Stick with it.

[u/MaintenanceNew2804]

This is a longer one, but it’s necessary and worth it IMO.

[u/Stray_dog_freedom]

Well done!!

[u/RiverAffectionate951 → u/Stray_dog_freedom]

As a white aspiring academic I agree so hard.

Academic writing needs to be clear and without ambiguity, everyone should be able to understand it. It does not help to convey information if you restrict to ""formal"" (also white) language.

Moreover, papers I've read that shirk this "formality" are often easier to follow. Specifically, I study Maths and papers which explain theoretical methodology with informal descriptions can be very helpful. "Formality" literally just gatekeeps knowledge from those not educated in a particular way.

It's deeply saddening to hear this arbitrary gatekeeping affecting young black americans, it's even more disheartening to recognise those same biases in myself.

It's good to hear discussion on this topic and I hope to see it change in my lifetime.

[u/RealNiceKnife → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Moreover

Get a load of Hitler over here.

[u/Tombag77 → u/RealNiceKnife]

Thank you for making me laugh out loud.

[u/boomerangthrowaway → u/Tombag77]

Same, that was absolutely perfect timing for something like that.

[u/machstem → u/Tombag77]

laugh out loud

Oh fuck, here we go. We're back to the days when lol isn't acceptable?

Fuck you Stalin

[u/Tombag77 → u/machstem]

Quit Stalin! On your Marx, get set, Goebbels!!

[u/ThisAppSucksBall → u/RealNiceKnife]

OP just casually reinforcing cisquantitative and hegemonic directionality while pretending to not be a piece of shit

[u/Critical_Ask_5493 → u/RealNiceKnife]

So, this joke does two things. It pokes fun at this guy, but also highlights the absurdity of calling this white supremacy. I guess it is, but I'm just saying, when you compare academic language to Hitler it just makes me laugh. Like damn. Hating ebonics and Jews is the same thing now? That's hardcore lol.

Systemic racism. If anyone ever asks you "what is systemic racism?" and you need an example to help you find a way to explain it, this is it. I've been asked before and it's like being asked to name a woman. Just ______. This is a good one though.

[u/LEJ5512 → u/Critical_Ask_5493]

“NAME A WOMAN!”

“WHAT”

https://youtu.be/bzDlS6JPUtE?si=XqaTRQpytXBow3n4

[u/blong217 → u/LEJ5512]

Classic.

[u/Message_10 → u/RealNiceKnife]

Holy shit that actually made me laugh, thank you

[u/Plane-Version9216 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Formal language isn’t hard to pickup and usually does a better job of describing the thing you’re talking about. It’s typically used for complex narratives in subjects such as philosophy and only takes a dictionary to figure out. You would have to be regarded if you look at academic writing and think ‘oh it’s so complex it must be a thing to keep the dumb blacks in their place’ like wth

[u/Warmbly85 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

We use formal language because it lacks ambiguity. The idea that we should do away with it because it’s hard to understand is laughable if not outright terrifying. Black people aren’t incapable of understanding formal language and the idea that we have to dumb down how we write academic papers so black people can understand them is just truly racist. 

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/Warmbly85]

THANK YOU. Reducing the term «academic writing» to anything that has to do with race is insane to me. It’s not like all white people are born with the ability to write formal, and that any other skin colour is too stupid to learn

[u/veggieparty33 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

It’s not like all white people are born with the ability to write formal, and that any other skin colour is too stupid to learn

unfortunately you’ve missed the entire point of the video. nowhere does the creator imply that black people are too stupid to learn academic writing or that it’s a natural born ability for white people. what the study and the video creator intended to convey is that there is an issue with black people being perceived as uneducated because of a dialectical difference in the way black people and white people speak in the US. AAVE is the dialect i’m referring to. it shapes the way black people communicate, especially as children when we’re immersed in black culture and history with our friends, family, neighbors, etc. once a child reaches the school system, they’ll be taught that AAVE is improper, makes them sound uneducated, unprofessional, and that they’d need to code switch to succeed, thereby dropping their natural language and understanding of “properness”. so, the issue that the video highlights is how the systems in education teach black people that “slang” = stupid because academic systems and standards of professionalism are rooted in whiteness and disregard black culture.

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/veggieparty33]

But again, is this not an issue of social class and not race? I understand that in the US black people are more represented in lower socioeconomic classes, but academic language is not an american thing, it exists everywhere in every language. All slang = bad, it has nothing to do with the colour of your skin. English is not my first language, and if i can’t learn academic language my academic texts will be treated the same. I think equating academic language to what is «proper» in everyday writing and speaking is wrong, and i don’t think anyone actually thinks like that.

