always makes me happy

Language-Based Conflict: The Ebonics Debate in the United States

One of my latest research papers.

In language and cultural studies there is a growing awareness of how language may cause conflict and the effect it has on society. In the United States, the argument concerning the status and use of Ebonics reflects this issue. For many decades, the Ebonics debate gained considerable political and cultural attention that surfaced many sensitive issues and caused tension between two communities: African Americans who use Ebonics, and the rest of society (Baron, 2000). This is partially due to the perceived notion that Standard English is the only language to foster success in the country (Bohn, 2003). The Ebonics debate in the United States is a complex and difficult subject that raises many issues on language, race, culture and education. It demonstrates how something language can cause years of conflict and disagreement. It is therefore imperative to investigate the arguments that fuel such a debate.

This paper will explore the key components of the Ebonics debate in the hope of shedding light on this language-based conflict. The focus will be on the status of Ebonics, more specifically the arguments of whether it is a separate language, a dialect, or just “bad” English. The focus will then shift toward the resolution passed by the Oakland Unified School District in respect to Ebonics in the classroom. Finally, this paper will highlight the social issues raised by Ebonics, concentrating on the perception of Ebonics, and its status compared to Standard English.

Over the past couple of decades the public discussion of Ebonics has drawn much attention to how a language should be defined (Baron, 2000). Linguists and historians alike have been contemplating whether Ebonics should be classified as a different language from English or simply a dialect of English (Rickford, 1997). Ebonics was first recognized in 1975 when Professor Robert Williams coined the term “Ebonics” to refer to the language spoken by many African Americans in the United States (Baron, 2000). Unlike other varieties of English whose status is characterized by geography, Ebonics emerged as a commonality of speech spoken by a particular cultural group (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). In other words, a form of Ebonics exists among the demographic population of African Americans (Hollie, 2001).Currently there remains no clear resolution as to whether Ebonics is a separate language or dialect of English.

Considering Ebonics as a separate independent language has been proved to be a highly controversial matter (Baron, 2000). There are many different perspectives that cover a broad spectrum of beliefs (Hollie, 2001). One theory postulates that Ebonics is a genetically based language, with a communication system that is related to the family of languages native to West Africa (Kubota & Lin, 2006). This is known as the ethnolinguistic theory, or the afrocologist view (Hollie, 2001).

Another perspective comes from the creolists, who believe Ebonics is a pidgin language that developed during the slave trade (Hollie, 2001). When African Americans were brought to the United States as slaves, from different tribes, they were not able to communicate with each other. Creolists believed this was when Ebonics was initially formed (Baldwin, 1985). The African American slaves needed a language to communicate with each other, a language the white man could not understand (Bohn, 2003). It was under these conditions that Ebonics was created, from a hybrid of other languages, which soon formed into a distinct language of its own.

Both of these perspectives credit the West African languages’ structure, with an English vocabulary overlaying that structure (Hollie, 2001). For example, they claim that Ebonics uses different non-verbal sounds, cues, and gestures, and different phonetic, phonology, morphology and syntactical rules, which English does not follow (Smith-Charles & Drew, 1998). Therefore, due to these language differences Ebonics should be acknowledged as a rule-governed and legitimate variety of English, and should be celebrated as the official, first language of AfricaAmericans (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999).

While some believed Ebonics to be a separate language from English, linguists argued that Ebonics was a dialect of English (Baron, 2000). This view also made sense to the public, since non-Ebonics speakers could usually understand Ebonics without much difficulty (Billings, 2005). Furthermore, one does not have to be of African descent to use Ebonics (Myhill, 2004). Supporters of this view claim that you cannot label Ebonics as the official, first language of African Americans because there are several non-blacks who use it. Associating Ebonics with skin colour only reflects cultural separatism and standardizes a pattern of speech (Baron, 2000).

