"If you link a usage with a social group, and that group is undervalued and perceived in a dismissive way, then their characteristic vocabulary or intonation will be scorned. So it's not the rising voice that makes the speaker seem inadequate, it's the expectation that the speaker is inadequate that is reinforced by the rising voice."

What a fantastic post Andrea. The above part resonated with me because I once took assertiveness training and public speaking courses - both of which were all about slowing down my speech, learning not to "upspeak" (ending sentences sounding like you're asking a question or asking for reassurance of being heard) and lowering my voice. You know - sound more masculine. Which is hard, since the voice I hear in my head sounds like Lauren Bacall - but sadly, I believe it comes out with all the timbre and pitch of a hysterical twelve-year old boy.

And so, I found then, and still do, that many voices are needed. One for when I was working (and that was subdivided into co-workers, clients, management, and teaching), one for friends (subdivided into intimate and casual), one for Steve, and lately, one for Josephine/kids and most recently - one for meeting new people (which it seems I forgot the other night with Kristin, Nadine and Rob!) with whom I am known first by my online identity. It's almost schizophrenic - trying to immediately discern the situation, trying to modulate accordingly, and then reacting and adapting to the other parties in the conversation concurrently.

One of the biggest compliments anyone could give me would be that I am a lot like how I write on my blog, because that is a voice that's important to me; and since I write as fast as I can think, it's very close to the voice I have in my head. One of my biggest disappointments is when someone I've met through blogging is not like they are on the blog - what's the point of introducing yourself through blogging if it's not how you really are? I want to say, please stay a mystery sometimes! That dichotomy betweent real life and blogging is no fun sometimes.

But it's all these voices I need to adopt that are crazy-making. Didn't the Star article, which I remember vaguely, propose that there was some reverse-discrimination between the youth in business today against older employees? As well, that not only does an older person who adopts the speaking patterns and slang of a younger group rings false, but that those who continue to speak in the slang and inflections of their own youth are revealing their age (and ageism in business is HUGE - my husband is always talking about the young female account execs in his business coming into the office and talking about things like "She went on a date with this guy? and he was SO. OLD. like THIRTY-FOUR. So much so that he feels old and creepy for merely being 42.) It seems like not only will I be discriminated against for not sounding like an older, white male generation - but soon, if not already, I'll get it at the other end for not sounding young and hip.

Just as women often try to retain their appearance from the time they were most happy in their life - hence people who NEVER have changed their 80's hair (versus those who are re- or only just - discovering the 80's now), I believe we retain the speech patterns from when we felt most confident too.

So when you ask this:

"When I ask, "Who gets to decide what's good?" I'm asking, who are the taste-shapers? I'm asking, whose opinion is influential? Who decides what the rest of us learn to appreciate? To some extent that's mediated in blogs because each of us is our own gatekeeper--no publishers, no editors--on the other hand, each of us has already been extensively trained to believe that good English is what is spoken by Harvard graduates. That is not without implications. Not everyone has the same opportunity to learn to speak or write this way, and why should they? Why should good english be so narrowly defined? Why shouldn't we instead try to broaden our palates?

So, who gets to decide what's good? Even when you are deciding what to enjoy on your own personal space, who got to decide what you would be taught to think of as "good"?"

I would say it's those masters of demagogic and rhetoric writing - the ones who are literate enough to appeal to all parties - who are deciding what's good these days. They appeal to everyone, from the bad spellers, to the placenta-brained, to the middle of the road readers who are good enough themselves but want to read more like themselves, and to the more literate who aren't willing to wade through poor quality presentation to get to fantastic kernels of ideas. And it's those voices that appeal to the advertisers, who, having the same ideas of "quality", only want to hire people that meet contemporary professional standards. And more examples in between, but I've only had one coffee so far and I have about seventy bulbs to plant today.

But I will say - I think people who use language creatively, expressivley and write as they speak are my preference.

whoah...Mrs. Hijacky Mac Hijackypants here! Sorry! But, it's really a great post!

