Talk:African-American English/Archive 9

Regional difference

I know there are regional differences according to linguistics, though I don't know the specific papers. I would like to see a section dedicated to that as well.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A "Good Article" nominee?

This article has become a Good Article nominee. This surprises me. I don't see any discussion above about whether it qualifies as a GA, let alone agreement not only (A) to nominate it but also (B) to dedicate energy and time to attending to the pile of annoying questions and objections (some of them of course justified) that nomination leads to. All I see is a suggestion made four years ago (a suggestion to which nobody agreed).

As the nominator only made her first edit a couple of months ago, I'd guess that she might be unfamiliar with the rigmarole that GA nomination tends to trigger.

This is an article into which a lot of work has been poured. But a lot of this has been merely to fend off uninformed and silly attempts at change for the worse (some of these attempts citing newspaper columnists and other ignoramuses). I don't think the article is bad but I also don't think it's good. Time and energy permitting (and I'm not sure if they would), I could make whatever improvements are required for syntax and morphology. I'm not qualified to attend to the rest.

I suggest that the nomination is removed pronto. But I'm open to reasoning to the contrary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, is the article not good? I've referred to it a few times over the past few years and really felt it to be helpful and well written. I'm new to wikipedia. Is it not as good as I thought it was? Is this not how things are done here? I can take it down if it's going to bother people. I just wanted to show my appreciation for the article. Bali88 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Stoke_sub_Hamdon_Priory/GA1 for a recent example of a GA nomination that seems to have gone smoothly. (Note the slim cyan blocks with "[show]" links to their right. Try clicking a few of these links.) Talk:D'Oliveira_affair/GA1 is less exhaustive but has more pesky questions, which somebody had to respond to promptly. As you look at the former GA discussion, are you pretty confident that this article would pass virtually all of these very many criteria? (I'm not.) As you look at the latter one, are you confident that somebody keeping watch over the article (perhaps you) will have access to a library with the needed linguistics and other books and papers? (I'm not.)

Normally, one of the most active editors of an article suggests nomination on the article's talk page, there's agreement (or no persuasive disagreement), and then the process goes ahead.

I'm happy to learn that the article has been helpful. I think it's promising, and that it could be a GA. But I don't think it's ready yet. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an interest in linguistics but only an armchair knowledge of it, so I am certainly not the person to fix any problems. I apologize if I've stepped on any toes. Feeling my way through the whole wikipedia thing. :-) Bali88 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I have no idea how to un-nominate it...Bali88 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine, no reason to apologize -- and certainly this article isn't "owned" by anyone. And thank you for having got me to start thinking about a push in the medium future for GA status. I've just "un-nominated" the article for you. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, GA reviews can provide helpful feedback, but if the concern is that the reviewer might be a layperson with twisted views on the subject (and we know how sticky that can get), perhaps there is a way to have someone we trust take a look at the article and provide an informal review. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tupac example

"5-0" is not the best example of AAVE use. That comes from the TV show Hawaii 5-0, and is not necessarily an AAVE term, just an American slang term. You can find plenty of better examples in Tupac's songs. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In Education

In this section- 'The statement that "African Language Systems are genetically based" also contributed to the negative reaction because "genetically" was popularly misunderstood to imply that African Americans had a biological predisposition to a particular language.'

Having lived through the media-storm the Oakland School Board's announcement made it is quite clear that the board members clearly thought 'genetically' was a biological reference, even if the author they were rubber stamping didn't mean it this way. If anyone has time it might make a good addition to the article to dig up some of their initial statements made to the media- before they started backpedaling and saying they knew what linguistic genetics were all the time and only meant it in that context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:cfe1:2959:ec29:f7ac:4514:f0ad (talk • contribs)

It would be interesting to see that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ebonics

Recently, an anonymous user and @Handpolk: have insisted that we remove the link to Ebonics in the lede, as well as the information indicating to readers that this is a non-technical term. The nonsensical explanation "we shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy for racial sensitivity" was put in anedit summary, but this has nothing to do with "racial sensitivity" and, as I've already stated, it is actually less accurate. If either user believes they can provide a more thorough, meaningful, and convincing explanation, I await such a response.

The same pair of users has also insisted on altering the table in the tense and aspect section. I suspect that both users have, in their haste, neglected to notice a citation (in the form of the number 41) at the top of the table that points readers to Joan Fickett's 1972 article "Tense and aspect in Black English." Unfortunately for those wishing to alter this table, the citation does not back up these edits. The anonymous user, in particular, has repeatedly made such changes in the past with no explanation and has been reverted each time. It is possible that Fickett's article is out of date or otherwise inaccurate. But the anon user has not said as much. They have even left the citation intact, which is problematic; maintaining the citation and changing the table is actually a form of misattribution and scholarly misconduct, yet Handpolk insists that this is a form of "good faith" editing. Handpolk also insists that, although it has been done incompetently, with no explanation, and incongruently with proper academic protocol and Wikipedia procedures on citations, must be given a due explanation. I hope this matter can be put to rest now.

It is also my hope that Handpolk is not guilty of restoring a reverted edit, not because they believe in the merits of the edits themselves, but simply because they were unsatisfied with another contributor's edit summary. Now that would be bad faith editing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the non-ebonics edits. You mentioned they went against a cited source. I'm sure you're right about that. As to the ebonics issue, I do not think the link should be removed - I think the placement in the lede is wrong and the unsourced qualifiers should be removed. You said about my version: "it is actually less accurate" yet provided no supporting evidence. I believe that is incorrect. As it reads "Non-linguists sometimes call it Ebonics (a term that also has other meanings and connotations)" with no citations and deliberately placed at the bottom of the lede away from the other alternate names for AAVE, seems to be downplaying that many people use AAVE and ebonics interchangeably and in fact AAVE is just a PC term that was invented because some people found ebonics to be offensive. Minimizing ebonics by adding qualifiers to it and placing it at the bottom of the lead instead of at the top where it belongs, is not encyclopedic. When I found this article I was looking for information on ebonics and it took me a good 20 seconds to even figure out I had found the right article. If the article itself isn't going to be called ebonics, then ebonics should be the very first term that is listed after AAVE. Handpolk (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "ebonics" is by its nature racist and offensive. It might be better to establish this with a source if you like, but the fact that it is a term to describe a dialect of English spoken by black people that is clearly racial in origin, that no other varieties of English have such a name, and that black people themselves do not use this word makes it clear that it is not exactly a term devoid of ill will. RoflCopter404 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's racist and offensive, what's it doing in the lede at all? And why isn't that noted? If something is racist and offensive the encyclopedic thing to do is to bury it at the bottom of the lede and add some qualifiers to downplay it's relevance? As to whether black people use the term, that's not relevant. This article doesn't exist for black people. It exists for all people. And many people use the term ebonics for AAVE. The multiple alternate names given are there precisely for that reason. Ebonics belongs among them. If you'd like to add 'although black people don't use this term' with a citation, I would support that. Handpolk (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the edit that you supported, the link was removed. If you really don't feel so strongly about it (or the table), I'm confused about why you restored it twice. Were you just being sloppy, lazy, or both? — aeusoes1 02:56, 27 January 2015 — continues after insertion below

The first time you didn't explain the reason you reverted. The second time I initially misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were saying my ebonics edit was going against a cited source. Once I realized what you meant, I had already reverted. Handpolk (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You have said that the placement at the bottom of the lede, and I quote, "seems to be downplaying that...in fact AAVE is just a PC term that was invented because some people found ebonics to be offensive." I won't ask you to provide a citation for this, because it cannot be anything but false. In fact, it defies basic notions of causality. Usage of the term Ebonics as a synonym for AAVE began in 1996. The term African American Vernacular English, although a mouthful, was likely coined in the 1980s as an extension of the earlier Black Vernacular English, which dates back to before the term Ebonics was even coined at all. If anything, both Ebonics and AAVE/BVE were designed to avoid the term negro dialect, which we certainly do find offensive today (you will note that we have avoided putting that term in bold in the lede, even though there are are people who still use this term; I do not recommend that you include this term, despite your apparent disdain for "political correctness"). In other words, your "fact" is a made-up notion that you would do well to discard.