Another opinion of the status of Ebonics is that Ebonics is nothing more than “bad” English. Critics argue that Ebonics should never be given the status of a language or dialect because it is nothing more than “slang” (Matthews, 2005). They believe that Ebonics is mutant, lazy, defective, and ungrammatical “broken English” (Hollie, 2001). This was the opinion of many intellectuals and leaders who felt that elevating Ebonics to the status of a language or dialect is pure ignorance towards the English language (Matthews, 2005). For example, the Reverend Jesse Jackson once stated that Ebonics is “garbage language borderlining on disgrace” (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). It is evident that all sides of the Ebonics debate are represented by a considerable amount of empirical evidence and strong opinions. Perhaps the distinction between “language” and “dialect” is made more on social and political grounds than on linguistics ones (Wolfram, 1998).

The Ebonics debate in the United States reflects many different interests, attitudes and opinions about language (Hoffman & Butts, 1973). On December 18, 1996 the Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District passed a resolution to facilitate African American student’s’ acquisition of the English language in the classroom through Ebonics (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). In doing so, the resolution attracted considerable media attention and sparked nationwide public controversy (Ronkin & Karn, 1999). The debate encompassed many issues, such as whether Ebonics is a dialect of English, a separate language, or simply ignorance towards the English language (Matthews, 2005). For many Americans, the passing of the resolution was seen as a way of lowering academic standards for African American students. No one seemed to believe it was a good idea to encourage “slang” in the classroom. However, this was not the intention of the board. The goal of the resolution was to recognize and celebrate Ebonics, and to use Ebonics in the classroom to improve test scores of African American students (Bohn, 2003).

Before 1996, it was assumed that Ebonics was just “bad” English. It was believed that the educational system should only teach, and allow, Standard English in the classroom (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). However, the Oakland school board had acknowledged Ebonics as a separate language and stated that it should be respected and valued in the classroom as the student’s home language (Hollie, 2001). They strongly felt that if Ebonics were to be used in a classroom setting, along side Standard English, it would actually improve African American students’ academic performance (Kubota & Lin, 2006).

With the introduction of Ebonics into the classroom, teachers were forced to adopt new pedagogy (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). Now, instead of “correcting” the child’s speech from Ebonics to Standard English, teachers used “translation” (Baron, 2000). Teachers were trained to help the students identify and translate between two separate language systems, spoken and written (Bohn, 2003). For example, when an African American student communicated using Ebonics, the teacher would accept their use of the language without directly correcting their speech. Instead, the teacher would rephrase the student’s statement into Standard English, or ask the student to “translate” the statement from Ebonics to Standard English (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). This progression of integrating Ebonics into the classroom alongside Standard English was a way in which teachers could teach students to use Standard English without devaluing the student’s culturally based home language (Bohn, 2003).

Although this method of assessment seemed like a simple solution critics opposed to the Oakland resolution were very verbal and open with their difference of opinion. Many believed this movement was yet another costly and wasteful educational “boondoggle” to government educational programs, and were “not supportive of a ‘loony’ idea” (Billings, 2005). Furthermore, it was not just political figures that felt that way.

After the Oakland resolution the use of Ebonics in the educational system was the butt end of television and print media humor (Baron, 2000). It was the punch line to cruel jokes and parodies that appeared endlessly on television, in magazines, the daily newspaper, and political cartoons (Wolfam, 1998). Some parodies even went as far as using racism, and displayed a clear arrogance towards this new “language” (Ronkin & Karn, 1999).

Producers of Ebonics criticism displayed negative attitudes common in speech stereotypes, and aimed to create an anti-Ebonics attitude (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). Their focus was on Ebonics as the cause for poor academic performance of African American students (Ronkin & Karn, 1999). For example, in 1998 the New York Times published an illustration with the phrase “I has a dream”, accompanied by Martin Luther King turning his back on Ebonics (Baron, 2000). Even the more reserved print media focused their racial hostility in terms of linguistic correctness, and spelt Ebonics with a lower-case e, as “ebonics”, to not label it as a language of it’s own (Ronkin & Karn, 1999). Clearly, everyone seemed to have an opinion about Ebonics.

