Nice post, Josef! Really enjoyed how you laid out your argument. Nicely done. Also, mmmmm linguistics.

I think there's a lot to be said for dialect as a means of social climbing. In a perfect world, I suppose, there wouldn't be social stigmas based on dialects, but in reality people who grow up speaking and thinking in socially priviledged dialects have a leg up on people who don't, and part of helping individuals from disadvantaged communities get ahead is teaching them the social and linguistic codes that people from priviledged communities take for granted. I see the message of the book cover not so much "You poor/black people are ruining English" but rather "Your poor/black way of speaking is holding you back academically/professionally" (note the reference to "getting that big promotion").

It's definitely troubling, but it's troubling because our society is troubling; the book strikes me as something that's trying to help people navigate that society.

I know that it's a deep injustice, but try rhyming on your resume and see how it works out.
There are lots of perfectly acceptable modes of spoken English that have dignity and all that shit, but nevertheless don't translate particularly well onto the page. AAVE is one of those, as it developed primarily as a spoken, rather than written dialect. How do you communicate a dropped "g' on the end of an "ing" word? Should there be an apostrophe? How do you communicate instances when the stress should be on a different syllable?
I would never hire a person who wrote in AAVE, just as I'd never hire an Appalachian who actually wrote the phrase "might could" down on paper. That these things are fine spoken but not written is not classism or racism, it's an indication that you understand different modes of communication.
I cringe a little at "Rap Lyrics" too, but more because they won't just come out ans say what they mean, which is AAVE. I just think that's a fine thing to strive to correct in writing.

While I tend to disagree with the prescriptivist view of grammar, I think from a purely practical perspective it is true that there are many contexts where dialectical language is not considered appropriate. No matter what the cultural value of that dialect might be. As an example somewhat opposite to yours witness the ridicule heaped on certain politicians for using the word "nuke-yu-ler".

I also have to say, I cringe when I hear anyone talk about "code words". Read into it what you like, but there's no evidence it was intentional. Is the first line a code word for "teenage girls", the people that stereotypically come to mind when one thinks of excessive text messaging?

Also, "What to do to make your writing much more better"? Were the authors playing with the grammar here?

The phrase "more better" is grammatically incorrect, since the base adjective "good" has the addition of the suffix "-er" to indicate something of a greater quality than the base condition (i.e., "good" --> "better") but not the pinnacle of quality (i.e., it isn't the "best").

The use of "more" (and "most") are also used to indicate increases in the quality of the adjective. However, the use of "more good" and "most good" only go with the definition of "good" that indicates moral character and not the other qualities to which "good" could ascribe an object. (However, as a stylistic thing, I prefer the use of "ethical" or "moral" instead of "good", since it stands the possibility for confusion.)

In any case - whether one uses "more + adj" or "adj+er" - the two should not be used together. (http://wvde.state.wv.us/tt/2002/grammartips/grammartip0017.html) The phrase "more better" is grammatically incorrect, and the book cover should merely have stated "What to do to make your writing much better"... or (to rewrite the phrase): "What to do to improve your writing."

If -- as the post's author states -- the examples of "poor" language use given on the back of the book perpetuate language the stereotypes of language and race, then what does the prominent (and supposedly "correct" or "appropriate") phrasing that is characteristic of Hawaiian pidgin (http://www.e-hawaii.com/pidgin/pidgin-english-words-starting-with-m) imply about language coding? I mean, if "standard English" -- which we associate with a certain form of education that privileges Whites -- is "good", then how is the prominent use of "non-standard English" (such as seen in the phrase on the front cover) "more better"?

Rap can be a really great medium for talented wordsmiths, just ask Dan le Sac and Scroobius Pip.

Seriously. (And by ask I mean check out Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius pip on youtube or some other media dump)

I should preface by saying I'm a linguist, and I'm also from a poor social background. I grew up with a very strong regional and stigmatised accent.

Standards of English are always changing, and some types of English evolve in order to be in opposition to the mainstream standard. Ironically, they need the standard in order to allow people to construct an alternative identity - which results in its own form of power, as does rap.