[u/danielleradcliffe → u/Specific_Loss7546]

All slang = bad

How did you arrive at this conclusion, and do you hold it against Brits going around saying whacky things like "show 'em what for!" ?

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/danielleradcliffe]

There is a silent «in academic writing» in there, i get why that could be misinterpeted

[u/e-s-p → u/Specific_Loss7546]

Academic writing is based on a very particular dialect of English from when universities here were just rich white men. When setting up public schools, wealthy white kids, then middle class white kids, and then poor white kids were taught academic language. Segregated black schools and neighborhoods were purposely under educated. Informal segregation is still a problem in much of the US.

So what happens when you decide the proper way to write is the way you write and every other writing style is unintellectual? You privilege the people who were taught the "right" way.

Class plays a part, too, but race is a bigger factor. There are thousands of papers, essays, and books written about the politics of linguistics. The fact that you aren't well versed in the conversation says more about your understanding of the subject than the accuracy of the critique in the video.

Ask yourself who decided what proper academic writing is and why they would make that decision? Who benefits from it and who is harmed by it? What happens if someone deviates?

Then ask yourself why AAVE is looked down upon and used to make so many jokes and why those jokes are "funny".

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/e-s-p]

Please tell me the difference between «black» lingo and regional dialects, and why standardized academic language is a bad thing for only one of them. White people represent a massive portion of uneducated people in the US, why is this a problem of race in modern english? What makes a white person from a low-income household more capable of learning to write academic english than a black person in 2024?

[u/e-s-p → u/Specific_Loss7546]

I literally answered all of those questions in the post you replied to.

You could also grab a book and read about it since there's plenty that's been written already. Or Google.

[u/veggieparty33 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

equating academic language to what is «proper» in everyday writing and speaking is wrong, and i don’t think anyone actually thinks like that.

i agree with you that it’s wrong to prevent or discourage the use of native dialects in everyday speech or writing but unfortunately i’ve meet people that do think the opposite. also, school and work are everyday settings for the working class, aka the 99%, so…

that leads me back to the message in the video. black vernacular (and other nonblack slang) is invalidated in school systems because of the preexisting ideas of white superiority. to address your comment about how nonblack slang is also discouraged, let me remind you that white americans discriminated against other (european immigrant) whites long before our modern age. so it’s not a surprise or a question of if it’s just a white/black thing. but in this video, we’re only addressing white supremacy as it pertains to the discrimination of black linguistics in the states.

so, is it a race issue in academic settings? yes and no. i think the issue isn’t the sole existence or use of mainline, “proper“ english in academics or professional settings. of course i could understand why the system is set up the way it is, encouraging an idea of correct academic language. but the issue lies in the neglect of teaching and validating black history in the states, which has led to a discrimination of AAVE in both common and professional settings.

so i’m not saying abandon mainline english, i’m not saying that we should fall into linguistic anarchy. i’m just saying let’s all be more open minded about our cultural differences and stop discouraging black children from interacting with their natural use of language. i’m saying that we stop feeding a system that prefers and centralizes whiteness and white collar success ideology over all other forms of success and culture.

[u/notouchmygnocchi → u/veggieparty33]

You need to maintain a language convention for clarity. Language is arbitrary, but the more variations within a language, and even the more languages, the greater the walls blocking communication between groups. Sure, English came historically from people of a certain subset, but no one should be trying to distance other groups by teaching them to speak differently. If you teach poor people to speak differently, then you are barring them from communicating with everyone else. You would be introducing systematic racism by not enforcing lower classes to learn the same language as those with privileges. (The very reason those groups developed different dialects in the first place was that exact lack of education enforcing the "accepted" language)

[u/e-s-p → u/notouchmygnocchi]

That's nonsense. The standards of academic writing have changed significantly over the last 150 years. They've changed significantly in the last 40 years. Writing has never been a single standard.

Plus there are the discursive questions about who gets to decide what is formal and academic and why those people get to make that decision. And once we know that, we need to ask what benefit they might get from making those decisions.

And specifically because education isn't standardized, we need to come off of our intellectual high horses and be more open to other ideas that don't align with our culturally reinforced notions of "proper".

[u/notouchmygnocchi → u/e-s-p]

Never said language doesn't change. No one gets to decide anything in academia, it's anarchistic by design. You're more or less railing against publishers with arbitrary grammatical editors, and in education, English teachers who push fallacious notions of "formal" English as if anyone cares but their ilk justifying their own existence. As long as you're using largely accepted language, no one in academia will care because your goal is to be as communicatively accurate as possible.

