Am I racist?

[jmattbassplaya]

I'm talking about in real life, not in school. Those would have gotten a correction in my schools as well.

Which begs the question, why are we teaching a different version of English than what most people use ? Are we assuming that all these kids might want to be English majors in college, or what ?

There's a point where a large vocabulary and excellent grammar start to hurt you, in the way you are perceived by others. It is a rare career that would benefit from those skills directly.

I'm not against high standards, so long as they are practical and meeting them provides tangible direct benefits, not just abstract things like "building character".

Most people I know say 'ask' and not 'ax'. It's a difference in pronunciation between generally educated people and generally uneducated people.

When can it ever hurt you? People might actually think you're educated?

Yes you are. You're saying we should dumb down our language.

 

[macaroni tony]

Yeah that post was kinda weird

 

[Staccato]

"Let me axe you a question."

^^^ This is not cool...In the (college) academic world, anyone that has not learned to speak English without slaughtering the words is lazy, or hearing impaired. Selective listening is another subject, altogether.

IMO, there are those that are lazy and trying to get through any school, and there is another group that are constantly striving to improve their vocabulary, and their approach toward others in formal situations.

There was a failing student in my first or second college, Spanish class. The instructor pointed out that the fundamental problem that some students had, was that they had not learned English, first...

If a high school graduate can not have an intelligent conversation with a Phd, MD, or soccer mom, and leave out the slang, it makes the HS grad look stupid. After all, they have completed 12 years of school.

 

[teleharmonium]

Society.

Exactly where and how does society say this exclusively ?

Do you always do what other people say society wants you to do ?

Just because you CAN understand what someone says, doesn't mean communication is as efficient as possible.

See, now you're changing your story. Efficiency wasn't the issue before. 'Ask' and 'axe' are both one syllable; neither has an apparent advantage in terms of efficiency. And I very much doubt that anybody doesn't understand the 'axe' pronunciation or that efficiency is the real issue.

Suboptimal is suboptimal.

It's also a matter of opinion. If I use a folksy expression that not only communicates what I intend to say, but also identifies me as a person that doesn't look down on the person I am talking to, this may be more optimal communication than the alternative.

Of course it isn't all one thing - but the fact that it isn't monolithic changes not a whit the fact that societal norms exist, and they're generated by society.

Norms, being plural, and without the clear hierarchy in the real world that is implied by the teaching of English (not without reason).

It goes back to the (previously discussed) distinction between "wrong" and "not preferred in this context", one of which is more offensive than the other to a person on the receiving end. You might even say that the lack of unintended offense in the latter makes for more efficient communication.

Yes - because that isn't the social norm. " Ask" on the other hand IS.

Except when you live in a place where it is the social norm, and "ask" is not. That's the funny thing about local standards. They're so local. You go somewhere else, and they're different.

No - it's determined by large scale common use.

No, it's not. It's determined by local use. And there is no particular organization, majority rule, or counting going on. Nobody knows or has the authority to dictate or define what is a societal language standard; and if it was about numbers, proper grammar would lose in a landslide.

If you're going to defend the institutional view of "proper" language as held in a death grip by academia, you have to defend it as what it is; an arbitrary hierarchy with dubious origins dating from the Colonial period with, at best, unclear practical benefits and very narrow modern usage.

It is sometimes codified elites in academic institutions... As for the "scorn" heaped upon academics - that is direct product of the anti-intellectualism that is running rampant and ruining our country.

I agree. However, these topics are related; part of the reason for that scorn and anti elitism is the perception (whether justified or not) that the academics are looking down on everyone else. By doing things like elevating the relative value of their work or devaluing a lack of higher education or its trappings, or presuming to define the standards for other people based on less and less relevant and practical criteria.

To be clear, I'm not saying people are necessarily justified in those perceptions. It doesn't take much to trigger negativity in people with a chip on their shoulder because they are narcissistic and yet also suspect they aren't as good as other people.