It seems that you have provided a request for citation for the claim that linguists do not use the term Ebonics as a referent to AAVE; Ebonics (word) (the link you removed) does provide attribution to this claim and basically covers, with rigorous citation, the rather banal claim that Ebonics means other things than just AAVE. I wouldn't have a problem with duplicating that in-line citation here. In the future, if you do have an issue with a statement that does not provide a citation, we have the {{citation needed}} template that can be placed in-line. This will prompt editors to try to find corroborating resources and readers to understand that they should take the content they read with a grain of salt.

It should be very clear by this point that the edit you supported does, indeed, remove important information, making it less accurate. I'm not really sure if there's a way to further streamline the process of letting readers such as yourself know earlier that this is the article they are looking for. From what I can tell, all of the relevant information to help with this deduction is in the first two sentences. In the 20 seconds it took you to figure out that you were in the right place, did you actually read those first two sentences? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to know the history of the terms better than I do. So without doing any research I'm going to assume you're probably right about that. With that said, I still think it's a PC term that people use when most laymen would not know the term AAVE and they would know ebonics but like @@RoflCopter404: said, some people find it offensive and racist (I disagree, though, that is is racist and offensive 'by nature'). None of this has anything to do with how the lede should be worded. If ebonics is going to be in the lede, it shouldn't be hidden at the bottom and garnished with qualifiers. It should be #2, right after AAVE. — Handpolk 04:09, 27 January 2015 — continues after insertion below

"It should be very clear by this point that the edit you supported does, indeed, remove important information, making it less accurate." No, that's not clear at all. Those qualifiers are not important information that make the article more accurate. Their sole purpose is to downplay the relevance of the term ebonics. Even in the lede of the ebonics article it says that "Ebonics has primarily been used to refer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE)". How is that not an alternate name for AAVE that should be included with no qualifiers? Just because some people find it 'racist and offensive'? If you want to add that it's racist and offensive to some people to the lead, go for it. If you want to say that black people never use it, go for it. But saying 'non-linguists sometimes use it and it also has other meanings' is just purposely watering it down - with a very clear agenda. Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your personal views on race. It's an encyclopedia that needs to be accurate. Handpolk (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are, or claim to be, extraordinarily certain of other editors' motivations. But you haven't presented any clear evidence for this. The term "Ebonics" is discussed in the article so titled; what that article says does not need to be summarized here. This is indeed an encyclopedia and accuracy is what aeusoes1 has been energetically and informedly striving for in this and related articles for a considerable time. This doesn't mean that he's infallible, of course. If you'd like to present a rational argument (rather than dreaming up motivation and attacking that) for something being wrong or imbalanced, please go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. Please do not try and intimidate me or influence others with irrelevant details about who has contributed what to where and for how long. You've done a fine job of finding bits of what I've said to attack but you've yet to address my point, which I've stated multiple times. AAVE and Ebonics are used interchangeably by many people. The Ebonics article even states this. There is no reason why Ebonics should be at the bottom of the lede nor why it should have multiple qualifiers along with it. It should be #2 in the lede, right after AAVE, as it is by far the second most relevant alternate name for AAVE (I would actually argue that it is AAVE that is an alternate name for Ebonics). Handpolk (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not persuasive. If I didn't make it clear enough last time, I'll try again: aeusoes1 is fallible; I am fallible. He (we) may be wrong and you may be right. If so, we'll admit it. So go ahead, demonstrate it. ¶ You now claim that "[Ebonics] is by far the second most relevant alternate name for AAVE"; what do you mean by "relevant"? If it's just that the term is widely used to mean AAVE; yes, you're right, it is. The article doesn't deny this. As a name for AAVE, it's also by far the most problematic, because it alone comes with a lot of theoretical baggage (after all, it was explicitly coined with this baggage), and this theory is rejected by most linguists and not of much interest to most non-linguists. Rather similarly, what I normally think of "heat" is explained under thermal energy; the article heat instead being about the word as understood by physicists. ¶ Meanwhile, a comment on this edit of yours, User:Handpolk. Your summary asserts: there are no sources re: ebonics. I can interpret this in two ways. First, "there are no [reliable] sources for the term 'Ebonics' ". If this is what you mean, you're very wrong. There is academic literature on the matter: some is cited in the article Ebonics (word) (when not vandalized). Secondly, "there are no [reliable] sources for what Wikipedia terms African American Vernacular English". If this is what you mean, you're quite amazingly wrong. There is a large academic literature on the matter: some is cited in this article (when not vandalized). (There are entire books from university presses devoted to it.) Please do read up on this stuff. (For a one-volume introduction, Lisa J. Green's African American English: A Linguistic Introduction, ISBN 0-521-89138-8, is good.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC) [correction from "Ebonics" to "Ebonics (word)" 05:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)]

"what do you mean by "relevant"? If it's just that the term is widely used to mean AAVE; yes, you're right, it is. The article doesn't deny this." Yes, that's what I mean. And yes the article does deny it. By burying it at the bottom of the lede with multiple qualifiers. It should be front and center and ideally it should be noted how common it is. there are no sources re: ebonics I meant there are no sources cited in this article for those qualifiers. There is a link to Ebonics however those qualifiers are in no way an accurate summary of that article. The current wording is misleading. It downplays and almost attempts to dismiss that term. Handpolk (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whether or not a term is "PC" is irrelevant. If a term is no longer in use, or has come to be generally regarded as pejorative then we don't present it as if it is a neutral term. That would be doing a disservice to our readers. Where the world is "PC" then so is wikipedia, and when it isn't then we are not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an argument for removing it from the lede. If something is pejorative yet you decide it's important enough to be in the lede anyway, the encyclopedic thing to do is not place it at the bottom with multiple qualifiers (none of which say anything about it being pejorative). Handpolk (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I second Hoary's comments regarding the motivations of other editors. Your insinuations are in poor form and do not reflect the article as it currently stands. The article currently does not say that Ebonics is racist or offensive. While one user here, Roflcopter404, believes that it is (and they are entitled to that opinion), the opinion of one editor should not be construed as the basis or rationale behind the way the term Ebonics is presented in the article. In other words, the article lede does not contain anyone's "personal views on race." In fact, only your proposed wording below introduces this idea.

In the meantime, I would like to explore the issue of clarity that you brought up. You said it took you almost 20 seconds to figure out that this was the article you were looking for. As I said, the subject seems very obvious to me by the end of the second sentence, but I have been editing this article for a long time and don’t have your fresh eyes. I understand that you believe that deleting content and moving the term to the first sentence (rather than the second sentence) would solve this problem. But, as you can see, this removal brings about some problems. Can you tell me what, exactly, confused you in those first two sentences that it took you so long to come to the conclusion that you had found what you were looking for?