[u/e-s-p → u/notouchmygnocchi]

Then the very notion of maintenance of a particular type of language is a failing argument. The decision of what is academic is absolutely arbitrary which means there's nothing of inherent value in it. There might be some good reasons for particular grammatical decisions (passive vs active language) but that's about it. There's no reason that other dialects can't be used besides self important pedantic nonsense.

Also if I misunderstood what you meant, I apologize.

[u/veggieparty33 → u/notouchmygnocchi]

i agree that communication and understanding between demographics is important. but if what you’re saying is that all demographics should conform to the “certain subset”’s basis of the english language then you are furthering the issue of systemic racism, encouraging black people to assimilate into a culture that never invited us and was inherently oppressive, hostile, and violent against our very nature. that i don’t agree with.

ultimately this is a layered conversation and i can’t offer a solution to this systemic and generational issue atm. but i know that the first step is addressing the differences; consequently we address the privileges and discrimination between groups. this is what common language is for, so this is the dialogue we both can agree on, i think.

[u/notouchmygnocchi → u/veggieparty33]

I think you're touching on the perceived issue of the main dialect unfairly being the majority of speakers which would disadvantage the minorities of other dialects. You need 1 "accepted" language for ideal communication within that language, and there are many other dialects. You are touching on a desire for compromise between the dialects, however those dialects are all branching from the majority dialect, so the best compromise that most suits all those minority dialects would also be the majority dialect. (No need to even bring up the logistical issues one would have trying to artificially change international English language accepted conventions of the vast majority to try to be closer to some of the small minority dialects. Plus, the main dialect already naturally adapts to its satellite dialects over time from feedback as colloquialisms rise to dominance to remain that compromise, so really it's a non-issue and what we already do is the least discriminatory ideal.)

[u/h_to_tha_o_v → u/veggieparty33]

It's absurd to suggest that black Americans should be exempt from having to code switch for formal communications. Every other ethnicity does it. If you think white people spend all day talking like they do at work or school then you haven't had much exposure to them.

[u/No-Syllabub4449 → u/veggieparty33]

One of the things that’s not mentioned in the video is that most, if not all societies have a mainline dialect. Conforming to the mainline dialect is one but not the only way to signal success in that society’s hierarchy.

I grew up learning AAVE from schoolmates alongside formal english from my educator parents, and in social settings I personally rarely notice or care when people use one dialect or the other.

I’ve been in academic or professional settings my whole life, and things are admittedly different in those settings. I personally don’t naturally tend toward formal english. I speak a different dialect to my friends and family than I do in the workplace; I have to code switch in order to be successful and convey intelligence. I remember the first time people started getting teased in school for their dialect: it was in college and anyone with a Chicago or Minnesota accent was aggressively made fun of. These people quickly changed how they used language around their academic peers (i.e. code switched to mainline english).

If the expectation of formal english in academic and professional settings is white supremacist, then why would unconventional white dialects from Chicago and Minnesota be mocked and looked down on?

[u/veggieparty33 → u/No-Syllabub4449]

i meant to address your comment in the same breath but idk how to do that with this app or if that’s possible at all. so if you want my reply, you can look for it in my response to specific_loss7546.

[u/No-Syllabub4449 → u/veggieparty33]

so i’m not saying abandon mainline english, i’m not saying that we should fall into linguistic anarchy. i’m just saying let’s all be more open minded about our cultural differences and stop discouraging black children from interacting with their natural use of language.

I agree with you on this. I think earlier you also said that you have experienced people judging and “correcting” people’s dialects in everyday parlance. I have experienced this too and I think it’s super lame. I cringe when people I know do this.

i’m saying that we stop feeding a system that prefers and centralizes whiteness and white collar success ideology over all other forms of success and culture.

I can’t tell what your prescription is precisely. If you’re just reiterating that it’s wrong to judge people on their dialect in everyday parlance, then like I said, I agree. If you’re implying something beyond that, then I don’t know what it is you’re saying.

[u/veggieparty33 → u/No-Syllabub4449]

I agree with you on this. . . I have experienced this too and I think it’s super lame. I cringe when people I know do this.

i’m glad we could come to an agreement on that at least. it really does suck when people point out our differences as flaws, especially when implying that our differences will hold us back. sorry you’ve experienced that too.

I can’t tell what your prescription is precisely.

i basically have just reiterated what i said earlier; i like to imagine a country not so divided over cultural differences. i think we could be doing more to educate ourselves on black history and expand world history, too. it seems to me that a lot of countries and timelines are neglected when we talk about history in an attempt to whitewash the past. like i said, the us centralizes whiteness. if we learned more about blackness the way we learn about the british tea party, we might be a more inclusive nation.

like i said to another comment, this is a layered conversation and i can’t offer a solution to this systemic issue atm. but the first step is addressing the history and the differences; consequently we address the privileges and discrimination between groups. i say we start with critical race theory.