Great post, as always!

I've been completely guilty of being one of those people who dismisses the poor spelling and grammatical errors in posts as being indicative of lower education; that is, until I learn that certain people just write like that, because of disabilities, inadequate support, whatever the case may be.

And, so, like, we all know, that I am *totally* like Valley Girl when I get all, you know, like excited and stuff? And timbre and pitch are all, like, upspeak? Right?

At the same time, while I agree with these ideas of the patriarchy oppressing the women for their communication styles (there's a similiar movement in art history - women's work is historically viewed as craft, whereas masters are often men who hired out their labor, often to women, but got the recognition - the lovely guild system!) - I wonder how much of this linguistic style is developed in the feminine realm as a matter of being attuned with feminine styles of communication: gentler expression, 'dumbing down' of the language to not appear as a threat to positions of power, etc - or is that the descriptive language applied to feminine speech as a way of dismissing it?

Good post, lots of food for thought...like, totally.

This post reminds me of the book I just finished reading: Alexander McCall Smith's Espresso Tales. It begins with a man talking to his daughter about the "insider" lingo of Edinburgh - pubs that are referred to by locals using something other than the name that appears on the sign (a name used only by tourists and newcomers).

"These tests are designed to exclude others from the discourse - just as the word discourse itself is designed to do. These words are intended to say to people: this is a group thing. If you don't understand what we're talking about, you're not a member of the group.

So, if you call this place the Canny Man's it shows that you belong, that you know what's what in Edinburgh. And that, you know, is what everybody wants, underneath. We want to belong."

That's what I love about McCall Smith - he writes very simply and accessibly and with a kind of overarching compassion for even our most regrettable characteristics. And I enjoy his little poke there at the word "discourse," one of the most beloved secret passwords of the English departments where I (often uncomfortably) dwell.

I've always had a kind of crippling embarrassment that prevents me from wholeheartedly adopting the latest catch-phrases, the words and expressions that function as capital in any social environment. I couldn't bring myself to use the cool slang words in high school, and I'm equally incapable of using the jargon of the academic world. And yet I'm not entirely sure how that filter works - I know that the word "text" has become invisible to me (though my mother always raises her eyebrows when she catches me referring to a book as "the text"), while other terms feel too jargony to me - I can't use them without feeling like an impostor.

I've probably adopted more blog-slang than I usually do with any other kind of jargon - I know I used the word "people" in a recent post in that trendy way we're using it now, though not without a bit of private self-mockery.

Does style matter more than substance? Will style get you a job where substance won't? From my observations of the academic world the answer is: absolutely. I was the student rep on a hiring committee once where the status of the publisher was deemed more important than the content of the book - in fact, no book at all was apparently better than an excellent book published by a semi-reputable publisher.

Hijack away! It's a compliment, especially from you.

I've been thinking about this too:

"It seems like not only will I be discriminated against for not sounding like an older, white male generation - but soon, if not already, I'll get it at the other end for not sounding young and hip."

Yes, you're right, that article did get into the reverse side of it--what happens when you are older than the hirers. But I don't think they quite nailed it. I mean, the problem isn't that the older workers aren't sounding "young and hip" so much, I don't think, as that "young and hip" has become mainstream in those companies; and so the older workers no longer sound normal.

If I understand Tagliamonte's work properly (and I might not), she is arguing that linguistic changes are created by young girls, mostly. So young girls adopt a new speech pattern and vocabulary--it is widely despised and called "linguistic litter" by older folks. The young girls get a bit older, and young guys begin to adopt it--it is now considered "edgy," but still not respectable. The young girls and guys enter adulthood--there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over how langauge is being "deformed." Then the young girls and guys enter middle age, and what was "linguistic litter," what was then "edgy," and after that "deformed," is now just "the way people speak." There's a new linguistic litter, a new edgy, and a new deformed, being created by the generations coming along behind them. Those older than middle-aged become "stuffy" because what is now "the way people speak," "mainstream," is what they were trained to think of as "linguistic litter" when they controlled the world.