Also, regarding the usefulness of the information you feel should be deleted, tell me if I understand you correctly: in an article for general readers about a linguistics topic, you believe it is not important to mention, even in passing (in an article with over 8,000 words)—not once—that a commonly-used term is not used by experts. You believe that this information provides no value whatsoever to a general readership. Do I understand you correctly that you also, despite my directing you to a citation, believe this information to be inaccurate? That’s the only thing I can glean from your statement that it is "not important information that make[s] the article more accurate." Would you feel that it was important information if you believed it to be accurate? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Hoary and I did discuss the issue of clarity back about two years ago. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:insinuations, one editor said they were racist and offensive another editor said it's a pejorative term. the way it's worded now appears to me to be a blatant attempt to downplay and dismiss Ebonics, yet with an inability to remove it completely because of how absurd that would be given AAVE itself is just a polite term for Ebonics, in common usage. However, given all of that, I will acknowledge I shouldn't have told people what their motivations were when they haven't explicitly stated them. So I apologize for that. "In fact, only your proposed wording below introduces this idea." As stated below, I was making a concession to the people who felt that way (which I presumed at the time was everybody). "You said it took you almost 20 seconds to figure out that this was the article you were looking for." For frame of reference, here is what I'm looking at: http://i.imgur.com/T37QEMD.png I scan the first five lines of bolded long words and I don't see Ebonics anywhere. That's where it should be, given that I came here already confused that the article wasn't called Ebonics. I knew as soon as I saw African American Vernacular English (a term I can't even recall having heard before, though I'm sure I have) that this was the PC term for Ebonics. That or I was on the wrong article. So I scan those first five lines to make sure and nope, no Ebonics in there. I quickly scan the rest of the lede and don't see it (I missed at at the bottom...) and then start scanning the article itself. Which starts out with history and nothing that would indicate this is the article I'm looking for. I know you're going to say I should have carefully read every word of the lede until I saw Ebonics, but that's not what my 'fresh eyes' did. And I would imagine a lot of others do the same, given that I'm probably in the 95th percentile of Wikipedia familiarity.

"you believe it is not important to mention, even in passing (in an article with over 8,000 words)—not once—that a commonly-used term is not used by experts" Of course not. We're not talking about the article here, we are talking about the lede. Clearly something like that would be relevant in the article. But when you put 'ebonics' in the lede and you choose to describe it by saying 'non-linguists sometimes call it Ebonics' you are being downright disingenuous. You've already acknowledge it's commonly used. 'non-linguists sometimes call it' is not an accurate way to describe a term that is commonly used. It may be an accurate statement, but it's not an accurate description of the term Ebonics. And when '(a term that also has other meanings and connotations)" is added, that's even more disingenuous. The Ebonics article says the term was 'little used' until 1996, when it took on it's current meaning. So while again what's in quotes is technically correct, it's not an accurate way to describe the term. So we have this term here buried at the bottom of the lede where people might not even see it, and to describe it we choose two misleading descriptors... Handpolk (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

given AAVE itself is just a polite term for Ebonics, in common usage. It's not a given. AAVE is an established term. Academics are famous less for politeness than for other taxonomic concerns. Are you saying that those people who say "AAVE" actually want to say "Ebonics" but politically-correctly police themselves? I'm willing to believe that some do that; I haven't heard that many do. Got any evidence? Meanwhile, how about "non-linguists often call it 'Ebonics'"? -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to you nit-picking a very minor and inconsequential part of what I said unless you actually address the points that I made. Handpolk (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This might sound a little weird, but your imgur link has me thinking that maybe part of the problem is that it's hard to tell that the word is bolded (which is what you were scanning for). WP:BOLDTITLE explains that "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." One of the effects of this is that it's easier to see bolded text (and thereby give readers a better sense of where they are). So I think the spirit of this rule would possibly be better implemented if we kept the wording intact but changed which words are the link. Something like "Non-linguists sometimes call it Ebonics (a term that also has other meanings and connotations)." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 07:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that would probably be a slight improvement. Burying it at the bottom still downplays it, though. Why is Ebonics down there and not Black English or Black Vernacular English? What is so special about Ebonics? They are all names for the same thing. Handpolk (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to get too nit-picky here (especially because I can see now why you would see it that way in your display), but the lede section has three paragraphs. Mention of the term Ebonics is in the first of these three. That's the second sentence. It is separated from the other terms by a few lines, but I'd hardly call that burying (especially with the bolding). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 07:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia can't retain editors, man. This is fucking ridiculous. Have to spend half a day and write a novel for the placement of a word because some dudes are butthurt because they don't like the term Ebonics. That's what the non-academic non-black non-PC world calls it. Deal with it. Do whatever you guys want, I'm out......... Handpolk (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Get over yourself. If you stopped for one minute thinking of yourself as some lone crusader against cabals of PC nuts, you might notice that most of the problem here stems from your poor performance in reading comprehension. Wikipedia works with consensus, which takes discussion. And discussion requires understanding what the other person is saying. You've done a pretty poor job of that here and you've now topped it off by insulting those who have taken time out of their busy schedules to try to address your concerns. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 08:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Re-Wording

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) — also called Ebonics (some people consider this term offensive, however it is the most common name for AAVE), African American English; less precisely Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Black Vernacular English (BVE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handpolk (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No. This pointlessly raises various questions (do I need to list these for you?), and even as it is clutters up the opening sentence. Incidentally, while I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "Ebonics" has undergone pejoration, this comes as news to me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this: African American Vernacular English (AAVE) — commonly referred to as Ebonics; also called African American English; less precisely Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Black Vernacular English (BVE) Handpolk (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I could possibly get behind wording like this if we had a footnote briefly explaining usage of Ebonics? What do other editors think? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Yes, AAVE is indeed commonly referred to as "Ebonics". This change would require a link not to "Ebonics" (a disambiguation page) but to "Ebonics (word)". It would also require a footnote: one click to go to the footnote, another to return. The result would be more tiresome to digest and easier to misunderstand than the current arrangement. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I'm a little confused by this proposal. Is this actually good faith proposal? It is so strikingly different from the proposing editor's stance on the issue. Handpolk, didn't you just say that Wikipedia should not advance people's personal views on race? Now you are introducing novel (as Hoary has said) and certainly uncited claims that seem unencyclopedically subjective and weasel-worded. What's going on here? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One editor here said the term is 'racist and offensive' and another said it was 'pejorative'. I was addressing their concerns. My strong preference would be for nothing in parentheses and just the link. Handpolk (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Relative popularities

I'm not at all sure that the relative popularities of the various terms that have been used for what we call AAVE are of much importance. Also, I'm no Ngram viewer wiz. But I thought I'd take a look all the same.

A proper link would be impossibly long, and WP's spam prevention measures make redirecting URLs impossible. Well, after the usual "http://"", add preview.tinyurl.com/aave-and-more, hit enter, and take a look at what you'll get.

One thing I notice is that use of AAVE has taken off since around 1990.

There are various caveats. Here are a few:

• "AAVE" certainly has other uses, as it appears as early as 1950.
• "Black English" could apply to all sorts of things ("black English treacle"?)
• Where "African American Vernacular English" has been used, it has almost certainly been used together with "AAVE"

Looking at these, you can probably think of more quibbles of your own. Still, it's a very early approximation. Anyone wanting to do something better might start by going through the Ngram viewer doc page.

[Thinks . . . aw, why not?]

