Talk:African-American English

Simple tenses

How is the simple past and simple future tenses formed? -- Beland 13:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Question about phonology

The current phonology section says:

• AAVE is non-rhotic, so the alveolar approximant [ɹ] is usually dropped if not followed by a vowel. However, the [ɹ] may also be dropped in other cases, e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y". This is perhaps due to the use of 'y' as a semi-vowel.

This description seems to be lacking something in the description of cases where intervocalic R is dropped. Just how is story pronounced without an R? What forms the hiatus between the [o] and the [i]? In SAE, it's pronounced [stɔɹi]. If the [ɹ] is deleted, you have a strange monosyllabic word with a [oi] diphthong. Is the word pronounced [stɔi] (as though it were written "stoy"), or is some other hiatus inserted, like [w], [j], or glottal stop? The spelling "sto'y" doesn't really make this clear. Nohat 19:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Never thought about this one. But upon reflection, I'd say it was more of a diphthong -- and not a stop. One question: has anyone come up with an explanation of the use of "scree" for "street"? I understand the unpronounced "t" -- but the substitution of "scr" for "str"? Never got that one. deeceevoice 20:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link I added yesterday [1] has a very long laundry list of phonological characteristics of AAVE, some of which are probably restricted by locale, social group, or age group. This one is listed as "Backing in /str/ Clusters (BK-str)" but it doesn't provide any other information other than identifying it. No theory about origin or distribution. It references "Bailey & Thomas, 1998; Rickford, 1999".

On the matter of all the features in that document, I think we should consider making a similar page here. We should just keep the major features (like non-rhotacism, cluster reduction, etc.) on this page, but then link to a much longer page of changes. Comments? Nohat 22:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emphasized perfective

The "Standard English" gloss given for "he done did it" is "he already did it". If I understand perfective correctly, would "he's already done it" be a less American phrasing? cf American_and_British_English_differences#Grammar Joestynes 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking if "he's already done it" is used in SAE? It is, and that is how I would translate 'he done did it'; I'm not messing with the article because I'm not a linguist. I think AAVE also has "he done done it", but again, I don't speak AAVE so I'm leaving it alone. Quill

I don’t know if it’s “less American,” although it does sound much less colloquial to these California ears. Wiki Wikardo

-Ing ---> -Ang

Maybe I overlooked it in the article, but I didn't see mention of -ing to -ang, as in: thing> thang; singin>sangin; ring>rang; and so on. Also, what about adding more slang words most often used in AAVE: yack (>cognac); hoodrat; ghettobird; and so on. James 007 10:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Slang is not the same as a dialect; any of those words could be employed in Standard English, and are no means universal to all, or even most AAVE-speakers. (I doubt many, say, rural Texans employ “ghetto bird” with any sort of frequency.) Wiki Wikardo 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Another usage that I've heard is "light-skinded" for "light-skinned" (or "dark-skinded", etc.). James 007 10:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Question?

Wasn't the first law suit relating to Ebonics (AAVE) filed against the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Oakland Keeps being mentioned, I know it was a more substantial situation but come on. Want info so maybe include in A2 article. Also am I wrong that Ebonics does not meet the definition of a dialect? Just asking can see this is a topic with a lot of emotions involved and do not want to be offensive to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There is no universally agreed upon definition of dialect. Every single language that anyone speaks is some kind of dialect, so the question is not whether something is a dialect or not, but whether two language varieties are each a dialect of the same language, or whether they are two entirely different languages (or I guess whether they aren't different enough to be two dialects, and are actually the same dialect of the same language). The general rule-of-thumb among linguists is that two dialects of a language will be mutually intelligable (i.e. the speakers are generally able to understand eachother), whereas speakers of two different languages will not. To be separate dialects, there need to be some kind of lexical (words) or syntactical (grammar) differences. African American English and Standard American English have lexical and syntactical differences, and are mutually intelligable. They'd both be considered dialects of English. So yes, 'Ebonics' qualifies as a dialect. Mahern 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I know, and from what I have read all over ther net, only a very limited group of linguists (ones who are politically motivated, or have been paid to produce the "desired" results) seem to support the notion that Ebonics is a lauguage or even a dialect. The view from the majority (no I dont have a representitive sample survey) seem to agree with the general public that it is just a corruption of English, with bad pronunciation and grammar. All my black friends agree that it is just street slang, and the ones who work in big business and community programs view it as something that it's holding back many young black people as when they go to an interview and speak they come accross as uneducated and illiterate.

Also, an interesting article from a very intelligent woman http://www.thepinelog.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/10/19/453740c363cf2

No linguist worth his salt would ever seriously use the word "corruption" when talking about the speech of a community. A major point that all linguists make is that no way of speaking is better than another. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Question

Who has deemed it necessary to delete large portions of the discussion dialogue? And what justification is being given for this? It is the ongoing discussion that ensues between writers that allows the article to be an unbiased factual piece of information. If those who simply question the writing are silenced and their posts deleted, then what purpose is there in claiming a non-POV and objective article? This is not a dictatorship, and those who do not agree are not to be "wiped" from the discussion board. This is an obvious deviation from prescribed guidlines set forth by Wikipedia. Coldbourne 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Intra ethnic

Most speakers of AAVE are bidialectal, since they use Standard American English to varying degrees as well as AAVE. Generally speaking, the degree of exclusive use of AAVE decreases with the rise in socioeconomic status, although almost all speakers of AAVE at all socioeconomic levels readily understand Standard American English. Most blacks, regardless of socioeconomic status, educational background, or geographic region, use some form of AAVE to various degrees in informal and intra-ethnic communication (this selection of variety according to social context is called code switching).

