Daniel Kies Department of English College of DuPage
Modern English Grammar English 2126		Contact Form

Discussions about Ebonics: The Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

Starting in late December 1996, the Association for the Teaching of English Grammar held an interesting series of email discussions on the subject of Ebonics. Association for the Teaching of English Grammar is a nation-wide assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English. The discussions begin with Johanna Rubba's summary and analysis of the Oakland resolution. The discussion then develops rapidly from there. Below is the text of that discussion.		Current work:   Days remaining this term: Notes: Add Note |  Log in? | Privacy | Change Name & Email Mail this page to a friend
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 15:47:14 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> From: Johanna Rubba <jrubba@HARP.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU> Subject: Re: ebonics To: Multiple recipients of list ATEG <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> Poster: Johanna Rubba <jrubba@HARP.AIX.CALPOLY.EDU> Subject: Re: ebonics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Gray asks about 'Ebonics', and developments I have been following as closely as time allows the past few days. Only one school district in CA has given official recognition to one variety of nonstandard English, the African American dialect spoken by large numbers of pupils in inner-city schools. The district is Oakland. They have recognized 'Ebonics' as a distinct language and want to implement a sort of bilingual education to (a) acknowledge children's mastery of their home dialect as a way of assuring validation and self-esteem; (b) make teaching materials available in 'Ebonics' as a means of making education more accessible to speakers of this variety of English and to smooth their transition to standard English (the spokespersons for this district that I have read insist that no 'lowering of standards' is intended, and that all children should learn 'standard English'). As usual with language issues, there has been hot reaction to this decision. The decision itself, and most of the reaction, is based (from this expert's informed point of view) on misinformation about language, dialect diversity, and why children fail in school (this is also typical). The particular dialect in question is not, of course, the only variety of English that is considered 'nonstandard' -- there are literally hundreds of these, throughout the English-speaking world. I too would like to see what others on this list think of Oakland's move. Subscribers who read my messages regularly can probably already predict what I am thinking about it. Johanna ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: jrubba@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:09:02 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> From: Larry Beason <lbeason@EWU.EDU> Subject: Re: ebonics To: Multiple recipients of list ATEG <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> Poster: Larry Beason <lbeason@EWU.EDU> Subject: Re: ebonics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Johanna, It seems to me that the Oakland decision was based more on politics than linguistics. Of course, some notable linguists have made an argument at least 30 years ago that BEV is a 2nd language, but it seems they represent a very small but vocal sector of linguistics. I believe I agree w/ what I perceive your stance is--that BEV (or Ebonics) is simply a dialect. It certainly passes the most reliable test of what is/isn't a langauge--mutual intelligibility. That is, an Ebonics speaker could communicate very well w/ someone who spoke "standard English" (wherever that mystical person is). In fact, having grown up in Texas around many speakers of Black, rural white Southern, Hispanic, and Cajun, I'd say that the Cajun speakers are the ones who would qualify the most for 2nd language status. I'm sure the move in Oakland was well intended, but I cannot believe that it will help students--esp. the minorities whom it was intended to help--nor does the rationale represent current thinking on what is a langauge. What bugs me is that the ultra-conservatives are having a field day with this one, and I find myself agreeing w/ their stance but not their tone, rhetoric, or reasons. Larry Beason,Director English Composition Program Dept. of English Eastern Washington University Cheney WA 99004 LBeason@ewu.edu WAC Page: http://ewu66649.ewu.edu/WAC.html Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:17:50 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> From: NAME = <MURDICK@CUP.EDU> Subject: Re: ebonics To: Multiple recipients of list ATEG <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <ATEG@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> Poster: NAME = <MURDICK@CUP.EDU> Subject: Re: ebonics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don McAndrew and Mark Hurlbert won "article of the year" award for their article "Teaching Intentional Errors in Standard English: A Way to "big smart english" (English Leadership Quarterly, May 1993--contact NCTE for back issues). In this article, M & H advocate broadening what is accepted in the classroom as a way of getting minority kids interested in reading and writing. They suggest discussing dialect differences that constitute "errors" in SE as political as well as language issues. Obviously, the traditional approach in which students speaking a dialect distant from SE are told that their language is no good, in which they are commened to learn SE without being given a way to do so, in which they are criticized constantly for making mistakes in a "grammar" they don't understand and that cannot be taught directly (even to middle class white kids)--and so on (forgive the bad syntax here; my editor won't let me go back and fix things). Whatever one does in these cases, it cannot be worse than what is being done in the traditional classroom. I don't like the idea of makeing dialect differences "official," but if using a concept like "ebonics" can release students from frustration and lead them to try out reading and writing, I would support it. Eventually, regardless of what dialect you start writing in, after awhile, after years of reading and writing, your style of talking and writing will gravitate toward the dialect of the written models you immerse yourself in. If you read a lot of SE, you'll pick it up. Isn't that the goal? Does it matter how students get there? --Bill Murdick qks

^Take Note! | Table of Contents | Syllabus | eForum | Search

The HyperTextBooks | The English Main Page | The Composition Links