Different forms of language are useful in different contexts, and I do think that society needs to have a mainstream standard so we can communicate ideas quickly and effectively. Nobody "owns" English anway, not even powerful white people, which is why the standard continues to change. To give a few examples - people don't use the words shall, must, Mrs, Mr, quite and certain as much as they did 60 years ago in Standard English. But we are using the words just, need, around and off more often than we used to. We also use apostrophes in words like "didn't" more than we used to, rather than writing "did not".

I agree that the reference to rap lyrics could be easily interpreted as racist, and unfairly targetting black people. It looks awful. But I would never be against educating and encouraging people (from any social background) to learn how to write and speak in whatever happens to be the standard version of language and I think the book's main goal is to empower people. Rather than interpreting the book's message as "If you are young, and black (and your hat’s real low), you’re not worthy of social respect, or economic achievement", I would see it as "If you are young and black etc, then you don't need to reject your culture, but here's an additional way of using language, to add to a current way you might use language, and if you use the stuff you learn in this book, you're going to earn more money. Just give it a go. Black people deserve money too." Actually, I'd encourage people to learn about lots of different forms of language, and also to learn how and when it's appropriate to apply them in different contexts. The more you know about language, the more empowered you are. So I'd be just as keen on teaching white kids about AAVE, as teaching black kids about Standard whitey English.

If we don't have the notion of a standard, then what's the alternative? We decide that Standard English is racist so we switch over to African American Vernacular English as the new standard? That'd be very confusing and disempowering for many people who will suddenly feel forced to change without being consulted. It won't happen and would result in a backlash. Or how about we say "OK, AAVE should have exactly the same status as Standard English from now on. People can submit academic journal articles in it, the tv news can be read out in it, people can use it in legal and medical settings and for government debates." Well, fair enough. Let's do that, but then why stop there. Why not allow teenagers to write everything in text message language. How me and 20 of my friends decide to invent a new language which contains 50% English, 50% new words and a really complicated grammatical system. Can we use that in mainstream settings too? If not, why not? That's discrimination. Where will it end?

I really just am not buying the whole argument that grammar phobia is caused by racial prejudice. I think a huge portion of the audience for rap music is white or something other than African American - the music is very mainstream. Why aren't we seeing a discussion of how our culture as a whole has resorted to thinking intellectualism and smarts = bad? I blame that much more than anything racial, and I think it's also why our school system is in such peril.

Many languages have or had what are known as honorific forms, many of which use not only entirely different word choices, but grammatical choices as well. They are effectively different dialects of the same language.

Modern Japanese has three levels of honorific speech, four if you count the near-extinct royal form. Family, common, formal, royal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese

English too, has very similar honorifics, although the most notable of which is mostly extinct aside from productions of the Bard's plays.

Anyway,

The point is for most of these honorific forms the intent is not to consider one for "better" then the other or the users of one form or another as better or worse people. Instead the choice of form used is done to show either respect or kinship with the other person, or to show humility. For example in Japanese if someone addressed a business associate in the way they'd normally address a sibling or close friend it would be considered very rude. Similarly if you used formal speech to address a close friend it would be considered rude.

---

AAVE, IM, etc really aren't much different in this regard. They are very explicitly "common" or "familiar" forms of English. It is neither wrong nor a display of class level to use either forms...*in their appropriate venue*.

Formally addressing someone however, using such non-formal language forms, is absolutely a display of disrespect. Disrespect of the person, of the venue, of the subject matter. *THAT* is why using it on something considered very formal such as a resume or other business letter is considered very rude. The same two people however, may communicate under different business conditions through instant messenger, for which IM form is fine and proper (the venue is different).

Or to phrase it another way: It is not the use of AAVE, IM, or similar honorific dialects that displays a lack of class, status, or cast. However, the inappropriate selection of honorific for the given situation DOES display a lack of respect and thus a lack of class/status/station/cast.

Great post! It's so offensive when people use rap to mean "uneducated." Ironically, though, the post begins with a grammatical error. Pretty please delete the comma between "Guest Blogger" and "Josef."

I agree that discriminating against those who speak AAVE is racist and unfair.

