Keila Andrade

Keila Andrade

Week 5. Sociolinguistics

Critical Analyses

Making Languages by Ralph W. Fasold

Throughout this article Ralph Fasold shows us the ways in which different ideologies differentiate dialects and languages, in this case the marking of Ebonics as a dialect or a language. He argued that constructions of different linguistic ideologies, in this case the “linguistic science” taking into account socio- economic, socio-historical and socio-political events, is what determines what we know as a language and therefore what we also consider dialect. Fasold does not agree with Heinz Kloss who claims the existence of what he called the “Ausbau” and “Abstand” languages. Fasold contends here that Ebonics is a separate language shared by the same linguistics background communities, like African American Vernacular English. He supports the idea of calling AAVE as Ebonics (a separate language) rather than what other linguistics researchers termed it, as broken English; in this frame, it is a dialect and becomes less valued when compared to other linguistic forms. The author claims that language can not be simply attributed to this or that space because it is a fluid in nature, both by itself and in the very context that it is found. Even though that is the case, the point here is not to view languages in reference to each other and their origins but rather to respect the uniqueness of the language itself, thereby not devaluing the languages in comparison to dominant languages.

The initial intentions of the Afrocentric linguists who supported Ebonics were to actually bring out the characteristics of the language. Fasold argued that this entire phenomenon is inevitable in society and communities that do or don't speak the language. The arguments seem to go beyond the technical nature of language and settle into the social judgments which are themselves embedded in ideologies. The fact Ebonics comes from African and the combinations of a mosaic of languages such English, and given English’s dominant social force, puts the dominated languages in the inferior position. He also points a very interesting aspect of the Ebonics controversy with respect to the orthography of the language. According to Fasold, the fact that Ebonics is not written but concentrates more on oral language puts it on a different category, however this should be considered just one other aspect of the language. This made me think about my native language CapeVerdean that has only recently was been considered or recognized as the official language, despite the fact that people have always expressed themselves in the language. The psychological consequences of this dynamic is so deeply found that even people that speak the language consider it inferior and therefore project learning it as a waste of time.

The author supports the idea of teaching the language in school in order to view it as the mosaic that language is; however, my question is how can educators be fully committed and well prepared to emphasize the implementation of Ebonics around academic setting if there is still the existence of these doubts within academia. Further, how does one balance the need to re-affirm the identities of speakers and their languages with the demands of society at large? Should society at large be changed in terms of the language views that it holds or should we strive to make speakers comfortable with multiple languages in the meantime? Finally, what about the variety available within African American Vernacular English?

Reference:

Fasold, W.R. (2005). “Making Languages” in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism.