Black Vernacular English at High Noon
A lawyer ("Lawyer") walked into my office at noon to show me a brochure advertising a fiction writing seminar for lawyers. The prices for the seminar were pretty expensive -- $495 per course and another $1,195 for an all day course on the next day. I told Lawyer that the cost was too pricey and "I'm scared of that." 'That' refers to the cost of the seminar, and more specifically the nerve of the organizers to charge so much. Lawyer asked, "what are you scared of?" Huh...oh shit, I thought. I used BVE in broad daylight. I explained that "I'm scared of that" is a black colloquialism that expresses shock or surprise.
Well there you go.
Sassy Girl reminds us, "excuse my grammar, but it's after 10 in the p.m. and therefore okay to use the bve."
posted by Fun Time Kito @ 4/24/2006 05:17:00 PM
3 Comments:
Is BVE the same as ebonics? I had no idea "I'm scared of that," meant "I am shock." Is that a west coast thing? In which case you were using WCBVE.
I had to look it up. According to the dictionary, ebonics is African American Venacular spoken by some black Americans. I think it is plain old bad grammar that results from a poor educational system, and perpetuate through generations. They should just call it what it is--BG, and not give value to it. These might be the most politically incorrect statements I have ever made. The only good thing about defining bad grammar in less educated blacks, is so they can teach them English as a second language. Because most of those who use it have no idea they are using bad grammar. It is one thing to use BVE when you know it is not correct, but when you think it is correct, that a problem. BE can only lead to further class oppression.
Grammatic rules. Who created grammatical rules? Why do we feel compelled to demand that people conform to grammatic rules? If people are able to effectively communicate with each other, especially in a particular community, who are we to say that their grammatical structures are incorrect.
Are we just being elitist because people reject our standards?
Is our language so static that we don't have room for uses that fail to conform?
When will we demand that oppressors change?
Language is definitely never static. Look at the difference between the "Queen's English," "American English" and "Elizabethan English." I think there is always room for colloquialism --for instance patois is a dialect of English spoken by Jamaicans. Jamaicans know the difference between "English" and patois. Only a tiny uneducated or undereducated minority are not able to speak "proper" English. But even they know that patois is not English. In my opinion, if one feels compel to use BVE, they need to know it is not the rule. Using it to be subversive is one thing--mistaking it for good grammar--unacceptable.
I'd like to retract one statement. There is value in naming BVE. As I said, it can be subversive and naming it might be a way of teaching correct grammar.
As unfortunate at it might be, the hegemonic culture does not need to conform to our way of speaking. Think how much more difficult it is to get a respectable job if the interviewee says "You is" in the interview.
Post a Comment
<< Home