Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!gatech!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!mr.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!eskimo!news
From: Richard Wojcik <rickw@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Ebonics, the LAD, and PC
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: tia1.eskimo.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <32DFF46F.47BA@eskimo.com>
Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Reply-To: rickw@eskimo.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
References: <5bjrd6$879@lothar.scs.unr.edu> <E447Gs.JG2@nonexistent.com> <5bns6g$rc6@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:51:43 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
Lines: 39

John M. Lawler wrote:
  ...
> And neither equivalence, nor the original claim, has *anything* to do with
> "Ebonics" (surely the worst language name ever manufactured).  The issue
> -- and the business -- of the Oakland CA School Board is *literacy*, not
> language.  *Nobody* learns written English as a first language, LAD or no
> LAD.  Chomsky's never said anything to my knowledge in print on literacy,
> and even if he had, he's far from an expert on writing good clear English,
> as anybody who's read his linguistics will vouch.
> 
> Red herring, I'm afraid.  And committing the first sin linguists need to
> avoid -- and the one most common in the ongoing bout of Ebonic Plague --
> confusing written with spoken language...

I endorse just about everything you said in your post, John, and I agree
with you that literacy is the *main* issue here.  However, we should
remember
that the literary language is a spoken language, too.  Even though we no 
longer train students in "diction", it is still understood that one's
manner
of speaking affects one's opportunities in the workplace.

One thing that has always struck me about the cultural difference
between
Western and (formerly) Soviet linguistics is the degree to which they 
addressed the "literary language" (vs. "standard dialect") as a
full-fledged
language in speech as well as writing.  Our linguistic community does
seem
to have something of a bias against recognizing a literary standard,
perhaps
because it is so deeply ingrained in us that we are being less
scientific
if we "confuse written with spoken language", as you put it.

-- 
Rick Wojcik                                       Bellevue, WA
rickw@eskimo.com                                 
http://www.eskimo.com/~rickw
