dozens’ is a pastime sport. (See Smitherman G. 1977:128-134) See also Folb E. (1980:235)

The User Hoary asks following, in response to the question that I posed in my article: “I just wonder if you are asking or saying.) &para; That trivial matter aside, you ask, or wonder, ''how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of descendants of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedents and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place?'' The question is bizarre”. We cannot proceed as adults if my questions are belittled as ‘bizarre’. Too, if this slur is being made by User Hoary, it verifies my suspicion that subdural hematoma is the etiology of his/her patently deficient critical thinking skills. Given that the name User Hoary appears at the end of the critique, and given that the style of criticism reeks of User Hoary’s DNA, I am predisposed to posit this critique and the slur that “the question is bizarre” to User Hoary as his bilge.

Needless to say, as the Wikipedia reader can discern, I do have retorts of my own in reply to these unprovoked slurs. The User (Hoary) continues his/her critique by positing that: “Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that (if you're diachronically inclined) can be plotted back to Early Modern English”. In response to this slur concerning my bias, predisposition or tendency to favor diachronic linguistics I say that, as a graduate of the University of California at Irvine with a Ph.D. in Comparative Culture and a Subspecialty in Comparative Linguistics, and, in 1978, having been appointed to the rank of Full Professor in the Department of Linguistics at California State University at Fullerton where I taught Linguistic Ontogeny (529), American Dialects (305), Minority Dialects (107), and Bilingualism (411), I am, indeed, diachronically inclined. In fact, the word Ebonics came into existence because of an irrationally, incongruent, Eurocentric deviation from universally accepted comparative, diachronic or historical linguistics principles. (See Smith E.2001) (Wade N. (2005)

Having addressed the User Hoary’s slur concerning my being “diachronically inclined” and the User’s slur that “The question is bizarre”, made in response to my question of ''how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of descendants of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedents and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place?'', I will now address the User’s statement that: “Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that …can be plotted back to Early Modern English”. At the beginning of my article the issue of the origin of the word Ebonics is bifurcated from the issue of whether, from a diachronic linguistic perspective, Ebonics is a dialect of English, and, hence, genetically related to the Germanic language family. In the essay that I submitted to Wikipedia for editing and discussion, I asserted that I participated in the 1973 “Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child” Conference in St. Louis, and was there when Dr. Robert Williams coined the term "Ebonics". I am even credited by Dr. Williams as the scrivener who framed the wording of the official definition of the term Ebonics (See Williams, 1997:210). So, I say with absolute authority that the term Ebonics does not refer to “a lect’ of English”, and the word Ebonics is not a synonym for any appellation that inherently infers that the language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans is a dialect of English, thusly, making it genetically related to the West Germanic language family to which contemporary American English belongs.

The Wikipedia reader will notice that the User Hoary has not denied that Dr. Williams coined the word Ebonics in 1973. Because the User Hoary is bereft of any empirical evidence that Dr. Robert Williams did not coin the word Ebonics in 1973, we can proceed to the issue of the meaning of the word Ebonics. In my essay, I contended that Dr. Williams posited an “official definition of the word Ebonics in 1973, when he originally coined the word. I notice that the User, Hoary also, has not denied that, when Dr. Williams originally coined the word Ebonics, he posited an “official definition” of the word Ebonics. Because the User appears to be bereft of a shred of empirical evidence that Dr. Williams did not posit an “official definition” of the word Ebonics when he coined the word, we can proceed to an ‘adult’ discussion of whether or not any definitions of the word Ebonics, that do not conform to the definition posited as the “official definition” by Dr. Williams, are counterfeit or legitimate. For, the User Hoary seems to be suggesting that when a counterfeiter puts the name ‘Rolex’ on a one jewel, gold plated, Hong Kong watch, that makes a one jewel, gold plated, Hong Kong watch a genuine Rolex? (See Smith E. and Crozier K. (1998)

The intent of the official definition of Ebonics posited by Dr. Williams and agreed to by the Conference members assembled is this: Ebonics is the language spoken by descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans, and is the linguistic continuation of the Niger-Congo African tradition in Black America. Since the User Hoary does not deny that when Dr. Williams originally coined the word Ebonics he, also, posited an “official definition, it appears that what the User Hoary really wants to refute is the basic tenet of the definition that Dr. Williams posits as the meaning of the word Ebonics. Now, I am perfectly willing to engage in this discussion with the User, Hoary if it will improve the article. But I shall, at every turn, critically address the logical fallacies and snide slurs of Captious and Sophists User Hoary.

Let’s return now to User Hoary’s statement that: “Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that … can be plotted back to Early Modern English”. The Wikipedia reader will notice that; while the User Hoary does not deny that the enslaved ancestors, antecedents and forebears of Black Americans did not originally speak Early Modern English, he/she has not stipulated that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Niger-Congo and Bantu African Languages. There are two incongruent implications here: First, if the ancestors of African ancestors did not, originally, speak EmodE, then, what did they speak? That is, the User Hoary implies that, initially, the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans were primitive, docile, sub-human savages, possessing only mating calls, distress signals and feral grunts, and that they did not have the cortical capacity for fully human thoughts. Therefore, they had not developed a fully human language or communication system of their own.

Implied also is that because they possessed only the rudiments of a language to start with, the "scant baggage" of mating calls, distress signals and feral grunts that the enslaved the Africans ancestors of Black Americans possessed most certainly could not have been the grammatical nor the lexical base upon which Black American dialects of English were developed. In other words, the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans did not, originally, speak Early Modern English, for they were sub-human tabula rasa or blank slates upon which the ancestors of EmodE speakers imprinted a human language upon their savage minds for the first time. Since possession of the cognitive faculty of language or the capacity to speak and transmit thoughts, systematically, using highly structured, rule governed signs and symbols is the specie specific attribute that distinguishes homo sapiens from the ape and lower primates, this view denies that Niger-Congo Africans are human beings: The User Hoary appears to be of the ilk that propagates this asinine point of view.

On the other hand, there is a second implication that is as equally incongruent. This view, postulated by those who contend that Black Americans speak a dialect of English, acknowledges that Niger-Congo or Black Africans are human beings, and that the ancestors, antecedents and forebears of Black Americans possessed fully human Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages. However, also implied in this view is that, in the transmission process, the enslaved African ancestors, antecedents and forebears of Black Americans gave up African languages. That is, they broke with the African linguistic tradition and accepted EmodE, or what User Hoary calls a ‘lect’ of English, as their mother tongue. It is this view that I was addressing when I submitted my initial contribution to Wikipedia. I contend there is an internal inconsistency or incongruence in the view that Black Americans speak a dialect of English”. Firstly, while this view concedes that the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans spoke Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages, it posits a complete break with and discontinuity of Niger-Congo and Bantu linguistic system, (i.e., the morpho-syntax or rules of grammar) and a wholesale adoption of the morpho-syntactical or grammar rules of Early Modern, English by enslaved Niger-Congo Africans and their descendants. The proponents of this view ignore or deny, entirely, the existence of African Niger-Congo and Bantu language elements in the grammar of Black American English. They posit the less than ideally competent English grammar (non standard usage) that exists in the dialects of Black Americans as being EmodE survivals that were imperfectly obtained or learned by the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans, or as being colonial Scots-Irish Celtic language features acquired from Scots-Irish overseers and indentured servants. When asked to explain the irrefutable evidence of non-EmodE and non-colonial Scots Irish features that exist in the English dialect of Black Americans, they attribute the existence of a ‘scant few’ African words to borrowings initially made by EmodE speakers and then taught to their enslaved Niger-Congo African vassals.

I maintain that the postulation that there is morpho-syntactical continuity from EmodE to Black American dialects to the English language or dialects of Black American urban inner cities as a result of EmodE speakers having mutilated or dummied down their EmodE grammar in order to communicate with the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans is not supported by the empirical comparative linguistic evidence. Neither is the notion that, in the transmission process, the enslaved ancestors of Black Americans gave up their African Niger Congo and Bantu languages and accepted the ersatz EmodE grammar (baby talk) as their primary language or mother tongue. I maintain further that the view or thesis that any and all African elements that exist in the English language or dialects of Black American urban communities are borrowings made by EmodE speakers and taught or transmitted to their enslaved Niger-Congo and Bantu African slaves is oxymoronic nonsense. In fact, the view that the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans gave the up their Niger-Congo and Bantu languages for an ersatz EmodE (baby talk) implies that the African ancestors of Black Americans did not have much of a language anyway. Thus, this is a view that differs only to a minute degree from the view that the African ancestors of Black Americans had no language at all. In essence, both views support the ‘deficiency hypothesis’, known, thusly, in the bio-behavioral and social sciences.