Elevating the local above the standards being imposed from the outside is not anti elitist, it's just elitism with the players switched around.

 

[taphappy]

Would it be racist to correct a white kid for saying "y'all" or "ain't"? If we learn spanish, should we retain our American accent in the name of cultural purism? "Dawnday estaw law ban joe?"

Teaching proper communication doesn't homogenize. It allows options to convey meaning in the most effective manner relative to a given situation. And it's your job to arm them with more than they've got. At home, in their neighborhood, with their friends, they're learning all the "axe"s they'll ever need. School's where you can toss them nuggets of information for a couple hours a week in the hope that they don't look back at high school as the peak grand golden time of their lives, and would you like fries with that?

If you randomly walked by a student and corrected them in the hallway while they were yapping with one of their friends, it would be out of line. But in your classroom, or when the student directly addresses you, absolutely. That relationship between student and teacher is incredibly important. They need that influence in their lives.

Your response was flawless. The best teachers challenge a student to think. Some students do not appreciate this initially, and lash out - but with a little luck, it will sink in later.

 

[Eublet]

I'm talking about in real life, not in school. Those would have gotten a correction in my schools as well.

Which begs the question, why are we teaching a different version of English than what most people use ? Are we assuming that all these kids might want to be English majors in college, or what ?

There's a point where a large vocabulary and excellent grammar start to hurt you, in the way you are perceived by others. It is a rare career that would benefit from those skills directly.

I'm not against high standards, so long as they are practical and meeting them provides tangible direct benefits, not just abstract things like "building character".

Respectfully, I'm a bit baffled by everything you are saying here. I can't think of any environment where having a large vocabular and excellent grammar would hurt you. Neither of these traits prevents a person from having interpersonal skills in dealing with people. The latter is what can hurt you. Showing off your vocabularly or education can also hurt you, but the issue there is one of pride and arrogance.

Seriously though, the world is made up of business folks. The amount of people that make good money outside of the entertainment/sports industry is VERY small. What's left over are business/career-minded individuals and basic labor force. A large vocabular is seldom required to be successful, but proper use of language is. I just can't think of any business arena I've been in, large or small, were poor language is tolerated. Those folks simply don't get the job, regardless of intelligence or skillset.

That IS the real world, honestly. It's not some white elitist perspective.

 

[Fassa Albrecht]

Fact is that sloppy or incorrect pronounciation is just ridiculous, and anyone who doesn't bother to learn good language is only going to suffer in education and employment.

Correcting someone's language is NOT racism. I'm going to guess that in Maki's case, it wasn't because she was black that the language issue was dealt with, it would have been the same had it been a Hispanic/white/mixed-race/Asian/anyone else who'd said it.

You can't win either way- you either don't say anything and then fail to do the job a teacher is supposed to do, or you say something and get accused of all sorts of things.

 

[teleharmonium]

No, we're assuming standardisation provides certain benefits.

Standardisation does provide tangible benefits.

Which is it, an assumption, or a flat statement ?

I agree that there are benefits to standardization. There are also benefits to variation, which is why we have, use, and enjoy lots of variant words and ways of saying the same ideas in this language.

I wouldn't correct an old person in the South for saying "y'all" or "ain't". I kind of like them. "Y'all" can have a very succinct quality of stating affection, or of deflating a whole group of people. There is classic American literature, also studied in the same classes, that makes heavy use of these expressions and forms. So again, the answer as to what is correct depends entirely on the situation. The English department is not entirely of one mind on this, being as they are celebrating Samuel Clemens (and Chaucer) among others.

There may be a point where inappropriate USE of a large vocabulary and excellent grammar start to hurt you, but more knowledge by itself will not harm you.

Yes, but that goes back to my point - it's one thing to make sure the child knows the pronunciation "ask" and quite another to stamp it out or pronounce it wrong.