OK, try this: "http://"" plus preview.tinyurl.com/AAVE-vs-Eb. Yes, the "AAVE" + "African American Vernacular English" combination is actually ahead of "Ebonics". -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So your point is that AAVE+African American Vernacular English are together used very slightly more often than Ebonics and that is an argument for what, exactly? Burying Ebonics at the bottom of the lede, turning Ebonics into a disambiguation page with definitions and ordering designed to send people to African American Vernacular English and turning Ebonics (word) into a hatchet job that discredits the term and seeks to send people to African American Vernacular English? What about Black English, Black Vernacular, Black English Vernacular (BEV), or Black Vernacular English (BVE)? Are they used more than Ebonics, too? Is that why they are given preference over Ebonics in the lede and don't have multiple misleading qualifiers attached to them? Handpolk (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no point. I'm bringing forth data that I find mildly interesting, in the hope that some level-headed fellow-editor who's interested in improving the article (of course in accordance with linguistics insights as delivered in books from university presses and the like) will somehow find it stimulating. The term "Ebonics" is not at the bottom of the lead (or "lede"), and it's not buried. If you see a "hatchet job" at Ebonics (word), you are perhaps hallucinating. The "multiple misleading qualifiers" are figments of your imagination. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Saying 'nuh uh' to each of my points, with no proof or even supporting statements, doesn't make you right. Everything I said was 100% accurate, with the pedantic exception of Ebonics actually being buried at the bottom of the first paragraph of the lede, rather than at the bottom of the lede. Handpolk (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Buried at the bottom of a paragraph", some sort of metaphor, with the preceding part of the paragraph compared to six feet of soil? Again, you seem very imaginative. Alternatively perhaps you're just tossing around words like "buried" with no particular meaning. ¶ All in all it seems that you have arrived with various ideas about "Ebonics" and are upset because neither this article nor that one reflects these ideas. Well, set forth the argument for your ideas, with evidence and citing authorities, and what you say will be taken seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What 'other meanings and connotations' does Ebonics have? Both on the disambiguation page and in the Ebonics article, it's described as a synonym of AAVE. Indeed if you do a Google search for Ebonics you will find many scholarly sources which use the terms interchangeably. Example1, Example2, Example3. I agree they are synonyms. So to say that Ebonics has 'other meanings and connotations' is not accurate. Handpolk (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As a term referring to something different from AAVE, it is "The various idioms, patois, argots, idiolects, and social dialects of black people." This includes Haitian, Gullah, Jamaican, and other Caribbean creoles. It may also include some West African languages. This meaning would also include AAVE in the same way that Romance includes French and mammals includes dogs. Thus, they are semantically related, but referentially distinct. When Ebonics is used to refer to the same thing as AAVE, it carries connotations of AAVE being separate from English. I hope I won't have to explain that having an identical referent with different connotations is nothing strange to English; we have, for example, regime and administration. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of that was admittedly over my head but I believe what you're saying is AAVE is a part of Ebonics but Ebonics is more than just AAVE. If that's the case, then Ebonics is sorely lacking because it does not make that distinction nor describe the rest of Ebonics, apart from AAVE and the description of Ebonics on Ebonics is incorrect as it just describes it as a synonym of AAVE and notes that it has its origins as something else. Handpolk (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

When AAVE and Ebonics refer to different things (as was the case particularly before 1996), AAVE is a subset of Ebonics. When AAVE and Ebonics refer to the same thing (post-1996), there are different connotations, with AAVE being the more neutral term. However, the article on the term Ebonics does indeed clarify that. If you notice, there are quotation marks in my previous comment. I was copying from that article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's currently 2015, so they refer to the same thing. So the 'different meanings' part should be removed. Different connotations I will agree with so that should remain. Handpolk (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How about 'a term that can have other connotations' Handpolk (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on that. On the one hand, it might be a bit presumptuous to assume that it is no longer used with its earlier meaning without some sort of corroboration. Then again, removing "other meanings" frome the lede doesn't necessarily mean that it's not used that way. What do other people think? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

they refer to the same thing. Very often they do, but sometimes they don't. Here is a 2014 lecture by Ernie Smith (who, as he demonstrates, co-coined the term) in which he uses it as first intended. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the changes to the three articles. If you guys want to make that change, go ahead. I still think Ebonics could use a lot of work in the future but it would involve adding new content and sources, not merely rewording things. Handpolk (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Linguists maintain that there is nothing"

Aeusoes1 told me to take it here, so here I am. I've twice added the word "Most" before "linguists", and Aeusoes has twice reverted this change. My logic is that simply leaving it at "linguists" implies that there are effectively no linguists who do not consider AAVE a legitimate working English dialect (which, aside from being statistically near-impossible because of how many linguists there are, seems to be contradicted later in the paragraph by the existence of contradictory opinions), or that if one does not believe this, one cannot be a real linguist. Nevertheless, this is not the first time I've added equivocation about a highly politically contentious political issue and found the consensus to be sharply against me - at the very least, I would like some kind of explanation of why this wording is or isn't appropriate. Tezero (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The next sentence does seem to indicate not all linguists agree, making 'most' accurate and an implied 'all' inaccurate. Unless the sources give a breakdown of %'s, it might even be appropriate to say 'some' and then 'others' instead of 'most.' Handpolk (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The contradictory opinions you refer to are not those held by linguists. Green (2002), although a linguist herself, is making reference to the opinions of non-linguists (she herself does not hold a negative view of AAVE). Likewise, Lanehart (2001) is referring specifically to the parents of AAVE-speaking students, not her own opinion. It should be clear that these are non-linguist positions because the "other" in the phrase "Other attitudes" is referring to that of non-linguists.

Past that, I find it highly unlikely that any linguist would make it their professional opinion that AAVE is sloppy or wrong. Descriptivism, which is a foundational part of linguistic practice, is inconsistent with such judgments.

If anyone can find actual linguists making such harsh (and, dare I say, unprofessional) pronouncements, then we can consider changing "linguists" to "most linguists." Until then, I think it would be inappropriate and misleading to needlessly equivocate with "most." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is 100% or not 100% should be something in the RS's and those are what we should rely upon, not our own original research or opinion. Can you show an RS that says 100%? Or can Tezero show any that say otherwise? Handpolk (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't so far, but it's worth emphasizing that descriptivism doesn't mean you actively consider all dialects and languages to be equally usable or legitimate, only that you refrain from making such judgments in your professional work. The majority of professional, peer-reviewed linguistic literature I've read on it (admittedly not much) simply doesn't take a position one way or the other. Is this because it's obvious and presumed? Perhaps; I just don't like the idea that silence should be presumed from the get-go as support without some kind of cited meta-commentary on the linguistics community to affirm that this is, in fact, a universally or near-universally held position. It's also worth noting that this sense of descriptivism, if it's currently universal in linguistics, has not always been - I remember seeing grammars on Australian Aboriginal languages from the 1940s a few months ago that, while seemingly reasonable as academic resources otherwise, pulled no punches at describing these languages as "primitive" or "crude" - it wouldn't surprise me if similar material has been written on AAVE. Tezero (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if we are going to have a statement of what linguists do, it would be with an implicit understanding of what linguists do as linguists. We would no more want to glean the religious sentiments of physicists than the privately-held attitudes of linguists about varieties or linguistic features.