With regards to User Hoary’s closing remarks that “the issue is not (Of course, the history of a language is of no concern whatever to any infant who's learning that language.) Such is the consensus among linguists. If you disagree, you may care to write a book saying why the consensus is mistaken. I would read the book with interest, if it was published by a reputable publisher. CUP, OUP, and Wiley-Blackwell are among the publishers that are publishing a surprisingly large number of books on linguistics; good luck persuading one of them to bring out your book. Until such theories come out via a university press or similar, I'll pay them no attention”. I strongly urge this User Hoary to read my article entitled Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Worker Notification to Blue Collar and No-Collar African American Workers (1993) In American Journal of Industrial Medicine Edited by Philip J. Landrigan, Irving J. Seliokoff et. al. New York. Wiley-Liss


References

Alleyne, M. (1971) Linguistic Continuity of Africa in The Caribbean in Topics In African American Studies Edited by Henry Richards New York. Black Academy Press.

Crawford C. (2001) Ebonics and Language Education of African Ancestry Students Linguistic Society of America Chicago January 1997 Resolution on Oakland Ebonics Issue (p358) Brooklyn Sankofa World Publishers.

Delpit T. (1998) Linguistic Society of America’s Resolution on the Oakland Ebonics Issue Chicago January 1997 In Real Ebonics Debate (pg160) Boston Beacon Press.

Folb E. (1980) Runnin Down Some Lines: The language and Culture of Black Teenagers Cambridge Harvard University Press.

Greenberg J. (1967) Essays in Linguistics Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Holloway J.E. (1991) Africanisms in American Culture Bloomington Indiana University Press.
Janheinz J. (1953): Muntu: An Outline of the New African Culture New York, Grove Press.


(Kifano S., Smith E. A, (2005) Ebonics and Education in Context of Culture Edited by J. Ramirez et. al. Buffalo Multilingual Matters Ltd.


Smith E.A. (1993) Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Worker Notification to Blue Collar and No-Collar African American Workers In American Journal of Industrial Medicine Edited by Philip J. Landrigan, Irving J. Seliokoff, et. al. New York. Wiley-Liss

Smith, E.A. (1997) What is Ebonics What Is Black English In Real Ebonics Debate Edited by Perry T. and Delpit L. Chicago-Boston Beacon Press.

Smith E. A., Crozier K. (1998) Ebonics Is Not Black English In The Western Journal of Black Studies. Pullman Washington State University Press.

Smith E.A. (2002) Ebonics A Case History In The Skin the we Speak Edited by Lisa Delpit and Joanne K. Dowdy New York New York Press.

Smitherman G. (1977) Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America Boston Houghton Mifflin Co.

Wade N. (2005) Languages May Speak Volumes. New York New York Times article.

Weiner, W J. and Goetz, C G. (1994) Neurology for the Non-Neurologist Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Co.

Revision as of 13:10, 1 March 2010

WikiProject iconAfrican diaspora Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Junk references elsewhere to "Ebonics"

The list of what links to "Ebonics" brings a lot of surprises. One of the first I noticed was Urdu, which, until I fixed it, contained this not-gem about Dakkhini Urdu:

The Dialect is very reflective of the relaxed attitude of the people which allows the coinage of words, much like ebonics.

By "ebonics", the author meant AAVE, but that's the least of the problems.

It could be a good idea to go through this list of incoming links, of course leaving what's in talk pages (though perhaps commenting on some of it), changing many of the links so that they instead point to the AAVE article, and, most importantly, removing folk linguistics and ignorant opinions, as well perhaps as some racism. -- Hoary 07:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a few just now. There aren't all that many, though, so it shouldn't be too hard to dab. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But before dabbing any, do read it twice to check that it doesn't say anything silly. Really, those I saw were pretty bad. What's irritating is that deletion can be taken to constitute "removal of information", thus requiring a note on the relevant talk page. -- Hoary 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "Be cool, baby. Reason will prevail." Something like that. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, much more likely, your hard work. Yesterday a lot of articles were pointing to this one, now much fewer are; it wasn't me who did all of that. Thank you! -- Hoary 04:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Of the ones left, African American Vernacular English and Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folks seem the most appropriate. Ebonic and Ebonix are redirect pages to here and they might be better as redirects to AAVE but I don't think it's worth the effort to change it. I don't understand what patrick.tanksley refers to. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was thinking. -- Hoary 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I was really hoping to find some opinions on ebonics, positive and negative, in the article itself. The links are there though. I was also surprised to nee no mention of the term "jive talk", which as far as I understood was virtually synonymous with ebonics. 68.46.232.25 14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Cliff[reply]

I think that the article briefly deals with the pros and cons of the concept of Ebonics, so far as Ebonics is separable from African American Vernacular English, q.v.
AAVE is a lect; it's strange for an encyclopedia to present positive or negative opinions on a language or lect. Unfortunately, though, ignorance about language has led to some silly talk about AAVE, and perhaps that article should say a little more about this.
Earlier, the term jive was erroneously supplied as a synonym for AAVE. Please see this on why it was cut. -- Hoary 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonic Plague

In 1996, when the Oakland School Board announced that students would begin getting school credit for speaking Ebonics, there was a national outcry of criticism. The TV show "Saturday Night Live" created a skit that mocked the school board. The plot of the skit was an outbreak of the "Ebonic Plague" which caused members of the skit (all white) to suddenly begin talking in a patois. It was hilarious and evidently the last straw. The school board backed down soon after.

--cheers 70.153.13.175 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Titus[reply]

Ernie Smith writes: For the totally uninitiated Wikipedia reader,on the issue of whether Ebonics is a language or dialect; I should make it clear here that, although there might be in socio and geopolitical circles, and TV skits, in the field of linguistics there is not and there has never been a debate as to whether Ebonics is a ‘language’ or a ‘dialect’. In linguistics it is axiomatic that human languages differ and there are no languages that do not, in varying degrees, have social or regional (geographical) dialects. Therefore, as in the case of all human languages, Ebonics is both a language and a dialect. Ebonics is a language because it is system of communication for transmitting human thoughts. Ebonics is a dialect because within the common core, systematic, rule governed and predictable rules of gammar that makes Ebonics a language, there variation in Ebonics is related to socio-economic and geographical diffences that exist between the speakers.

Given that Ebonics is in fact a language, the crux of the issue at hand is; to which language family, as a dialect, does the language 'Ebonics’ belong? In other words, the real Ebonics debate is whether the empirical or hard evidence supports the thesis that, on the basis of continuity of the morphology and morpho-syntax (rules of grammar)is the language of African Americans (i.e., descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans)genetically akin to the Germanic language family to which English belongs? Or based the criterion of continuity of the morphology and morpho-syntax (rules of grammar) is Ebonics genetically akin to the Niger-Congo and Bantu languages of Africa as a neo African dialect that is the linguistic continuation of the Niger-Congo and Bantu language family in diaspora?

References Kifano S., Smith E. A, (2005) Ebonics and Education in Context of Culture: Meeting Language and Cultural Needs of LEP African American Children Edited by J. Ramirez et. al. Buffalo Multilingual Matters Ltd. Smith E. A. (1974) The Evolution and Continuing Presence of the African Oral Tradition In Black Ameica. Irvine. University of California at Irvine Smith E.A. (1976) A Case for Bilingual and Bicultural Education for United States Slave Descendants of African Origin Department of Linguistics Seminar Papers Series No 39 Edited By A. Kaye and D. Sears California State University Fullerton, Fullerton Smith E.A. (1978) Historical Development of Ebonics In The Western Journal of Black Studies. Pullman Washington State University Press Smith E.A. (1993) Black Child In the Schools: Ebonics and its Implications for the Transformation of American Education In Bicultural Education Studies In Education Edited by A. Darder, Claremont, Claremont Graduate School Smith E. A., Crozier K. (1998) Ebonics Is Not Black English In The Western Journal of Black Studies. Pullman Washington State University Press Smith E.A. (1993) Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Worker Notification to Blue Collar and No-Collar African American Workers In American Journal of Industrial Medicine Edited by Philip J. Landrigan, Irving J. Seliokoff et. al. New York. Wiley-Liss Smith E.A (2001) Ebonics and Bilingual Education of the African American Child In Ebonics and Language Education of African Ancestry Students Edited by Clinton Crawford Brooklyn Sankofa World Publishers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.35.80 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonics is a course, not the language itself