However, one of the greatest triumphs of our cultural history was standardizing our spelling. Thus a person who speaks Cockney slang, a British person, and a Scot can all equally understand a written missive and interpret it the exact same way. Their dialects are extremely different. The words are pronounced completely differently. But their WRITTEN communication is identical, so there are no real communication barriers in that country. My southern cousins all say "pin" and "pen" exactly the same ("pen"). I can use context to infer it, but I sometimes have to ask what they want. Should they be allowed to spell "pin" p-e-n? Since many of our words are not spelled how ANY dialect pronounces them ("tough" and "knife" come to mind) what's wrong with telling speakers of AAVE that in their dialect, the -g on -ing endings is silent?

Second, as to grammar-- almost every American uses very different grammatical conventions in formal writing, like essays, lab reports, and official letters, than they do in day to day speech and blogs. Every student has to learn the grammatical conventions of professional writing if they hope to perform it. I would hardly write a scientific journal report in the tone or with the grammar I am using here. Admittedly, because many academics have often used those academic styles for years, it enters their speech too. But I doubt their parents speak with the grammatical conventions they do. Thus, I see little wrong with teaching AAVE speaking students to write professionally in a professional grammatical structure for essays, lab reports, and other similar writings.

That said-- for CREATIVE writing, AAVE grammar should be perfectly acceptable.

I honestly cannot understand how many (way too many) comments above seem to suggest that a standard written English is somehow bad. That it is somehow discriminatory to speakers of dialect to require them to use SWE in formal, professional and academic contexts.

Such an odd perspective...

Here’s a teacher fighting against the idea that proper English = white = selling out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KKLkmIrDk

And here’s another interview with him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAiTuTI8Vs

You can hear one of the students saying how she only spoke slang because no one around her spoke properly. Saying “ax”, writing “u r” or saying “heyal” instead of “hell”; they’re all variations (degradations?) of the (current) standard language. For example, a proper way of saying “I just got here” in German would be: “-Ich bin gerade gekommen”. In Vienna (and perhaps Bayern ;)) someone without an education couldn’t say anything other than: “-I bin grod kumma’”. And I’ve never heard any educated person actually refusing to acknowledge a dialect as a variation of the standard language. Different countries have different ideas of what the standard language is, and they certainly change over time. There’s nothing wrong with learning to speak properly; you’re not selling out. BTW English ain’t my first language so y’all feel free to flame for any mistakes I might’ve made :).

Here are a few humorous (and harmless) videos on the subject of ebonics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxGFAnY4nI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pozRCoaPwhc

...Lots of people listen to rap. Rich, white people too.
I can't help but think that it's quite a strong knee-jerk reaction to a book's supposedly flippant comment.
On the other hand:
I agree with the point of the post, it's a fairly shitty comment for the cover to have, but possibly largely because it's just not correct. Simple as. I wouldn't buy a book that stated a fallacy on the front cover (or, at least implied it) - particularly if the author's posing as an expert. I also don't like what the book suggests about the society in which we live :/

What made this book seem blog-worthy to me is the not-so-subtle coded language used to refer to those speakers who the book cover authors (maybe not the book authors) feel are culpable for the degradation of language. I want to consider the second point specifically: “…thinking in rap lyrics.”

Ok, of course not all rappers are black, but it is an art form that is so solidly identified with the African American community.. And, of course, they’re not really talking about “rap lyrics,” they’re talking about AAVE (African American Vernacular English). This is an offensive and transparently coded throwback to the linguistic inferiority of African Americans.

Right - it's an art form. My various art forms are not usually pertinent to the jobs I seek and can get. Not everyone can be a professional rapper.

In the context of the book, it makes a clear point: If you are young, and black (and your hat’s real low), you’re not worthy of social respect, or economic achievement.

Needless to say, I went on to go buy my office supplies, and didn’t read the body of the book. I can’t really tell you if it gave any good advice that made any sense. This book is just another case where supposed discussion of language isn’t really about language.

