THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, January 4, 1997 TAG: 9701040001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By JANET BING
LENGTH: 114 lines
Is the Ebonics movement a misguided effort to teach slang or nonstandard English in the public schools as some people fear? Respondents to recent reports about Ebonics seem to feel that Ebonics is ``nothing more than a slang version of the standard English language that we are all taught in school'' (letter, Dec. 30 and respondents to a WAVY-TV report on Dec. 27).
But these comments misrepresent the real issues. Almost everyone agrees that students need to learn standard English in the public schools. The real debate is about the most effective way to teach standard English. A basic problem is that languages are most complicated than is usually assumed. All people vary their language to suit particular situations, using informal language at home with their families and formal language in public situations with strangers. Language is like clothing: We change our clothing to suit the situation. Would it make sense to pretend that there is only one good way to dress - black tie and formal - even at the beach, the mall and construction sites? This is obviously nonsense. Similarly, is it common sense to claim that everyone should speak the same language at all times? Many American English teachers have presented the American English used by educated speakers in formal and semiformal situations - ``standard English'' - as the only variety of English worth studying. By doing so, they pretend that every other kind of English is ``bad,'' including all other dialects and levels of formality.
Ebonics used to be called Black English, but that name incorrectly suggested that it was a language common to African Americans, which it clearly is not. Ebonics does have an interesting history, first as a pidgin (a trade language), then as a creole (a ``real'' language that has developed from a pidgin) and later as a major dialect of English. Those interested in the history can find an introduction in The Story of English by R. McCrum, W. Cran and R. MacNeil (Vicking, 1986).
Linguists have always found Ebonics worthy of study, and will continue to do so, not because it is the standard language, but because in language, as in dress, one size does not fit every situation. Street language is appropriate in the street, informal language in the home and formal language in the classroom and board room.
There are also deeper issues. Language is how a group expresses its deepest values. Can anyone imagine The Color Purple or Their Eyes were Watching God being written in standard English? When we tell someone that the language they speak every day is ``slang'' or ``bad'' we're also telling them that their values and those of the people they love are bad. We're asking them to give up those values for those of the white middle class. Not everyone is willing to do that.
If, on the other hand, we stop treating language in terms of ``good and bad'' and begin treating it in terms of ``appropriate or not appropriate for a situation'' we remove some of the emotional blocks to learning. When I taught high school in McKinley High School in Washington, D.C., I realized that students who resisted learning ``white English'' could see the value of learning ``green English'' (the English you need to earn money). As soon as I convinced my students that it was all right to speak ``street language'' on the street as long as they spoke formal English in the class, they stopped resisting. We all speak many kinds of English during the day, and we don't have to give up any of them to learn new ways to speak.
Is the Ebonics movement a misguided effort to teach slang or nonstandard English in the public schools as some people fear? Respondents to recent reports about Ebonics seem to feel that Ebonics is ``nothing more than a slang version of the standard English language that we are all taught in school'' (letter, Dec. 30 and respondents to a WAVY-TV report on Dec. 27).
But these comments misrepresent the real issues. Almost everyone agrees that students need to learn standard English in the public schools. The real debate is about the most effective way to teach standard English. A basic problem is that languages are more complicated than is usually assumed. All people vary their language to suit particular situations, using informal language at home with their families and formal language in public situations with strangers.
Language is like clothing: We change our clothing to suit the situation. Would it make sense to pretend that there is only one good way to dress - black tie and formal - even at the beach, the mall and construction sites? This is obviously nonsense. Similarly, is it common sense to claim that everyone should speak the same language at all times? Many American English teachers have presented the American English used by educated speakers in formal and semiformal situations - ``standard English'' - as the only variety of English worth studying. By doing so, they pretend that every other kind of English is ``bad,'' including all other dialects and levels of formality.
Ebonics used to be called Black English, but that name incorrectly suggested that it was a language common to African Americans, which it clearly is not. Ebonics does have an interesting history, first as a pidgin (a trade language), then as a creole (a ``real'' language that has developed from a pidgin) and later as a major dialect of English. Those interested in the history can find an introduction in The Story of English by R. McCrum, W. Cran and R. MacNeil (Viking, 1986).
Linguists have always found Ebonics worthy of study, and will continue to do so, not because it is the standard language, but because in language, as in dress, one size does not fit every situation. Street language is appropriate in the street, informal language in the home and formal language in the classroom and board room.
There are also deeper issues. Language is how a group expresses its deepest values. Can anyone imagine The Color Purple or Their Eyes were Watching God being written in standard English? When we tell someone that the language they speak every day is ``slang'' or ``bad'' we're also telling them that their values and those of the people they love are bad. We're asking them to give up those values for those of the white middle class. Not everyone is willing to do that.
If, on the other hand, we stop treating language in terms of ``good and bad'' and begin treating it in terms of ``appropriate or not appropriate for a situation'' we remove some of the emotional blocks to learning.
When I taught high school in McKinley High School in Washington, D.C., I realized that students who resisted learning ``white English'' could see the value of learning ``green English'' (the English you need to earn money). As soon as I convinced my students that it was all right to speak ``street language'' on the street as long as they spoke formal English in the class, they stopped resisting.
We all speak many kinds of English during the day, and we don't have to give up any of them to learn new ways to speak. MEMO: Janet Bing, a professor in the department of English, teaches
linguistics at Old Dominion University.