So why was there such an objection to the Oakland resolution? One would think that focusing on language diversity in the classroom would be a high priority. It seems as though there was a need for informing members of the community about language diversity and its role in education, as well as the student’s public life (Wolfam, 1998). For example, the language one speaks is one of the most crucial keys to identity. Not only does it reflect individual identity, but one that connects with a larger, communal identity (Baldwin, 1985).

Language is also a reflection of one’s culture, and can give someone a sense of belonging (Ogbu, 1999). For school-aged children, fitting in and feeling accepted is of utmost importance. Therefore, when a child’s home language is devalued, especially from someone in a position of authority, like a teacher, it can have serious negative consequences. For example, when an African American student is constantly told, “you can’t speak that way”, or “don’t use that language”, the criticism is likely to hinder a child’s self-concept (Haskins & Butts, 1973). Clearly, the use of Ebonics as a strategy to teach Standard English was an immensely complicated educational subject (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999).

Along with the educational issues Ebonics raised, it also surfaced many social concerns. Linguicism, or discrimination based on language, is a social practice that establishes power relations between members of different racial and class groups (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Language discrimination against speakers of Ebonics has been a societal dilemma for many decades. Numerous studies have shown that speakers of Ebonics are rated as less credible, and uneducated compared to speakers of Standard English (Billings, 2005).

Since the beginning of the Ebonics debate in 1995, many scholars have examined the perception of Ebonics and the relationship between dialect and credibility (Billings, 2005). In one research study, Atkins (1993) tested the factors that affect credibility in a job interview. Using a sample of 65 employment recruiters, Atkins (1993) found that speakers of Ebonics, the nonstandard dialect, were deemed incompetent.

Similar results were found in a different study that investigated the perception of Ebonics (Billings, 2005). In this study, researchers analyzed two independent variables: the race of a speaker, and the dialect of a speaker. In the first task, participants watched three different video clips: white people speaking Standard English, black people speaking Standard English, and the same black people speaking Ebonics. After each video clip was viewed, the participants completed 20 rating scales, which included scales of competence, trustworthiness, and social distance.

The results were not surprising. First, Ebonics significantly lowered the ratings of the speakers. Second, scales measuring competence were all found to have higher ratings for white speakers, no matter the dialect. Third, black speakers rated black speakers of Standard English much more highly than white speakers of Standard English. Based on these results, Billings (2005) concluded that dialect and race significantly affect the perception of a speaker. No matter what the condition, speakers of Ebonics were always found to be less credible than speakers of Standard English.

Other studies have found that speakers of Ebonics are perceived as less educated. This is partially due to the perception that Standard English is the language of the educated, and everything else is just “slang” (Matthews, 2005). But why is the standard form considered “better” than other varieties of English? It seems as though Standard English exists because it is a way to distinguish what is deemed socially acceptable and what is not (Lippi-Green, 1997). Therefore, speakers of Ebonics are subject to certain prejudices because they are not proficient in the “standard form” (Billings, 2005).

It is clear that as long as Standard English is perceived as the most prestigious form of language, the social taboo surrounding Ebonics will not dissipate anytime soon (Matthews, 2005). If these negative attitudes and stereotypes toward Ebonics are to change in the future, linguists need to take an active position and change attitudes through education and communication with the public (Sclafani, 2008).

In conclusion, the Ebonics debate in the United States is a complex and difficult issue that encompasses many issues about language, race, culture and education. It is an example of how language can cause years of disagreement and is reflective of language-based conflict between two communities: African Americans who speak Ebonics, and the rest of society.

Considering Ebonics as a separate independent language, or as a dialect of English, proved to be highly controversial. Those in favour of Ebonics as a separate independent language believed that the variety of Ebonics spoken in the United States was rooted in African American history and represented linguistic-cultural traditions (Smitherman, 1998). They believed that the linguistic and paralinguistic features of Ebonics represented communicated competence of West African slave descendents of African origin (Hollie, 2001). Because of these different features, Ebonics should be acknowledged as a rule-governed and legitimate

variety of English (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999).