Let's get some numbers (stats) before we assume that "most" Blacks speak a secret language when no one else is around. The sentence in bold makes me think Blacks devolve when they're not being monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I agree that should be cited, but "speak a secret language when no one else is around" is not at all what the quoted bit says. Tuf-Kat 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A brief sample

I (Phlip) added a brief sample above the fold, because this page was making me read many graphs of history and phonology before getting to the sample. I cited the crows in the movie Dumbo because it was such a widely known sample. Someone marked and swept it ;-)

If anyone could think of a better sample, the page could use one before all the academic stuff...

move to "ebonics" (brought back from Archive 2)

it seems rather sugary and a bit of a stretch to refer to ebonics, as it is almost always called, "african american vernacular english", which i don't think i have ever heard in my life. who else feels maybe this article should me moved to "ebonics"? it's not an offensive term. Joeyramoney 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, "Ebonics" is not an offensive term. Yes, "Ebonics" may have appeared more often in the popular press. Yes, "Ebonics" has been used by linguists as well as educators, politicians and journalists (and right-wing blowhards, etc.). However, the article is primarily about linguistics rather than education or politics; and in linguistics "Ebonics" is not a widely used term; it's much less common than AAVE (typically spelled out the first time, abbreviated thereafter). It might be a good idea to split this article into (1) "African American Vernacular English", a purely descriptive article devoid of any mention of education or politics (the same sort of article that's provided for, say, Baltimorese), and (2) "The Ebonics debate", an article about all the politicking. (I don't say it would be a good idea; just that it doesn't obviously seem a bad idea.) But retitling a single article "Ebonics" seems a bad idea. (And I've a hunch that it would prompt yet more cracker vandalism.) -- Hoary 00:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC) PS I've no idea of how referring to Ebonics/AAVE as "AAVE" is either "rather sugary" or "a bit of a stretch". -- Hoary 09:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with Hoary. The term "Ebonics" reached its current status in popular consciousness because of the Oakland School Board gaffe. AAVE is the more sterile term, but that's a Good Thing; people don't have nearly as many misguided opinions, for better or for worse, about AAVE than they do about Ebonics. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think sugar-coating the name will do exactly that. It's like the way we have "Tiananmen Square Protests" instead of "Tiananmen Square Massacre." Of course some people are going to immediately have a negative perception of the article because it's using an awkward term not in common usage for the sake of political correctness. Liu Bei 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

By "sugar-coating the name", precisely what are you referring to? (If you are referring to the use of "AAVE" for "Ebonics", this is not sugar-coating but instead is the standard term, as pointed out above.) I also find it hard to parse your final sentence; but since "political correctness" is a near-meaningless term (seemingly used by the anglophone right for anything they don't like), I can't be bothered to make the attempt. Finally, your would-be analogy makes no sense: "violence" or "arrests" could indeed be euphemistic for "massacre", but "protest" simply refers to something else. -- Hoary 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Ebonics does indeed seem to be the way the dialect is referred to jocularly by most everyone in the U.S. as of 2006, its popular use is recent, and may or may not decline as time goes on (although, years after the Oakland controversy, I’m shocked at its resilience). About a week ago I was with a group, one of whom asked what Ebonics meant—she thought she knew, but wasn’t sure. While I wish I hadn’t chimed in with “Black English” (I’m curious as to what folk explanation would have been given by the group, which was from a predominantly white community and had had few one-on-one interactions with blacks—I wonder if the phrases “ain’t got no” or “stupid phat” would have been employed) it immediately disambiguated the situation. In most serious discussions of the variety, though, Black Vernacular English seems to have given way to African-American Vernacular English, which, though wordier, is a good thing on an international encyclopedia. Ebonics, though of academic origins, would strike me as a slangy or uninformed title for this article, due to its current popular association. Indeed, I found the article by going to AAVE and hoping AAVE wouldn't stand for anything else (I hate typing). Wiki Wikardo 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds it odd that our speech is so radically different, that it warrants a title? What is to be said of rural southern whites whose speech is probably closer to ours than standard english? If anything, AAVE is merely an offspring, and not that far off, of southern dialect period. Seems odd to single out one people does it not...? If you ask me a more appropriate name would be (RCSAO) or Results of Centuries of Systematic Academic Oppression :-) 68.48.90.208 08:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Employee 022784

Southern American English has its own article, too.

In the 19th century certain ways of speaking that are now proudly worn by white Southerners as symbols of their Southernness, such as the use of a single vowel in place of the diphthong in the word I, were despised by white people as Africanisms. The African influence is one of the main reasons that contemporary Southern U.S. English sounds so distinctive. -- Ireneshusband 07:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Our speech" clearly has origins in various West African languages, with pronunciational and grammatical/syntactical rules which are substantially different from SAE -- all of which make it a dialect. To ignore these facts is to ignore our origins and the obvious, glaring fact that we are not simply dark-skinned "Americans." You want to pretend that we came here as a blank slate, culturally, or that our tortured tenure in this nation somehow robbed us of every, single vestige of our Africanness -- despite ample evidence to the contrary? Fine. Deny it if you must. But dispassionate observation of the myriad manifestations of the imprint of Mother Africa in everyday African-American culture and common sense say otherwise. The label is an appropriate one.

