Grammar debate- is this true?

[amc80]

In another forum there is a debate about grammar. Specifically, saying something like "I seen."

This was one of the responses:

Actually dropping the verb in sentences such as "I got" and "I seen" is technically grammatically fine. There are many dialects of languages that do that at and even in english it's fine to make a contraction there. "I've got" "I've seen". Basically it is AAVE (African-American Vernacular English).


Is that right? It seems like just because a particular dialect commonly says something a certain way it doesn't mean it's grammatically correct. And AAVE (never heard of that) is the same as Ebonics, right?

 

[missy]

I have never heard of AAVE either and I don't know if what you wrote is true but I will be keeping the verb thank you very much. Even if I am using the contraction which I often do.

 

[AprilBaby]

Proper English is not the same as Slang languages no matter what anyone says.

 

[AGBF]

In another forum there is a debate about grammar. Specifically, saying something like "I seen."

This was one of the responses:

Actually dropping the verb in sentences such as "I got" and "I seen" is technically grammatically fine. There are many dialects of languages that do that at and even in english it's fine to make a contraction there. "I've got" "I've seen". Basically it is AAVE (African-American Vernacular English).


Is that right? It seems like just because a particular dialect commonly says something a certain way it doesn't mean it's grammatically correct. And AAVE (never heard of that) is the same as Ebonics, right?

I would be marking "I seen" with a red pencil in my classroom and my students would be better prepared for the SATs because of it. I have been part of the debate on evolving language many times, but for now the SATs haven't evolved to the point where they would accept, "I seen" as correct.

Of course "I seen" it grates on my ears unless it is "in context". But I can choose to read what I want and write as I want. Sometimes I like to read dialects; sometimes I don't. When I am reading them, part of the pleasure I derive from reading them is savoring their difference from other forms of English. I am someone who enjoyed reading, As I Lay Dying. That's not written in standard English. I hope that William Faulkner did all right on his SATs, though.

AGBF

 

[mayerling]

As a linguistics PhD, I can tell you that it is correct - in Black English varieties. It is not grammatical in other varieties of English.

 

[monarch64]

"I seen" is what the hillbilly, self-described uneducated folks say around here.


Part of common communication is speaking in sentences that are properly structured. "I seen" versus "I saw" is a definite indicator (from were I hail) that a person is uneducated and may or may not care whether they are perceived as such.

 

[mayerling]

I just realised that my answer probably reads as obnoxious rather than informative.

Anyway, in linguistics, grammaticality - whether a construction is grammatical or ungrammatical in any given language - is only investigated within the variety of the language in question. Something that is grammatical (i.e. correct) in one variety of English may be ungrammatical in another.

 

[JewelFreak]

All forms of any language, including English, are not equal & are not all acceptable. Ebonics is a fancy name for a street patois, as is any moniker you want to give to hillbilly dialects, Acadian, gullah or others. People may speak them but that does not make them correct English. "I seen" is not grammatical, period.

Bad idea to carry PCness to the extent of calling "language" all provincialisms, lingos, jargons. These add flavor to a location & usually reflect a population's history -- they can be delightful -- but they are not correct English, nor are similar idioms acceptable in other languages.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,


Mayerling, you gave the best explanation. One large problem is that Black culture wants the normative culture to accept this language. When the educators resist, they are termed racist. So, schools are encouraged to look upon this poor speech development as a dialect. It usually just means lower class speech in white areas. We can speak against that.

I have often thought that no employer will hire those with that kind of speech, so it's no matter if AA calls it a dialect. I can't even understand what some people are saying, let alone expect them to pass the SATS.

I once used the term "black speak" in a thread. I was reported as a racist, as it seems no one here understood that it is considered a dialect by the black community, so I hope some of you learned something today.

Annette

 

[AGBF]

All forms of any language, including English, are not equal & are not all acceptable. Ebonics is a fancy name for a street patois, as is any moniker you want to give to hillbilly dialects, Acadian, gullah or others. People may speak them but that does not make them correct English. "I seen" is not grammatical, period.

Bad idea to carry PCness to the extent of calling "language" all provincialisms, lingos, jargons. These add flavor to a location & usually reflect a population's history -- they can be delightful -- but they are not correct English, nor are similar idioms acceptable in other languages.

Laurie-

I absolutely love the way you put this. (Forgive my casual writing style.)

I attempted to make this point, but just from my personal point of view-saying what I would choose to mark as correct on a student's paper for the student's own good so as to acknowledge that I understood there was a debate over the matter.

You very clearly made the point that society as a whole does not accept all dialects as correct, however.