It is my understanding that the term "Ebonics" was originally the name of an instructional course in AAVE, and not the name of the language itself. Thus there is no such concept as "speaking in Ebonics", etc. Something referencing this fact (after verification, of course) should be placed as close to the beginning of the article as possible. Mal7798 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to make two assertions here, one tentative, the other direct.
First, on chronological precedence. The article presents good evidence that the term was used in 1973, and incontrovertible evidence that it was used in 1975 -- though so far by only a very small number of people. Both times are pretty early. I'd be very interested in evidence for any instructional course in AAVE titled "Ebonics" (or anything else) from that time or earlier. I understand that you say that (for now) you have no such evidence, so I'm not complaining about its absence, just hoping to see it.
Secondly, on the implication of chronological precedence. Let's suppose we find evidence that yes, back in (say) 1971 somebody was giving a course titled "Ebonics", and thus that the course title got there first. And further, that the instructor didn't intend "Ebonics" to be used as the name of the language and didn't use it in that way. Well, so? Words acquire additional meanings; this is a most humdrum and indisputable fact of linguistic change over time. (An example referenced in this very article: phonics.) Nothing about that putative earlier use of the word "Ebonics" would prevent its later use for something rather different.
Incidentally, if back in the early 70s or earlier there had been an instructional course titled "Ebonics", either about something other than AAVE or about AAVE called something other than "Ebonics", I'd wonder what the course was about and why it was titled "Ebonics".
Well, I await the evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term appears to be a portmanteau of "ebony" and "phonics", the latter being a literacy-instructional method, rather than a specific course. I do not recall hearing the term "phonics" before 1987 (when I graduated from high school), first hearing it in the Hooked on Phonics title (a literacy-instructional course using the phonics method), and I was surprised to find that phonics was merely synonymous with "sounding it out", because as far as I knew at the time, sounding it out was the only method of literacy instruction. The term phonics had to be created to distinguish it from the "whole word" method which came to prominence, from what I recall, approximately in the late 1980s. The popularization of the term "Ebonics" has to have followed that of the term "phonics", and I don't believe the concept of phonics was called anything other than "sounding it out" or merely "learning to read" by mainstream society before approximately 1987. A portmanteau using "-phonics" would have had little meaning if the term was not already in mainstream use. The existence of a title using the term more than a decade earlier does surprise me. It suggests the etymology of the term is different than what I thought. Terms like "Ebonese", "Ebonish", or even "Ebonic" (singular) would seem more standard if the term was meant to refer to a language. I always thought the use of the term as an alternate name for AAVE was based on misunderstandings, but that is apparently not exclusively true after all. Mal7798 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article quotes Williams as saying: Ebonics derives its form from ebony (black) and phonics (sound, the study of sound). (Williams's book is rather elusive, but this particular passage is quoted in accessible and authoritative books.) A good dictionary will confirm that the word "phonics" can indeed have the meaning of "phonetics", although it is seldom used for this purpose. (And I imagine that the use will become completely obsolete if it isn't so already, as (i) the trivially longer "phonetics" (a) is well established and (b) usefully emphasizes the etic/emic distinction with "phonemic", and (ii) there's obvious risk of confusion with the pedagogic meaning.)
You say: The popularization of the term "Ebonics" has to have followed that of the term "phonics". I see no reason for this. Anyway, "phonics", used to mean what most people would call "phonetics", was (at least among those who were interested in such things) well known at the time when "ebonics" was coined. Was "phonics", in the sense of "phonetics", well known among the general public? I doubt it, but this wouldn't have mattered: people would have recognized the neologism "ebonics" as a derivative of "ebony" with the "-ics" suffix of "economics", "statistics", etc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) .... slightly retouched 02:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"what the hell 'ebonics' is"

Here's a list of the most recent edits:

  1. edit in which Paaerduag replaces The term Ebonics with Ebonics is a term that; no edit summary.
  2. edit in which Hoary reverts this, with the edit summary undo: no need for four words where two will suffice
  3. edit in which some IP removes a category, with no edit summary
  4. edit in which the IP blanks the whole article, with no edit summary
  5. edit in which Thingg reverts the article to the state in which Hoary left it
  6. edit in which Paaerduag reverts to his phrasing, with the edit summary I think when people open this article, they want a nice simple statement of what the hell "ebonics" is. I provide that statement: what is ebonics? It is a term.

Sadly, vandalism of this article is commonplace. (Thanks to Wikipedia, I now know that the world has a vigorous minority of fools.) But Paaerduag's edits, which of course aren't vandalism, surprise me.

Paaerduag's list of contributions throws some light on this. That second edit of his was made on 27 December and it's his/her first in eight days (and, as I write, the latest). A great number of his/her preceding edits were to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), under the rubric "Introductory Sentence Proposal". Paaerduag writes (here):

I propose to standardize the introductory sentences in all articles across wikipedia into the following format:
[Indefinite/definite article] + [Article title] + [relevant conjugation of the verb to be] + [definition/overview etc.]
(NB: The article may be omitted if it is inappropriate/unnecessary.)

Paaerduag wrote cheerily:

Thanks for any feedback and comments on this proposal

and got a moderate amount of feedback, some positive, some negative. One of the comments read:

you could rewrite the start of Ebonics to for example "Ebonics is a term that was..." but I don't see how that would be an improvement

This remark seems to have acted as a "red flag" to Paaerduag.

If Ebonics is merely a term, then this is a dictionary entry (though an oddly longwinded one). And if it's a dictionary entry, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

I have mixed feelings about this article. It's only worthwhile so far as it describes something other than AAVE or this or that specific US outburst of affrontedness. But on balance I do think that a good article on "Ebonics" helps to avoid misunderstandings, and more importantly the article (in something not so far from its current state) survived an AfD.

And when I was taught about crafting prose, I heard that, other things being equal, two words were better than four.

So I'm inclined to revert Paaerduag a second time. Still, let's see what a third party thinks. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I chuckle. Second, to respond is the action that I now wish to take.. I don't see any improvement (rather, a minor increase of wordiness) to the article by replacing : The term Ebonics with Ebonics is a term that... Editorial energies are probably best concentrated on more important stuff. Pinkville (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

What seems to have been the stable 1st sentence:"Ebonics is a term that was originally intended and sometimes used for the language of all people of African ancestry, or for that of Black North American and West African people " is clearly wrong, judging by the passage quoted from the book below. Perhaps "in the US" was implied, but we don't do things that way in WP. Actual African languages are clearly not intended to be included. The passage from the book begs a number of questions - are French-based patois covered? African versions of Arabic? Why just West Africa? I have tried another version. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Williams, as quoted below:
"the linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendant [sic] of African origin. [...]"
(my emphasis). Now, this strikes me as peculiarly bad writing ("on a concentric continuum") toward a characterization of language that, so far as I start to understand it, is mushy at best. But that's what this non-linguist wrote -- or so we are told in books that are themselves reliable. Taken together with the sourced assertion in the article that --
Other writers have since emphasized how the term represents a view of the language of Black people as African rather than European.
--it's clear to me as a reader that yes, this conception of "Ebonics" does indeed include African versions of Arabic, African French, and so forth. And thus it's clear to me as somebody at a low rung (but not the absolute bottom rung) of linguistics that this notion makes no sense either genetically [note to the easily outraged: genetic is here a linguistics term] or typologically, and therefore that it's a load of cobblers. But that's what it was intended to mean. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I happen to have Lisa Green's book with me. On p.7 she writes:
The view of Williams and other scholars who discussed this issue [sc. that of "Ebonics"] was that the language of black people had its roots in Niger-Congo languages of Africa, not in Indo-European languages. However, during the Oakland controversy, the media and general public adopted the term "Ebonics", using it interchangeably with the labels given earlier [sc. BEV, AAE, AAVE], thus not using the term as it was intended.
-- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia removal

I've removed this newly inserted bit:

Later, Ebonics resurfaced in American popular culture, for a moment at least, when the term was the question to an answer on the American quiz show Jeopardy!. When presented with the answer "It's a colloquial term for Black English", contestant Ken Jennings (whose run on the show broke records) replied "What be Ebonics?".

Momentary resurfacing in American popular culture strikes me as trivial, as does an appearance in Jeopardy. Plus there's no indication of when this happened, plus the assertion is unsourced. I've therefore removed it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on "standard" and "nonstandard", and on "bias"

In this edit, Abductive changes

it has been largely used to refer to African American Vernacular English (distinctively nonstandard Black United States English)

to

it has been largely used to refer to African American Vernacular English

with the edit summary

Non-standard is a loaded term

Now, I've no doubt that this edit was intended well, but:

  1. "African American Vernacular English" was in bold for a reason: to point the probably large number of readers arriving at "Ebonics" in order to read about what en:WP calls AAVE to the article where AAVE is described.
  2. Removal of "(distinctively nonstandard Black United States English)" removes what might be a helpful reminder of the meaning of AAVE.
  3. As any open minded person who has heard the speech of Barack Obama (just to name the best known among millions) will know, Black Americans are masters of standard American English. "Distinctively nonstandard Black US English" may well be bettered as a single mouthful to describe AAVE, and I'd happily see improvements, but it seems helpful and accurate.
  4. "Non-standard" may indeed be a loaded term in other contexts or in the mouths of ignoramuses. But this is about linguistics and it's a standard term in linguistics. Books on linguistics (and not only sociolinguistics) routinely and correctly point out that it in no way implies inferiority. (See this as one example of a linguist contrasting AAVE with Standard English with no slight to the latter.)