Finally and BTW, I find the term "Ebonics" insulting -- for many of the same reasons I eschew the term "Negro." I prefer AAVE; it comes without all the ignorant, racist baggage associated with the Oakland blowup over using AAVE as a pedagogical tool. deeceevoice 14:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying it should bemoved, but the wikipedia policy according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions is "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature," which would seem to indicate that it should be moved. I can't speak for anybody else, but I have never heard it refered to as "african american vernacular english." It maybe be more commonly refered to as such in academic/linguistic circles, but again the policy is to put the article at where the average person is going to look, and I don't think the average person has heard "african american vernacular english" as a term. For the same general reason, the article is under Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton, for example. (Obviously if it is an offensive term this might not be an appropriate thing to do, and I can't really comment as to whether it is or isn't, though I have not heard it used as one).--Derco 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, for most people I've spoken to "Ebonics" immediately calls up the Oakland Resolution and surrounding controversy, which is not what this article is about. I believe that the term was made up by the people involved in that resolution, and is a bit of a misnomer anyways since it comes from the word "phonics" (which only refers to the sound system of AAE when the difference is mostly syntactical). In just about every instance I've heard, people who use the word "Ebonics" are referring to it negatively, and more neutral or positive comments use "Black English", "African American English", or "AAVE". Anyone who is actually talking about it as a language system tends to use those terms. There's also been a slight move from some in the linguistics communtity to take out the word "vernacular" since it has slightly negative connotations, and AAE is increasingly being used in print. "African American English" seems a bit more self explanatory. What about moving it to that? Mahern 20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Jive" a synonym?

Is "Jive" really a synonym for AAVE? I'd thought it properly referred to a slang subset of it.--Pharos 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

hi, not sure if this has already been addressed but I think saying "jive" is a synonym of AAVE is prob on the order of saying, say, yiddish and hebrew are synonymous. or "native" is the same as all the languages spoken on papua new guinea. ok, that's over the top. airplane was a great flick, to the extent that.. bye. Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

i think "colloquially known as" is cool. izl. Kɔffeedrinksyou 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

hopefully if people call some speech jive, they mean one example, and don't refer to the entire code as cajoling/misleading. yeah. Kɔffeedrinksyou 04:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pharos is correct. "Jive" is a term for African-American slang. It does not refer to AAVE as a whole. deeceevoice 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems HIGHLY unlikely to me that "jive" is from Zulu. The Zulu word is most likely taken from English, as the "i" that it starts with seems to suggest. Compare "iphepha" (newspaper). [[2]] relates it to a Wolof word. There has historically beem very little (or practically no) Zulu emigration (forced or otherwise) to the US. Petrus 10:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Now Jive is being called a "pejorative" name. I don't think this is really any more accurate than calling it a synonym. To my knowledge, Jive is just a name for African American slang. Now, I suppose some folks could use "Jive" for general AAVE in a pejorative way, but I don't think that's especially common.--Pharos 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article seems to gloss over all controversy associated with AAVE/Ebonics in the US by merely saying "it happened." Is there a reference that can be included to detail this, as it is relatively important in public perception of the dialect. Gleffler 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the content of the "Educational issues" section insufficient? (Is there any other controversy?) -- Hoary 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I created that ass- redirect to this article. I gotta say I don't have a source other than "the streets". I'v heard people say it many times and if you think about it that's a pretty good source for AAVE. anyone else who's studdied AAVE could prob confirm. I need help on wikipedia:wikiProject Sociolinguistics/Slang! Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I rearranged some stuff.
under grammatical features was
phonology, lexical

now it's
phono, all the grammar (largest piece), lexical
Kɔffeedrinksyou 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

West African origins

I removed the questionable claim that multiple negation “can be traced to West African languages”—indeed, I’m sure there are many West African languages that use double negatives (that ain’t my area of expertise) but many, many other other non-standard Englishes (to which the first American black speakers of English would have been exposed) also do. And don’t other dialects of English similarly use “to be” without conjugation?

I ain’t heard from nobody on this, so I’m being bold. Wiki Wikardo 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, maybe I’m being (overly) pedantic, but would African-American Vernacular English (with hyphen) be preferrable? —Wiki Wikardo 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And I must say, “me fall asleep, massa, and no wake 'til you come” don’t sound like any AAVE I’ve ever heard. Wiki Wikardo 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. That's pidgin. deeceevoice 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes Explained

This article seems to have a lot of controversy, so I just thought I'd explain my edits, so they don't seem malicious.

I changed the line on code switching, because it sounded like it was saying code switching is only using different dialects for different social groups. Every time I've heard it used before, it was in reference to bilingual people switching back to their native language in a foreign country for convience (frequently in mid sentence) This seems to be the more common usuage of the word. Altarbo 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Story as "sto'y"

According to this article, intervocalic /ɹ/ may also be dropped e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y" i.e. [stɔi]. Is that supposed to mean that the word is pronounced as if it were spelled "stoy"?