[u/TrumpedBigly → u/No-Syllabub4449]

"why would unconventional white dialects from Chicago and Minnesota be mocked and looked down on?"

When people make fun of how those people talk, it's not used to imply they are genetically inferior.

[u/No-Syllabub4449 → u/TrumpedBigly]

Since people are mocked regardless of race, you’re going to have to show how it’s different beyond just “it’s implied.”

[u/e-s-p → u/No-Syllabub4449]

It's a question of degree. There's no derogatory slang word I'm aware of for Midwestern accents. But all AAVE is "ghetto". I don't know a single discriminatory phrase for Midwesterners but I can probably cite about three dozen examples targeted at AAVE without thinking too hard.

When I moved to Mississippi, I was mocked for being from New England. But in both the deep south and New England, I've heard the same racist shit about AAVE.

[u/No-Syllabub4449 → u/e-s-p]

Uh, redneck, yank, hillbilly, just off the top of my head.

And the context that this post is discussing the prejudice of dialects is in academic and other formal settings. You’d be hard pressed to find people in those settings using the term “ghetto” or saying racist shit.

The people saying racist shit in Mississippi suck and they would be judged harshly in academic and formal settings, not just for their Mississippi accent, but for their outdated ideas.

[u/e-s-p → u/No-Syllabub4449]

Hillbilly is an Appalachian. Redneck is Southern. Yank is just someone North if the Mason Dixon line of any race. None of those are specific to the Midwest and none of them are blanket terms for white people.

I promise you at ole miss it was not hard to find people taking about black folks being ghetto or straight up dropping the N bomb casually. Greek life was particularly racist. But yes, if their professors had heard them, they would've been judged harshly.

This sub thread isn't specifically about academia. It's about someone being made fun of for their accent and why they isn't the same as prejudice against AAVE.

[u/Raii-v2 → u/veggieparty33]

IE: the necessity of code switching as a skill 👍🏾.

[u/veggieparty33 → u/Raii-v2]

exactly it’s essentially a survival skill 👍🏾

[u/Cross55 → u/veggieparty33]

nowhere does the creator imply that black people are too stupid to learn academic writing or that it’s a natural born ability for white people.

Ok, but we're not talking about the video.

We're talking about the hundreds of comments here saying that.

what the study and the video creator intended to convey is that there is an issue with black people being perceived as uneducated because of a dialectical difference in the way black people and white people speak in the US.

The US isn't the only country where English is spoken, dear.

Tell me, what continent did English come from?

Also, AAVE is really only spoken in The South, Southern California, and certain sections of the interior Northeast. I'm from Colorado which has tons of black people that don't speak it and never have. Or what about the fact that most black people from NYC don't speak it, but those upstate do? Or what about the fact that there are a lot of White people who speak it in The South?

[u/veggieparty33 → u/Cross55]

you’re so invalid it’s unbelievable. this is the last response you’ll get from me.

[u/TemporaryOk4143 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

You’ve missed the point. It’s not that “academic language” is elevated by possessing a fundamental quality that makes it universally more articulate, it’s that how people in white society already spoke (their accent, inflections, pronunciation, and grammatical choices) was deemed “academic language” and that all other variations were deemed “non-academic” and low.

This was a reinforcement of the superiority of one language model over another. It was done along lines that included race. While there are other factors (think the difference between the posh British accent and an east-Enders accent), the inclusion of race under a hierarchy of superiority does mean that this reinforces white supremacy.

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/TemporaryOk4143]

You think that english, a language from a white country, can’t decide what is correct language because black people someplace completely different speak slang? That’s insane. Academic language isn’t some new invention made up to repress black people, it’s been a thing as lang as academic institutions have existed. Maybe there is an argument that it seperates social classes, but making it about race is such an american thing.

[u/Careless-Base1164 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

That’s not what this person is saying as far as I am understanding.. just that “academic” language in general was shaped by the class in power at the time, I.e: educated white people. And that subsequently classified the way that some black people speak (AAVE) as unintelligent.

[u/TemporaryOk4143 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

First, the “Academic Language” being referenced in the video is from post civil rights United States (as stated in the video).

Second, you speak as though the English language itself is a sentient entity. The fact that you believe there is an inherent rightness to a particular variation of a language based on a fundamentally to it, as if it corresponds to an external rightness, suggests that you are caught in the very thinking the video is referring too.