In the following edit, Abductive changes

since 1996 it has been largely used to refer to African American Vernacular English, asserting the independence of this from (standard) English

to

since 1996 it has been largely used to refer to African American Vernacular English, as distinct from the General American dialect

with the edit summary

Toning down bias

There are problems here:

  1. General American is indeed merely yet another variety of English (on a par with AAVE, British "Received Pronunciation", etc) and can be called a lect and perhaps a dialect. However, unless it comes with a brief explanation, this way of referring to it as a dialect is likely to confuse naive readers, who may well wrack their brains for some "general American dialect" to subsume Brooklyn, Boston, Texas, and all the other "regional" forms of US English.
  2. As the article goes on to explain, the point about the term "Ebonics" was (is?) to assert the independence of this language from [standard] English (and not only from the General American lect thereof). Like it or not, as it was originally intended (and where it means more than does "AAVE"), "Ebonics" itself has ideological freight. Thus the "bias" is that of the term itself, not the description.

In the next edit, some IP tampers with writing explicitly attributed to Robert Williams. In the following edit I revert that. And in the edit after that one, I revert Abductive's changes too, bringing the article back to the form it was in back in early October (and perhaps earlier still), aside from one change to a category.

Again, I'm sure that Abductive had the best intentions. I think it's very likely that the wording and perhaps the content of this article could be improved, and welcome well-informed improvements from Abductive or anyone else. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? I'm troubled by the lack of sources on any of the sentences of the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I probably shan't be able to go searching for sources for another 30 hours or so, but certainly I'll be willing to do so then. I don't quite know what it is that you want sourced, though. (For example, the assertion that "Ebonics" has ideological freight is explained later within the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:Ernie A. Smith Ph.D.

In this edit, User:Ernie A. Smith Ph.D. added the following to the article:

Ernie Smith writes: There are two issues conflated in Wikipedia that must be separated in order for a reader to have a cohesive understanding of the dispute regarding the origin and true meaning of word Ebonics. Firstly, the issue of the origin and true meaning of the word ‘Ebonics’ is a separate and distinctly different issue from the issue of whether the native language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans is a dialect of English and ipso facto genetically related to the Germanic language family to which English belongs. There is within this issue, secondly, a question as why, when in fact, in Indo-European linguistics, the most prevalent view is that, continuity of morphology constitutes the relevant evidence for positing genetic kinship, those who posit the language of descendants enslaved Niger-Congo Africans as being a dialect of English (an Indo-European language) reject continuity of morphology as being the relevant evidence and posit instead that it is continuity of the ‘English lexicon’ or dominant lexifier language i.e., ‘English-lexifier’ that is the relevant evidence that makes Ebonics is a dialect of English?

Relative to the first issue, i.e., concerning the origin and true meaning of the word Ebonics, in an earlier edit that I submitted to Wikipedia I presented empirical evidence that word Ebonics was coined in January of 1973 by Dr. Robert L. Williams, an African American psychologist who was at that time a professor of psychology at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. As further empirical evidence that Dr. Robert Williams coined the term Ebonics in 1973, I cite an Op. Ed. article written by Dr. Robert Williams in the January 28, 1997 issue of St. Louis Post Dispatch. In this Op. Ed. article Dr. Williams presents excerpts from a tape recording made during a small group meeting of Black psychologists, linguists and speech and language scholars attending a conference on "The Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child' in St Louis, Missouri. At this conference, funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), papers were presented by psychologists, linguists, special education experts, speech pathologists and language researchers from other disciplines who viewed the native language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans as being a dialect of English. Papers were likewise presented by psychologist, linguist, speech pathologists and language researchers who viewed the language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans as being a neo-African dialect that is genetically related to the Niger-Congo and Bantu language of Africa.

In my earlier edit submission to Wikipedia I argued and presented empirical evidence that as coined and originally defined by the author of the word Ebonics (Dr. Robert Williams) the word ‘Ebonics’ does not refer to a Black dialect of English or any other appellation that inherently infers the native language of African Americans is a dialect of English and hence genetically related to the Germanic language family to which English belongs. I posited that, with the exception of the dissertation of Dr. Ernie Smith (University of California at Irvine 1974), in which the term Ebonics is used extensively, edited by Dr. Robert Williams, the first book ever written on Ebonics was entitled Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folks (1975). In this book which contains articles authored by several presenters attending this conference Dr. Williams also contributed an article entitled "The Effects of Language on the Test Performance of Black Children". In this article Dr. Williams provides what, in his St. Louis Post Dispatch article, is recorded as the ‘official definition’ of the word Ebonics. The title of my dissertation is “The Evolution and Continuing Presence of the African Oral Tradition in Black America” It should be noted that as matter of policy all University of California (UC) dissertations are copyrighted. In my dissertation (Chapter 1 page 1) the word Ebonics is defined precisely as originally and is officially defined by Dr. Williams. I also contributed a chapter from my dissertation as an article in "Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folk" (1975).

In the Dr. Williams article entitled "The Effects of Language on the Test Performance of Black Children" (1975:100) he makes it very clear that the African American psychologists, linguists, special education, speech and language professionals that were assembled rejected the thesis that the native language of Black Americans was a Black dialect of English and that the Group: “…in a barrage of criticism held that the concept of Black English or non-standard English contains deficit model characteristics, and therefore must be abolished. Following considerable discussion regarding the language of Black people, the Group reached a consensus to adopt the term Ebonics (combining Ebony and Phonics or Black sounds).” Clearly, based on what Dr. Robert Williams states here, the word Ebonics was not coined and defined as a synonym for Black English (BE), Non-standard Negro English (NNE), Black Vernacular English (BVE), African American English (AAE), African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Negro English (NE), Vernacular Black English, etc., but rather the word Ebonics was coined in repudiation of any and all the appellations that inherently infer that the native language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans is a dialect of English and genetically related to the Germanic language family to which English belongs.

Thus, the Wikipedia reader is here confronted with precisely the same issue with which the Oakland Unified School District Board (OUSD) was confronted in 1996. Does the term 'Ebonics' mean what Dr. Robert Williams, the African American psychologist who originally coined and 'officially' defined the term Ebonics, says it means, or does it mean what those contend that Ebonics is a synonym for BE, NNE, BVE, AE, AAVE, VBE, NE, VBE etc., say it means? In its effort to resolve this issue, the OUSD Board created a Task Force on The Education of African American Children (Task Force). One of the tasks assigned to the Task Force was to investigate the origin and authentic meaning of the term Ebonics. As a result of its investigation the Task Force on The Education of African American Children concluded that the irrefutable empirical evidence was that Dr. Robert Williams coined the term Ebonics. The Task Force concluded and reported to the OUSD Board that, even if the OUSD Board disagreed with the thesis that the language of all descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans belongs to the African language family, as officially defined by the author, the term Ebonics refers to an African language system. More precisely, as posited in the Task Force’s resolution that the OUSD Board adopted as District policy, the term Ebonics refers to a neo-African dialect that has grammatical roots and rules that are traced to the Niger-Congo languages of Africa.

The Task Force further informed the OUSD Board that, since the term Ebonics refers to an African Language System, when African American parents identify their child’s home language as Ebonics, on the district’s Home Language Designation (HLD) form, they are declaring a language other than English is their child’s ‘native’, primary’ or ‘home’ language. The Task Force recommended to the OUSD Board that, based on the fact that the term Ebonics refers to an African Language System, as a matter of OUSD policy, children of African ancestry whose parents have declared Ebonics as their child’s home language have a right to equal treatment and should not be discriminated against on the basis of their language ancestry. The evidence being irrefutable that Dr. Robert Williams originally coined the term Ebonics and that the term Ebonics refers to an African Language System, for the OUSD Board the answer to the question, ‘what does the term Ebonics mean’, was very simple. As posited by the OUSD Board’s resolution passed unanimously on December 18, 1996, the term Ebonics means what the author of the term says it means and any definition of the word Ebonics that does not conform to the meaning originally posited by the author is counterfeit.

In Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition the words 'counterfeit' and 'plagiarize' are defined as follows (1993 265 and 888): “counterfeit 1. made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive...to try to deceive by pretense or dissembling.” “plagiarize …to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (a created production) without crediting the source ~ vi to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source – plagiarizer.”

I maintain that those who view and use the term Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc are either totally ignorant of the origin and true meaning of the word Ebonics (which calls into question their scholastic and academic acumen) or they are fully aware of the origin and true meaning of the word Ebonics and elect to use word Ebonics as a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc with the intent to deceive. I maintain that since by definition to counterfeit is to: “try to deceive by pretense or dissembling.” the propagation of a false definition of the word ‘Ebonics’ as being a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc with the intent to deceive is larcenous counterfeiting. I maintain that since by definition "to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one’s own" and using a "created production without crediting the source" is plagiarism or literary theft, when use is made of the word Ebonics (an original idea and word coined by Dr. Robert Williams) as a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, and NNE, etc. this deceptive pattern of practice, i.e., using the ‘word’ or ‘idea’ (Ebonics) without properly crediting the source (Dr. Robert Williams) is plagiaristic dishonesty or ‘literary theft’ that violates national and international laws protecting ‘intellectual property’ rights. This kind of plagiarism or stealth of ‘intellectual property’ via literary theft and the intentional perversion of the truth should not be tolerated and the authors of articles and books as well as publishers of dictionaries with counterfeit and plagiaristic definitions of the word Ebonics must be held accountable.