For better or worse, whether the language is going to change in the future or not, there are instruments (not only the SATs, but other standards as well) for measuring correct English. They don't all agree, but the major ones certainly agree on "I seen".

Deb

 

[JulieN]

AAVE is "Ebonics" but that doesn't mean it is not correct.

It has its own rules. It is the deviation from those rules that would make it incorrect.

 

[amc80]

Interesting responses, thanks for the input!

 

[daintyG]

There is prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. I understand that prescriptive grammar is the kind of grammar we should use, like textbook grammar. Descriptive grammar is the way a certain dialect chooses to speak, and it strays from prescriptive rules some. Every dialect has rules and structure, and they vary from one to another. I would say that "I seen" is an example of descriptive grammar. It belongs in certain dialects. According to prescriptive grammar, it is still incorrect, though.

I would also like to add that these phrases are not limited to the AA dialect. It is also part of the southern dialect, and these two dialects have some similarities between them. I'm a southern gal and I hear "I seen" etc all the time. Like another poster said, you may be perceived as uneducated for saying things like that.

 

[mayerling]

There is prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. I understand that prescriptive grammar is the kind of grammar we should use, like textbook grammar. Descriptive grammar is the way a certain dialect chooses to speak, and it strays from prescriptive rules some. Every dialect has rules and structure, and they vary from one to another. I would say that "I seen" is an example of descriptive grammar. It belongs in certain dialects. According to prescriptive grammar, it is still incorrect, though.

I would also like to add that these phrases are not limited to the AA dialect. It is also part of the southern dialect, and these two dialects have some similarities between them. I'm a southern gal and I hear "I seen" etc all the time. Like another poster said, you may be perceived as uneducated for saying things like that.

A well-known saying is that language is a dialect with an army and a native, meaning that whatever "dialect" is spoken by the rich, powerful, educated, etc. will be called a language and everything else will be called a dialect. Yes, every variety (dialect is a pejorative and antiquated term) has rules and structure and what is grammatical in one is ungrammatical in another - for instance, "I have seen" would be ungrammatical in Black English varieties. Yes, we need a standard variety, that we can all agree on, to use in official situations (such as education or business), but the standard variety is in no way better or worse than other varieties.

Edit just to point out that saying that varieties are not equal and calling them "hillbilly" is, at best, misinformation.

 

[AGBF]

AAVE is "Ebonics" but that doesn't mean it is not correct.

It has its own rules. It is the deviation from those rules that would make it incorrect.

Yes, but AAVE/Ebonics is not correct standard English and if one decides to use its rules and take the SATs, one will do poorly on the verbal portion of them. Having said that, I cannot bear to think of living in a world where all I heard was standard English. I cannot bear to think I would have to live in a world where all the vocal music I heard in sung in English was sung in standard English. And I do not mean that I like rap music, either. I do not. But I like spirituals, country music of many kinds, folk music of many kinds, and all sorts of music in which the lyrics would be considered "substandard". I think our culture is enriched by dialects. I just think that they should be recognized as dialects.

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

A well-known saying is that language is a dialect with an army and a native, meaning that whatever "dialect" is spoken by the rich, powerful, educated, etc. will be called a language and everything else will be called a dialect. Yes, every variety (dialect is a pejorative and antiquated term) has rules and structure and what is grammatical in one is ungrammatical in another -

I disagree. The Florentine dialect became known as Italian. The many other dialects used in the area that would become Italy once it was united during the Risorgimento were not lesser partners. The Florentine dialect simply happened to be the language in which Dante wrote. The term "dialect" is not used in a pejorative way. Nor is the term "dialect" when applied to the language spoken by the natives of my husband's home city of Genoa. It is called the Genoese dialect because that is what it is. Dante didn't write in Genoese, however.

AGBF

 

[mayerling]

A well-known saying is that language is a dialect with an army and a native, meaning that whatever "dialect" is spoken by the rich, powerful, educated, etc. will be called a language and everything else will be called a dialect. Yes, every variety (dialect is a pejorative and antiquated term) has rules and structure and what is grammatical in one is ungrammatical in another -

I disagree. The Florentine dialect became known as Italian. The many other dialects used in the area that would become Italy once it was united during the Risorgimento were not lesser partners. The Florentine dialect simply happened to be the language in which Dante wrote. The term "dialect" is not used in a pejorative way. Nor is the term "dialect" when applied to the language spoken by the natives of my husband's home city of Genoa. It is called the Genoese dialect because that is what it is. Dante didn't write in Genoese, however.