If we want overt descriptivist claims about judgments on languages, our best bet would probably be introductory linguistics texts. Otherwise, we'll probably find a lot of silence; it's my understanding that it is one of those obvious things that linguists wouldn't normally explicitly point out. With AAVE, we have a bit of an exception because the social context is so judgmental and the target audience may include non-linguists. But even then, we'd find it more in sociolinguistic works than in purely descriptive works. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If he is unable to produce a single linguist who feels otherwise, I support the previous version. Though I'd feel a lot better about it if you had a source that confirmed "all linguists" Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at some introductory linguistics texts brings out some gems like:

• Isac Reiss, 2013. I-Language: An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science:

Standard English is not more precise or logical than other dialect forms. We take the position that no language or dialect is more precise or logical than any other… The notion of correctness has no place in scientific grammar—a particular grammar G generates a form f as an output or it does not. It makes no sense to say that the fs generated by Borislava's G_Borislava are better than the fs generated by Khalid's G_Khalid. (p. 285)

• Huddleston, 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English:

People are often led by the prescriptive tradition to subscribe to such beliefs as the following: 'I say things like Who did you hear that from?, but I realise that I ought really to say From whom did you hear that?', but such beliefs are totally without foundation – there is not the slightest reason to think that that is what we ought to say. (p. 49)

Any editors wishing to research the matter might try "prescriptive vs. descriptive" in their search terms. That seems to bring a lot of hits on Google book search anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are the opinions of two linguists, the first notes that clearly with 'we take the position that...' -- these opinions support both 'Most linguists' and 'Linguists' and disprove neither. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 06:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The particular statement that this WP article makes is:

Linguists maintain that there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" or "sloppy" about AAVE as a language variety since, like all dialects, AAVE shows consistent internal logic and grammatical complexity, and is used naturally to express thoughts and ideas.

When respected figures within the mainstream of a branch of learning demonstrate something, they rarely feel the need to add that the majority of scholars agree with them, let alone that all do. (And yes, very likely not all do: however blazingly obvious to sane and highly educated people the truth of this or that assertion may be, there's a moderate risk that some previously respected scholar somewhere wants to play maverick for ideological/wingnut largesse or the cheap celebrity that might accrue, is slipping into senility, or otherwise has a brainfart or two.) But consider the Linguistic Society of America's resolution about AAVE (or Ebonics as the press then called it). An excerpt:

[AAVE] is systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties. In fact, all human linguistic systems -- spoken, signed, and written -- are fundamentally regular. The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as "slang," "mutant," "lazy," "defective," "ungrammatical," or "broken English" are incorrect and demeaning.

You can read it for yourself here within John M. Lawler's website. A comment on it from a coauthor of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:

Educational conservatives often deny that prejudice is involved [in decrials of the language of Black citizens of the US], dismissing linnglishsguists' objective attitude toward nonstandard dialects as if it were just left-wing propaganda. But it is not. Even conservative linguists acknowledge the facts [about AAVE] mentioned earlier. The Linguistic Society of America's vote on a January 1997 resolution in support of the Oakland school board was unanimous.

Geoffrey K. Pullum, "African American Vernacular Language is not standard English with mistakes", in Rebecca S. Wheeler, ed., The Workings of Language (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) pp.56–57; online here (PDF) within the website of Arnold Zwicky. The resolution itself appears here; it reads in part:

[AAVE] is systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties. In fact, all human linguistic systems -- spoken, signed, and written -- are fundamentally regular. The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as "slang," "mutant," "lazy," "defective," "ungrammatical," or "broken English" are incorrect and demeaning.

"Most" does not belong at the start of the WP article's sentence, until there is evidence of a controversy among noteworthy linguists over the nature of AAVE. I'll call noteworthy linguists those who have a doctorate in some branch of linguistics, who have substantial linguistics publications in peer-reviewed journals or university presses or comparable non-vanity publishers, and who have tenure as teachers of linguistics within universities that are taken seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And more. Within this extract from his book The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker deals with the opinions of the drama critic John Simon. After reformating (because the web page is a hideous mess), this reads:

Speaking of the American Black English dialect, Simon says

Why should we consider some, usually poorly educated, subculture's notion of the relationship between sound and meaning? And how could a grammar -- any grammar -- possibly describe that relationship? As for "I be," "you be," "he be," etc., which should give us all the heebie-jeebies, these may indeed be comprehensible, but they go against all accepted classical and modern grammars and are the product not of a language with roots in history but of ignorance of how language works.

This, of course, is nonsense from beginning to end (Black English Vernacular is uncontroversially a language with its own systematic grammar), but there is no point in refuting this malicious know-nothing, for he is not participating in any sincere discussion. Simon has simply discovered the trick used with great effectiveness by certain comedians, talk show hosts, and punk-rock musicians: people of modest talent can attract the attention of the media, at least for a while, by being unrelentingly offensive.

Paragraph division and underlining are mine. In context, I think that "uncontroversially" means something like "uncontroversially among those who knowledgably and dispassionately put forward evidence and arguments". There may be minor controversies over the details, but there is is no major controversy, just as there is none among experts over whether life on this planet originated more than six thousand years ago. Note also the reason given for not countering the wilfully ignorant: if some nitwit "language expert" gets an idiotic opinion piece into print and no actual linguist bothers to debunk this, it's because linguists have other and more pressing things to do than play whack-a-mole. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that AAVE is a functional language is not controversial, but a standard finding in linguistics. There is no serious counterclaim to this finding, so "most" is not warranted in the least.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on African American Vernacular English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120302005844/http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=3324 to http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=3324

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality between what and what?

I've just noticed this pair of edits. They're recent, but have been followed by various others. In what is the latest edit, RoflCopter404 reverts one of the changes, going back from:

Some linguists maintain that there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" or "sloppy" about AAVE as a language variety since, like all dialects, AAVE shows consistent internal logic and grammatical complexity, and is used naturally to express thoughts and ideas. (my emphasis)

to

Linguists maintain that there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" or "sloppy" about AAVE as a language variety since, like all dialects, AAVE shows consistent internal logic and grammatical complexity, and is used naturally to express thoughts and ideas. (my emphasis)

(an assertion that was properly sourced, with references later twisted for "some linguists"), doing so with the very polite edit summary:

No linguist anywhere would disagree with this. "Some" is just inaccurate.

Well, I suppose that there are some deranged linguists. "Sane linguists" would read strangely but be accurate.

There's little directly about the "neutrality" question (as it arises here) in WP:NPOV. Within it, the section "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance" assumes that people writing in "reliable sources" normally agree with scientists and (genuine) experts. But newspapers are normally taken here to be "reliable sources"; and as linguists know, plenty of pundits and "language mavens" writing about language there are completely wrongheaded. (Which is hardly surprising in a world where one of the most popular and respected works about English is The Elements of Style.)

It seems to me that this pair of edits, however well intended, attempt to strike more of a balance between (A) the view of [sane] linguists and (B) the ruminations of "language mavens" and what passes for "common sense". And I strongly suspect that the edits also have the resulting sentences traduce the sources that they cite (though I admit to not having the sources to hand right now, so I can't immediately check). As another example (not yet reverted) within these edits, from:

Like other similar programs,[source] the Oakland resolution was widely misunderstood as intended to teach AAVE and "elevate it to the status of a written language."[source] (my emphasis)

to:

Like other similar programs,[source] the Oakland resolution was widely understood as intended to teach AAVE and "elevate it to the status of a written language."[source] (my emphasis)

Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In a way it's not really about neutrality but about authority and sources. It's a linguistics article so has to reflect the scientific mainstream, i.e. what linguistics has to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The belief that the Oakland resolution was about teaching or elevating AAVE is simply incorrect. If we fail to indicate that, we are doing our readers a disservice. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Oakland resolution was absolutely about teaching and elevating AAVE. The New York Times' Peter Applebome spread the lie, claiming that the resolution was not about teaching and elevating AAVE, in order to disarm its detractors, and confuse the general public. If this were a legitimate encyclopedia article, instead of Ebonics propaganda made to look scholarly, readers would learn that. 24.90.121.4 (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We go with what authoritative, reliable sources tell us. There isn't room for fringe or conspiracy theories here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole paragraph as it read bothered me rather a lot, but not having the sources on hand I only felt confident in making the one change back. Would it be a bad idea to just reverse the whole thing to what it was before the very questionable edit was made? — RoflCopter404 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