So, yes, someday I'll be considered stuffy alright (and probably not too far off, because I'm not great with slang) because one day the folks who use "so" and "like" and the upseak and all the rest of it will be the decision-makers, and that will just be the way people speak. Those of us who were trained never to speak that way because it's garbage or whatever will be out of luck. And someday, some new linguistic variation just being cooked up now in the brains of today's ten-year-old girls (or younger) will be "the way people speak"--say, forty years from now--and if I'm still alive, I'll sound antique. "Say 'like' again, Grandma! It's quaint. Did you hear her say that?'

I think maybe what happens though is that some industries and firms have younger decision-makers because they are, basically, not-mainstream to begin with. The whole industry is artsy and edgy and exists to push boundaries, including accepted notions of taste and markers of status and intelligence. In those industries, decision-makers tend to be younger; so you see this whole generational shift happening a decade or two before it happens elsewhere. And what happens there is that people become "stuffy" at a younger age than they would in a more traditional industry (say, banking). And they define "the way people speak" at a younger age, too.

Does that make any sense? Does it have anything to do with what you were talking about?

You have a lot of other good stuff in there too--the multiple voices, yes yes yes. And from having met you I do think you sound the way you write on your blog (and I think I am one of the only people for whom the reverse is true--I spend so much more time writing than speaking, because I'm so quiet in person, that I speak like I write, instead of writing like I speak. My friends in highschool used to tell me I sounded like a book.)

I know I look for the same thing in blogs that I look for in books and magazines--someone who can use language brilliantly and unusually. I rarely find it; the dominant form of personal blogging appears to be the essay, which can use language that way, but rarely does. I like the plasticity of language found in poetry, the craftsmanship of structure and construction found in stories and novels. That's what gets my heart beating faster. Of course, I have another post coming up in the next few weeks about blogging and writing and language etc., so I'm not going to go into it too much here; except to say that I get many things out of reading blogs, but exceptional writing and a masterful use of language is rarely part of it.

terrific post.

trackback: http://plastictao.livejournal.com/75727.html
"Like, this article is so… awesome! *Sep. 26th, 2006 at 10:17 AM. Andrea over at Beanie Baby did a really interesting post on the class structure of speech, and"

Excellent and thought-provoking post. I've written quite a bit about this topic in my own blog--more from a perspective of how race has defined what we deem "acceptable" language or not. When language use is tied to race/gender/class issues then the matter is obviously not so clear-cut since who decides what counts is about power, as you point out.

My students feel this keenly. I have struggled with my own perceptions of this as well. Last semester one of my students insisted that her use of ebonics in a formal response paper should be acceptable--what answer can one give to that? The "no"...and "because"...are tainted with issues of exclusion and power.

Excellent post.

My mom told me that when she was younger, whenever she told people that she lived on a farm, she would always get the reaction, "Oh, but you're so articulate!"

Yeah.

Rachel--"I wonder how much of this linguistic style is developed in the feminine realm as a matter of being attuned with feminine styles of communication: gentler expression, 'dumbing down' of the language to not appear as a threat to positions of power, etc - or is that the descriptive language applied to feminine speech as a way of dismissing it?" That's an awesome question. I wish I knew. My gut instinct is a bit of both--I've seen the studies that showed how women are perceived of as stupid when they assume those forms of speech, but men will listen to them more and be more likely to act on what they say. Whereas a woman who speaks authoritatively will be thought of as intelligent; but then the content of what she says will be not be responded to. I wish I could remember where I'd seen it, though--anyway. Seems like, in an odd way, one needs to adopt a powerless dialect as a woman in order to achieve power in at least some spheres.

And you brought up a good point about ability too.

bubandpie, great comment--and me too. I didn't even use the word "cool" until I was almost 15. It was slang! Slang was wrong!

Alissa--yes. I thought about the race aspect and decided I was not well-educated enough about it to do so--and it's a good thing, since I don't even know what "ebonics" means. So I'm glad you commented.

