Aave

Aave
 

My book talks about African American Vernacular English (AAVE). I've read that it's quite different from American English. They say that in the sixties education of Black English speakers (these are the words used, sorry if I'm not politically correct) became a concern, and it was thought that students had to deal with linguistic differences, which were the cause that these students got below average in school.

Is that AAVE so much different from AmE? Is any English speaker able to understand AAVE? What do you think? Is it possible to teach subjects in AAVE in some schools if the average of Black English speakers is high?

Hay diferencias marcadas. Se entiende más o menos, pero los que no lo conozcan perderán información importante por las diferencias gramáticas. Lo que hay que tener en cuenta es que surgen cuestiones de prestigio: para algunos el inglés "estándar" es la variedad prestigiosa, pero para otros lo desprestigian y favorecen el AAVE.

But is it as difficult as LUNFARDO for a Spaniard?

Or is it a similar thing to Cockney? (Is Cockney very hard to get to other English speakers?)

I could understand Cockney, but there never seems anything worth listening to. As for AAVE, would that be akin to the words in Rap music? Incomprehensible.

@Perikles, Gotcha!

It was called ebonics in the past. In many degrees, it is very understandable and logical. Ebonics analyzed it, and attempted to standardize it. Because it was rerely written it was never standardized and it varies by region. In some AAVE the use of the verb to be is very different and quite simplified. It is sometimes left out, because the verb to be can be implied without using it. I believe a form the the subjunctive is used. Example: Charleston hot in the summer? Yes Charleston be hot in the summer.

Some people proposed to teaching ebonics in school. Irate parents put an end to that with good logic. Children should learn standard English is school to deal with the real world, while AAVE can be used among friends and family if desired

What I understand (from Wikipedia and Language Log) with respect to "be" is that "Charleston hot" means that it is currently hot, and "Charleston be hot" means that it is habitually hot. As I said above: you can miss important information if you're not aware of the grammatical differences.

Thanks. :)

Lunfardo! I didn't know what lunfardo was until I've made a search.

I'll have to look for some video to listen to both AAVE or ebonics (although I'm sure I won't understand anything) and lunfardo (which I don't know if I'll be able to understand anything). :thinking: :)

I'd bet you'll understand a bit of Lunfardo... (even if it is just a bit...)
(I have not search for any audio on it, but surely you'd be able to find something...)

Yes, I've found a video with a poem in lunfardo. I've been able to understand some words (they are Spanish words), but don't ask me what the poem was about. :confused:

I've also seen a video with AAVE (thanks, poli, ebonic has been a good word for my search). ¡Ufff!, ni papa. :o

:D

Where's the dog? Where the dog
He's sitting under the table? He sittin under the table.

If the dog is missing for an hour, and there is some concern:

Where's the dog? Where the dog be at?
The dog is at Aunt Sarah's house. The dog be at Aunt Sarah's house.

I really find this to be an interesting question! In fact, this is a topic about which I find myself thinking more and more every day. Especially as a teacher. In fact, if I remember correctly, my thinking on this topic was generated due to some comments on a thread here at Tomisimo. Here is the link: http://forums.tomisimo.org/showthread.php?t=6655 - and my specific interest in this topic began with "pjt"'s comment in post #39 and following... And, Irma, you were in on that conversation, so I'm sure you remember it...

Since that conversation, I have spent a lot of time contemplating the idea of "correct" usage of a language in the context of the classroom and equity in education. I don't need to duplicate that entire discussion here in this thread. If this is a topic that interests any of you, I'd suggest you start by reading that other thread...

Anyway, when I was doing my coursework in Buenos Aires last month, there was a professor from the university in Virginia who accompanied our group and gave us additional assignments and additional final exams (which were oral). I readily prepared my topics for the oral exams, but when I arrived in the exam room, he barely allowed me to get started before he took the conversation in a completely different direction. Apparently he wanted to talk with me about pedagogical topics.

He started with a question about "correct usage" of a language, and (if I remember correctly) essentially asked me if I thought that there is (or should be) a "correct" language taught in the schools.

Thus started a conversation that really aligned with my thinking as of late, and all going back to that one particular conversation here on Tomisimo...

Is it truly biased against one culture or another to "correct" a student's speech in class when they are talking the way (1) their parents taught them to speak and (2) the way that other members of their community/sub-culture speak?

The point was made that if we allow students to use, for example, AAVE (ebonics) in class without correcting them, are we setting them up for failure when they reach the "real world" and attempt to find a job? Will corporate headquarters of CitiBank hire someone who uses AAVE in a job interview? If I don't let students know that there is "acceptable use", am I setting them up for failure in the future?

Yet, my question is this: should the "standard" or concept of "acceptable use" be changed? To become more flexible? Is that appropriate? There are certainly antiquated ways of thinking (from my mother's generation) that certain people (implied sub-cultures) just have to learn to be "normal" (implied "be like the middle-class/upper-class white/Western culture"). I don't (at all!) like that way of thinking...

But if a young person is never given the information that there are certain professional norms that are assumed, then all of their hard work and all of their intelligence will not help them overcome the problems caused by the stereo-types.

I pointed out to the professor that there were even students in our little group who spoke one way with each other and in a very different way in large group settings and in class. He said that, of course, he and I speak differently with our friends than we would in a professional setting. My response to this was (and continues to be) that when I am with my friends, my speech is VERY close to what I use in a professional setting. There is only the slightest difference. But these students to whom I referred have a DRASTIC difference in their day-to-day speech with friends and their language usage in class (and assuming professional) settings.