I don't think so. I get the impression that it keeps the number of syllables intact so it would be more like [stɔ.i] AEuSoes1 06:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Is there an AAVE Wikipedia? If not can I make one?Cameron Nedland 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • No, you can't make an AAVE Wikipedia. Voortle 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that AAVE has a conventional written form which would seem to be a prerequisite for a wikipedia. Numskll 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay.Cameron Nedland 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert due to defacement by I'm a sawk

I just created an account to revert the page, I hope I'm following protocol. --Arglesnaf 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Metathesis

Are there other common examples of metathesis apart from ask becoming aks? I ask because that particular example is not restricted at all the AAVE - it goes back to Old English. If we're only talking about isolated examples like that, then it's probably wrong to include metathesis as a feature of AAVE specifically - all English speakers do (and have done) it from time to time. garik 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, garik, good point. I've heard aks is inherited from non-standard forms of English, and was part of prestige dialects as late as, like, the 18th century or something. In fact my first encounter with it was from a white kid. Accordingly, I'm excising that li'l tidbit. —Wiki Wikardo 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as Garik correctly pointed out, aks is inherited from standard Anglo-Saxon. If anything, ask is the metathesized form inherited from substandard dialects. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this article http://www.rehabmed.ualberta.ca/spa/phonology/features.htm "grasp" can also become "graps" in AAVE, hence an example of metathesis apart from "ask" becoming "aks". Klooge 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you check an etymological dictionary, you'll find that graps is Old English as well. Apparently that was originally the only form, though both were current in Middle English. Of course, many aspects of AAVE are shared with other dialects. Maybe we could add something like 'retention of non-standard metathesised forms like...' I know that technically the standard forms are the result of metathesis, but that may be unnecessarily pedantic for this article. garik 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

*lol* I just think it’s funny you gonna use the word metathesis (I think I pronounced that right) then worry about being pedantic. As long as we’re making a technical explanation, why not strive for accuracy? Wiki Wikardo 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A fair point:) Well, I've included a rewritten version of the metathesis point, though it's probably not terribly elegant. garik 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude. I know metathesis is a good fifty-cent word, but why include it if it ain’t? Wiki Wikardo 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it might be. We don't know for sure that they're not examples of metathesis; just because they're in Old English doesn't mean they didn't arise anew in AAVE. The other thing is that there must be other examples of non-standard archaisms retained in or borrowed into AAVE, and it's a bit weird to only have two examples that look like metathesis (besides, if it's not metathesis, it shouldn't be listed under phonology). So we either keep 'metathesis' plus health warning or we stick them in with some other archisms (though not under the heading of Phonology). For now, the first option seems best to me. What we really need is data on whether these really are the only examples. garik 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, http://www.eng.umu.se/city/therese/Linguistics/phonological_features_examples.htm "wasp" can also become "waps", hence being another example besides "grasp" and "ask" becoming "graps" and "aks". I've starting an article about this phenominum at s-cluster metathesis. Feel free to edit it to improve the article. Voortle 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also common in Old English! I'd love to know if these are inheritances or new metatheses! garik 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please...

This article analyses the grammar and phonetics of ebonics in a way that would be completly incomprehensible to anyone who speaks that language. Similar to when a bunch of white men get together and transcribe Coltrane solos, then write "jazz education" essays about what he was "going for" at the time.

Ebonics is not some well-conceived design of a language. It's an accident--the natural evolution (or degeneration)of American English as spoken by African Americans over many years--and shouldn't be presented as anything else. To dissect the grammatical variations of this speach pattern is to miss the point completely. This language is entirely based on NOT understanding the rules of grammer, and on making mistakes and keeping them in the language. No one sat down and designed any of the rules that this article focuses on, and if you discussed this with a native Ebonics speaker, he wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.

This article is written about Ebonics, by people who don't speak Ebonics, for people who don't speak Ebonics. Solid.

People who speak Ebonics read very few articles, if they read anything at all.66.82.9.82 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Jamba T'rone

You could say that about every other natural language that exists. In that sense, AAVE is no different than any other language or dialect. Nevertheless, it is not based on not understanding the rules of grammar, since it has its own grammar. Your understanding of it is based on not understanding what grammar even is. AEuSoes1 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolute agreement with AEuSoes1 here. Just because AAVE doesn't have a strong tradition of prescription, doesn't mean it shouldn't be properly described.--Pharos 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, son. It IS based on not understanding the rules of American English grammar. Which accounts for its phonetic similarities to American English, but differences (misuses) in word meanings. Show me the text in which every rule of Ebonics grammar is explained, and I'll show you a life-sized cardboard cut-out of Ted Danson.

African American English: A Linguistic Introduction is a good start. There are many books on the linguistics and grammar of AAVE, including books on narrow topics. This is a general introduction. Rlitwin 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there are two things you're getting at. First is an Emic/Etic distinction. Most research articles are written from the etic perspective, that is the prespective of the researcher. Second, all language develops by modifying old grammar rules or creating new ones; and almost never is this done intentionally and willfully. AAVE does use a different grammar, which has roots in English (among others). But to say it is simply English misunderstood is not more correct than to say American English is really Latin misunderstood.

For example, I can say "I wrote an agenda for the meeting." However, the word Agenda is plural in Latin (singular Agendum); over time people have made it singular in English. This does not mean that English speakers are incorrect; they have simply modified usages over time. AAVE is no different. --TeaDrinker 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The only languages that may have completely explicated grammars are ones that have been constucted. All descriptive grammars of 'naturally occuring' languages are in fact assembled by deriving the rules from examples of the language in use. The idea that Ebonics is somehow a dengenerative form of English because a written grammer doesn't exist belies this fact. However, I do think Ebonics might be something of a special case because of its perhaps unique origins and its widespread use. It seems to shares attributes (to my laymen's mind) with creoles, a class-based dialect, and perhaps a cant( in that it may be used by the minority to exclude the majority). Numskll 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that no written proof exists of Agamemnon's sexual exploits, but what does that really have to do with The Colonel's secret recipe anyway? For all we know, she may have called right after Kissinger left the hotel room. In which case, we'd both be wrong here. Nevertheless, I maintain that with determination, hard work, and a little bit of luck, even you can be a winner at the game of life. All my children--L. Ells

IPA

do we have to fix this page? I mean, it's a talk page. Do we have to talk in the standard, and if someone doesn't, do we have to edit what they said to conform to the standard? --Cheeesemonger 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that notice; the Talk page certainly does not have to conform to the Manual of Style.