Casey--was she supposed to have straw in her teeth or something?

I have often felt a bit like Eliza Doolittle, trying to tone down by over-annunciation and my replacing "th" as "d" (Most West Asian languages don't have the "th" sound. Ooh, and just try to get my mum to say "vowel" or "Vanna White!")

I also have felt the need to turn down my slang and my Trucker Betty potty mouth. I feel I've been judged in the workplace and not taken seriously as a result of my speaking plainly. I've been asked many times where I get my accent. I always reply, "Scarborough."

Like, Omigosh, you totally rocked this post! I hope you're not adverse to hugs, because I feel I will have to squish you when we finally meet next month.

Nice post, Andrea. I think what you're talking about is insider status being indicated by language. It interests me a lot -- seeing as I had to learn an entirely new way of speaking and intoning when I moved to Oregon. It seemed not to depend on gender, though.

I also like to watch how people modulate the use of slang in their posts as they appeal to different audiences, or as they move from serious/frightening to joking/calming within a post.

For example if I'm "lecturing" at the beginning of a post, toward the end I will always do something like this: "And, you know, she was so totally _right on_." Which, you know, is supposed to indicate that I'm using a more conversational style now and, you know, I don't _really_ take myself all that seriously.

And now that I write that, holy crap! I am doing what Rachel described -- I am dumbing down my writing so as not to appear threatening. Ooo! Now I need therapy.

Very interesting! I hadn't thought of the gendered aspect of "speechism." Of course I'd thought of the topic itself, being from Newfoundland and all. You ask: "I wonder if it's more obvious in more obviously classist societies?" Believe me, it could not be more obvious than it is in Ontario, if you happen to walk into a store in Toronto and ask for something with a Newfoundland accent.

Which is a great set-up for my favourite joke ... but I will try to restrain myself from telling it here.

If you can not communicate effectively (in your native language) you are, in fact, dumber. Words are the tools of ideas. How can you understand oppression if you have no word for it? If every other word in you brain is "like" then how can you know the difference between "said" and "is the same as". The problem with “Valley Girl” is not that it is slang is that it is a dumbing down, an over-simplification of language. It is yet another way for women to make ourselves dumb to get a man.

I am not saying that different dialogues are bad, there is nothing the matter with vernacular, it is in fact very, very useful. It describes the conditions of the individual group. The term "baby momma" didn't evolve because people didn't know the right words; it evolved to describe a certain kind of relationship prevalent in certain segments of society.

However, not knowing where to put the apostrophe means you do not understand what it does, how to decipher the meaning of the word you have read. It must be a confusing world if you do not know the difference between “its” and “it's”. The meaning of a sentence could be lost to you forever, and your ability to tell others what you mean in compromised.

We shouldn't frown upon people who use slang or vernacular, however, we should frown on those who are impoverished of words. I know that it can be from a lack of education and opportunity. However, in this country, we all have access to books, for free. However I loathe when I hear myself sounding more and more like an uneducated boob. Maybe there is nothing wrong with saying “I seen”, I think there is. I hate that I enunciate less then I used to, but I think that is more of my shyness taking over. The less I am in the world, especially in a function where I must be confident, the more I withdraw. Speaking softly, quickly, and mushily; I wish to be the person I am on my blog, but somehow I am not*.

Slang and vernacular are only bad when the ELIMINATE meanings or LIMIT vocabulary, instead of augmenting and enriching it. There is nothing wrong with "coach potato" "boy-toy" or the other words that have been added. However the slang use of "awesome", "colossal", "enormous", etc has robbed these words of their meaning and no other words have taken their place. Lumping all the words that mean “big” together in meaning robs us of richness. How do you describe the size of the universe? Sure it is infinite; however it also used to be awesome in that it inspired awe.

(PS do you know that I go back through my e-mails and add contractions because I am not prone to using them? Anytime I write anything except a quick note I use more formal language. And for many years I used true formal essay language full of “ones” and whatnot. Also, to my dying day, I will say that “cannot” is not a word.)

