Ebonics In The Pedagogical Sphere Summary

Ashley Nater

English 331

Syelle Graves

May 10th, 2013

Ebonics in the Pedagogical Sphere: Incorporation, Not Aversion

Most Americans hold strong feelings towards the term ‘Ebonics’; some adopt an attitude of condescension, while others are outright infuriated with the concept. To most, Ebonics has a very negative connotation; it implies lower-class, ignorance, and laziness. In some circles, slang and Ebonics are often used interchangeably. Some even believe that it is another language altogether, one that should be stamped out for good. It is seen as a bastardization of “proper” English. John R. Rickford’s article, Suite for Ebony and Phonics, argues that these ideas are false, and perpetuate harmful stereotypes about the community that holds

primary dominion over Ebonics. Ebonics is not an inferior dialect, and it is in fact crucial to the process mastering Standard American English in places where Ebonics is used as the common vernacular. In addition, correcting those that speak Ebonics is a detrimental technique that doesn’t facilitate learning.
Rickford begins his article by discussing the decision of the Oakland, California school board to legitimize the use of Ebonics as a language. This controversial case has been subject to much critique, questioning its prudence and rationality. Rickford is in fact for the ruling, but he establishes his position firstly by telling his readers what Ebonics is not, and proceeding to debunk commonly heard myths about Ebonics. Slang and Ebonics are not synonymous, though Ebonics does often incorporate slang words. Ebonics is not lazy, nor does it blindly ignore the rules of universal grammar. In fact, Ebonics is quite rule-governed lexically, syntactically, and phonetically. Rickford states that most linguists agree on the notion that Ebonics is simply a dialect of Standard American English (SAE).
It is important to first note that SAE is an ideal language, not an actuality - there is no such thing as a “standard” English language, as English can be found in many different regions, where accents and dialects can differ noticeably from one another.

SAE in this case will be used to signify a highly accepted and widely used form of English vernacular. African American English (AAE), as Ebonics is frequently called, is spoken mostly by Black people, though some non-Blacks speak it, and not all Blacks conform to it. AAE and SAE share many common words, and speakers of either can mutually understand each other without running into frequent problems. (Rickford 1)

There are a few key differences between SAE and AAE, specifically concerning verb tenses in Ebonics. Rickford writes about the use of the habitual ‘be’ form in AAE, wherein speakers will communicate a sentence as “he be runnin,” which translates to “he is usually running,” in Standard American English. (Rickford 2) This example is not at all hard to understand, but it demonstrates the difference in both dialects quite clearly. Both sentences abide by the rules of universal grammar, but the AAE construction is seen as informal for arbitrary

reasons.
According to An Introduction to Language, universal grammar is defined as “the innate principles and properties that pertain to the grammars of all human languages.” (Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams 598) Taking into account the notion of Ebonics as a dialect of SAE, it is clear that humans possess the natural ability to comprehend speech that differs only slightly from their own. It can only be concluded that Ebonics is unfairly judged because of its connections to race of the speakers.