You just got through saying you didn't open it up to see what it said inside it, judging a book by its cover, literally. You can't know this was code for anything, and you're just making assumptions the author treated AAVE unfairly, which would be an opinion. The book appears to be for people who are not sure they would be able to make a professional impression in the workplace. Some speakers of AAVE may realize that's just not going to fly at places they would like to apply for work, and although I somewhat agree with many of the points that have been made, being stubborn is going to limit the places where you can be hired to work. Having a job is one of the better ways to make connections with people who might hire you where you can be more like yourself - and I take it, the impression you have is that people should be able to be more like themselves where they work; I've never had a job like that, so I think that's asking a lot from a workplace. Some people may benefit from the book because they recognize it currently can be an obstacle to better-paying worksites. Look at what the book actually has to say before you declare there isn't a need for it.

"more better"? Why not "most best"?

Obviously the majority of readers on this site haven't picked up the Yale Anthology of rap lyrics. I would wonder why rap should be singled out at all as the art form uniquely responsible for leading to poor language usage; it is an art form that values complexity of language, verbal games, "flipping" words, etc. none of which have anything to do with AAVE, or would have any detrimental effect on language use. People here seem to be making the assumption that rap actually is evidence of dialect or of non-standard English, which makes me wonder if you've ever actually listened to a rap lyric, as if they're just crammed with constructions that are incomprehensible to white people. The point isn't even whether or not one should hire non-standard speakers of English, the point is that rap is assumed to be evidence of this use of English - which, as the guest poster points out through the video of Mos Def, is not borne out in actual practice. I'm having a hard time thinking of lyrics that, besides some slang usage, aren't generally in accepted standard English form. Maybe there's a few "ain'ts" and the like, but the Beatles said "I wanna hold your hand" and "All I gotta do" instead of "All I have to do" and nobody's singling them out. Sure, Jay-Z says "you gon' need a warrant for that" rather than "You are going to need a warrant for that" but I don't see why that's particularly more egregious than pop artists similarly dropping g's or saying "'cause" instead of "because" and all the other ways singers make lines flow. I don't agree with the premise that rap, any more than any pop genre, is written in less than standard English.

Why should rap be cited and not pop music? Does rap really show less command of standard English than country music? The choice of rap music itself is dubious, apart from the arguments about whether people would hire non-standard speakers of English.

http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/69252/index1.html

Much More Better?!

It's not that someone wrote this book, it's that a whole bunch of other people reviewed, edited, and published it that really makes me cringe.

The cover also assumes that young people don't know the difference between IM language and formal written English. Really? You think we're that naive that we don't know there's a difference? Cause, you know, people don't differentiate between their written english and spoken words at alllllll. So there's not, like, any precedent or anything here.

I'd like to see those papers. Because generally, nobody actually produces them - at most, one kid writes in the wrong register. David Crystal's book explores the myth that students write in IM abbreviations (actually, that IMing is all abbreviations is a myth in itself), and finds that - shock - they don't. Not as a regular thing, not en masse, not anything like all the time.

So, yes: I'd like to see your stock of papers. I'd like to see your data.

I tend to think all this is no more a real "threat" than those "ACTUAL excepts from essays" that have been recycled - always labeled as "THIS YEAR" - for decades.

I completely disagree with the author of this post. First, did he even do more than look at the book's back cover? Has he ever heard the phrase "don't judge a... book by..."? Apparently not.

He's also assuming that "the book cover authors are laying blame on the same groups of people that are accused of leading moral decay: youth, and racial and ethnic minorities" without having done more than read a few lines off the back. He's also making a racial connection between rap music and black culture that the book authors *HAVE NOT* explicitly made! It is the blog-author who is in fact guilty of racial profiling. Since when do we assume all rappers are black???

Also, his reference to Mos Def does not in any way help his argument. While Mos Def's lyrics may be "creative", they are also a series of fragmentary sentences. Try handing in an essay that's modeled after a Mos Def song and see how far you get in university. (Consider a few examples here: http://www.elyrics.net/read/m/mos-def-lyrics/grown-man-business-lyrics.html)

I like Examstrust customer supports they help me to restore my PC while I am studying my certification exams, https://www.examstrust.com/hp-dumps/hpe2-t37-cert.html provides authentic IT Certification exams preparation material guaranteed to make you pass in the first attempt.