I have no issue with the teacher explaining it in terms of context, rather than objective hierarchical truth. Which the OP is pretty much on the same page about.

 

[Popbumper]

Respectfully, I'm a bit baffled by everything you are saying here. I can't think of any environment where having a large vocabular

Showing off your vocabularly

A large vocabular is seldom required

were poor language is tolerated. Those folks simply don't get the job, regardless of intelligence or skillset.

That IS the real world, honestly. It's not some white elitist perspective.

Vocabular? Vocabularly? Were? Huh?

Am I racist because I pointed this out?

Chris

 

[teleharmonium]

Most people I know say 'ask' and not 'ax'. It's a difference in pronunciation between generally educated people and generally uneducated people.

No, it's more of a difference between black and white Americans.

When can it ever hurt you? People might actually think you're educated?

There's a lot of beauty and expressive power in language, and some people think that cultural differences like this - which in fact are at this point, deeply rooted - are beautiful and charming things that should be enjoyed, not unlike folk music that doesn't conform to European music theory conventions or local styles of cooking.

I'll flip your question around - what does anyone gain by denigrating people who use this alternate pronunciation ? There is no real problem in understanding.

What's the point ? Are we saying you can't advance in society without having your words homogenized to the preferred style ? Because I think we all know that's not true.

Yes you are. You're saying we should dumb down our language.

No, I'm not. Accepting, and being interested in variation and development of the language is not "dumbing down".

 

[aborgman]

Exactly where and how does society say this exclusively ?

Society doesn't "say" it - they embody it through action over time.

Do you always do what other people say society wants you to do ?

No.

I do always understand there are costs (as well as benefits) to going against social norms, and I do consider that cost-benefit analysis in my equation.

It's sort of like civil disobedience - you may be "right" in the moral sense, but you'd better be prepared to get incarcerated.

See, now you're changing your story. Efficiency wasn't the issue before. 'Ask' and 'axe' are both one syllable; neither has an apparent advantage in terms of efficiency.

Yes, one does.

The one that is more universally accepted has a higher probability of being understood without issue - and ease of communication IS an efficiency question.

If 1/100 people don't understand when you say "ask", and 2/100 people don't understand when you say "axe" - one of these things is more efficient than the other.

And I very much doubt that anybody doesn't understand the 'axe' pronunciation or that efficiency is the real issue.

Even if the person being communicated with makes an issue of "axe" while knowing the intended meaning - we have a case of lost efficiency.

It's also a matter of opinion.

No, it's a matter of analysis. Standardization absolutely increases efficiency.

If I use a folksy expression that not only communicates what I intend to say, but also identifies me as a person that doesn't look down on the person I am talking to, this may be more optimal communication than the alternative.

Yes, it may be... but standardisation is about the general case, not the specific. I might win the lottery tomorrow - but that doesn't change the fact that playing the lottery is a statistical loser.

It goes back to the (previously discussed) distinction between "wrong" and "not preferred in this context",

I'd argue it's more "wrong in this context" as opposed to "not preferred"... but it's a bit of a distinction without difference to me. There is no objective "right" and "wrong", so "right" and "wrong" are ALWAYS about appropriateness to context.

one of which is more offensive than the other to a person on the receiving end. You might even say that the lack of unintended offense in the latter makes for more efficient communication.

Yes - which is why societal norms are useful.

Except when you live in a place where it is the social norm, and "ask" is not. That's the funny thing about local standards. They're so local. You go somewhere else, and they're different.

I fail to see what is funny about it... you adhere to local standards, or you suffer the costs associated with not doing so.

If you're going to defend the institutional view of "proper" language as held in a death grip by academia, you have to defend it as what it is; an arbitrary hierarchy with dubious origins dating from the Colonial period with,

So kinda like Common Law?

at best, unclear practical benefits

No, the benefits to standardisation are pretty well understood and practical.