On a possibly related note, I removed the parenthetical from the following passage in the article, because I couldn't figure out what "fi-t&n" means:

He finna [or "fittin' (fi-t&n) nuh"] go to work.

Here's the diff. --zenohockey 03:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regional (i.e., southern) slant to definition of AAVE?

The definition and the application of AAVE seems to associate with southern African-Americans and descendents of southern African-Americans. Does the definition of AAVE not apply to those African-American individuals whose roots were principally outside of the south, such as individuals whose ancestors lived in the north prior to 1865? Perhaps some of the speech of these individuals might be measured in communities having concentrations of such individuals, e.g., Oak Bluffs, Nantucket Island, off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. (To a lesser extent: Edgartown and Gay Head. -Their African-American populations are low; but websites have referred to a historic presence of African-Americans.) Dogru144 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this definition applies to the southern part of the United States. Moreover, in my opinion, blacks in southern states that use "African-American Venacular" have either little formal education or live in rural areas. I have never heard a black person in the North East use this accent when speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.132.194.121 (talk • contribs)

Maybe it's because they don't want you thinking they're uneducated, stupid, or from rural areas so they code-switch while you're around. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough Oakland/Ebonics event info in this article?

Yes? No? Maybe? How 'bout this: Why doesn't it move to Oakland_Unified_School_District#Ebonics_controversy and we just leave a link here? Better yet: Why not make a current-event-style article about it? I don't know what the terminology is for a Wiki article on an event that's no longer current. What's in this article is five times longer than the Oakland School Board article, and about a third of the entire AAVE article.

"Weasel words"

A template that I have just removed alleged that the text that followed contained weasel words. I saw no weasel word, no SGML comment saying that this or that word was a weasel, and no mention on this talk page of how this or that word was a weasel.

Anyone who wants to stick this template back in the article should say which word is, or words are, weasel. -- Hoary 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation for assertion of non-existence

I read (after markup-stripping):

AAVE is often erroneously perceived by members of mainstream American society as indicative of low intelligence or limited education. Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English by those unfamiliar with creolization, or the role of null phonemes, or by those who do not understand AAVE's use of aspect for tense in some cases. Such appraisals also may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy^{[citation needed]}

It seems that the editor who put that {{fact}} tag there wants evidence for the lack of a controversy.

Somewhere there may indeed be an authoritative book whose author credibly asserts that there is no controversy. But I don't think authors of related books would bother to say this. And they don't bother because they routinely, straightforwardly and convincingly demonstrate how AAVE is not "bad". Or anyway, it's easy to show people who are willing to read and consider the arguments presented in three pages or so of text. You'll find one example on pp 29-31 of the Morrow hardback (first) edition of Pinker's The Language Instinct. (The pagination of a paperback is probably different. Well, look near the start of chapter two.) In fact Pinker isn't even a linguist (he's a psychologist), but no linguist is likely to disagree with him here.

If there is a controversy among actual, working, present-day linguists (as opposed to linguists of decades ago, or people from other specialties dipping their toes in linguistics, or the occasional prematurely senile linguist, etc.), where is it? Until this controversy is shown, I'm deleting this request for a citation. -- Hoary 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there was a controversy, for the simple reason that the question whether a particular way of speaking is "bad" is not open to scientific investigation. Any discussion presented in the language of morality ("bad English" vs. "good English") cannot reasonably be resolved by a rational argument, hence it's not something that scholars or scientists worry about. One has to take one step back and ask whether people have certain attitudes about AAVE (which they certainly do) to be firmly within the realm of the behavioral sciences: describing which groups of a population hold the belief that AAVE is or isn't "good English" is a valid scientific endeavor; trying to determine authoritatively what is and isn't "good English" is not. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Crack open any introductory linguistics text, especially a sociolinguistics one, and they're bound to say very early on about how there is no good or bad language. This can naturally be extended to AAVE and the burden of proof is on editors who wish to include a linguist-based controversy. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said, with very minor reservations. (Linguists can and do point out and discuss problems with the way particular people speak. See the literature on specific language impairment, for example. But they don't assert that sociolects are linguistically deficient.) I'm tired of the demand to give any space to any contrary "point of view" that's merely the recycling of ignorance, perhaps encouraged by the effusions of blowhards who often pride themselves on their lack of curiosity. There are indeed very big questions in linguistics (for example, nativism has recently come under intelligent and reasoned attack), and for these, contrary points of view should be presented; there's no comparable question here. -- Hoary 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Of the last fifty edits, a third has been pure vandalism and another third reverts. More and more I'm feeling like the editors monitoring this page are bogged down with needless vandalism that would be easily remedied if the page were blocked from editing by unregistered users. This page has gotten more than random attention by bad faith editing for quite some time. What do other people think? Would such an act be a soft of sledgehammer for the cockaroch? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article

I just wanted to say to all who've contributed here that this is a really good, informative article. Yes, it is a bit difficult for people not versed in all the terminology of linguistics to read (and I am one) but it manages to describe this difficult (and potentially controversial, I think) subject in an even-handed and encyclopedic way. And it's impossible to do that without using linguistics termonolgy. I looked it up because I was randomly thinking about some aspect of this dialect and my question was more than answered. Good work! Dina 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I have to agree. Very interesting, though it might be better footnoted. Has anyone thought to suggest it as a Featured Article? Or at least have it reviewed. • I would not want to see the linguistic chart removed. • I also have, "never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE," and would more likely associate that with a caribbean dialect. • Having encountered a few persons on the South Carolina coast speaking Gullah, I find that an interesting language, and surprisingly difficult to follow. Darentig 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Format