As I have stated above, being either totally ignorant of the original authorship and authentic meaning of the word Ebonics or knowing fully and well the original authorship and authentic meaning the word Ebonics but, deliberately propagating a counterfeit definition with the intention to deceive, many of those who posit the term Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc., have construed the issue to be a mere semantic quibble. That is, they posit that “we are talking about the same thing but just calling it something different”. I maintain that here is a fundamental difference between ‘talking about the same thing and calling it something different’ and ‘talking about something different and calling it the same thing’. The reader will notice that not one of those cited above ; John Baugh, Lisa Green, Wayne O’Neil, Gloria Weddington, and others such as John Rickford and John Mc Whorter who also posit the term Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc., has dared to deny that the term Ebonics was coined by Dr. Robert Williams. Nor has a single one of them produced a shred of evince to the contrary.

Having presented empirical evidence that the combining of the words ‘ebony’ and ‘phonics’, to create the word 'Ebonics' was the original idea of Dr. Roberts Williams I have established that, as a word associated with Black or African ‘speech sounds’, the word 'Ebonics' is the creative and intellectual product of Dr. Robert Williams. I have established that, being the creative and intellectual product of Dr. Robert Williams the word Ebonics means what the author of the term says it means and any definition of the word Ebonics that does not conform to the meaning originally posited by the author is counterfeit. Thus, I maintain whereas, there may be a dispute as to whether the language of descendants of enslaved Africans belongs to the Niger-Congo African language family, or to the Germanic language family to which English belongs, there can be no debate as to the original authorship of the word Ebonics. Given the fact that when the term Ebonics was originally coined by the author or creator of the word Ebonics an “official” definition was declared, there should be no debate as to the authentic meaning of the term Ebonics. As coined and ‘officially’ defined by its author (Dr. Robert Williams) the term Ebonics refers to an African language system. Let us turn now to the issue of whether the native language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans is a dialect of English and hence genetically related to the Germanic language family to which English belongs.

In the field of linguistics there are three methods of language classification that of major significance (See Greenberg 1967:66) (1) the genetic method, (2) the typological method and (3) the areal method. All three of these methods are equally legitimate and are considered to be reliable and valid within the context in which they are qualified and expressly used. As Joseph Greenberg states in his book; Essays In Linguistics: (1967:66) "Confusion results only when a classification reached by one method is erroneously treated as an exemplification one of the other methods, thus leading to invalid inferences." Of these three methods according to Greenberg: (1967:66) “…the genetic is the only one which is at once non-arbitrary, exhaustive, and unique. By non-arbitrary is here meant that there is no choice of criteria leading to different and equally legitimate results. This is because genetic classification reflects historical events which must have occurred or not occurred”. The reader should know that, as was posited by the Linguistic Society Of America (LSA) in defense of the 1996 OUSD resolution, in the field of linguistics the term 'genetic' has nothing to do with 'genes', as the term is used in biology. i.e., the specific sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that is located in the germ plasm on a chromosome. In linguistics when the term 'genetic' is used and languages are said to be 'genetically related', the term 'genetic' is has to do with "genesis" or "origin". (See Kifano and Smith 2005:62-95)

In his book African Language Structures professor William Welmers states (1973:3): "genetic relationships" have to do with linguistic characteristic that are inherited by one generation of speakers from another, as opposed to those which are acquired from other sources." In an article entitled “Linguistic Continuity of Africa in the Caribbean” Mervyn Alleyne states that: (1971:125,126): “The most prevalent view concerning the basis for genetic classification in Indo-European linguistics is that continuity of morphology constitutes the relevant evidence for positing genetic relationship. For example, there has been linguistic continuity in Western Europe in terms of the transmission of Latin morphology (in somewhat altered form) or by the transmission of Old Germanic morphology. This makes languages like French, Spanish, etc., genetically related to Latin, and German, Dutch, etc., genetically related to Old Germanic. It is generally accepted that there has been no rupture in the development or transmission process, although obviously there has been change. English itself is considered to be a continuation of Anglo-Saxon, although in fact the vocabulary is predominantly Romance or Latin.

I should make it clear here, for the totally uninitiated Wikipedia reader, relative the issue of whether or not Ebonics is a ‘language’ or a ‘dialect’, in the field of linguistics there is not and there has never been a debate as to whether Ebonics is a ‘language’ or a ‘dialect’. Although soicio and geo - political circles there might be, in linguistics it is axiomatic that human languages differ and there are no languages that do not, in varying degrees, have social or regional (geographical) dialects. As to whether Ebonics is a language or dialect the fact is, as in the case of all human languages, Ebonics is both a language and a dialect. Given that Ebonics is in fact a language, in terms of the issue at hand, the question that must be addressed is; to which language family, as a dialect, does the language ‘Ebonics’ belong? In other words the real Ebonics debate is whether the empirical or hard evidence supports the thesis that, on the basis of continuity of the morphology (rules of grammar) the language of African Americans (i.e., descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans) is genetically akin to the Germanic language family to which English belongs. Or does Ebonics belong to the Niger-Congo African language family as the linguistic continuation of Africa in diaspora and hence, is a neo African dialect?

In his book Descriptive and Comparative Linguistics Professor Leonard Palmer states (1972:22, 23): “To reconstruct the ancestral forms which account for resemblances in the communities under observation is simultaneously to make some kind of assertion about an ancestral community… We repeat, then, that observed resemblances between speech habits, given the empirical principle of arbitrariness, force us to conclusion of historical connectedness by an unbroken chain of mimetic acts. This connectedness is what is understood by ‘relationship’. In order to establish the fact of such a relationship our evidence must not consist entirely on points of vocabulary. For … words are often borrowed by one language from another as a result of cultural contact. Thus, English has borrowed words algebra from Arabic sources. No one that account will assert English is ‘related’ to the Semitic languages. What constitutes the most certain evidence of relationship is resemblance of grammatical structure, for languages retain their native structure even when their vocabularies have been swamped by foreign borrowing, such has been the case for English and Hittite”

Attesting to what Palmer has stated just above Mervyn Alleyne states (1971:126): “If we find African elements in Afro-American dialects, the conclusion is inescapable that they belong to the base of the historical process. If we find an almost total absence of Indo-European morphology in African-American dialects, but instead find the morphosyntax can in many respects be shown to be derived from the morphosyntax of West African languages, we can reasonably conclude that there is morphosyntactical continuity from West African languages to Afro-American dialects.” Based on what Alleyne has posited just above, if the preponderance of the empirical evidence is that there is continuity of the English morphology or rules of grammar in the language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans, then the language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans must be viewed as a dialect of English. On the other hand if the preponderance of the empirical evidence is that there is continuity of the Niger-Congo African morphology or rules of grammar, then the language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans must be viewed as being genetically akin to and belonging to the Niger-Congo African language family and hence a Nigritian or African dialect.

In his book Muntu An Outline of the New African Culture Janheinz Jahn states (1953:194): “In the Afro-American world some hybrid languages have arisen: Creole, Surinaams, Papiamento and others, which are generally designated as dialects. Creole counts as spoiled French, Surinaams is also called Negro English. The vocabulary consists predominantly of European words, but the syntax and word formation follow the rules of African grammar. It is wrong therefore to call these languages ‘spoilt’ English or ‘spoilt’ French. If one considers the essence of a language to be its vocabulary, Creole and Papiamento must be called the youngest of the Romance languages, Surinaams must be call the youngest of the Germanic languages. But if one considers the grammatical structure of a language more important than its vocabulary, then the three languages mentioned do not belong to the Indo-European group.”

I maintain that based in the criteria of continuity of the morphology or rules of grammar the only way the hybrid language that resulted from the convergence of the European colonial settler’s Early Modern English (EmodE) and the Niger-Congo African languages spoken by the enslaved ancestors of African American people would be a dialect of English is that, the hybrid language of African American people would have to have an English grammar (morpho-syntax) with Niger-Congo African words superimposed. But, in America and throughout the African diaspora, this is not the case. As attested by Janheinz Jahn in quotes just above the empirical evidence is that, in each and every instance throughout the African diaspora, the hybrid languages that have evolved from the convergence of EmodE and the Niger-Congo African languages have an African morpho-syntax (grammar) with European words superimposed.

And so, I have established that in Indo-European linguistics, languages are not classified as being akin or genetically related based on the mere evidence of a common lexicon or vocabulary. In Indo-European linguistics and in this Wikipedia the English language itself is defined as a West Germanic language despite the fact that the bulk of the English lexicon is derived from Latin, French and other the non-Germanic languages. This prompts the question if: BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc. actually exist as vernaculars or dialects of English, where are these vernaculars or dialects spoken? That is, based in the criteria of continuity of the morphology or rules of grammar where are the BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc dialects that English grammars with African words superimposed? Surely John Baugh, Lisa Green, Wayne O’Neil, Gloria Weddington, and others who posit the term Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc can produce empirical evidence of one at least.