Elevating the local above the standards being imposed from the outside is not anti elitist, it's just elitism with the players switched around.

That sounds like a convenient excuse for American anti-intellectualism... and I might even buy it, were it not for the fact that knowledge itself is mocked not only snobbery by intellectuals.

...and there is no "outside". WE are society, just as WE are the government.

 

[teleharmonium]

Seriously though, the world is made up of business folks.

?!

A large vocabular is seldom required to be successful, but proper use of language is.

Under the circumstances, you probably could have done a better job constructing that sentence.

I just can't think of any business arena I've been in, large or small, were poor language is tolerated. Those folks simply don't get the job, regardless of intelligence or skillset.

You've never worked in a kitchen ? Or painting houses ?

Do you live in an ethnically diverse area ?

That IS the real world, honestly. It's not some white elitist perspective.

No, it's not the real world. The whole real world is the real world. Again, I'm for teaching the differences and using what is right for the situation, but there are in fact people at all levels of society with terrible grammar and speech. Some of them are known as "the owner" or have been known as "Governor", "Senator", or "Mr. President".

 

[aborgman]

Which is it, an assumption, or a flat statement ?

I agree that there are benefits to standardization. There are also benefits to variation, which is why we have, use, and enjoy lots of variant words and ways of saying the same ideas in this language.

Both standardisation and variation have benefits.

They both have costs also.

I wouldn't correct an old person in the South for saying "y'all" or "ain't". I kind of like them. "Y'all" can have a very succinct quality of stating affection, or of deflating a whole group of people.

It also can have the quality of being confusing as all get out.

Reference the discussion I had with my cousin about the distinct differences (in his local vernacular) between:

You all
Y'all
All Y'all

According to him - they all mean distinctly different things.

There is classic American literature, also studied in the same classes, that makes heavy use of these expressions and forms. So again, the answer as to what is correct depends entirely on the situation. The English department is not entirely of one mind on this, being as they are celebrating Samuel Clemens (and Chaucer) among others.

I've yet to see a grammar class study literature, or a literature class study grammar.

Grammar is like painting your house. Literature is like doing an artistic painting.

 

[bassboysam]

Alright my fellow racial arguers, I have one for you. I get called a racist a few times a year from folks I work with. Sometimes it's my students. Sometimes it's their parents. Last week I verbally reminded a student who was wasting time, to get back to work. She then said 'Can I 'ax' you a question about the assignment?' I said, "I certainly hope not, but you're welcome to 'ask' me a question." She stopped in her tracks and loudly called me a racist. At that point, I informed her that I'm removing her from my class, but I asked her why she called me that. Her response was because I corrected the way she speaks. For reference, this is a 13 year old black girl.

Now, we are all aware of the vernacular and linguistic differences between geographic regions, and even between different cultures, but I was just thinking about this while I was reading Iota's 'racist' thread, and I couldn't help but wonder what you guys think. I'm pretty thick skinned, so trust me, I'm not all that concerned when a kid/parent calls me a racist, but I figured that I'd throw this one up for all the dudes that like to argue about these things. Also, does anyone know where this mispronunciation comes from? It's not the first, nor do I believe the last time, I've heard students using 'ax' instead of 'ask'.

Who's to say what is "correct" language. Languages evolve overtime. Go back 500 years, most people would say what we speak today is not English nor correct. Are you racist? I would say no because you probably would have corrected any language "error" regardless who and what it was.

If you only corrected black people then that would be racist.

 

[aborgman]

No, it's more of a difference between black and white Americans.

Not in my experience.

 

[Clark Dark]

Maki, for all you do.....this one's for you

 

[teleharmonium]

Standardization absolutely increases efficiency.

Communication isn't just about efficiency. We constantly sacrifice pure efficiency because there is a less efficient way we prefer to say something, or because we don't think we will be understood without some repetition.

