I am a native speaker of standard American English (SAE). However I was born and raised on the west side of Chicago, locals May refer to it affectionately as Chiraq.
I was fortunate enough to have access to quality education outside the Chicago public school system. Those who are familiar with CPS can commiserate with me.
Consequently I grew up with SAE being my native dialect. However I grew up around many people whose native dialect is Hood. Linguists May refer to this as African-American vernacular English (AAVE).
When comparing and contrasting SAE with AAVE, it is important to recognize that these are distinct dialects of the same language. That is they both exist on an equal plane. SAE is not better or worse English than AAVE.
The foundational language is English with its vocabulary, alphabet, grammar rules etc. In other words English speakers can understand each other even if they have different dialects.
A simple cursory examination of the development of language will reveal that language is in constant flux. Try reading Chaucer in Old English, and you will see how different our modern SAE really is.
I suppose we could presume that old English is the original English and any deviation from it is merely a dialect.
Furthermore English, unlike Spanish and numerous other languages across the world, does not retain a centralized institution to govern the language. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators).
How can one even assert that SAE is the most important dialect when we don't even have a centralized institution to govern our language?
Perhaps the answer is Haughtiness
Therefore the intention of this essay is to promote unique advantages of Hood as a dialect of English. Perhaps speakers of SAE do not see value in Hood, as it deviates from their expectations.
One of the aspects of Hood that I like to promote to speakers of SAE is the use of y'all.
Historically English retained both a second person singular and second person plural form. "Thee" and "Thou" really used to mean something in our language. However because all languages are in constant flux we no longer use thee and thou regularly. Indeed they're not even considered part of the SAE vocabulary.
We currently use "you" for both second person singular and second person plural forms. This can be rather confusing. It also requires some intuition on the part of the audience to understand. Indeed oftentimes speakers of standard American English will say "you all" to indicate a second person plural application. This is cumbersome. We already have a contraction in numerous English dialects, outside of SAE, in which "y'all" is commonly used as a second person plural pronoun. Hood and many Southern dialects use "y'all"
Believe it or not, due to the epithet that I carry, I have had people in my life presume that I have a broken brain merely because I'm a native speaker of standard American English from Chiraq and I use y'all correctly as a second person plural pronoun. This is laughable! It also shows that the imposition of a bigoted label has run amok. When you find yourself trying to impose an epithet on someone for their use of language, YOU might have the broken brain.
To compound matters in SAE surrounding the term "you", we also have the generalized "you".
This is a common habit in written standard American English as well as spoken. It is used when there's no specific audience. For example, "YOU might have the broken brain." In this example "you" does not denote any specific audience member, yet the statement is highly relevant to each member of the audience.
Due to the ambiguity of the generalized you some speakers and writers prefer to use the third person pronoun, "one". For example, "ONE might have a broken brain".
This is why I find wisdom in validating Hood as an equal dialect to SAE. I like to borrow y'all as a second person plural pronoun as it makes communication in SAE a lot easier.
OTHER ADVANTAGES OF HOOD
In order to illustrate this specific advantage of Hood as a dialect I would like to share with y'all an experience that helped me to recognize that I am a fluent speaker of Hood.
I was hanging out with a number of friends of mine on the west side of Chiraq who are native speakers of Hood. There was a conversation going on in which I was a participant, albeit not the main participant. The main participants were a female and male friend of mine. There was an instance in which the male friend told what we would call in SAE a "white lie". It was petty and relatively benign however my female friend caught my male friend in the lie.
Those of us who are speakers of Hood recognize that things like presentation, rhythm, and feeling are integral to speaking Hood. These are not integral to speaking SAE, perhaps that is why there's so much misunderstanding between the dialects.
Hood is not so much about what you say but how you say it. This creates for a sort of intuitive communication that does not exist in SAE, at least as a dialect. Perhaps a good way to understand Hood as a dialect is to see it as an entire dialect of "double entendres".
In SAE a double entendre (originally a French term that we borrowed), occurs when there are stacked meanings on a single word/phrase. This allows for multiple channels of communication to exist at once. In other words I can be speaking to an audience of 10 people but I might want to communicate extra information to two of those 10 people. I can use a double entendre to do this.
In SAE, we use double entendres from time to time. However in Hood what I call rhythm, feeling, and presentation is essentially identifying a similar type of "stacked communication". The difference is that it's not limited to a word here and there, from time to time. Indeed the entire dialect contains multiple channels of communication. This is why intuition is required to successfully speak Hood. For that reason Hood is one of the most challenging dialects for a non-native speaker to learn to speak fluently.
This is especially true for native speakers of SAE whose dialect has little place for intuition.
I'm not suggesting that speakers of SAE do not have their intuition. However the language rules of SAE prevent that intuition from being easily entered into the conversation.
This is not the case in Hood. Due to subtle aspects like feeling, presentation, and rhythm, information about the speaker can be derived no matter what words they choose to use. Indeed Hood does not care as much about the use of correct vocabulary and grammar, rather it's focuses on communication in the immediate circumstances.