The enslaved ancestors of speakers of Ebonics came primarily from the West Coast and Niger Congo Africa speaking Nigritian and Bantu languages. The ancestors of speakers of English came from England speaking European settler English a Germanic language. Therefore the morphology and morph-syntax of Nigritian and Bantu languages and the morphology and morpho-syntax of the Indo-European Germanic English language are not derived from a common origin or linguistic base. Since the morphology and morph-syntax of Nigritian and Bantu languages and the morphology and morpho-syntax of the Indo-European Germanic language are not derived from a common origin or linguistic base, the Nigritian and Bantu languages and the Indo-European Germanic languages were not genetically related. Given that the Nigritian and Bantu languages and the Indo-European Germanic languages were not genetically related, the Nigritian and Bantu language Ebonics and Indo-European Germanic language English are not genetically related. In other words, from a comparative linguistic perspective the language being discussed as Ebonics is the consequence of linguistic convergence - not linguistic divergence. That is, Ebonics does not have a Germanic or English grammar with an African Lexicon superimposed. Throughout the African diaspora the empirical evidence is that as a consequence of linguistic convergence the descendants of enslaved Africans acquire and speak, as their native or primary language, mixed African and European dialects that have African grammars with European lexicons superimposed. Simply put, the linguistic differences that remain that is the evidence that Ebonics and English are not the same. That is why the term Ebonics was coined and why the only legitimate meaning of the term Ebonics is the official definition posited by Dr. Robert Williams. [Ernie Smith, Ph.D. Professor of Linguistics]


REFERENCES


Alleyne, M. (1971) Linguistic Continuity of Africa in The Caribbean in Topics In African American Studies Edited by Henry Richards New York. Black Academy Press.

Crawford C. (2001) Ebonics and Language Education of African Ancestry Students Linguistic Society of America Chicago January 1997 Resolution on Oakland Ebonics Issue (p358) Brooklyn Sankofa World Publishers

Delpit T. (1998) Linguistic Society of America’s Resolution on the Oakland Ebonics Issue Chicago January 1997 In Real Ebonics Debate (pg160) Boston Beacon Press

Greenberg J. (1967) Essays in Linguistics Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Janheinz J. (1953): Muntu An Outline of the New African Culture New York, Grove Press

Kifano S., Smith E. A, (2005) Ebonics and Education in Context of Culture Edited by J. Ramirez et. al. Buffalo Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1993). Springfield MA Merriam Webster Inc. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition. (2001) Springfield MA Merriam Webster Inc.

Palmer L. (1978) Descriptive and Comparative Linguistics London, Faber & Faber

Random House Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2001) New York. Random House.

Romaine, S (1994) Language and Society :An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Oxford, Oxford University Press;

Shipley, J.T. (1984) The Origin of English Words. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smith E. A. (1974) The Evolution and Continuing Presence of the African Oral Tradition In Black Ameica. Irvine. University of California at Irvine

Smith E. A., Crozier K. (1998) Ebonics Is Not Black English In The Western Journal of Black Studies. Pullman Washington State University Press

Smith E.A (2001) Ebonics and Bilingual Education of the African American Child In Ebonics and Language Education of African Ancestry Students Edited by Clinton Crawford Brooklyn Sankofa World Publishers

The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language, (1976). Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Welmers, W. (1973) African Language Structures Berkeley. University of California Press

Williams, R.L. Rivers, W. (1975). The Effects of Language on the Test Performance of Black Children. In R.L. Williams (Ed) Ebonics: the true language of black folks, (pp. 96-109) St Louis, Institute of Black Studies.

Williams, R.L. (1997, January 28). Ebonics as a bridge to Standard English: [Letter to the editor], Saint Louis Post Dispatch.

Williams, R.L. (1997). The Ebonics controversy: Journal of Black Psychology 23 (3), 208-214.

Well, this is very interesting.

I suggest that the writer (i) reads Wikipedia:No legal threats and (ii) thinks hard about whether the paragraph starting "I maintain that those who view and use the term Ebonics" constitutes a legal threat. If it is not, the writer should clarify this. If it is, then an administrator (not me) is likely to block the writer.

If it's made clear that this is not a legal threat, then an adult discussion can start about some of what's above. -- Hoary (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think of it less as a threat and more as a misguided rant. The article in its present form (and nearly all versions of the article dating to 2007) a) credits Williams' early research and coining of the term and b) how the term's definition has become broadened since then. While not a lawyer myself, I see little of concern in the current article. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matters of law aside, the assertion that any definition of a word that doesn't conform to the definition of that word posited by its coiner is "counterfeit" is a most interesting one. Lexicographers could happily label the uses of typewriter, computer etc to refer to machines as "counterfeit", the only correct meanings -- or anyway the more correct meanings, as I can't be bothered to consult the OED right now -- being people who do this or that. ¶ I am also amazed and amused to read that a language resembling the subject matter of, for example, Lisa J. Green's African American English: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; ISBN 0-521-89138-8) has, morphologically -- or morphosyntactically -- less to do with English than with Bantu/Nigritian languages. Perhaps the writer understands "morphology" and "morphosyntax" rather differently than do most people. Reality check: most whites in north America have little trouble in understanding blacks (even blacks talking to each other) or anyway less trouble than they have in understanding the most anglicized (Americanism-ridden) forms of Friesian, Dutch, etc. (Unless of course they want to have trouble: racism can conquer all.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page 8 on the Introduction in Green's book (thanks for that link BTW), she even mentions Smith's contentions about the redefinition of the term. It sounds like Smith is very vocal about his assertions. I did a little digging, and found this, specifically "Dr. Smith's conclusions are largely based on his research and the research of other scientists on the language and culture of Africans and African Americans." A more recent issue of the Harvard Educational Review describes Smith as a "community and civil rights activist." While it's a good thing to have subject matter experts who wants to contribute to the project, when those contributions revolve around original research and activism, then I start to get concerned. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all persuaded by the arguments presented above by the user identifying himself as Smith. He quotes nuggets from elderly work in historical linguistics that (at least of context) seem obscure at best (and often seem slightly garbled to boot, as if inaccurately retyped) --
And so, I have established that in Indo-European linguistics, languages are not classified as being akin or genetically related based on the mere evidence of a common lexicon or vocabulary. [Hoary: Well of course not.] In Indo-European linguistics and in this Wikipedia the English language itself is defined as a West Germanic language despite the fact that the bulk of the English lexicon is derived from Latin, French and other the non-Germanic languages. [Hoary: Yes indeed.] This prompts the question if: BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc. actually exist as vernaculars or dialects of English, where are these vernaculars or dialects spoken? [Hoary: In the US, primarily.] That is, based in the criteria of continuity of the morphology or rules of grammar [Hoary: If "criteria" isn't just a typo for "criterion" then what's the other criterion? Does "morphology or rules of grammar" mean "morphology or syntax", and if not, what does it mean? Etc.] where are the BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc dialects that English grammars with African words superimposed? [Hoary: This is a cartoonish idea of a lect.] Surely John Baugh, Lisa Green, Wayne O’Neil, Gloria Weddington, and others who posit the term Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, BVE, AAE, AAVE, VBE, NNE etc can produce empirical evidence of one at least.
I can't start to speak for the third or fourth of these. Baugh, who I think has given the term "Ebonics" more attention than Green has, does not call it a synonym of AAVE or any of the others, as this very Wikipedia article (when not vandalized) makes clear. Yes, he says it is used to refer to the same language, but that doesn't make them synonyms.
Our interlocutor manages to infer something very improbable from work in historical linguistics done when most present-day linguists (if even born) were still in short pants, presents a bizarre interpretation of dispassionate analyses of AAVE done since then, issues a demand for evidence for the validity of this straw man, and seems to demand that the term "Ebonics" should be treated in Wikipedia as if it were a registered trademark. Despite the impressively long list of references at the end, he doesn't cite any discussion of the history of AAVE or Ebonics published recently by a university press or similar (or in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal). I'm not even slightly convinced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hoary's analysis Ernie Smith writes: As I have stated above, being either ignorant of the original authorship and authentic meaning of the word Ebonics or knowing fully and well the original authorship and authentic meaning of the word Ebonics but, deliberately propagating a counterfeit definition with the intention to deceive, many of those who posit the term Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, AAVE and other English language based appellations, have construed the issue to be a mere semantic quibble. That is, they posit that “we are talking about the same thing but just calling it something different”. I maintain that there is a fundamental difference between ‘talking about the same thing and calling it something different’ and ‘talking about something different and calling it the same thing’. The Wikipedia reader will notice that not one of those cited above; John Baugh, Lisa Green, Wayne O’Neil, Gloria Weddington, and others such as John Rickford and John Mc Whorter who also posit the word Ebonics as being a synonym for BE, and other English language based appellations, has dared to deny that the word Ebonics was coined by Dr. Robert Williams. Nor has a single one of them produced a shred of evidence to the contrary.