* Hmmmm actually I think I am the person I am on my blog but for some reason I am not like that in person. I always feel in real life I am wearing a mask. There is “sales-person”, “shy person”, “outgoing person”, “party girl”, “slut” and some of them are more “me” than others, or more the me I am now as opposed to the me I was or will be. How I became very much not “me” in real life I do not know, desire to conform? Have friends? Be “Canadian”? (Though why I would worry about conforming is beyond me, I do not have friends and I do little to get or keep them.) I think perhaps it is a sense of unworthiness that causes all these things, the speaking softly, the never letting my opinions be known, the not making or keeping friends… Just thinking “out loud” I should continue this thought on my own blog, or maybe just in my head.

Very interesting conversation. I teach at a community college and I see, everyday, very bright students who do not know how to spell, use "proper" grammer, et cetera. It is part of my job to help guide them to correct language usage. However, I do not teach English or composition so I have to balance this with teaching them the subject matter I am paid to teach them and that they expect to learn from me. I do not feel if people cannot communicate effectively in their own language they are dumber, I think there is usually something else at work; either lack of good education or a cultural background that favors/promotes/allows the use of a certain dialect or certain types of speech be they word or phrase.

I think the ebonics case above is really interesting...I would allow a student to argue the use of ebonics (or whatever) in a formal paper and if they are convincing I would consider allowing it. However, I am sure I am a minority in higher education on this. It has never come up for me...

I have never thought about this in terms of gender although I see the socio-economic side of it all the time. I will be paying more attention to it in the future to see what I can discover in my own community.

As far as dumbing down female speech in order to attract men (I think this was in the comments above, too) again, not sure...if that is true it must be a very subconcious thing. I have some poor grammer, lots of slang and phrases that reflect where I live and cursing in my casual speech but I can turn that off completely and do when I meet new people or when I am at work and in similar situations. I am more educated than my husband, as far as formal language goes and I have never played dumb to attract a man. How I talk is how I talk---that is how everyone around me seems to talk and I can communicate effectively...
Still, lots to think about...I hope I expressed myself well!

I meant, in my final paragraph, "as far as formal education" not language "goes."

At school recently, I had to peer review a class-mate's writing. Her points were insightful and she'd obviously put a great deal of thought into her argument. Her writing, however, was atrocious. It was painful to read, as though I were listening to Lina Lamont recite for six pages. And there's the rub. Where's the incentive to dig through the misspellings and the imprecise word usage to find out if there's an inciteful and thoughtful argument somewhere inside?

Liz, I guess the incentive is the desire to communicate and understand others even when it is really challenging and difficult.

Also, there is a big difference between written language and spoken language. Finally, language is fluid and flexible, right? We don't talk the way our great-great grandparents did although we speak the same language (often)..so how did language get from here to there? Because it changes organically and I suspect what we call poor speech (in some cases) will become the norm. Does this mean that there is potential for enpowerment?

TrudyJ, that's really interesting. I'd love to hear more about that (the newfie accent in Ontario, but the joke too, if you want).

But Brenda, the point is that it isn't less effective communicating. Two people speaking Valley Girl understand each other perfectly well and know when they mean "the same as" or "said." And I don't think it's about dumbing down to get a man--or why would it be so prevalent in all-female groups?

I think your comment is expressing the idea that because outsiders of a dialect can't understand what the insiders mean or pick up on the richness of the speech or writing, that the insiders must not be expressing themselves very clearly. I think that's a mistake. Just because I with my 'correct' english can't follow along with a conversation in a particular vernacular doesn't mean that the people speaking aren't expressing a thousand shades of intricate meaning. It just means I don't understand it. And I think it would be a worse mistake to make assumptions about who they are, about their native abilities or the worth of their ideas, simply because I don't understand what they're saying.

The meanings of words change. Any ramble through a dictionary will show the etymology of a word, how it got here from there.