I think it would be better if this article were formatted more like some of the other "variety of English" pages. For example, an IPA chart showing the phonology of AAVE would be nice. The verb system could be described on its own without reference to English, ie. instead of saying " 'he done gone' is equivalent to Standard English 'he went'", we could just say that 'he done gone' is the past perfect form. I'm not adamant about this; if there are any objections I'd be glad to hear them. Makerowner 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Phonological features

I've never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE. This is a feature of Caribbean dialects. I also think that the phonological rules diagram is unnecessary and possibly confusing to those without linguistic training. I would like to rewrite this section without the diagram and with corrected rules, unless someone can find a source for the voiceless dental stopping. Makerowner 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the diagram is all right because it provides a technical explanation after a less technical one. Check the sources that are on the page for the th->t thing. If none of them say anything, I can probably find a source. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and they do mention the voiceless interdental stopping, but they also make it clear that it is rare. The page (and especially the diagram) present it like a regular rule that is always applied. Makerowner 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just...no.

I'm pretty sure the AAVE word "bogus" comes from the Latin word "bogus" which is cognate with the English word "bogus". Either that or every word of AAVE is actually derrived from various Niger-Congo Group A language words which are both homonymous and synonymous with English by pure coincidence. Perhaps this is a situation that calls for Ockham's razor.

My Shorter OECD lists 'bogus' as 'unknown etymology'. I don't think there is a Latin word 'bogus'. I have no opinion about any Niger-Congo derivation. Makerowner 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Something in this article stinks of not following NPOV. Take the following example:

"Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism)."

I'm not entirely sure about calling the evidence "clear," though what concerns me more is the accusation of public feelings as being "unfounded." 67.9.36.176 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence, at a bare minimum, is simply the linguistic definitions of accent, dialect, and language. I suppose they are unfounded because there's really no evidence to indicate that it is a "degradation" of English any more than modern English is a degradation of Old English. Do you have a better word than unfounded? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Concern

Reading through this article, I can't help but feel that it was written with a distinct pro-AAVE bias. The following lines especially struck me as non-neutral:

Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English. Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy, since AAVE, like all dialects, shows consistent internal logic and structure.

To dismiss negative appraisals of AAVE as being due to racial or ethnic bias (even with the "in part" thrown in as some sort of disclaimer) is, in my opinion, irresponsible and even a bit dangerous. I'd like to know which published study or paper found that, without a doubt, "racial or ethnic bias" was behind some people's opposition to AAVE.

The overwhelming controversy and debates concerning AAVE in public schools insinuate the deeper, more implicit deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole.

Insinuations, especially ones that explain away opposition to a topic by accusing those opposed of "deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole," have no place in an encyclopedia. Such insinuations (assumptions, whatever you want to call them) are very dangerous in a politically- and racially-sensitive article such as this one. Statements like this really need to be cited, or else omitted altogether.

Finally, I noticed that something written by Smitherman was cited quite frequently throughout this article; however, the source was not correctly & explicitly cited in the References section. Without the actual Smitherman article to read, I can only assume that it is also written with a strong pro-AAVE bias.

In light of these issues, I've very tempted to tag this article with an NPOV warning. I'll wait for responses to my comments before doing so.

Don't get me wrong - despite these concerns, I still found the article to be thorough, informative & well-written. It definitely answered my questions. Rhrad 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to see the racism, but I think you're right. There needs to be some citation for allegations of racial bias. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I put some cites in (in that area). However, I agree that the article has kind of a POV tone, and is in need, generally, of some Wikification. Superabo 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your responses. After reading up on Wikipedia policies and the different options available, I've marked this article with a POV-check template. This seemed less extreme to me than an NPOV template, but might still attract a fresh pair of eyes to take a look at the article, and maybe clean it up & Wikify it a bit.

Thanks again for the clear, intelligent responses (I was afraid my comment might be taken as flamebait and/or draw accusations of racism).

Also, Superabo, I hope you don't mind, I indented your comment so any new editors that come here because of the POV-check template will know that this was one continuous thread. Rhrad 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with the contention that opposition and criticism of AAVE has to be racist. It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. Criticizing AAVE for it’s lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. I also see absolutely nothing in this article about the fact that a large number of Caucasians also speak something very similar to AAVE. Especially those who are interested in the so called “hip hop culture”.Wikidudeman 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that opposition to recognition of AAVE is not necessarily racist, I disagree completely with the characterization of AAVE as "rudimentary". No modern linguist or even scientifically-oriented person should say that one speech form is 'rudimetary' while another is not. These valuations are based solely on history and sociology: if Blacks had enslaved and transported Whites to Africa, we might have a page about 'Caucasian-African Vernacular Swahili' (or any other African language) and someone would post about how simple and uneducated it is. Second, linguists recognize that all concepts conceivable by the human mind can be expressed in any language. Complex ideas can be effectively portrayed in any speech variety. Third, AAVE and 'Black slang' are not the same thing. The 'many Caucasians who speak something very similar to AAVE' are mostly copying this slang as part of hip-hop culture, as was noted in the previous post. AAVE is an independent variety of English with a distinct grammar from other forms of English. Fourth, to say that criticizing AAVE has nothing to do with "race" is like saying that criticizing Black music (jazz, blues, rock, funk, soul, the list goes on...) has nothing to do with race. AAVE is a central part of Black culture and identity: that's why almost all Blacks still speak it despite having lived amongst speakers of different White dialects for decades and being spread across the whole country. Fifth, saying that AAVE doesn't have polysyllabic words is a) irrelevant, and b) not true. Using polysyllabic words does not make you intelligent, or show your intelligence, or even sound better most of the time. Most style guides recommend using shorter words wherever possible. Whether a certain language variety uses polysyllabic words has nothing to do with its sophistication or intelligence. Chinese, for example, is overwhelmingly monosyllabic; does it also "lack...complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas"? I don't believe that the previous poster was being consciously racist, just culturally insensitive. By looking at language in an unscientific manner, one can easily be caught by racist attitudes that prevail in society.