Rickford also illustrates the phonetic differences between AAE and SAE, stating that people perceive Ebonics as a lazy speech pattern because of “its tendency to omit consonants at the end of words,” but, even then, there are exceptions to that rule. Rickford refers to this Ebonic manner of speaking as “highly ordered” and no more lazy than any other dialect or language. (Rickford 2)
The author goes on to question the roots of Ebonics, and how it evolved over time. There are three theories that may explain its origin; first is the Afrocentric view, which holds that Ebonics was birthed in Africa, wherein slaves taken from West Africa learned English and applied their own structures of Niger-Congo languages to it, shaping it for their own purposes of communicated. However, languages in that region vary enormously, so no particular language has yet been deemed the mother of Ebonics. (Rickford 4)
Next is the Eurocentric view, which dictates that slaves learned English from their White masters rapidly, holding on to little of their native languages. However, there is just not enough historical evidence to prove this particular theory, so all that remains is the Creolist view. (Rickford 4)
The Creolist view maintains that African slaves developed a vernacular that was a mix between English and African languages in and around the areas of the Caribbean islands. The theory assumes that this mixed language became known as Ebonics when it’s primary speakers appeared to be primarily of African descent. (Rickford 4)
Now that it has been established that Ebonics is a dialect of SAE, it must be understood that Ebonics has a very important place in the academic field; it can be used as an effective learning tool in teaching Standard American English. This may seem counter-intuitive initially, but tentative evidence shows that contrasting the differences between AAE and SAE help students decrease their use of Ebonics in writing. This is imperative to remember; writing is taught, speech is another matter entirely - speech is innate and can’t normally be altered by correction. Writing SAE can be controlled in an academic environment, and highlighting the differences between the features of Ebonics and SAE has been shown to assist students in improving their SAE proficiency in writing.
In her book about Ebonics and education, Lisa Delpit writes that Contrastive Analysis, that is, the pedagogical method of pointing out differences between AAE and SAE, is preferable to the aversion/avoidance of Ebonics, because such an approach can lead to “lower teacher expectations and poorer student performance..” which is, she laments, “depressingly well-documented.” (Delpit, 83) This is rampant trend in schools where educators simply cannot figure out an appropriate way to deal with students who use a different vernacular.
It’s been observed that some teachers tend to give up on students who speak with an AAE dialect, believing them to have a lesser aptitude for learning than students that don’t feature Ebonics speech patterns. Students who receive less individual attention are obviously not going to do as well as students who do receive that extra help and encouragement, proving to be a prediction which sadly comes true for many youths, blameless as they are. This unfair treatment of students contributes to the idea that Ebonics will lead to less success career and a lower intelligence for students later on in life.
This is not to say that teachers should constantly correct AAE speakers. Correction is an ineffective technique that often does more harm than good. For most Ebonics speakers, this dialect is one spoken in the home, by loved ones, family members and close friends. That dialect becomes part of their identities, and to correct an Ebonics speaker is essentially saying that the way they speak is wrong, that the people they are close to are wrong, that their entire community is wrong. This is certainly not the desired effect correctors aim to have, but nonetheless there actions result in AAE speakers becoming hesitant to speak. They become ashamed of their speech and choose to remain silent instead of face further humiliation.
Delpit also adds that in addition, constant correction of a speaker’s pronunciation causes them to focus more on how something is said, and not the meaning behind the words being read or spoken. Students will begin to overlook the meaning of a word or sentence in order to focus on pleasing those correcting them. Corrected speakers will be less proficient readers than those who are not corrected, because they are not given the chance to read uninterrupted. It may also cause students to hold resentment against their teachers. (Delpit 99)
Proponents of the Contrastive Analysis approach suggest that incorporating bidialectism in the classroom seems to be a suitable course of action for teaching reading and writing skills. According to Delpit, in a study performed at Aurora University in Chicago, students were divided into two groups, an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group was educated about features of both AAE and SAE side by side, and then made to produce compositions, while the control group was solely taught to write in SAE terminology for their compositions. After nearly three months of observation, the researchers conducting the experiment discovered that the experimental group decreased their use of AAE features in their writings by a drastic 59%, while the control group experienced an 8.5% increase in such features. (Delpit 84) The Contrastive Analysis technique shows an undeniable improvement in SAE proficiency where it concerns writing.
Ebonics is a subject that triggers very strong responses - for hundreds of years it has been ridiculed and looked down upon. Many feel it that corrupts the English language. However, linguists recognize it as a rule-governed dialect that is no more degenerate than any other; it is only judged as such because of racial prejudice and discrimination towards the groups that speak it. Ebonics origin a highly speculated topic of discussion for linguists, but the Creolist theory works with the notion that it evolved from a mix of languages: English and African languages which slaves carried over from their native lands. Ebonics became a common tongue to those of African descent and remains present to this day, and is primarily used in African American communities, with a few exceptions. Ebonics is not slang, but a common vernacular that students grow up utilizing in their speech. The educational system may sometimes wrongly attempt to rid students of their non-standard dialect, and can often leave students disadvantaged in an academic setting. Correcting AAE speakers rarely works. However, Rickford and Delpit both agree on a Contrastive Analysis approach. Experimental evidence suggests that when educators include bidialectal differences in their lessons, they can dramatically improve the writing skills of students in the “standard” form of American English, which is more widely accepted and practiced by Americans. Clearly, contrasting and comparing these two dialects in the classroom will prove to be much more beneficial to students than ignoring or denouncing Ebonics altogether.