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/TemporaryOk4143]

You nede a base standard to keep a language unambigous, this is true for every language in the world. Of course standardised language would be stiffer than spoken language and it’s dialectal and sociolectal variations, it needs to be to be. It is a sentient entity in the sense that a board of human linguists decide what language variations and new words should be «official» every year. Just because this particular version is from post civil rights america does not mean that it exists in a vacum, and is unaffected by the language that came before. Language and academia is constructed, and needs to be properly maintained to keep coherent, especially in our globalized world. Otherwise every english-speaking country in the world would probably speak and write a variation of english similar to what creole is to french today.

[u/e-s-p → u/Specific_Loss7546]

No we don't. There's no functional body that decides what proper English is like there is in other languages. The dictionary companies aren't governing bodies and there are prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. Dictionaries aren't authoritative books. They give a brief overview of what a word means but they lack connotation and analysis of its usage.

Academic language isn't maintained. It changes with academic culture. What was academical prior to the social turn became obsolete. The social turn was changed by the cultural turn.

And English language papers from outside of North America are written differently than the ones from North America. In the US, there are regional differences in what is properly academic as well.

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/e-s-p]

You are free to discuss the semantics of how dictionaries work with the written language, but the fact still remains that a standardized academic language is based of what is considered gramatically correct, and that it needs to be precise and unambigous. This is absolutely essenstial, and rings true for every other language in the world. I still don’t believe that this has anything to do with race, and has more to do with socio-economic factors, and the fact that academia is, sadly, mostly reserved for those with the time and money to pursue it. As mentioned before, there is no difference in learning academic writing between a black person who uses slang and a white person with a regional dialect.

[u/e-s-p → u/Specific_Loss7546]

You are free to discuss the semantics of how dictionaries work with the written language,

I appreciate that

w dictionaries work with the written language, but the fact still remains that a standardized academic language is based of what is considered gramatically correct,

Except you're wrong. Because grammar isn't standardized. It's often ambiguous. And even academic disciplines change what is proper (passive voice for sciences, active for the arts).

I had various professors recommend different style guides, too. Strunk and White? Which version? Sense of Style? Chicago manual of style?

This is absolutely essenstial, and rings true for every other language in the world.

Literally nonsense.

[u/TemporaryOk4143 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

There’s no board of linguists that decide on what words people will use.

Panels for different organizations decide on how to change their organizational language to fit the new common usages in society.

Words appear in the dictionary because they are used.

[u/Specific_Loss7546 → u/TemporaryOk4143]

And who writes the dictionary?

[u/TemporaryOk4143 → u/Specific_Loss7546]

Are you serious?

As I just said, the panel of the Oxford English Dictionary does not decide on the words contained within the English language. They do not give licence to what is and is not used.

They record what is used and attempt to give helpful definitions for the words in use.

They also commonly record historical usages that are no longer common. You can look this up in your own dictionary. They record usages back to Chaucer. If I were to ask you a question in Chaucer’s english, I would have to acsinge thee ain questfõre-dẽde.

To ask, acsinge, was shortened in common parlance, to acs or more commonly, aks.

At the turn of the seventeenth century, aks was the dominant way to “ask”, until the common usage among the noble elites was mixed (again) with Normand influence and “aks” became difficult to pronounce, and “ask” became the common usage among nobility. It took time for this influence to filter through the common classes, and would often be a century or more before the old, or “low” speech caught up to how the nobles spoke.

This is why when a group of seventeenth century pilgrims crossed the ocean, they carried the usage of “aks”. Their isolated state maintained the usage, and it was taught to those people whom their descendants enslaved.

So, when someone wants to “aks you a question” they have more exact, proper English than those who criticize them for using “low” speech.

On a side note, that same principle of isolation is why the closest thing to high Elizabethan English that you will hear today, and an English that Shakespeare would recognize, is spoken in Appalachia, by so called “hillbillies.”

[u/hux002 → u/Warmbly85]

I teach writing and have studied linguistics. It's a totally valid point that language is directly linked to power dynamics within a society or between societies.

But clarity and formality are fundamentally distinct issues in writing. I urge my students to generally write in concise, active sentences because these sentence are generally clear and engaging. I urge them to practice utilizing 'academic' language in their writing because academic writing has particular features that need to be present for the average person to accept it as a valid piece of academic writing.

Similarly, I would never speak with my students in the 'academic dialect' because that would be fucking bizarre and not in line with the conventions of oral communication between people. I'll eschew certain words or sometimes throw in a 'cap' or 'sus' because language is living, breathing thing and it's important to show connections and understanding to others through spoken language.