Sorry for the rant, but this issue is close to me, and I can't stand it when people who don't know what they're talking about continue to spread ignorance about this important aspect of Black culture. Makerowner 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll refute what you said piece by piece. 1. I don't know any 'modern linguists' so I can't tell you what they would say but I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. However to make it easier for discussion I will say that what I mean to say is I consider AAVE to be "unsophisticated English" by the fact it is 'without complexity or refinements' compared to American English and British English. 2. What the hip hop artists and rappers use is a form of AAVE. It uses the same syntax and grammar. 3. Even assuming AAVE is a 'central part of African American culture" criticizing it doesn't have to have anything to do with race. 4.AAVE does NOT have many if any polysyllabic. People who speak AAVE tend to use simple words that can not convey much complex meaning. Give me one example of an AAVE polysyllabic word that isn't also a word in AmE or Bme. 5. I'm not saying that a language is unsophisticated due to lack of polysyllabic words. Chinese is a separate example due to it's number of words and it's grammar. It can't be compared to English.Wikidudeman 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. What is this "basic English"? Do you perhaps mean standard American English? And what do you mean by "rudimentary" -- morphologically impoverished, or something else? The complexity of AAVE words are limited... I'm a bit lost here. Can you tell me what the subject of this sentence is? "Complexity" perhaps? If so, it seems you've interestingly simplifed the paradigm of BE, so that the third-person singular as well as plural form is "are". Or are you taking the noun that's the closest antecedent to be the syntactic subject? Either way, most interesting! [Y]ou rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. Really? I'd thought that the rap CDs I possess were in AAVE and that there were a lot of polysyllabic words in the lyrics. (Copyright considerations prevent me from reproducing a sample here.) It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. You're onto something with education: read Jonathan Kozol. And urban, yes. So? The vast majority of, say, Japanese speakers a couple of hundred years ago were uneducated; does this mean that their Japanese was rudimentary? Just what do you want to say about the relationship between language and education? Criticizing AAVE for it’s [sic] lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. Really? What else has it got to do with? (Incidentally, the standard way to write the genitive pronoun is "its", no apostrophe. At least among the better educated.) I also see absolutely nothing in this article about the fact that a large number of Caucasians also speak something very similar to AAVE. That's a sad omission. I hope that it will be rectified by some intelligent person who has studied language. -- Hoary 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudimentary as in unsophisticated. Lack of polysyllabic words words as I stated earlier and inability to convey complex ideas, Such as scientific ideas. Give me one example of a science journal using AAVE.Wikidudeman 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It has nothing to do with 'race' because both African and Caucasian Americans use it. 2. Criticizing my grammar due to 1 apostrophe and saying that it is how the "better educated" use it is not only desperate and pathetic but its also an example of you being in agreement with me. That how someone speaks and their educational background are generally in agreement. Oh and BTW..You misspelled 'rudimentary' in your 1st post. But I didn't bother to point that out before due to it being 100% irrelevant.Wikidudeman 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also this article is in violation of WP:NPOV because it provides no alternative viewpoints concerning AAVE. It does not provide any criticism of it's use or correlation between those who use it and their general educational background. How can you claim this article is NPOV when it doesn't even have opposing viewpoints on it's use and impact?Wikidudeman 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, When addressing my posts try to keep yours as brief as possible otherwise I won't have time to refute them. Thanks. Wikidudeman 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikidudeman, but being "scientifically oriented" is no substitute for reading actual linguistic discourse regarding AAVE and linguistics in general. Pointing out that scientific journals aren't published in AAVE completely neglects the complex sociolinguistic relationship that AAVE has with other dialects of English. While you and others certainly have an opinion regarding AAVE, it has no place in an article like this (which seeks to discuss linguistic aspects of this dialect) any more than my opinions on Australian English do on that dialect's page. Wikipedia is based on sources and unless you've got a scholarly source, the exclusion of "criticism" regarding AAVE usage (which doesn't exist btw) does not belong in the article. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing 'opinions' here. I'm discussing facts. It is a fact that AAVE is not used in scientific texts adding credence to the fact it's unsophisticated. It's a fact that most AAVE users are uneducated. Also adding evidence to the fact. These are 'established facts' and thus belong.Wikidudeman 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling mistake in 'rudimentary' was mine, though I agree that pointing out the mistake with its/it's is unnecessary. Many well-educated writers have difficulty with that rule, and the meaning was perfectly clear. That said, I disagree with nearly everything else Wikidudeman has posted. 1. You don't actually 'refute' my point in any way: I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. Find a legitimate linguist of the past fifty years who says that AAVE is a rudimentary form of English, then post your viewpoint with citations from that source. Many British English speakers feel that American English lacks 'complexity and refinements', and the French feel the same way about the British, etc. Everyone considers their speech form in some way better than others; this in itself is not necessarily a problem. The scientific study of language is meant to overcome these natural prejudices and allow us to learn more about other people and their cultures by learning about their language. People are of course free to make aesthetic judgements about languages, but to say that one is rudimentary compared to another is to belittle the culture of that language's speakers. 2. Perhaps I didn't explain properly what I meant about slang. Yes, rappers use AAVE, but the main elements picked up by Whites are the slang elements. Many older people with no interest in slang speak AAVE, and many Whites with little knowledge of AAVE use slang that has its origins in Black language nonetheless. 3. I must again stress that AAVE and Black culture are intrinsically tied to Black identity and are therefore connected to race. If someone were to say that the Indo-European language family is rudimentary compared to the Afro-Asiatic, or any other, this is an attack on European culture, and by definition, European identity. This issue is of course more sensitive for Black culture, because it has only been (partially) recognized as legitimate within the last 40-or-so years. 4. AAVE is a dialect of English and uses nearly all words that General American does. To exclude all these words from its vocabulary when searching for polysyllabics is ridiculous. How many polysyllabic words does General American have if you don't count all the ones that it shares with British English? And to say that AAVE words have simple meanings is also ridiculous. If anything, it is the wide range of meanings that AAVE applies to standard English words that separates it from other Englishes. The behaviour known as signifiying constantly applies new meanings to old words. This is also the way that slang works, and AAVE has been one of the greatest sources of slang in the US. Again, I must point out that linguists consider all languages (or language varieties) equally capable of conveying complex ideas. Since AAVE uses nearly all the same words as other Englishes, to say that it cannot convey the same meanings is nonsense. I am glad at least that Wikidudeman can recognize that Chinese is not rudimentary, despite is few polysyllabics; why then can't AAVE be recognized as a 'separate example'? I will keep my posts short if Wikidudeman stops providing me with material. Makerowner 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to keep it brief but you decided to rant on for several paragraphs making it impossible for me to refute everything you said due to my having a life outside wikipedia. Please try to re-explain what you said briefly so that I can actually address it.Wikidudeman 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect citations