AGBF

AGBF, "dialect" is not used, any more, in science precisely because it has pejorative connotations.

 

[AGBF]

A well-known saying is that language is a dialect with an army and a native, meaning that whatever "dialect" is spoken by the rich, powerful, educated, etc. will be called a language and everything else will be called a dialect. Yes, every variety (dialect is a pejorative and antiquated term) has rules and structure and what is grammatical in one is ungrammatical in another -

I disagree. The Florentine dialect became known as Italian. The many other dialects used in the area that would become Italy once it was united during the Risorgimento were not lesser partners. The Florentine dialect simply happened to be the language in which Dante wrote. The term "dialect" is not used in a pejorative way. Nor is the term "dialect" when applied to the language spoken by the natives of my husband's home city of Genoa. It is called the Genoese dialect because that is what it is. Dante didn't write in Genoese, however.

AGBF, "dialect" is not used, any more, in science precisely because it has pejorative connotations.

I am trying hard to master the new rules, should I ever wish to follow them. It's OK to to say, "I seen him do it", because that's good grammar according to one school of grammar (not one "dialect"). But I would be inexcusably impolite (or just incredibly stupid?) to say that my husband's parents spoke the Genoese "dialect" because...uh...someone recently banned the word, "dialect". In the name of science. Do I have that right?

Deb

 

[partgypsy]

Yes there is a difference between grammar rules used in writing and formal speech (prescriptive grammar), "I seen" is not correct. Grammar, as an underlying structure can allow many different variations, "I seen" is a variation that is a grammatical utterance, that we all can understand it's meaning, in the same way we understand a sentence that uses a pronoun, or a passive sentence that drops the active subject.
But it is not mainstream prescriptively grammar. Prescriptive grammar changes and evolves with time as well. An example is the double negative. At one point it was commonly used in the King's English (as an intensifier), and then fell out of style. But it is starting to be used again. Time will only tell which of these variations become part of mainstream speech.

Maybe I've been out of linguistics area too long but I hadn't heard dialects as a term were no longer being used, or considered offensive?

 

[AGBF]

Yes there is a difference between grammar rules used in writing and formal speech (prescriptive grammar), "I seen" is not correct. Grammar, as an underlying structure can allow many different variations, "I seen" is a variation that is a grammatical utterance, that we all can understand it's meaning, in the same way we understand a sentence that uses a pronoun, or a passive sentence that drops the active subject.
But it is not mainstream prescriptively grammar. Prescriptive grammar changes and evolves with time as well. An example is the double negative. At one point it was commonly used in the King's English (as an intensifier), and then fell out of style. But it is starting to be used again. Time will only tell which of these variations become part of mainstream speech.

Maybe I've been out of linguistics area too long but I hadn't heard dialects as a term were no longer being used, or considered offensive?

I am not stupid. I get the idea. The idea is that if one calls a language "a dialect" one is supposedly saying that the language is obscure or unimportant. Supposedly (according to mayerling) experts in linguistics believe that this was historically true. That historically only the unimportant languages were called "dialects" and that "dialect" was the term of choice for labelling a language one wanted to deride.

I doubt that it is so. Historically speaking many terms have been used to describe languages that were used by the less powerful, and if we were to throw out all the words ever used to describe them just because those words were once associated with the powerless we would be discarding a whole lot of words. As I write I am thinking of the "vulgar Latin" variations spoken by the outlying peoples in the Roman Empire.

There have also been many languages that belonged to people who were terribly disenfranchised and abused that were never called, "dialects". I have always heard people refer to the "Navajo language" for instance or the "the Quechua language". Certainly it was not because the Navajos or the Quechuas were so powerful!

AGBF

 

[JewelFreak]

There isn't another word that describes a dialect as well as the word dialect. BS science, sorry. There is the standard version of any language & then there are dialects, as Deb illustrates so well. If some bunch of silly dopes decide that "dialect" is a pejorative, they needn't use it -- but Deb and I and anybody else who cares about clarity still will. It's a good serviceable word. Just about all languages have them -- there are hundreds in Italy; probably close to 50 in tiny Holland; so many Chinese dialects nobody has counted them. Many are incomprehensible to people who speak a different one or who speak only the standard version of the language. There must be an accepted, standard version of a language as a norm, or citizens would not be able to communicate. Of course that evolves too, but not by adopting incorrect grammar in the name of PCness.

And please, let's not bring the politics of envy and naiveté into a conversation about language. Rich & elite my eye.