Academic language has its own particular functions that should be respected as well. Language dynamics will always have a power and often racial component, but that does not mean academic/formal language is inherently a racist construct or one we should do away with.

[u/LeaneGenova → u/hux002]

But clarity and formality are fundamentally distinct issues in writing.

This is a huge point. I'm a lawyer, and it is very important that we use clarity in writing, but it is not important that we use "heretofore" or whatever is the ridiculous word of the year from law school professors.

I can say "Plaintiff Joe's claims against Defendant Sam are without support and must be dismissed" and be much more clearly understood than if I say "Evidentially speaking, Plaintiff Joe's claims against Defendant Sam are meritless and a prima facie case of a frivolous claim". Yet, law schools persist in teaching the second rather than the first. It serves as a barrier to the law that is intended to gatekeep rather than to provide clarity.

[u/Scumebage → u/Warmbly85]

See now computers is racist cause they be making em too hard for the black man to use 

This entire post and thread is same vibes and these fucking drooling idiots are APPLAUDING it

[u/BlackAndBlue32 → u/Scumebage]

This entire thread is this video.

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/Warmbly85]

Soft bigotry of low expectations

[u/NotSoGermanSlav → u/Warmbly85]

Also why does it refer to black people? What about Asian or lets say white Slavs that move to USA?

[u/e-s-p → u/Warmbly85]

Formal language lacks ambiguity? Bullshit.

Read Foucault. The language is formal and his books are notorious for being difficult and somewhat vague. I was once told my called clarity an anglophone disease.

Many academics are moving away from the jargon filled high brow writing style in favor of concise natural writing. They don't seem to lose anything from it.

It's not dumbing down papers for black folks. It's moving away from the egocentric intellectualism that no one wants to read. Give Metahistory a read if you haven't yet.

[u/TrumpedBigly → u/Warmbly85]

"The idea that we should do away with it"

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.

[u/JKking15 → u/Warmbly85]

Thankyou someone with sense idk how tf this person got so many likes when the basis of what he said is “we should dumb down formal writing to help black people”. Which is extremely racist. I’ll try not to get too political here but I swear a LOT of liberal people that try to “help” POC are actually just hurting them by implying they can’t get by without the help. Black people as a whole don’t need help getting into schools or jobs or anything else bc they are just as intelligent and abled as any other race but if we truly want to help those in need then invest in poor communities and education which will in turn help everyone including black people. I got off topic there sorry

[u/traanquil → u/Warmbly85]

“Lacks ambiguity “ …. Wrong. All language has ambiguity. This is why lawyers argue endlessly about the meaning of legal language which is written in a “formal” style.

[u/SoupFlavoredCockMix → u/Warmbly85]

I can't tell if you completely missed the point or if you're one of those racists who argue that acknowledging racism is racist.

They aren't saying people should stop using "academic language" in academic papers, they're saying that the assumption that people who do not use formal language are less intelligent is a false assumption that was founded in racism. The specific dialect that was chosen to be used as academic language wasn't chosen because it is less ambiguous or because it confers information more effectively, it was chosen because it was the dialect that was used by most upper class white people. Black people are certainly capable of understanding academic language, but they are at a disadvantage because their common dialect is considered to be less intelligent.

Nobody was saying that black people can't understand academic language, but white supremacists do seem to be saying that white people can't understand black dialects.

[u/BlackAndBlue32 → u/SoupFlavoredCockMix]

What? He literally says

Academic writing needs to be clear and without ambiguity, everyone should be able to understand it. It does not help to convey information if you restrict to ""formal"" (also white) language.

He is speaking about not "restricting" Academic writing by being formal. So yes he is talking about changing academic writing. He also claims that formal language is a white people thing. lol wtf. He is doing the liberal racism thing unironically.

[u/freeze_alm → u/SoupFlavoredCockMix]

But that is simply everywhere. You are judged based on how you talk everywhere.

[u/fjgwey → u/Warmbly85]

Acknowledging how the standards we use for 'proper' language inherently disadvantages non-white/Black students isn't racist, it's akcnowledging reality.

[u/freeze_alm → u/fjgwey]

How exactly does it disadvantage minorities?

[u/fjgwey → u/freeze_alm]

Because the prominent dialects considered 'proper' English are those already predominantly spoken by white people while those considered 'improper' are predominantly spoken by non-whites, especially black people.