While some considered Ebonics as an independent language, linguists agued that Ebonics was a dialect of English because it shared many words and features with other varieties of English (Rickford, 1997). Furthermore, its speakers could easily communicate with speakers of other English dialects, and one does not have to be of African descent to use it (Myhill, 2004).

The resolution to acknowledge the existence of Ebonics as a strategy to teach Standard English sparked a nationwide controversy. It had important implications for both the general public and millions of African American students who use Ebonics (Hollie, 2001). The debate that followed the passing of the resolution discussed the status, or classification of Ebonics, and if it had a place in the classroom (Matthews, 2005). It ended up opening a discussion about race, education and identity. It forced Americans to consider how language varieties struggle for privilege, and showed that altering language pedagogy is an uphill battle (Seymour, Abdulkarim & Johnson, 1999). It is possible that the Oakland linguistic resolution failed because it was seen as too radical by the American media and the public.

The Ebonics debate also surfaced many social concerns regarding the negative perception of speakers of Ebonics. It illustrated that language discrimination can be used to establish power between racial and social groups (Kubota & Lin, 2006). This is due to the perceived notion that Standard English is more prestigious, and everything else is “bad English” (Matthews, 2005). It was evident that language is more of a political instrument that is used to gain power and status over minorities (Baldwin, 1985). Perhaps the real argument of the Ebonics debate is not about whether Ebonics should be considered a language, but rather the tension that surfaced between different communities in the United States (Baron, 2000).

References

Atkins, C. P. (1993) Do employment recruiters discriminate on the basis of nonstandard

dialect? Journal of Employment Counseling, 30, 108-118.

Baldwin, J. (1985). If Black English isn’t a language, then tell me, what is? In The price of

the ticket: Collected nonfiction 1948-1985 (649-652). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Baron, D. (2000). Ebonics and the politics of English. World Englishes, 19, 5-19.

Billings, A. C. (2005). Beyond the Ebonics debate: Attitudes about Black and Standard

American English. Journal of Black Studies, 36, 68-81.

Bohn, A. P. (2003). Familiar voices: Using Ebonics communication techniques in the

primary classroom. Urban Education, 38, 688-707.

Haskins, J., & Butts, H. F. (1973). The psychology of Black language. New York: Barnes &

Noble.

Hoffman, M. J. (1998). Ebonics: The third incarnation of a thirty-three year old controversy

about Black English in the United States. Links and Letters, 5, 75-87.

Hollie, S. (2001). Acknowledging the language of African American students: Instructional

strategies. The English Journal, 54-59.

Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). On race, language, power and identity: Understanding the

intricacies through multicultural communication, language policies, and the Ebonics

debate. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 641-649.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in

the United States. London: Routledge.

Matthews, A. (2005). The Ebonics debate in America: Will classroom use of African

American Vernacular English improve the education of Black youth in America?

Unpublished manuscript.

Myhill, J. (2004). Why has Black English not be standardized? A cross-cultural dialogue on

prescriptivism. Language Sciences, 26, 27-56.

Ogbu, J. U. (1999). Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a Black-

American speech community. American Education Research Journal, 36, 147-184.

Rickford, J. R. (1997, December). Suite for ebony and phonics. Discover Magazine, 18 (2).

Ronkin, M., & Karn, H. E. (1999). Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racism in parodies of Ebonics

on the Internet. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 360-380.

Sclafani, J. (2008). The intertextual origins of public opinions: Constructing Ebonics in the New

York Times. Discourse and Society, 19, 507-527.

Seymour, H. N., Abdulkarim, L., & Johnson, V. (1999). The Ebonics controversy: An

educational and clinical dilemma. Topics in Language Disorders, 19, 66-77.

Smith-Charles, E., & Drew, R. (1998). Ebonics is not Black English. The Western Journal of

Black Studies, 22, 109-117.

Smitherman, G. (1998). Black English/Ebonics: What is be like? In T. Perry (Ed.) The real

Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of African-American children (29-

47). Boston: Beacon Press.

Wolfram, W. (1998). Language ideology and dialect: Understanding the Oakland Ebonics

controversy. Journal of English Linguistics, 26, 108-121.