This article has a strange form of citations that I can't follow. The citations seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link. Wikipedia explains how to correctly cite sources here Wikipedia:Citing sources. It looks like whoever did it was trying to use Wikipedia:Harvard referencing but did it incorrectly. Whoever put those numbers in the aricle should cite the sources correctly.Wikidudeman 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your particular dissatisfaction here. A quick look at the article shows that (i) for the most part it uses the author–page system (a well-established version of the author–year–page system), but (ii) it adds a couple of footnotes for sourcing. This combination of (i) and (ii) is odd, and for this reason alone (and perhaps for other reasons too) something needs to be done. But what are these citations that "seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link"? I suspect that you're referring to (i); but if so, this is odd, as it's a well-established system. (True, it doesn't agree with WP:REF, but the latter is only a guideline, not a policy; and its recommended "Harvard referencing" is distinctly unhelpful when long papers or books are cited.) -- Hoary 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the first paragraph of the article says "About “80 to 90 percent of American blacks” speak AAVE “at least some of the time” (Smitherman 2". This type of referencing system is totally unhelpful if it doesn't provide any other information. Who is "Smitherman"? Where is his work found? What pages? Etc. If it's a website then reference it as such. If it's a study or journal or book then reference it as such. Otherwise it's meaningless.Wikidudeman 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This criticism of yours is well founded. There's nothing wrong in principle with the method of citation, which is to page 2 of a work by Smitherman, but there's plenty wrong with all these citations of Smitherman's work, because, as you point out, it's not in the list of references. I'll try to go back through the history of the article (a dreary job, what with the number of times it has been edited unnecessarily) to find who mentioned Smitherman, and then write to that person. But I have to attend to a few other chores first. -- Hoary 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

I removed {{fact}} from the end of:

Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism).

This is a complex sentence. Which proposition within it needs a reference? -- Hoary 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of racial bias. See the discussion above. I'm putting the POV tag that you just took off back in. I'm not sure what earlier discussion you point to in your edit summary but as far as I can tell the most recent discussion about bias does not ignore any earlier discussion on the page. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the last part of this sentence. Does what remains require a reference, and if so, which proposition within it?

I don't think so. I believe the rest of that sentence has been discussed already and we've determined it's fine. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that a number of editors say that the article is biased. Have they read and understood the article, have they read and understood basic materials about language (e.g. a very short part of Pinker's popular The Language Instinct, as suggested above), and what cogent, intelligent, well-informed points are they making?

Incidentally, I'm not happy with the article either. Here's an example, chosen pretty much at random: For instance, if a child reads "He passed by both of them" as "he pass by bowf uh dem", a teacher must determine whether the child is saying passed or pass, since they are identical in AAVE phonology. (i) Why transcribe in this way, in which for example the "w" in "bowf" exaggerates the oddness? (ii) Why neither mention that the /t/ is commonly dropped by speakers of fast standard English nor say that this is a feature of deliberate AAVE? (iii) How is this a matter of phonology rather than morphology? More broadly, I think an article about a lect of English should primarily discuss the features of that lect, whereas this article burbles on and on about the consternation that AAVE excites among certain non-speakers -- not a non-issue, but a side issue. -- Hoary 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the discussion that I directed to you above demonstrates how much I know. It seems as though it's little pockets of bias like what has been pointed out and not necessarily the entire structure of the article. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)