Newspaper Page Text
FEEDBACK
Spelman Spotlight November 15, 1979 Page 5
Dear Spotlight Staff:
First of all, I would like to
congratulate you on your con
tinuing efforts to produce a
quality publication. The
thoroughness with which you are
apparently seeking to cover news
is commendable, and I am more
than gratified to see college
students once again interested
not only in local happenings but
also in broader areas of concern.
I am writing, however, because
of a different problem more
directly related to an article in
the October 17, 1979, edition en
titled “A Misunderstood
Language.”
As a concerned and supportive
member of the Spelman com
munity and as a student of
language, I am not responding to
indict either the staff or the
author of the article. I am doing
so in an effort to encourage a
more informed view from you,
your contributors, and the
Spelman community as a whole
even, and yes most especially, in
areas where we are espousing
clear and evident support.
The article, though sensitive to
many significant issues of the day
and courageous in its attempts to
address a very complex situation,
in many ways overlooks some
very fundamental points in the
argument and treats others a bit
too superficially. Both acts can
sometimes offer a greater threat
to the “truth” of a position than
any argument which an opposing
perspective can raise. In a
situation like this one, in an area
as sensitive and as basic to us as a
people as this one, we can not af
ford to sell our “truths” so short.
To illustrate my concern more
specifically:
1) Consider the definition of
Black English which was presen
ted. “Black English is a form of
dialect used in America’s inner
cities by blacks.” This statement
on the surface has some accuracy
but is inadequate in its represen
tation of “fact.” In actuality,
Black English is not really a
“form of dialect”; it is a dialect,
or from some perspectives a
language. In fact, it is more
probably a set of dialects wit h
some being more non-standard
than others, i.e. more socially ac
ceptable than others.
Think about, also, with regard
to the “inner cities” part, the
number of us who can actually
say that we are more than two
generations removed from what
many of us think of as our “Black
roots,” i.e. lack of educational,
economic, and social op
portunity. Black English is at the
core of this tradition. Restricting
it, therefore, to the inner city is
virtually impossible. It is indeed
more alive and well than many of
us who assume that we are not
“Black English” speakers care to
think.
In addition, though the exam
ples cited are indeed examples of
what many people associate with
Black English speakers, I would
like to emphasize that the
features which are most
linguistically distinctive and
phonological, morphological,
syntactical, and semantic,
features which are very key to the
operation of a linguistic system.
Sometimes, however, the unin
formed eye will catch lexical
features (vocabulary items) more
quickly. The problem with doing
so is not that the lexicon is in
significant in contributing to the
heart and soul of the language,
but that it is the level in any
language which undergoes the
most rapid change.
Think of the regular develop
ments in the English language
generally and the constant need
for updated dictionaries (e.e.
compilations ot common usage).
The linguistic fact is that any
language is capable of lexical ex
pansion. Consequently, the more
potent example is not “What’s the
deal?” It is, “It don’t all be her
fault,” and it is powerful for some
extremely fascinating reasons
which tie very clearly back to
African languages and not to
English.
2) Consider also the statement,
“The black English dialect began
during the Civil War with house
blacks.” This assertion is actually
quite inaccurate. The roots of
Black English extend well beyond
the Civil War, back like ap
parently many other phenomena,
to the continent of Africa with
the earliest recorded trade con
tacts between Africans and
Europeans. The evidence is clear
in West African Pidgeon English
(WAPE), one of the earliest
languages of trade.
3) Consider the statement, “It
was primarily used as a form of
communication and unity among
blacks during slavery.” Even if
we disregard the obvious truth of
a statement like this one for any
language, the very significant im
plications of it should not be
minimized. First, linguistics is
beginning to share with others
something which it has realized
for years. A basic function of
language it to communicate. It is
a tool by which the participants
in a society operate and maintain
that society. As such a group’s
language is inevitably systematic
and inevitably adequate for the
demands of the group.
Because of the proven fact of
system and the proven fact that
the participants in a society do
not violate the rules of the
system, linguists have had to con
clude that one system, one
language, one dialect is no more
or less valid, no more or less in
nately correct than any other.
The problems of “correct” or “in
correct” come in not
linguistically because of
something in the language itself
but socially. We operate in our
general society by a standardized
dialect, i.e. the linguistic system
of those people with power and
prestige. The implications and
the ramifications are far-
reaching.
In addition, without going into
great detail, there are also far-
reaching implications for viewing
language as a symbol of unity.
The interfacing of language,
culture, and thought in the
process of defining self and iden
tity is truly mind -boggling. Suf
fice it to say that the thrust in the
60’s to throw off White and take
on Black with what was
sometimes a very determined ef
fort offers strength to a position
establishing a human need to an
swer by thought, word, and deed
(i.e. by language and culture),
“Who am I?” In essence the an
swer is, “I am who I think. I am
whom I act. I am who I say I am,
for I say because of who I am.
4) As illustrated by the Ann
Arbor, Michigan case in the news
this past academic year, we don’t
realistically have to spend our
time selling the validity of Black
English as anything. We do have
to recognize and, more im
portantly, make sure that others
recognize that:
a) Any normally operating
English speaker can understand
any other normally operating
English speaker if there is a
desire and the time spent to do
so.
b) Reading and writing are
skills learned by us all. As such,
they are not automatically within
or outside the purview of any
speaker. We all must be taught,
and the educational system has
©
LooK OO-V -for -\Wl
Ttol\ Sal«-
, T *’
/NjoN/sr^ber 30
VV.VcV\ -foT de.ta\ \S /
"W\o»a ¥• Sg'i o> A3 •
the responsibility, regardless of
the speaker’s dialect, to teach
these basic skills without
psychological insult.
c) Non-standard speakers
(Black English or otherwise) are
not operating by an inferior
system but a different system,
even though it may be one which
may not prove effective in
operating within a group other
than their own.
d) Since the system is not in
ferior, since reading and writing
are learned skills, since we know
that there are all kinds of socio
cultural phenomena which cloud
the picture for standard and for
non-standard speakers, we must
recognize that none of us has the
right to assume a person’s
ignorance or inferiority because
he/she happens to use a linguistic
system either that differs from
our own or that we value dif
ferently.
Recognition of these points
comes before making the final
decision of whether the stan
dardized (not “correct,” but stan
dardized) dialect should be
taught in the schools for socio
cultural realities or not.
Obviously, I could go on and
on, highlighting areas which I
feel have not been adequately
treated. The point, however, is
that issues like this one are not
“games that we play.” These
situations are deadly serious and
we owe it to ourselves even when
we think we agree with a par
ticular perspective to search out
the substance. Words are the
most powerful weapons at man’s
(in the generic sense, of course)
disposal because they can be
used to manipulate minds. We,
therefore, have a responsibility to
use them carefully ourselves and
to receive them with a critical
eye and §ar from others. In this
particular situation, there are
more important tasks than
declaring allegiance whether
such a declaration is by evidence
of the heart or the head. We must
make an informed assessment of
the situation so that we can deter
mine what the basic issues really
are and what their ultimate im
pact will be. To do less is to deny
everything that we as educated
people stand for.
Sincerely,
J acqueline A. J ones
Assistant Dean of the College
Assistant Professor of English
All letters to the
editor are urged and
welcomed. Please
have them typed and
sent to:
The Spelman Spothgnt
P. 0. Box 50
Spelman College
Atlanta, Ga. 30314
f i , > '-m.v to;? rl*