In my example I detected the white lie as well. I intuitively recognized that the presentation of my male friend was off significantly. That is he thought that he was pulling a fast one on us, but everyone around him saw that this was not a truthful presentation. My female friend pointed this out in the moment. Take a moment to imagine how the scenario played out when my female friend caught my male friend in a white lie....
Speakers of SAE may find the end result of this scenario to be foreign.
Can you believe that my male friend promptly admitted to his white lie and everyone in the conversation quickly forgot about it and we moved on?
That is, my male friend recognized his own vulnerability in front of the group. He did not try to manipulate language to convince everyone around him of what they already intuitively perceived.
He didn't try to assert, "I'm not lying as you don't have any evidence!" This is often the foundation of manipulation of language by speakers of SAE.
Indeed none of us in the group had any evidence besides our intuitive perception that he was telling a white lie. We did not need more evidence, and that is the advantage of hood as a dialect. Intuition can influence presentation, rhythm, and feeling in speakers of hood. Intuition is integral to the dialect. This is not the case with SAE.
LET'S PLAY "WHO HAS THE POWER TO INTRODUCE WHAT INTO THE LOCALIZED CONVERSATION"
That's a sarcastic way to say let's speak SAE. This apparent language "game" forms a significant part of the backbone of SAE as a dialect. It may be the reason why the intuitive communication that is naturally available to speakers of hood is not available to speakers of SAE. Instead speakers of SAE use much of their mental energy trying to continually figure out who has the power to introduce what into the conversation.
In SAE, when you catch someone in a lie, the liar can manipulate language and assert that you have no evidence. However, you did! The evidence was your intuition. However in SAE that's generally not allowed into the conversation.
In SAE, when one party asserts the other one is lying the other one can simply say "you have no evidence" and a conflict ensues.
Ironically as an aside, speakers of SAE generally have no appreciation for Epistemology. Thus to assert that one must provide evidence is a laughable assertion. Maybe you should learn about Epistemology before you assert another needs to provide you with a specific form of evidence.
The beauty of hood as a dialect is it has a place for intuitive communication and this can facilitate conflict resolution. This is exactly what we saw in my illustrative example.
WHY IS THERE SUCH A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIALECTS?
I'm confident that the reasons are multifaceted. Indeed they are distinct dialects spoken by distinct cultures with distinct histories. However I offer a foundational idea to help us begin to validate these as equal dialects.
I spent the better part of this essay pointing out the disadvantages of SAE. I would like to begin this section of the essay by articulating an obvious advantage.
SAE derives its rules of speech from the written form. This makes for a highly organized linguistic structure. It also makes for a very powerful manifestation of language when one is capable of highly organized verbal communication in accordance with written language rules. I recognize that from personal experience.
Indeed while we do not have a centralized authority to guide the development of our language, our language maintains its structure through its relationship to the written form.
Perhaps this is why I have been insulted with an epithet for using y'all with native speakers of SAE.
Y'all is not officially part of the written form of SAE, despite the obvious lack of a second person plural pronoun.
My experience with many speakers of SAE is they treat the verbal form too much like the written. Indeed in written English one has a certain relational space that does not exist in the spoken form. That is, spoken language manifests spontaneously, in the moment. Intelligent animals use symbolic sounds to communicate with each other. This happens rapidly and there is a natural rhythm.
There isn't the time that one has when they write English. One of the reasons that I enjoy writing is because it allows me to take a step back and organize my ideas prior to articulating them. This is generally not possible in spoken communication. We don't get to say "hold on let me take an hour to think of the best way to respond to your on-the-spot question".
Going back to my illustrative example, my friend chose to be vulnerable when he was caught in his white lie. He realized that he did not have the relational space to take a step back and manipulate language in order to deceive his audience, and "save face".
Instead he was faced with an on-the-spot decision to be honest, own his white lie and move on, or to try to manipulate language and further embarrass himself in front of an audience that already caught him in the white lie. Fortunately for my friend we were all speaking hood and intuition was able to successfully influence presentation, rhythm, and feeling for a harmonious conclusion to the conversation. Yes we all pointed out to my friend that we caught him in a lie and we laughed. And then we all forgot about it and moved on with our lives.
Often times this is a high expectation for speakers of SAE. They can simply assert you don't have any "evidence" and they buy enough time to construct fictions around the lack of "evidence".
I'm waiting for speakers of SAE to have meaningful conversations with me on Epistemology.
Hmmm.... I'm still waiting....
This is especially relevant for those who like to use terms like "evidence", "facts", "truth", "rationality," etc. Each of these terms is a favorite for buying the conversational space to give the speaker of SAE enough opportunity to construct fictions around the lack of "evidence"
I assert that too many speakers of SAE lack Epistemology.
On the other hand, hood does not have a specific written form. Indeed this is a significant disadvantage of such a rich and useful language. I would love to see the development of written AAVE. I am confident it would help to legitimize the dialect and put it on the same plane as SAE in public.
The challenge to develop a written form of AAVE would be to capture the subtleties of presentation, rhythm, and feeling with a system of written symbols. This is far easier said than done.
Have a Content day
Sean