Liz, I don't know who Lina Lamont is! Another thing I have to look up....

I don't think it is necessarily about finding an incentive. If I find something painful to read, I don't read it. (Though my reasons are as likely to be the unconscious sociopolitics of the author as word/grammar usage.)

Personally, I find chick lit painful. So I don't read it. At the same time, I'm aware that a lot of its cultural baggage comes from its female writers and female audience and female writing style; in a hundred years, they might all be considered Jane Austens. Who knows? But I try to remind myself that just because I don't like it and find it painful to read doesn't mean that there's nothing good in it, that the author or audience are stupid or are writing about worthless and trivial subjects. Does that make sense?

I find the same thing with sci-fi/fantasy. (I'm using genre as a way to talk about this because I think it might be a less contentious way to get a handle on it.) I love it. And there is definitely a particular style, a vernacular, a set of themes and subjects in the genre. A lot of people dismiss the entire thing as a trivial pursuit of teenaged boys. As a member of that community who speaks that language, I know it isn't true, and that the people who make that assumption and dismiss the entire sci-fi/fantasy 'language' based on it are acting on something other than an honest assessment of the field.

I can actually become quite defensive about this, and it irritates me when I see women's fiction markets specify "no sci-fi/fantasy," because I think they're acting on their own assumptions of what the field is about and who it's for. (I call it genre snobbery.) But I don't expect everyone to like sci-fi, or to 'speak' it; I just don't want people to assume I'm a juvenile or brainless person because I do.

Does that make more sense? It isn't that older people or men aren't speaking Valley Girl, or don't understand it or appreciate it, that's hte problem necessarily; it's the assumptions that are made that because the speaker is using that particular dialect, that they must be stupid, or writing or talking about trivial and uninteresting subjects. It's the valuation of worth that is attached to the person speaking/writing or to their ideas or discourse that is the problem, IMO.

I think in the educational system it's different, because as a teacher the motivation to plough through the language/grammar is to fairly assess a person's capabilities and efforts. And my own motivation is to work through my own particular biases; but that's just me. Sometimes when I do so it's not rewarding, and I feel I've wasted my efforts and sloshed my brain around in a marinade of anger or trivia or outright destructiveness. Sometimes when I make the effort it's incredibly rewarding, and I find a whole new way of looking at the world, something that is like a key in a lock and on the other side of the door is the entire world all over again. That sense of astonishment and wonder is my incentive.

No, I didn't mean that the point is that outsiders can't understand the dialect, like the case of AAVE. AAVE developes words to describe what happens to them, like the joke that the Inuit have 83 words for snow. The idea isn't to be less clear to outsiders it is to be more clear in general.

However I really think valley girl speak is a dumbing down, because girls aren't allowed to be smart. It isn't as precise or as useful as AAVE or plain english. Possible it is being used in all female and intellegent groups is the same reason that black people now use nigger. Using it takes away its power.

I do believe that women can and should speak differently then men, and that the way that women speak should not indicate weakness or stupidness. But seriously, saying almost nothing but "like", "ok", "whatever", "ya know", "totally". Is just like totally not a language, for sure! Valley girl is just dumb dumb dumb. It is part of the dumbing down that became popular among girls, and it drives me up the wall.

And yes, I know that words change and meanings change. I know regardless will be irregardless in the way that whelmed became overwhelmed, no matter how many times I smack my husband for saying it. However, I still maintain that english is using a lot of its richness because people are using less words, and those words are having less distinct meanings because people do not know the meaning of a good percentage of the words they know. Especially when a word becomes a buzz word, then it really, really looses its meaning.

So in summary:
1) Slang and vernacular are good. Though I would argue that the point of slang is to not be understood by outsiders (particuarly teenage slang) whereas the point of vernacular is to better understand and communicate ones situation.

2) Valley girl is part of the girls should be dumb movement that makes my skin crawl. But maybe, just maybe, women are using it and giving it power and making it more useful.