I have not engaged the subject of BE, AAVE and other English language based appellations that inherently infer that the language of descendants enslaved Niger-Congo AFricans is a dialect of English because, based on criterion contintunty in rules of grammar, any and all appellations that infer inherently that the language of descendants enslaved Niger-Congo AFricans is a dialect of English, beg the question of genesis. Hoary makes the naked assertion that English dialects that have West Germanic Grammars with African words superimpmposed exist as the language of descendants enslaved Niger-Congo AFricans in America.

Where in America are these dialects or vernaculars of English that have West Germanic Grammars with African words superimpmposed? John Baugh, Lisa Green, Wayne O’Neil, Willaim Lavov, Robin Lakoff, John Rickford, John Mc Whorter, Gloria Weddington, Walt Wolfram William Srewart and others,all posit the bulk of the lexion in the dialects or vernaculars of English that they call BE, AAVE and English language based appellations as being derived from West Germanic English language.

I contend that, there is an internal inconsistency in the view that the word Ebonics is synonymous with BE, AAVE and the other English language based appellations. My contention here is based on the fact that; as I have shown, in Indo-European linguistics, the most prevalent view is that, a common origin and continuity of the morpho-syntax or rules of grammar constitutes the relevant evidence for positing genetic kinship. In this Wikipedia the English language itself is defined as a West Germanic language despite the fact that the bulk of the English lexicon is derived from Latin, French and other the non-Germanic languages. This means that the English language is not classified as a West Germanic language based on the origin and continuity of its dominant lexicon or vocabulary.

What is incongruent in Hoary's position is that, the enslaved ancestors, antecedents and forebears of African American people came principally from the West Coast and Niger-Congo areas of Africa speaking Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages. The ancestors, antecedents and forebears of the speakers of English came from England speaking British settler Early Modern English (EmodE) (a West Germanic language). The morph-syntax of the Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages and the morpho-syntax of the British settler EmodE are not derived from a common origin or linguistic base. Therefore, the Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages and the British settler EmodE language were not genetically related.

Yet, as if the language of descendants of enslaved West Coast and Niger-Congo Africans did originate from a common British settler English linguistic base, (EmodE) those who contend that Ebonics is a dialect or vernacular of English, posit there is a continuity of the West Germanic EmodE morpho-syntax or rules of grammar and thus Ebonics is genetically related to the English Germanic language family. The question is posed; how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of descendants of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedants and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place. I think Hoary's off his meds again? (hows that for a argumentum ad hominem rant) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.35.80 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, not a forum for discussion and not an outlet for original research or original analysis. If we talk about anything, it should be how to improve the article. Let's get back on topic, folks. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you say: I think Hoary's off his meds again? It's not good to get into a habit of saying things such as this, as various editors of this encyclopedia (other than myself) are, or pretend to be, most upset to be referred to in such a way. (Personally, I don't care. I just wonder if you are asking or saying.) ¶ That trivial matter aside, you ask, or wonder, how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of desecenadts of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedants and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place. The question is bizarre. Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that (if you're diachronically inclined) can be plotted back to Early Modern English. (Of course the history of a language is of no concern whatever to any infant who's learning that language.) Such is the consensus among linguists. If you disagree, you may care to write a book saying why the consensus is mistaken. If the book found a reputable publisher, I'd read it with interest. CUP, OUP, and Wiley-Blackwell are among the publishers that are putting out surprisingly large numbers of books on linguistics; good luck persuading one of them to bring out your book. Until such theories come out via a university press or similar, I'll pay them no attention. -- Hoary (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hoary's analysis Ernie Smith writes In the neuroscience area of medicine there is a brain injury or disease called subdural hematoma. According to Weiner and Goetz, one of the clinical manifestations of this brain injury or disease is "a depressed level of consciousness" (1994:45). Weiner and Goetz indicate that the "depressed level of consciousness can occur before focal findings, and may have trivial or no trauma history." There are two types of subdural hematomas, the acute subdural hematoma and the chronic subdural hematoma, and they are classified according to the interval of time that occurs between the instance of a head injury and the development of clinical manifestations. Of these two subdural hematomas, the chronic subdural hematoma: "is more common in patients with cerebral atrophy (i.e. the elderly and alcoholism)" (Weiner and Goetz 1994:223). Also, however, studies of the prolonged use of cocaine have produced irrefutable evidence of the tremendous brain damage (cerebral atrophy) that can occur from such use. This suggests that ‘alcoholism’ is not the only form of 'substance abuse’ that can be associated with cerebral atrophy as the underlying mechanism of chronic subdural hematoma.

I have initiated my response to User Hoary’s critique with a discussion of subdural hematoma because I suspect that therein lies the etiology of his or her patently deficient critical thinking skills. This response will show that, while the User Hoary’s critique purports to be about Ebonics, actually his/her critique has nothing to do with Ebonics: User Hoary’s critique is about ‘a lect of English’ which implies, inherently, that the language of Black Americans is a dialect of English, and, thus, is genetically related to the West Germanic language family to which contemporary American English belongs. Now the User Aeusoes1 has stated: “This is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, not a forum for discussion and not an outlet for original research or original analysis. If we talk about anything, it should be how to improve the article. Let's get back on topic, folks.” — Ƶ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet

I agree, one hundred percent, with User Aeusoes or Ƶ§œš¹: “If we talk about anything, it should be how to improve the article”, and I agree that, when I say, I think Hoary's off his meds again? it's not good to get into a habit of saying things such as this because various editors of this encyclopedia (other than myself) are, or pretend to be, most upset to be referred to in such a way. I want to improve that article. The problem is this: The User Hoary seems to be unfettered in his/her ability to make slyly disparaging remarks and insults. The User Hoary drew first blood by making jest of typos and what he or she deemed to be my lack of ideally competent English composition. I refused to be insulted and replied with an appropriate slur of my own. If Wikipedia will keep a tight check on the rabid insults of User Hoary, I will, likewise, refrain from making such denigrating retorts. In Black American culture ‘playing the dozens’ is a pastime sport. (See Smitherman G. 1977:128-134) See also Folb E. (1980:235)

The User Hoary asks following, in response to the question that I posed in my article: “I just wonder if you are asking or saying.) ¶ That trivial matter aside, you ask, or wonder, how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of descendants of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedents and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place? The question is bizarre”. We cannot proceed as adults if my questions are belittled as ‘bizarre’. Too, if this slur is being made by User Hoary, it verifies my suspicion that subdural hematoma is the etiology of his/her patently deficient critical thinking skills. Given that the name User Hoary appears at the end of the critique, and given that the style of criticism reeks of User Hoary’s DNA, I am predisposed to posit this critique and the slur that “the question is bizarre” to User Hoary as his bilge.

Needless to say, as the Wikipedia reader can discern, I do have retorts of my own in reply to these unprovoked slurs. The User (Hoary) continues his/her critique by positing that: “Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that (if you're diachronically inclined) can be plotted back to Early Modern English”. In response to this slur concerning my bias, predisposition or tendency to favor diachronic linguistics I say that, as a graduate of the University of California at Irvine with a Ph.D. in Comparative Culture and a Subspecialty in Comparative Linguistics, and, in 1978, having been appointed to the rank of Full Professor in the Department of Linguistics at California State University at Fullerton where I taught Linguistic Ontogeny (529), American Dialects (305), Minority Dialects (107), and Bilingualism (411), I am, indeed, diachronically inclined. In fact, the word Ebonics came into existence because of an irrationally, incongruent, Eurocentric deviation from universally accepted comparative, diachronic or historical linguistics principles. (See Smith E.2001) (Wade N. (2005)

Having addressed the User Hoary’s slur concerning my being “diachronically inclined” and the User’s slur that “The question is bizarre”, made in response to my question of how can there be an EmodE linguistic continuity in the language of descendants of enslaved Africans, when their ancestors, antecedents and forebears did not originally speak EmodE in the first place?, I will now address the User’s statement that: “Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that …can be plotted back to Early Modern English”. At the beginning of my article the issue of the origin of the word Ebonics is bifurcated from the issue of whether, from a diachronic linguistic perspective, Ebonics is a dialect of English, and, hence, genetically related to the Germanic language family. In the essay that I submitted to Wikipedia for editing and discussion, I asserted that I participated in the 1973 “Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child” Conference in St. Louis, and was there when Dr. Robert Williams coined the term "Ebonics". I am even credited by Dr. Williams as the scrivener who framed the wording of the official definition of the term Ebonics (See Williams, 1997:210). So, I say with absolute authority that the term Ebonics does not refer to “a lect’ of English”, and the word Ebonics is not a synonym for any appellation that inherently infers that the language of descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans is a dialect of English, thusly, making it genetically related to the West Germanic language family to which contemporary American English belongs.