While we're talking about interpret vs. misinterpret, I notice that the phrase "its use is interpreted, at best, as a sign of ignorance or laziness" was changed to "its use is misinterpreted, at best, as a sign of ignorance or laziness" (emphasis added). I hesitate to change it back for fear of implying by my edit that I think there is much credence to this interpretation. But the case against "interpret" is less strong here than with the Ebonics resolution. I think it might be a bit too heavy-handed. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

More fully, the sentence in its current form is Other attitudes about AAVE are less positive, especially among African Americans, as AAVE both deviates from the standard and its use is commonly misinterpreted as a sign of ignorance or laziness. (The question of ±"mis" aside, this is very awkward, indeed ungrammatical. As a quick fix, remove "both".) It cites two sources. I have one of the pair, Green's book, open in front of me as I type. At first, Green doesn't compare the attitudes of "some African Americans" (which is how she describes them) with those of any other group. She starts off by reminding the reader that AAVE "deviates from the standard", and says that for "some African Americans", "not using the standard correctly suggests that speakers are ignorant, lazy or both". (Lovely potential ambiguity with the attachment of "correctly"; but I think that all L1 English readers will agree that no it does not modify "suggests".) She then doesn't call this a (mis)interpretation. (That it's a misinterpretation should be blazingly obvious to anybody who's paid any attention to the preceding two hundred pages, or indeed just read the first half of the short blurb that's on the back cover.) Instead, she approvingly cites Pullum's paper "African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with mistakes" (1999), quoting him as saying "The majority of English speakers think that AAVE is just English with two added factors: some special slang terms and a lot of grammatical mistakes. They are simply wrong about this." Green goes on to (approvingly) summarize Marcyliena Morgan's summary of AA attitudes in "The African-American speech community: Reality and sociolinguistics", a chapter in a 1994 book Morgan edited, The Social Construction of Identities in Creole Situations. Here we do find support for the WP article's "especially". Green: "She [sc Morgan] finds that a great deal of opposition to the use and acceptance of the speech variety has come from African Americans themselves." (All of this is to be found in the lower half of p.221 of Green's African American English.) ¶ So how about Other attitudes about AAVE, held strongly among some African Americans, misinterpret its deviation from Standard English as showing ignorance, laziness, or both. ¶ I can't speak for how this is justified by the other source that's cited: not only don't I have this source, I don't think that I can gain access to it. (Meanwhile, I do note that it's presented oddly: "Lanehart, Sonja, ed. (2001)". Uh huh. Which paper, and by whom, within this book?) -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "...held strongly among even some African Americans..." so that we don't imply that negative views come primarily from AA's. I think your suggested wording also implies that the attitudes are doing the misinterpreting, which goes against my understanding of what attitudes do. We could omit the bit about African Americans (since it's mentioned elsewhere in the article anyway). How about:

Other attitudes about AAVE are less positive; since AAVE deviates from the standard, its use is commonly misinterpreted as a sign of ignorance, laziness, or both."

The Lanehart citation is an article written by the editor. I don't have access to it anymore, but I might have notes on what I read somewhere... — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification?

Inspired by this edit by Peter238, I set out to verify if "deep" AAVE really maintains a contrast between /d/ and /ð/ while lighter forms of AAVE don't (something Google preview is unable to help me with). However, in the process, I noticed that the section on "deep" AAVE incorporates citations from Green (2002) even though she doesn't seem to mention "deep" AAVE and that the features she covers aren't parsed in that way. As such, it seems inappropriate to cite her for the lowering of /ɪ/ before /ŋ/. Is there a motivation for putting her claim there or is this an oversight? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of the your/you're contrast, I checked Florini, and it does give those examples e.g. "yo girlfriend" (your girlfriend) but "you tryin" (you're tryin). Seems pretty unproblematic, and I have certainly heard that same contrast in spoken AAVE.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks. I was having trouble accessing that article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sci-Hub is your friend. :)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

More sociolinguistics: Who speaks it?

I (who have never been to the US) would be interested in more sociolinguistic information. We have a single sentence, as far as I can see, stating that not all black Americans speak AAVE (which is rather obvious). Can we get more information? Is there a shift in the younger generation, for example? Etc. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.26.232 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never been to the US either, but I have a book titled "African American Hip Hop Slang: A Sociolinguistic Study of Street Speech". It probably has some information about the topic you're interested in and if I find some time I'll expend that section. Tashi _{Talk to me} 23:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"5-0" as an AAVE lexical item

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "5-0" just come from the TV show Hawaii Five-O? If so, can we really call it a specifically AAVE lexical item? 2602:306:CFEA:170:E422:F154:B569:4484 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of usage more than etymology. A number of these AAVE lexical items are identical in form to standard English terms, but with distinct meanings. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Further reading" 30em?

Is it preferred to have the further reading section in one long list or can I change it to 35em [which would invoke 2 columns] or 30em for 3?--Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you should do it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"African American Vernacular English"?

I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with the match between (A) the title of this article and the term primarily used within it ("African American Vernacular English") and (B) the content of the article. And while I may be dissatisfied with this or that emphasis within the article, the problem for me isn't the content but the title/term.

I think "African American English" would be more suitable. In my understanding, "AAVE" is a good and proper term, but one better understood as corresponding fairly well to McWhorter's "'deep' Black English" (and not encompassing his "'light' Black English"). If I remember right -- the relevant PDFs are mislaid somewhere within my hard drive -- Arthur K. Spears distinguishes between "AAVE" and "African American Standard English", similarly to McWhorter's "deep" and "light".

(With "fairly well" and "more or less", of course I'm deliberately hedging here. At this stage I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae.)

Plain "African American English" is an established term -- for example, it's what both Lisa Green and Arthur K. Spears use. (It may be a little commoner too.)

The only argument I can think of now for retaining "Vernacular" in the title is that somebody might claim that "African American English" implies that African Americans always/necessarily speak a distinctive kind of English, whereas in fact they don't and an implication that they do would be racist. This reasoning seems a bit perverse to me, and we don't worry about analogous matters elsewhere: We have "Texan English", not "Texan vernacular English", etc.