3) I think white middle to lower class english is becoming a sad and sorry thing.

No, I didn't mean that the point is that outsiders can't understand the dialect, like the case of AAVE. AAVE develops words to describe what happens to them, like the joke that the Inuit have 83 words for snow. The idea isn't to be less clear to outsiders it is to be more clear in general.

However I really think valley girl speak is a dumbing down, because girls aren't allowed to be smart. It isn't as precise or as useful as AAVE or plain English. Possible it is being used in all female and intelligent groups is the same reason that black people now use nigger. Using it takes away its power.

I do believe that women can and should speak differently then men, and that the way that women speak should not indicate weakness or stupidity. But seriously, saying almost nothing but "like", "ok", "whatever", "ya know", "totally". Is just like totally not a language, for sure! Valley girl is just dumb, dumb, dumb. It is part of the dumbing down that became popular among girls, and it drives me up the wall.

And yes, I know that words change and meanings change. I know regardless will be irregardless in the way that whelmed became overwhelmed, no matter how many times I smack my husband for saying it. However, I still maintain that English is using a lot of its richness because people are using fewer words, and those words are having less distinct meanings because people do not know the meaning of a good percentage of the words they know. Especially when a word becomes a buzz word, then it really, really looses its meaning.

So in summary:
1) Slang and vernacular are good. Though I would argue that the point of slang is to not be understood by outsiders (particularly teenage slang) whereas the point of vernacular is to better understand and communicate ones situation.

2) Valley girl is part of the girls should be dumb movement that makes my skin crawl. But maybe, just maybe, women are using it and giving it power and making it more useful.

3) I think white middle to lower class English is becoming a sad and sorry thing.

sorry for the double post. I require a spell check

I often find myself at odds with people who hear a Southern accent drawling from my mouth, and who assume that I'm somehow less intelligent. I have not gotten that reaction from the blogiverse because that's not how I write, 99% of the time. I will let colloquialisms enter into my speech patterns, but I am mostly true to form from the way I write through to the way I speak. So, that means that there is the propensity for people to think the Southern are less educated, and to treat them thusly.

I do teach my little ones that we try to weed out a LOT of the slang (ebonics, if you're still not aware, Andrea is the terminology for the speech patterns of the African-American community.) For example, I do not allow my students to say "ax" as in, "Can I ax you a question?" The reasoning behind this is not prejudice or racially motivated, but based on our method of teaching reading via phonics. We tell the children that when they know what letter makes what sound, they can then string those sounds together to decode words. If what is written is "a-s-k", then all those letters have different, seperate sounds. If you allow them to decode it as "ax", you are setting yourself up for further problems down the road. I face conversations like this in the classroom all the time.

Responding to Brenda's comment: I respect the African-American community choosing to take a word of hate and turn it into a word of their own usage and meaning. And by devaluing it, it lessens its hold on the meaning that it had before. I still don't like to hear now though, not because I'm about taking empowerment away from folks, but because I still hear it being used as an epithet -- any word that's said with hate behind it, whether it be "nigger" or "cracker" or "toothpaste" only leads to further resentment and hatred. And I wish for less of that, not more.

Andrea, thank you for a very thought-provoking post once again!

Brenda, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I personally don't find myself less able to communicate complex ideas on the rare occasion I use 'valley girl' idioms or usage, and I haven't found it hampered serious discussions about sexism, work and family issues, etc., when the need arose in the communities in which it was the standard practice.

I also think it's probably always been easy to dismiss middle- and lower-class anything, particularly language. I'm not sure Henry VIII would have had much use for how his stable-boys talked. In fact I remember reading that one reason why some names have so many diminutives (so for Elizabeth there's Betty, Liz, Eliza, Beth, and so on) is because in some families, the parents only knew of a few names per sex and had many children, so one family would have two sisters named Elizabeth. And how else do you tell them apart?

KLee, that's got to be a tough situation sometimes. I mean, trying to balance respect for a person with the demands of the curriculum in the classroom.