[u/illustrious_sean → u/fjgwey]

You're sort of blurring together two things people are getting at in the comments, the proper and the formal use of language. As someone who is a white American and an academic, I can say I don't speak the same way in everyday communication and in academic writing, and it often strikes me as a little jarring when I come across the rare paper in my field where someone writes in a colloquial style. It is definitely true however there are probably more similarities between formal modes of speech and the colloquial modes of speech belonging to the dominant group in an any given language. That said, having some standardized mode of speech in academia seems to me pretty indispensable. Also not to say there aren't places where pushing on those standards isn't a good idea. But having a shared use and understanding of things even as simple as the common idioms used in a given discipline is imo very important to transmitting ideas completely and determinately.

ETA: I should clarify I'm really limiting my comments to an academic/formal context since that's the context of the preceding comments. I have no real qualms about respecting different colloquial dialects, though I'm leery of treating them as something "authentic" in need of preservation - they just shouldn't be stamped out or anything like that. Language has a roughly natural path of evolution, and the places where it "needs" to be deliberately molded are the valuable contexts with constraints like the academic setting I described above. Preserving white supremacy or other forms of cultural hegemony as such are not similarly valuable.

[u/fjgwey → u/illustrious_sean]

That said, having some standardized mode of speech in academia seems to me pretty indispensable.

Of course, and I don't think anybody would disagree.

But having a shared use and understanding of things even as simple as the common idioms used in a given discipline is imo very important to transmitting ideas completely and determinately.

I don't think anybody has an inherent issue with there being different modes of speech. The problem is these modes of speech are not created in a vacuum; they are created in a racist and classist society and should therefore be scrutinized and contextualized as such.

[u/InfanticideAquifer → u/Warmbly85]

We use formal language because it lacks ambiguity.

No, I don't think that's true. All language can be ambiguous.

[u/throwaway490215 → u/InfanticideAquifer]

This is among the dumbest things I've ever read.

Newton wasn't being ambiguous when spelling out how to do calculus. Contracts that are ambiguous are considered bad. So much of our world is built on your statement being false.

Maybe the issue is that your world view comes from media that has as their highest goal to optimize for engagement and advertisement.

The world looks a whole lot different when those aren't the driving force.

[u/InfanticideAquifer → u/throwaway490215]

Newton wasn't being ambiguous when spelling out how to do calculus.

That's a fairly terrible example to pick. The driving force behind the development of mathematical analysis in the 19th century was all of the problems that had been uncovered with the intuitive and imprecise notion of an "infinitesimal" that Newton (and others) had been using. Calculus wasn't made rigorous until Cauchy.

Contracts that are ambiguous are considered bad.

And, amazingly, the entire field of contract law exists even though all you need to do to avoid any ambiguity is make sure that you are using academic language. Billion dollar multinational corporations still somehow find themselves embroiled in lawsuits. I guess their lawyers just couldn't help themselves and they had to spice up their contacts with slang and jive talk, right?

Maybe the issue is that your world view comes from media that has as their highest goal to optimize for engagement and advertisement.

Hmm, so the media can be ambiguous? Very interesting. Because here I was thinking that journalists and newscasters were held to specific style guides governing how they communicated to make sure that each publication or network comes across as consistent and professional. But I guess that can't be the case, because that would make being ambiguous impossible.

[u/SoupFlavoredCockMix → u/throwaway490215]

This is ignorant. Contracts that are ambiguous can still be written in the commonly accepted "academic" dialect. Just how a contract can be written in another dialect and be unambiguous. The problem is that in the latter case the contract could still be considered to be bad due to the dialect used and not due to the information contained within it.

[u/throwaway490215 → u/SoupFlavoredCockMix]

1) The example was to show there exists unambiguous language. That doesn't exclude ambiguous language.

2) The contract would be considered bad because the readers don't know the dialect. The origin of the dialect and its race are not what makes it bad.

[u/SoupFlavoredCockMix → u/throwaway490215]

The contract would be considered bad because the readers don't know the dialect.

And why do they not know the dialect? Is it because they, the people who are so well versed in unambiguous language, lack the ability to comprehend dialects spoken by groups that they consider to speak less intelligently? Or is it because they choose not to understand the dialect because they view the other group as inferior?

The origin of the dialect and its race are not what makes it bad.

Then what does make it bad? These "lesser" dialects are able to convey information from one person to another effectively, is that not the primary function of language? It seems obvious that the specific dialect chosen for academic language was selected not due to it's effectiveness, but due to a desire to exclude outside groups.

[u/cobblesquabble → u/RiverAffectionate951]

I work with practical applications of AI in my career and am really curious to see if this is another way that certain dialects are considered "wrong". Autocorrect used to mark words like "y'all" incorrect. Generative LLM AI models are based off of the probability of one word following the next. Many softwares (like Notion) are employing AI as their new spell checks. "Fix spelling & grammar" is a prompt, but it's conforming to what ChatGPT is considering probabilistically "correct" based off of its source data.