 

[junebug17]

There isn't another word that describes a dialect as well as the word dialect. BS science, sorry. There is the standard version of any language & then there are dialects, as Deb illustrates so well. If some bunch of silly dopes decide that "dialect" is a pejorative, they needn't use it -- but Deb and I and anybody else who cares about clarity still will. It's a good serviceable word. Just about all languages have them -- there are hundreds in Italy; probably close to 50 in tiny Holland; so many Chinese dialects nobody has counted them. Many are incomprehensible to people who speak a different one or who speak only the standard version of the language. There must be an accepted, standard version of a language as a norm, or citizens would not be able to communicate. Of course that evolves too, but not by adopting incorrect grammar in the name of PCness.

And please, let's not bring the politics of envy and naiveté into a conversation about language. Rich & elite my eye.

I agree with everything you have written Laurie. Excellent post.

 

[JewelFreak]

Thanks, Junebug. This kind of thing makes me tired, as my mother used to say.

--- Laurie

 

[VapidLapid]

I think if Fowler were here he would call a foul.

So many problems get raised, and called into question by simple statements, like, it is, or is not grammatical, to say {... }, or to say what, within the context of what grammatic, is right or wrong. Language gets meaning from usage, usage hones (or dulls) meaning, by grammar. Regardless of wealth and power structures in society, the language that is most precise, and that says the most with the least effort, or fewest words, while maintaining, or improving precision, is likely to be regarded as the most correct. The question of "most correct by whom" is really key, and is the ground on which context, and culture become contributing, defining criteria.
Usually, we don't feel the need to preface our discussions of linguistics as deferring to the Chicago Manual of Style. When with friends whose educational level , and/or conversational style is other than the rules I consider proper in formal speech and thought, their and my linguistic styles autonomically modify. Usage is the living, breathing spiritus; Aristotle and his absolutes are long dead.

edited for grammar

 

[LLJsmom]

Re:

I think if Fowler were here he would call a foul.

So many problems get raised, and called into question by simple statements, like, it is, or is not grammatical, to say {... }, or to say what, within the context of what grammatic, is right or wrong. Language gets meaning from usage, usage hones (or dulls) meaning, by grammar. Regardless of wealth and power structures in society, the language that is most precise, and that says the most with the least effort, or fewest words, while maintaining, or improving precision, is likely to be regarded as the most correct. The question of "most correct by whom" is really key, and is the ground on which context, and culture become contributing, defining criteria.
Usually, we don't feel the need to preface our discussions of linguistics as deferring to the Chicago Manual of Style. When with friends whose educational level , and/or conversational style is other than the rules I consider proper in formal speech and thought, their and my linguistic styles autonomically modify. Usage is the living, breathing spiritus; Aristotle and his absolutes are long dead.

edited for grammar

Interesting point that I did not fully understand. I'm not criticizing. Maybe I'm just not so bright.

As to the OP's question, I wouldn't argue with others about what is right or wrong. I just know I would never consider that grammatically correct. Others may.

 

[VapidLapid]

Obviously, I am not on either side of this discussion, (I am choosing not to call it an argument, thought in academic circles I would), rather I find my feet sink in the mud regardless of which side of the fence I step on. I suspect this very question is at the root of the troubles of Babel. For I ask you, with all its descriptive accuracy, and conceptual advancement, how useful would the calculus have been to the Cherokee?


eta: in my previous post, "autonomically" should have been "automatically", only now do I see why spell check was giving me a hard time.

 

[VRBeauty]

I have to admit that most of this discussion is way over my head.

But I think we can all agree that what is considered "proper American English" is changes over time. I can't prove it, but I think there is class and power element to what is considered an "acceptable" change, at least in common usage, versus what is considered bad English.

Take for example the term "You did great!" Perfectly acceptable to most of us, but grammatically incorrect, since "great" is modifying "did", but is generally considered an adjective rather than an adverb. Similarly, not many people would flinch a the phrase "I like to eat healthy" even though it wouldn't pass muster on an SAT exam. So why is it that those uses are becoming commonplace and accepted, but "I seen" is not? Can we really rule out the possibility that the it's because "I seen" is associated with lower socio-economic groups?

I guess the case I'm making is that some grammatical errors are considered acceptable - or maybe they're considered "cute" first and then become acceptable - while others seem to be forever consigned to being unacceptable. I'm just not sure that race and class has nothing to do with which is which.

 

[JewelFreak]

Sorry, I wouldn't say "I like to eat healthy" either. Any more than I'd say "I like to eat good." Unless "healthy" and "good" are foods I'm unaware of, as in "I like to eat peas." Easy enough to say, "I like to eat healthy things," or "I like to eat a healthy diet."