If we do make this change, then the category too should be renamed ... et cetera. In matters such as this, I think that "Be bold" means "be hot-headed and arrogant". Let's instead discuss the matter. Comments from Ƶ§œš¹, snunɐɯ, others? (I think that "Handpolk" is no more.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps he field has moved on from AAVE to just AAE, but I do think we need to consider the most common usage for the title (I definitely don't think McWhorter's terms have much purchase). I don't mind either way, as long as we make an informed decision that corresponds with the newest literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that "deep" and "light" seem little used, and don't recommend using them (other than when quoting McWhorter, of course). What interests me is that McWhorter is saying that "Black English" comes in different shades. Spears uses different terminology but says something similar. I don't recommend "Black English" (pleasantly concise though it is), but suggest that we talk of "African American English", and only where appropriate for a narrower meaning, "African American [whatever] English". -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An n-gram suggests that "African American English" is currently more commonly used than "African American Vernacular English" (though not counting AAVE which is much more common than either of those).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the argument against taking out "vernacular" has been strawmanned a bit. I object to the implication that all AA's speak this form of English, but whether it's racist or not is not as relevant compared to whether it's accurate. Still, this implication wouldn't be too serious, especially considering the blurred boundaries with AA(V)E. But there is also the consideration that taking out "vernacular" omits the socioeconomic element of AA(V)E. I have seen reference to "Southern White Vernacular English" (which Southern American English mentions in passing) as being on par with AAVE in that there is a negative correlation between education and usage of the variety (or, at least, exclusive usage). But, as others have said, we should reflect what is common in the literature or pick a neutral term if there is no single common one. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I myself have struggled between the two when creating presentations or writings. I agree that we should go with what is the most common in the academic research. Now the question is: How do we find that out? Wolfdog (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not just a question of which is the the commoner term (even among those who know). Instead, we should look at how the terms are used. ¶ Unfortunately I'm no sociolinguist. But it seems to me common sense -- ha! yes, alarm bells should go off at any appeal to this -- that a lect can come in different degrees, or depths, or saliences, or whatever. If this is so (and I'm vaguely aware of mesolect versus basilect) then it's hardly surprising if there's a spectrum (or if there are spectra) of a lect. I'm sorry, I still don't have access to Spears's papers: they're on a computer 15 km from where I now sit. I'll try to remember to get them a couple of days from now. But in the meantime, I hazily remember that Spears, as a linguist who's an L1 speaker of African American English, is annoyed (with reason) by the lack of recognition that there's an African American Standard English, very roughly the kind of English that African Americans are likely to use among themselves on rather formal occasions. (Of course this notion doesn't deny that the speakers also speak General American when they wish.) He uses the term African American Vernacular English for what I think would be called the basilect. (Again, NB I'm not a sociolingist.) When generalizing, as he often does, he talks of African American English. Sorry I can't cite confidently and accurately right now; but if I recall all this correctly, then we have at least one scholar in the field providing a reasoned objection to our current use in the article of "AAVE". Green also uses "African American English". Is there any notable scholar in the field who expresses dissatisfaction with the term "African American English" and insists on "AAVE", even to encompass what McWhorter calls "'light' black English"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, Hoary. I think we'll soon be ready for a move request. Wolfdog (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not useful. Don't like the article? Try WP:AFD.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Extremely biased and idiotic article Why does this article treat black slang as somehow magically a legitimate dialect? It's clearly not, and the so-called "linguists" who claim it is are obviously doing so for political reasons, like the "sociologists" who hysterically claim there are more than two genders. "One myth is that AAVE is grammatically simple or sloppy. Another is that AAVE is the native dialect (or even more inaccurately, a linguistic fad) employed by all African Americans." This passage from the article just cites some random leftist academic without explaining how ebonic slang isn't grammatically simple or sloppy or an antisocial fad despite it violating several fundamental grammatical rules of English. Some examples from this article: "Cause my baby, he done left this town." "Don't nobody know my trouble but God." "He be working Tuesdays." Only an ignoramus would speak in such a manner. "He done left"? That's nonsense, not English. "Don't nobody know my trouble but God." Also nonsense. The "don't" doesn't belong there, it's a double negative, and it should be knows. "He be working Tuesdays." This sentence fails to properly conjugate the most common verb in English. These examples clearly show this so-called "dialect" violates the most basic rules and grammar of English and therefore is not a real dialect. Only an imbecile or a foreigner would speak in such a manner. Therefore, these ebonics are clearly slang and broken English used by simpletons. I fully expect some triggered SJW is going to dismiss these truths as "racist trolling." You people love to accuse normal people of racism when you can think of no rational way to counter an argument. This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE because it absurdly employs doublethink by claiming this ungrammatical slang isn't slang. I suspect it was written by far-leftist extremists who reject reality and therefore needs a thorough rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.135.243.2 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC) You have a point. But if you comb your hair right and wear a hat, maybe nobody will notice. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC) RS or GTFO. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @195.135.243.2, I consider myself a right-winger but also as a student of linguistic I find what you have written simply stupid. There are two attitudes towards grammar - descriptive and prescriptive - and for many scholars there's no such a thing like "correct English". You need to consider that AAVE was born when black people didn't have their rights to learn proper English so they stated mixing the rules they knew from their native languages with the English they would hear from their owners. I may agree that in many cases it violates NPOV but saying that it's not a dialect because it uses double negation is an absurd argument because there are many other English dialects that have this property and many many more other rules that would normally be considered wrong. Tashi Talk to me 21:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Editors, there is nothing wrong with this section. It is neither a hate speech nor is it vandalization. In fact, it was well-writen and certain points should be noted and understood rather than written off. As for the intelligence level that was brought into question by a reverter, that is for you to decide and to draw that conclusion for yourself. We are not censoring anything here as there was nothing profane about this piece. Regards. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote on Tashi's page: Do you really need it to be spelled out why the comment is vandalism / hateful speech? Unproductively, the editor with flagrant bias: Offensively accuses other editors of white guilt, social justice warriorism, and "far-leftist" extremism Offensively attacks linguistics and sociology as entire disciplines Offensively equates the terms gangsta rap and "antisocial fad" Offensively labels an entire group's natural way of speaking "nonsense" Offensively (and bizarrely) refers to the dozens of credible and respected authors cited on the page as "some random leftist academic", as if it's all somehow just one source Offensively denigrates AAVE speakers as "simpletons" Contradicts established rules of the scientific study known as linguistics Does all this without a single WP:RELIABLE source for support This is speech absolutely intended to anger and inflame others: WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS and WP:TROLLing. The entire comment itself is a rant that actually expects no real respectful or open-minded dialogue, already preparing for a backlash of even-keeled critics due to its awareness of itself as a deliberately hostile tirade. And now we're spending time bickering about it. I'm explaining this for your sake because it needs to be made absolutely crystal clear that it's hateful. Otherwise, I'd simply have ignored the issue and recommended that we not feed the trolls. Wolfdog (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to African-American English. Jenks24 (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

---

African American Vernacular English → African American English – The main reason for a move is that the scope of this article really justifies an umbrella that actually includes two separate but related ideas differentiated by scholars, of which "African American Vernacular English" is just one idea (the other being "African American Standard English"). I will here give some detail about three such scholars. Most prominently, Arthur K. Spears highlights the importance of such a distinction. The label of "African American English" as a preferable catch-all term (in fact, specifically, a continuum) for several English varieties is also spelled out explicitly in Sonja Lanehart's The Oxford Handbook of African American Language (p. 311). This continuum idea is further supported by John McWhorter, for example in his Word on the Street and Power of Babel, in which he repeatedly shows that modern AAE speakers speak not in "unadulterated streams" of purely vernacular English (p. 143 of Word), but, in fact, code switch between a more standard and a more vernacular variety (though he confirms that both varieties are still distinct to black Americans [p. 250]), speaking "not only to varying extent, but also on different levels" (p. 147). Wolfdog (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. You seem to be right about this and at least some of the characteristic pronunciations of AAVE that we list here also apply to standard English as spoken by native AAVE speakers. This situation strongly reminds me of Cockney (=AAVE), Estuary English (=AAVE-influenced standard English) and RP (=standard American English spoken with a General American accent). Plus, we already cover AAVE-influenced standard English in this article, at least in some places. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

