Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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*