Spoken language is always (and probably always has been) less formal than written. Certain usages have developed, though, because they make meaning clearer -- as the above. The reason "I seen" isn't correct is that it isn't distinct: does the speaker mean, "I saw those bad people," "I have seen those bad people [...several times, etc.]," or "I had seen those bad people [...earlier in the day, etc.]?"

Grammar is not taught anymore, a tragedy for clear thinking -- proper grammar makes thoughts plain & easy to follow. It makes thoughts easy to express comprehensibly.

Can we really rule out the possibility that the it's because "I seen" is associated with lower socio-economic groups?

You're seeing the whole world through PCness. OK, for the sake of argument, let's say yes. What do you recommend, then? That more-successful people imitate your "lower socio-economic groups?" Who does that benefit & how? Lower socio-economic groups always do better by adopting the habits of those who thrive -- in any society, time, culture, country. How about Abraham Lincoln, who grew up hearing & speaking egregious English. Did he express thoughts that will reverberate forever among humans in ungrammatical language? His writings are among the most beautiful, grammatically perfect, in the English language's history -- and his thinking is crystal clear to anyone who reads them. You don't improve your life (and your spirit) by wrapping yourself tightly in the conditions you wish to escape -- you do grow & influence more people by using intelligible language that reaches the greatest number.

 

[missy]

Sorry, I wouldn't say "I like to eat healthy" either. Any more than I'd say "I like to eat good." Unless "healthy" and "good" are foods I'm unaware of, as in "I like to eat peas." Easy enough to say, "I like to eat healthy things," or "I like to eat a healthy diet."

Spoken language is always (and probably always has been) less formal than written. Certain usages have developed, though, because they make meaning clearer -- as the above. The reason "I seen" isn't correct is that it isn't distinct: does the speaker mean, "I saw those bad people," "I have seen those bad people [...several times, etc.]," or "I had seen those bad people [...earlier in the day, etc.]?"

Grammar is not taught anymore, a tragedy for clear thinking -- proper grammar makes thoughts plain & easy to follow. It makes thoughts easy to express comprehensibly.

Can we really rule out the possibility that the it's because "I seen" is associated with lower socio-economic groups?

You're seeing the whole world through PCness. OK, for the sake of argument, let's say yes. What do you recommend, then? That more-successful people imitate your "lower socio-economic groups?" Who does that benefit & how? Lower socio-economic groups always do better by adopting the habits of those who thrive -- in any society, time, culture, country. How about Abraham Lincoln, who grew up hearing & speaking egregious English. Did he express thoughts that will reverberate forever among humans in ungrammatical language? His writings are among the most beautiful, grammatically perfect, in the English language's history -- and his thinking is crystal clear to anyone who reads them. You don't improve your life (and your spirit) by wrapping yourself tightly in the conditions you wish to escape -- you do grow & influence more people by using intelligible language that reaches the greatest number.

Another excellent post Laurie and I completely agree. Thank you!
Effective language is precise and clear.

 

[JewelFreak]

Not only that, Missy -- understandable language is also the most basic agent of freedom. VRB seems to see oppression in the use of one form of a language over another (correct me if I'm wrong, VRBeauty -- I'm not in any way attacking you, just stating what I take to be your opinion), in that all dialects should be equally acceptable, and the fact that this doesn't happen is how society keeps the lowest from rising.

Backwards. Anyone -- in ANY culture -- can learn to write & speak as do those who have succeeded and thus take a large step toward joining their ranks.

Language becomes a weapon of oppression when it is denied to a population, not when they are free to enlarge their use of it. When phrases, words, written testaments, are banned or outlawed -- the idea being that the thoughts they express will also disappear (history shows this isn't true)....or when only chosen groups or classes hold the key to understanding, reading, writing a language. The medieval Church kept lay people dependent by allowing knowledge of its Latin solely to its own hierarchy; therefore, even the Bible was not available to commoners. Since they could not read & dispute it, they had to take as true any pronouncement from anyone in holy orders. Teaching American slaves to read & write was outlawed in several southern states because the planters feared the learning gained thereby. Learning equals independence.

I love language in all its forms. I've studied 7. I love words & a beautifully expressed image. To restate what I said originally: dialects are often delightful; their variety, music, and history reflect a people's experiences & personality. They enrich us. There is, however, in all civilizations, a preferred version of their language as a vehicle for all-inclusive communication -- which almost always contains words & phrases from its various dialects when they get the point across most efficiently. Clear, grammatical wording is beneath ALL freedoms, of which freedom of thought is the most important.

--- Laurie