I'd argue it's more "wrong in this context" as opposed to "not preferred"... but it's a bit of a distinction without difference to me. There is no objective "right" and "wrong", so "right" and "wrong" are ALWAYS about appropriateness to context.

The difference is in the amount of offense caused by the choice of words. Why even stick to "right" and "wrong" if you don't see them as objective terms in this case ?

I fail to see what is funny about it... you adhere to local standards, or you suffer the costs associated with not doing so.

Exactly. In the girls' neighborhood and in her house, it may well be that the local standard is "axe".

 

[aborgman]

Are we saying you can't advance in society without having your words homogenized to the preferred style ?

No - were saying we can advance society FASTER and with less false turns if language is more standardised.

 

[aborgman]

Communication isn't just about efficiency. We constantly sacrifice pure efficiency because there is a less efficient way we prefer to say something, or because we don't think we will be understood without some repetition.

In the case of needing repetition - that is a matter of efficiency. You choose the version that doesn't need repetition because in that case it is more efficient.

As for preference - those preferences are generally based around a perception that the standard doesn't efficiently communicate what we are trying to convey.

Shakespeare is a perfect example - he invented non-standard language in a belief that it was more efficient at communicating his intended art... and it appears he was right, because many we have adopted as standards.

Standards are all about efficiency - and violating standards is generally either about efficiency or indifference/laziness.

Exactly. In the girls' neighborhood and in her house, it may well be that the local standard is "axe".

She wasn't in her neighborhood or her house - so the local standards in those locations are irrelevant.

 

[EBodious]

1) i'd say racist is as racist does. i think it takes more than one snotty comment to make someone a racist. it may have been an insensitive remark, however. to be racially insensitive, i think it would need to be determined that you only correct minority kids.

when i was in school there were teachers who wanted to be cool. teachers who enticed you with their love of learning and sharing. teachers who made snotty comments instead encouraging ones. people are different. it was the end of the day and it is not something you do all the time, so i say no biggie (not that "biggie" is a word, mind you). i do think teleharmonium's line - in this class we say "ask" - is a better choice cause it doesn't put the kid down and it establishes that you are speaking about your classroom and not some larger authoritative structure. i support staying specific.

2) i do think teachers should make kids aware of the different choices one makes based on things like language use or clothing. those choices will affect how one is perceived when job hunting (and, of course, different dress and language will be appropriate for different job interviews). i like, maki, what you said about the three different uses of language.

3) when it comes to language, i am a descriptivist. a living language is always changing. "proper" language has changed plenty over the years. how would one draw a line to say where we make the cut between archaic and proper and modern, inappropriate slang?

i support knowing what is generally expected in different settings so one can make the best choices depending on that person's specific goals in that situation.

however, i think language has probly some of the most arbitrary rules. this is why i like the descriptivist/prescriptivist debate. why is "ax" wrong? why does it sound uneducated or, dare i say, low class? the purpose of language is to communicate ideas effectively (not efficiently). "ax" does communicate the intended meaning, "ask," but it also communicates something about the speaker as well (as does all speech). i think that "ax" is preferable in some situations and bad form in others. in my opinion, this means that there is a larger societal issue at play here. BUT, i don't think it is maki's issue to conquer in his classroom.

and now, just cause, i will point out some arbitrary rules:

This is how we are taught to talk in school.

strunk and white would want you to say "speak in school" not "talk in school." why? heck if i know, but you're the english honors teacher (just saying...).

The answer you're left with trying to explain to a kid, is that there's this right way of speaking, which is determined by a small hierarchy of mostly white elitists in institutions that many people have scorn for.

...institutions for which many people have scorn.

why is it wrong to end a sentence with a preposition? i don't know, but i suspect.... THERE IS NONE! would you blow a job interview if you filled out an app and improperly ended a sentence with a preposition? or answered a question verbally as such? i don't know, but i suspect that the job interviewer wouldn't even notice.

for all the talk about proper language use, i think there are many rules that no one is following anymore....