An important thing to note here is that RP isn't truely the native accent/dialect of anyone, while GenAm is. Additionally, Estuary English has other influences rather than being a mix of Cockney and RP. --Hazarasp (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there even an "RP" for US English, Mr KEBAB? -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hazarasp and Hoary: I've struck strongly through, but it's not correct to say that there are no true native speakers of RP. There certainly are, and there are thousands if not millions of Brits that consciously modify (or have modified) their speech towards RP, which is also the case in America with its standard (GA). GA can absolutely be called RP of USA, it's just that it's used more widely. But let's not derail the conversation, which is not about RP. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, not because it's becoming more widely used than "AAVE" but for the reasons given by Wolfdog. Still, the degree to which it's used should be considered. Read in isolation, Wolfdog's comments might give the impression that "African American English" is an ingenious term dreamt up for a single Oxford Handbook and useful for our purposes. I'm sure that Wolfdog didn't intend this; anyway, it's certainly not true. "African American English" is instead a term widely used by linguists. Book titles: Lisa J. Green, African American English: A Linguistic Introduction; Salikoko S. Mufwene et al, African-American English: Structure, History and Use; etc. It's not new, either: consider for example Paul Stoller, ed., Black American English: Its Background and Its Usage in the Schools and in Literature (1975, OCLC 715462771). -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Move to African-American English. Wolfdog's nomination makes some good points, and I think there's plenty of evidence that this is the common name. However, per WP:HYPHEN shouldn't there be a hyphen in African-American, to denote its status as a compound modifier? This would match African-American history, African-American culture, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) etc. and is found in, for example, the title of Mufwene's book, which Hoary mentions above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion of adding the hyphen seems logical to me. Wolfdog (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Managing links to here

Stemming off from the above discussion, it's now time to pour through the links that go to African American Vernacular English and change them accordingly. This takes some judgment. As Wolfdog points out, we are now parsing between AAE and AAVE, so if an article is truly referring to the more vernacular variant, we probably want to keep the link the same. We can also catch the times that editors have mistaken AA(V)E and Jive (in which case, we can link to Glossary of jive talk instead) or used objectionable terms like "Negro dialect." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on African-American English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527153422/http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-03-31/ebonics.htm to http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-03-31/ebonics.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210040048/http://www.une.edu.au/langnet/definitions/aave.html to http://www.une.edu.au/langnet/definitions/aave.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AAVE as part of African-American English

This should be better explained in the article, that one is a subset of the other (and in what context), rather than simply replacing terms after the recent page-move.--Pharos (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also noticed some links to this article have been changed to the new name since the page move, but I thought the rationale for the move was not that we decided to call AAVE "African-American English" but that the scope of the article was bigger than just AAVE. I think they should be reverted unless the context specifically refers to this umbrella. Nardog (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other editors, but my AAVE > AAE changes have been made with that logic in mind. Based on context, it seems largely to be the case that the terms are used interchangeably. Whenever it's clearly the case that AAVE is correct, I have kept the link the same in case there is ever a split in the future. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reworked the very first paragraph in an effort to make such distinctions obvious. AAE refers mostly to a continuum between a vernacular and a standard variety. What more do you feel needs to be made clear? Wolfdog (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The confusing thing is that AAVE is described as "urban", while AAE obviously has rural roots and is still rural in places. There has been increased linguistic divergence in cities it seems, but that's not all of it, and I guess this is partly an artifact of what researchers study. What does one call rural varieties (both the older ones and the current ones), and where are they properly covered in this article?--Pharos (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Rest assured that there are entire articles on variation between rural and urban AAE. Would you like me to take some time to direct you to some and/or look further into it myself? Wolfdog (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, did a little digging for you. AAVE is largely now urban and non-regional though having, yes, begun as largely rural and Southern. This makes perfect sense, though, given the course of American history. But if you're asking for exact distinctions between modern rural AAVE and urban AAVE, there certainly are some: ONLY urban AAVE uses the grammatical features exemplified by "He be the best", "She be done had her baby", and "They come screamin and yellin"; on the other hand, ONLY rural AAVE uses "I was a-huntin", "It riz up", "I want for to eat", and possibly "The girl what arrived..." and "The girls looks" (from linguist Walt Wolfram). Linguist John McWhorter mentions "bees" as really only part of rural AAVE. Wolfdog (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Split

I assume there wouldn't be any arguments against an upcoming or eventual split of this into a separate larger African-American English page and a narrower African-American Vernacular English page. Just looking at the number of bytes here. Thoughts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pagesWolfdog (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds a bit thorny to implement, but other than that I don't see a problem. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah; definitely thorny. I'd be happy to arrange and perform the split myself. Just wondering if there were any specific recommendations or preferences from other editors before I move forward. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, beginning the split today. Wolfdog (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing one issue that might be important. All of the edit history for the content of the AAVE page is with the AAE page now. Is there a way to fix that? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for history merge may be what you're looking for. Also, are we sure it should be at African-American Vernacular English (with hyphen), rather than at African American Vernacular English (without), where the article used be? Nardog (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The use of the hyphen is recommended at MOS:HYPHEN as being "particularly useful in long noun phrases" and in attributive situations. Wolfdog (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am not a sociolinguist, don't speak AA(V)E and am in no sense American; so my apologies for any ignorance intrinsic to the question: Is there good reason to think of a division between AAVE and other AAE? I'd have imagined that it was more like a continuum, non-"vernacular" AAE shading into AAVE. If I imagine right, then I don't see how the two articles can be split without a lot of duplication between them.

Moreover, the article isn't particularly long and I haven't noticed any offer or promise to amplify it any time soon. So where's the problem?

Other things being equal, I think the fewer articles the better. This way, there's less to oversee. This is particularly important in this area, where homespun philosophers, champions of "common sense", ignoramuses, drunks, bored schoolchildren, and racists like to replace sourced facts with their own truthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think if you look at the two articles and how I split them, the difference is immediately obvious and substantial. The AAE article now looks very much like a WP:SIA (and maybe we should officially label it as such). Meanwhile, the AAVE article delves into the details (they seem to me excruciatingly in-depth) about one particular dialect. Also, part of my reason for the split was indeed length reasons; the article was beginning to approach the recommended 100,000 byte cut-off (especially with additions, or should I say "amplifications", of which I made a decent amount just the other day and this could feasibly continue into the near future.) I was trying to head off an anticipated move soon in the future anyway, especially seeing as it's also linguistically sensible: again, one page for a related family of dialects and one for the very specific dialect. That said, there is a lot of mess now to sort through, but I think it could be worth it. Finally, I don't think one page simply versus two requires so much added "truthiness" policing as you're suggesting. And the weight of this job needn't be left on just your shoulders; we can all help. Let me know where I've neglected, as Nardog did with the history comment. Wolfdog (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you suggest splitting, and then you go ahead with the splitting just 27 hours or so after you've suggested it? During that time you got 100% "consensus", I suppose one could say, but I wonder why the rush was necessary. Well, it's a fait accompli now; I wish the division all the best. I wonder whether the AAE article will ever either say or point to much about any version other than AAVE, and I also wonder what in the AAVE article, uh, excruciates (and why its coverage of tense and aspect material depends on a paper published before many of today's linguists were born). -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoa! I've just tried to explain myself, yet your tone is completely degrading and inappropriate. WP:BE BOLD is more where I was headed, assuming the split was inevitable but just being open to suggestions on "the how", as I began the process. Apparently you think I got carried away. I'm open to anything, including merging the two article back into one. You acted like I did something permanently damaging to the encyclopedia. Why are you so quick to lash out with anger and sarcasm? Please work on your attitude and assuming good faith. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There was plenty of sarcasm, but none of it was directed at you, Wolfdog. I've never thought that you didn't have the best interests of the 'pedia at heart. In my head, I never questioned your good faith; I hope that my writing didn't suggest that I questioned it. The sarcasm was all for the birdbrains who periodically arrive to insist that Black people "talk slang" (etc etc). (I see now that I might have seemed sarcastic about the sources for the tense/aspect stuff -- I didn't intend to sound that way; I was just very surprised.) Now that I reconsider, I think that yes, it may very well have been a good idea to split the article. I don't want the two re-merged. I do still think that after proposing to split an article (or to merge two or more) one should normally wait a week or longer. -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Well I certainly apologize for not waiting longer. Wolfdog (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)