The Wikipedia reader will notice that the User Hoary has not denied that Dr. Williams coined the word Ebonics in 1973. Because the User Hoary is bereft of any empirical evidence that Dr. Robert Williams did not coin the word Ebonics in 1973, we can proceed to the issue of the meaning of the word Ebonics. In my essay, I contended that Dr. Williams posited an “official definition of the word Ebonics in 1973, when he originally coined the word. I notice that the User, Hoary also, has not denied that, when Dr. Williams originally coined the word Ebonics, he posited an “official definition” of the word Ebonics. Because the User appears to be bereft of a shred of empirical evidence that Dr. Williams did not posit an “official definition” of the word Ebonics when he coined the word, we can proceed to an ‘adult’ discussion of whether or not any definitions of the word Ebonics, that do not conform to the definition posited as the “official definition” by Dr. Williams, are counterfeit or legitimate. For, the User Hoary seems to be suggesting that when a counterfeiter puts the name ‘Rolex’ on a one jewel, gold plated, Hong Kong watch, that makes a one jewel, gold plated, Hong Kong watch a genuine Rolex? (See Smith E. and Crozier K. (1998)

The intent of the official definition of Ebonics posited by Dr. Williams and agreed to by the Conference members assembled is this: Ebonics is the language spoken by descendants of enslaved Niger-Congo Africans, and is the linguistic continuation of the Niger-Congo African tradition in Black America. Since the User Hoary does not deny that when Dr. Williams originally coined the word Ebonics he, also, posited an “official definition, it appears that what the User Hoary really wants to refute is the basic tenet of the definition that Dr. Williams posits as the meaning of the word Ebonics. Now, I am perfectly willing to engage in this discussion with the User, Hoary if it will improve the article. But I shall, at every turn, critically address the logical fallacies and snide slurs of Captious and Sophists User Hoary.

Let’s return now to User Hoary’s statement that: “Nobody has suggested that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Early Modern English. They speak a lect of English, a language that … can be plotted back to Early Modern English”. The Wikipedia reader will notice that; while the User Hoary does not deny that the enslaved ancestors, antecedents and forebears of Black Americans did not originally speak Early Modern English, he/she has not stipulated that the ancestors of Black Americans spoke Niger-Congo and Bantu African Languages. There are two incongruent implications here: First, if the ancestors of African ancestors did not, originally, speak EmodE, then, what did they speak? That is, the User Hoary implies that, initially, the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans were primitive, docile, sub-human savages, possessing only mating calls, distress signals and feral grunts, and that they did not have the cortical capacity for fully human thoughts. Therefore, they had not developed a fully human language or communication system of their own.

Implied also is that because they possessed only the rudiments of a language to start with, the "scant baggage" of mating calls, distress signals and feral grunts that the enslaved the Africans ancestors of Black Americans possessed most certainly could not have been the grammatical nor the lexical base upon which Black American dialects of English were developed. In other words, the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans did not, originally, speak Early Modern English, for they were sub-human tabula rasa or blank slates upon which the ancestors of EmodE speakers imprinted a human language upon their savage minds for the first time. Since possession of the cognitive faculty of language or the capacity to speak and transmit thoughts, systematically, using highly structured, rule governed signs and symbols is the specie specific attribute that distinguishes homo sapiens from the ape and lower primates, this view denies that Niger-Congo Africans are human beings: The User Hoary appears to be of the ilk that propagates this asinine point of view.

On the other hand, there is a second implication that is as equally incongruent. This view, postulated by those who contend that Black Americans speak a dialect of English, acknowledges that Niger-Congo or Black Africans are human beings, and that the ancestors, antecedents and forebears of Black Americans possessed fully human Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages. However, also implied in this view is that, in the transmission process, the enslaved African ancestors, antecedents and forebears of Black Americans gave up African languages. That is, they broke with the African linguistic tradition and accepted EmodE, or what User Hoary calls a ‘lect’ of English, as their mother tongue. It is this view that I was addressing when I submitted my initial contribution to Wikipedia. I contend there is an internal inconsistency or incongruence in the view that Black Americans speak a dialect of English”. Firstly, while this view concedes that the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans spoke Niger-Congo and Bantu African languages, it posits a complete break with and discontinuity of Niger-Congo and Bantu linguistic system, (i.e., the morpho-syntax or rules of grammar) and a wholesale adoption of the morpho-syntactical or grammar rules of Early Modern, English by enslaved Niger-Congo Africans and their descendants. The proponents of this view ignore or deny, entirely, the existence of African Niger-Congo and Bantu language elements in the grammar of Black American English. They posit the less than ideally competent English grammar (non standard usage) that exists in the dialects of Black Americans as being EmodE survivals that were imperfectly obtained or learned by the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans, or as being colonial Scots-Irish Celtic language features acquired from Scots-Irish overseers and indentured servants. When asked to explain the irrefutable evidence of non-EmodE and non-colonial Scots Irish features that exist in the English dialect of Black Americans, they attribute the existence of a ‘scant few’ African words to borrowings initially made by EmodE speakers and then taught to their enslaved Niger-Congo African vassals.

I maintain that the postulation that there is morpho-syntactical continuity from EmodE to Black American dialects to the English language or dialects of Black American urban inner cities as a result of EmodE speakers having mutilated or dummied down their EmodE grammar in order to communicate with the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans is not supported by the empirical comparative linguistic evidence. Neither is the notion that, in the transmission process, the enslaved ancestors of Black Americans gave up their African Niger Congo and Bantu languages and accepted the ersatz EmodE grammar (baby talk) as their primary language or mother tongue. I maintain further that the view or thesis that any and all African elements that exist in the English language or dialects of Black American urban communities are borrowings made by EmodE speakers and taught or transmitted to their enslaved Niger-Congo and Bantu African slaves is oxymoronic nonsense. In fact, the view that the enslaved African ancestors of Black Americans gave the up their Niger-Congo and Bantu languages for an ersatz EmodE (baby talk) implies that the African ancestors of Black Americans did not have much of a language anyway. Thus, this is a view that differs only to a minute degree from the view that the African ancestors of Black Americans had no language at all. In essence, both views support the ‘deficiency hypothesis’, known, thusly, in the bio-behavioral and social sciences.

With regards to User Hoary’s closing remarks that “the issue is not (Of course, the history of a language is of no concern whatever to any infant who's learning that language.) Such is the consensus among linguists. If you disagree, you may care to write a book saying why the consensus is mistaken. I would read the book with interest, if it was published by a reputable publisher. CUP, OUP, and Wiley-Blackwell are among the publishers that are publishing a surprisingly large number of books on linguistics; good luck persuading one of them to bring out your book. Until such theories come out via a university press or similar, I'll pay them no attention”. I strongly urge this User Hoary to read my article entitled Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Worker Notification to Blue Collar and No-Collar African American Workers (1993) In American Journal of Industrial Medicine Edited by Philip J. Landrigan, Irving J. Seliokoff et. al. New York. Wiley-Liss


References

Alleyne, M. (1971) Linguistic Continuity of Africa in The Caribbean in Topics In African American Studies Edited by Henry Richards New York. Black Academy Press.

Crawford C. (2001) Ebonics and Language Education of African Ancestry Students Linguistic Society of America Chicago January 1997 Resolution on Oakland Ebonics Issue (p358) Brooklyn Sankofa World Publishers.

Delpit T. (1998) Linguistic Society of America’s Resolution on the Oakland Ebonics Issue Chicago January 1997 In Real Ebonics Debate (pg160) Boston Beacon Press.

Folb E. (1980) Runnin Down Some Lines: The language and Culture of Black Teenagers Cambridge Harvard University Press.

Greenberg J. (1967) Essays in Linguistics Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Holloway J.E. (1991) Africanisms in American Culture Bloomington Indiana University Press.

Janheinz J. (1953): Muntu: An Outline of the New African Culture New York, Grove Press.


(Kifano S., Smith E. A, (2005) Ebonics and Education in Context of Culture Edited by J. Ramirez et. al. Buffalo Multilingual Matters Ltd.


Smith E.A. (1993) Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Worker Notification to Blue Collar and No-Collar African American Workers In American Journal of Industrial Medicine Edited by Philip J. Landrigan, Irving J. Seliokoff, et. al. New York. Wiley-Liss

Smith, E.A. (1997) What is Ebonics What Is Black English In Real Ebonics Debate Edited by Perry T. and Delpit L. Chicago-Boston Beacon Press.

Smith E. A., Crozier K. (1998) Ebonics Is Not Black English In The Western Journal of Black Studies. Pullman Washington State University Press.

Smith E.A. (2002) Ebonics A Case History In The Skin the we Speak Edited by Lisa Delpit and Joanne K. Dowdy New York New York Press.

Smitherman G. (1977) Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America Boston Houghton Mifflin Co.

Wade N. (2005) Languages May Speak Volumes. New York New York Times article.

Weiner, W J. and Goetz, C G. (1994) Neurology for the Non-Neurologist Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Co.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebonics_(word)&oldid=347083657"