THE STUDY OF GREETINGS: HOW I LEARNED TO LOVE EBONICS

OR HOW I WENT FROM FORMAL ENGLISH TO

SWEET STREET JIVE IN FIVE EASY LESSONS

 

THREE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VIABILITY OF THE EBONICS MOVEMENT

  • Unmet psychological needs of Black people: are we talking the psychology of linguistics or the linguistics of psychology? (Warning: do NOT smoke weed before reading this!)
  • Is there enough linguistic material available to constitute a new language?
  • For the emergence of a dialect based on speech style (vocal intonation and inflection), is pronunciation more vital than grammatical substance and linguistic structure?

FOREWORD

First up: I must give some general advice for all readers.  The name of this new language struggling to be born is not yet fixed as “EBONICS” for certain.  It very well could change and probably will.  In the spirit of brotherly love, I have a few suggestions for other names that ought to be considered as equally good.  If you have a better name, write to me and I’ll include it in this list:

SUGGESTIONS FOR MUCH BETTER NAMES THAN EBONICS

 E-PHONICS

E-PIGLETS

E-ORIOLE-PIGMENTED-PIGGLY-WIGGLIES

FORTY-NINERS-CAN-USE-ALL-THE-HELP-THEY-CAN-GET-S-O-S-MESSAGE

U-PLONIC-PLATE-TECTONICS-WITH-EBONIC-HARMONY

 RUMINATIONS

The debate over Ebonics as a genuine or artificial dialect brings up the issue of what constitutes Standard English.  It is not my intent to discuss all the notions that circulate around this question.  It is enough for now to acknowledge the distinction between formal and informal English. That is to say, there is (or there was) something called “formal speech” and “formal writing” considered appropriate to school, church, business, and ceremonial occasions.

By contrast, there is (or there was) something called informal speech and informal writing, appropriate to homes, shopping malls, parks, school bathrooms, and dens-of-iniquity, especially among friends in relaxed surroundings.

Friends may use slang, ungrammatical phraseology, ejections and interjections, gestures, sign languages, fingers up fingers down, slaps, grunts, light punches, rolling-of-eyes, facial contortions, and whatever else suits their needs at the moment to convey a message.  Such free-flowing jive and body language are considered appropriate (if hardly brilliant) for such informal and relaxed surroundings.

There may be a middle ground of sorts—simple yet reasonably well-expressed ideas that can be offered in either the high or low places of daily get-togethers with others.  However, it is also true that academic language and casual speech can be worlds apart.  Typically, the two forms of expression—formal or informal–are considered opposites.

While there are many shades of gray in between the most erudite speech and the most uneducated slang, there remains a world of difference between formal English at its best and informal English at its worst.  I will try to use regular formal good English for this essay most of the time even if I let my hair down every once in a while (purely for fun or stylistic effect).

DO SMART PEOPLE SPEAK DIFFERENTLY?

By Standard English, we refer to an existing set of rules covering the grammar and structure of the language.  The formal approach includes knowing and using correct spelling as found in a Webster dictionary, etc.  Of course, even before we delve deeper, we recognize that all but pea-brained “stuffed shirts” make allowance for seeing language as a “living entity”: a breathing organism that changes over time, shedding words like a snake sheds its skin (almost said “a breathing orgasm” but thought better of it . . . censors spank!)

A living language grows as it incorporates new words from a people on the move, even as cultural norms change.  For instance, linguists refer to earlier periods as Middle English and Old English, which are recognizably distinct phases in the long history of the English language, which shows that languages can and do evolve.  However, this gradual long-term organic metamorphosis (which takes centuries to achieve) should not be cited by itself to prove Ebonics is a new dialect of English.  An old language does not transform itself into something new overnight.

Here are some of the unresolved problems:

There are many regional distinctions in pronunciation to be found throughout the U.S. yet nearly all are mere local variations of sound-and-speech (to-the-ear) English, not new dialects.  Whether in the South (the Southern drawl), the Midwest (the twang), Appalachia (the hillbilly), New York (the rude), Philadelphia (ruder), Boston (the deformed R), California (crazy) or wherever accents veer off course, nearly everyone concedes that it is still English that is being spoken.

Noting the existence of a few genuine dialects on islands off the Carolinas or where French and Spanish influences uniquely combined in New Orleans, does not alter the fact that English is a solidly built language with recognizable grammar and vocabulary.  All these minor variations in sound and vocabulary are only just that—quite minor accents, inflections, and local phrases.

GOOD ENGLISH VERSUS BAD

“I ain’t going to school” is every bit as understandable as “I’m not going to school”.  In school, the example was best remembered this way:

Boy: “I ain’t going.”

Teacher: “I am not going, I am not going!”

Boy: “You too?  Ain’t nobody going?”

Through regional isolation (the Gullah tongue) or a strong non-English cultural heritage (the New Orleans Arcadians, aka“Cajuns”, hailed originally from a French-speaking region of Canada) a truly distinctive-sounding “dialect” does rise on occasion.  However, such historical examples should not lead us astray; they should be considered special cases and treated apart from the issue of poor Black students in urban areas expected to learn and speak “regular English” in school.  There are thousands of Black students who have never spoken Gullah or traveled to New Orleans.  We speak of the majority here, not linguistic minority groups that may exist here and there.

English lessons in school should help teach children to recognize their mistakes and how to separate the free-and-easy vernacular of the neighborhood from articulate self-expression.  Still, some Black people are beginning to insist that their “street talk” and “home talk”, replete with all kinds of grammatical oddities, is actually not so much botched English as it is a new dialect.

From a linguistic point of view, the question becomes: what are the features and functions of a dialect and what separates a dialect from its parent tongue?

Does a new dialect require its own vocabulary, grammar, spelling rules, pronunciation? Its own alphabet?  A different script?  You might think this is taking the matter to academic extremes but if a true dialect is coming into existence it rightly can be expected to demonstrate decisive vigor in all of these linguistic sub-areas.

Historically, dialects can separate themselves out from their parental ancestors and become independent languages over time.  The various Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian all have a strong parental root in Latin.  All are distinct, fully-fledged languages today.

Likewise, English is classified by linguists as having evolved from a West Germanic language family.  English, with its prodigious vocabulary and well-crafted rules covering nearly every aspect of oral and written speech, is itself a dialect.  Can Ebonics offer a linguistic framework that even remotely approaches that of the English, Italian, French, or Spanish languages?  And yet to earn the title of dialect, is that not exactly what Ebonics, or any new “dialect”, must do?  English has borrowed countless words from other languages, adding to its richness and variety.

The English language continues to grow and develop today, just as in the past.  Its potential for clear and thoughtful expression remains limitless and makes our language well worth defending from pretenders and wannabees.  Ebonics has not yet proven itself to be a worthy subset of linguistic development deserving of being called a dialect.