Given that the expectation of "acceptable usage" has been made clear to these young people, my bigger question is this: How does it make an entire sub-group within a society feel if they learn (from early ages) and know (innately) that their way of speech (their way of life, really) is *not* acceptable in the society at large and that they MUST slide in and out of certain ways of talking/acting dependent upon who is around them? Are we truly doing a disservice to those sub-groups?

You asked if classes ought to be taught in AAVE. I can't answer that question. I wonder if it ought to be considered another language? What is done in countries where there are "dialects" or tribal languages, but there is an "official language" that is taught in the schools?

I just visited my friend's school in Uruguay on the border of Brazil. The students are taught Spanish, Portuguese and English from pre-school through high school. But I believe that math/science/history/etc. are taught in Spanish.

What is done in the areas of Spain where there are other languages spoken, such as Galician or Catalan? Do they teach those languages in school? Or is there presented a "correct" vs. "incorrect" way...

I could keep typing for hours on this topic, but will spare you all the reading of any more of my musings...... :)

Irma, antes de contestar este hilo por primera vez fui a buscar en YouTube ciertas escenas de la pelicula "Airplane": "Oh stewardess, I speak jive." El guión ahí es exagerado por efectos cómicos, y vi también una entrevista en el que los actores (pues fueron los actores que escribieron esas líneas, los directores reconocieron que eran mejores que el guión suyo) hablan sobre la exageración.

It varies. http://www.mec.es/cesces/1.12.e.htm goes into lots of detail. But Castilian is as defined by the RAE.

As a side-note to language usage in school, I (unsurprisingly, perhaps) know some teachers from a couple of the local private schools which teach in English. Most of the children are Spanish, and their parents send them there to learn good English. My friends say that the pupils talk Spanish between themselves whenever they can get away with it.

Something similar can be observed among adults in language schools here. I always spoke to my peers in Spanish outside lessons, but the vast majority switch to English as soon as the lesson is over, even if none of the people in the conversation speak it as a native language.

:eek: Lou Ann, those are languages by themselves, not variations of Spanish.
The debate is whether regions should keep their languages or be incorporated to a unitary Spain through language.

No, she is not talking about a united Spain, but how do they handle the topic of learning the "correct" language. If I am not misken. :)

I understood the question to be about education in multilingual environments.

"Correct vs. incorrect" suggested me she thought Galician or Catalan were "wrong" variations of Spanish. But she'll be there to clarify. :)

Here I am to clarify. I suppose I was talking a bit about both - multi-lingual AND dialectical differences (and not being clear about my intentions). I see two somewhat related questions: (1) as was started in this (and the other thread), what/who is to "define" the "correct/incorrect" use of a language, and (2) in places where other languages are spoken, what are the implications of teaching in one or another language.

In a country like the United States where there is no "official" language, I am starting to think, more and more every day, that it really ought to be standard that both English AND Spanish be taught to every student from pre-school all the way through the end of high school. But a proposal like that would (at least at the beginning) be EXTREMELY unpopular.....

Intento a recordar cómo era en la parte de los andes ecuatorianos que visité en 2005. Estoy seguro de que la educación universitaria se impartía sólo en castellano, y creo que así era también la educación secundaria. Pero la primaria... No sé si se enseñaba en quichua, si se enseñaba en castellano con clases de quichua, o si la escuela era todo en castellano y enseñaban el quichua después de clases en los pueblos indígenas. Recuerdo que me mostraron algunas hojas de ejercicios tipo rellena los huecos con las palabras correspondientes, y me dijeron que el tema era la historia de los incas.

Cuando mi hermana menor empezó la educación primaria (inglesa) habían recién empezado a enseñar el francés desde los 5 años. Pero la verdad es que no creo que hablara mejor el francés a los 11 años, cuando empezó la educación secundaria, que yo a los 12 después de un año de estudiarlo.

Los niños tienen una capacidad enorme para aprender los idiomas, pero hace falta que los oigan mucho. Si hablan inglés en casa, inglés con sus amigos, inglés en la escuela salvo dos o tres horas de español a la semana, no ganarán mucho.

Es verdad que muchos norteeuropeos hablan muy bien su lengua materna y el inglés a los 11 años. Es un contraste interesante con las observaciones de mis amigos profesores aquí en España. No sé si alguien ha investigado a fondo las razones por la diferencia. Pero estoy convencido de que sin el apoyo de los padres de habla inglesa (y te doy la razón en que no lo apoyarían) no tenga éxito el sistema que propones para EEUU.

PD No me parece muy relevante el dato de que no hay idioma oficial de los EEUU, pero me pregunto si declarar el inglés el idioma oficial quitaría parte de la oposición a la enseñanza obligatoria del español.

Here the other languages living in the peninsula are vehicular languages in school, that is, more or less they are used by teachers to teach their subjects. Percentage varies from Catalonia, where Catalán is used in schools 100% to Galicia, where 1/3 of the subjects are taught in Spanish (1/3 in Galician and 1/3 in English or French).

However, dialectal variants are used to teach everywhere they are spoken, although written text is standard Spanish. I can't imagine an Andalusian or a Canarian teacher trying to use a Castilian accent to teach his/her subject of study (I'm sure that most of them wouldn't be able to speak with a Castilian accent). Neither a Mexican, Cuban, Argentinian, etc., which are also dialectal variants from Spanish. So teachers use their language variant while written language is the standard one.

But I can see a great difference between AAVE and Spanish variants, while some part of Spanish speakers change /s/ into /z/ or vice versa, the few things I've heard of AAVE are very different from standard English (or that is my appreciation); I mean that the differences from AAVE to standard English (or at least what I understand as standard English) are much more noticeable than those from any Spanish variants. Or I think so. :thinking:

Thanks for the link, pjt, very useful. :)