HELP!

[conuly]

I have this project due tomorrow. I had been planning to do a tape of people speaking and come up with results (it's for sociolinguistics) but the tape is impossible to hear for most of it. So I'm doing the OTHER project, which I had originally decided not to do because I didn't have enough people. Basically, I'm going to get a few results and extrapolate from them, instead of doing what I was supposed to do which is give the survey to two groups of 10 people each, which are alike in all respects except one. PLEASE help!

[Poll #360503]

Edit: Unless this affected your answers, don't worry about it. Just a clarification: AAVE is *not* supposed to be taken to mean slang. I lost the explanation we were supposed to give, which is just as well as I really thought that explanation was biased towards AAVE anyway. I mean, so am I, but that didn't seem fair. Anyway, AAVE is supposed to be considered as a dialect such as RP english or Brooklyn english, not as slang.

Non-americans, unless you know a lot about the subject (or think you can guess based on your knowledge of nonprestigious dialects where you are), don't answer. I'm locking this so that I can't be called out for rushing the assignment.

Comments

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

I have lots of issues with proper English grammar disappearing in all cases, not just certain dialects anyway. And I reeeeally can't see different dialects being advantageous in the same way that bilingualism is, considering the advantages of bilingualism differ depending on the language in question anyway. In order for bilingualism to advantageous to mental growth, you need a language that is more different than just dialect. Even on the SATs, for example, Spanish isn't as advantageous as Latin is. Part of that is the more complex grammatical structure.

Cultural dialects are great at home and arguably, even artisticly, but I have way too many issues with people - and I mean everyone, no emphasis on AAVE at all - being ignorant about the complexities of grammar. Proper grammar can be so beautiful and expressive, and people forget that these days. What's more, incorrect grammar loses its expressive abilities if it becomes the standard.

And now I'm going to shuddup before this rant gets any longer. :-P

[conuly]

Proper grammar can be so beautiful and expressive, and people forget that these days. What's more, incorrect grammar loses its expressive abilities if it becomes the standard.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure of what was originally meant, but it made me think of times when I've said something like, "That ain't not bad." Deliberately using odd grammar to make a point. I suppose, though, if that became the standard, then it'd be unusual to say "That's good"?

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Not at all. It's a different kind of expression, and you lose it altogether if you don't make the distinction.

[conuly]

I'm still confuzzled as to what you mean. I mean, I understand that you don't mean it the way I read it, but I'm not sure what I should've read it as.

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

It's two different thoughts.

1) Proper grammar is actually much more expressive than most people realize, mostly because most people don't utilize proper grammar.

2) There are cases when the purposeful misuse of language can be *very* expressive. However, no one can realize this unless they know what the proper method is. Rule-breaking means absolutely nothing unless people are aware of the rules. It's like being weird relative to the norm. If everyone used "mihi" for "to me" or "for me," it would cease being a sign of uniqueness. In the same way, if everyone is ignoring grammatical rules, rule-breaking ceases being expressive (and just becomes annoying :-P).

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say that I love the way you said all that, and I agree with you so much. Especially:

Proper grammar can be so beautiful and expressive, and people forget that these days.

That's the part that's dearest to my heart. I love the language.

[conuly]

All grammar can be beautiful and expressive, though. I know some people get so caught up defending nonstandard grammars that they denigrate the standard, but I'm not one of them.

What's interesting is that the rules of language are far more complex than anybody realizes, way beyond what they think they're teaching in school. I mean, you *think* you have an idea when you take spanish and learn that the adjectives go behind the nouns, but then you take your first linguistics course and end up trying to figure out why it's "a big green house" and never "a green big house".

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

but then you take your first linguistics course and end up trying to figure out why it's "a big green house" and never "a green big house".

And that's when my head exploded. I got the general-to-specific rules about adjectives, but then there was more...and I wept.

I loved that class.

[conuly]

1. Ditto
2. Oh, ditto. And I got an A. I was so happy. So -plussed!

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Language is such a beautiful thing, and it makes me cry when I see it so ignored!

[zarriq.livejournal.com]

incorrect grammar loses its expressive abilities if it becomes the standard.


Once "incorrect" grammar becomes the standard, then it's correct. In some ways, the grammar you use is a watered-down, bastardized version of its original form, altered by interaction with Vikings. Unless you regularly use declensions on your adjectives and nouns and write in Futhorc.

[conuly]

Unless you regularly use declensions on your adjectives and nouns and write in Futhorc.

Ooh, that sounds like fun... Can I decline my adjectives in Latin, though, and write in Cyrillic?

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Precisely, and if it were possible to go back to a more inflected language, I'd love that (well, it would be fun, anyway). However, you can't really ask people to go that far back.

There is, however, a point where language becomes so watered down that it becomes inadequate. I think we're reaching that. A picture doesn't *have* to be worth a thousand words. Most of the time, people just aren't paying attention to the nuances of language.

Anyway, I don't have an objection to dialects so much as the need to keep up education in the "standard" as well. At the very least, it makes specific use of that dialect more meaningful.

[conuly]

There is, however, a point where language becomes so watered down that it becomes inadequate. I think we're reaching that.

Explain?