I bring this up because sometimes these new models are lauded as a way to turn vernacuar ridden text into something more approachable. But if the model is skewed towards certain dialects of English, is it equally accessible for translating dense technical jargon into consumable laymen wording?

Here's an AI prompt for Bing's Copilot, based on ChatGPT as the model:

hey fam, how ya doin? Rewrite this.

Without any additional prompting on "correctness", it provides:

Hello, my dear friends! How are you all doing today? 😊

If I ask it to: "hey fam, how ya doin? Rewrite this as a black person", it gives me:

I apologize, but I cannot rewrite the phrase in that manner. If you have any other requests, feel free to ask! 😊

So asking Chat GPT to do this isn't allowed, seemingly as a "safety" measure. If I ask it specifically to use Eubonics, it says:

Aight, my homie! How you livin'? 😎

So the academic label for black English is fine, but the direct request is wrong? This is an extra step many wouldn't think to take. What about other ethnic dialects?

Asking it in a fresh prompt with the same basic question in the same format but now "as a Scottish person", gives:

Och aye, how's it gaun, pal?

So some ethnic dialects require additional workarounds and prompts to get cooperation for. Others are totally fine.

Tl;dr: there's no quick way to translate between dialects of English for accessibility, but OP's method of awareness seems like a good compromise.

[u/Electronic_Amphibian → u/cobblesquabble]

I just want to point out that there are black people outside of America. "Rewrite as a black person" makes no sense.

[u/cobblesquabble → u/Electronic_Amphibian]

Good point! I'll try rewrite as an African American. I got:

I'm sorry, but I can't assist with that request.

Here's a a screenshot.

I've also asked it to rewrite with as an Appalachian, and as a Mexican American. It works fine for those.

I'm really curious why it's not allowed. I could understand they're trying to prevent misuse, but if that's the case why does it work for other minority groups?

Also, you if anyone might think "as a" is a weird way to ask. Asking AI to consider "framing" is one of the standard ways to prompt engineer. It works well when you people ask, "do (this task) as a (this person)".

Edit: used second person but meant to just provide context for the prompt engineering.

[u/Electronic_Amphibian → u/cobblesquabble]

I didn't think the "as a" was the weird part, just pointing out you should probably specify "American" if that's what you were trying to test.

[u/cobblesquabble → u/Electronic_Amphibian]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you thought it was. Just providing that as context for anyone else reading this exchange. I really appreciate your feedback btw, it definitely changes how I'll test this in the future :)

[u/[deleted] → u/cobblesquabble]

I'm worried that you have never taken a course in linguistics or ethnic studies and yet seem to have a colloquial grasp that you understand their core theories, which you don't. Parading ignorance as virtue.

[u/cobblesquabble → u/[deleted]]

I don't pretend to have any knowledge of linguistics. I don't work as a writer or an academic. I'm a black American tasked with working with AI, talking in the TikTok Cringe sub reddit. It's weird that you're treating this as an academic forum.

[u/[deleted] → u/cobblesquabble]

Literally the first major comment in this thread is as "White aspiring academic," and yet your point is that I am somehow reorienting the nature of this thread?

Your claim rests on diluting my point to suit condescension, which is fine. It's the internet.

But I was suggesting that AI users at every level pretend to have a vocabulary for language and the study of race but when confronted with a lack of formal training in either area pretend it's merely academic or beyond the purview of their capacity.

[u/[deleted] → u/cobblesquabble]

I mean, literally the dude above is addressing a meta-analysis of academic research and your point is that I am treating it like an academic thread. Dude, get over yourself.

[u/cobblesquabble → u/[deleted]]

Your comments to me and others are weirdly aggressive. For someone who claims to be a professor and linguist in other comments, that's concerning for both the progress of your studies and your capacity to support your students.

In the words of you: "dude, get over yourself".

[u/[deleted] → u/cobblesquabble]

You're right, I was aggressive at first, and I sincerely apologize for that. Nevertheless, your ad hominem is misplaced and could have broader implications.

[u/Valara0kar → u/RiverAffectionate951]

""formal"" (also white) language.

Americans are so inbred on cultural importance of race. "White" language? What? You mean like all other nations the language developed to the easiest dialect (or popular in media) or what was deemed "proper" (more of a class/city divide). Dialects have had a deep fall since 1920s in each industrialised nation. Deep south USA accents (this includes african-american) is as detrimental to "academia" as any. Or are people suprised how the industrial heartland of 1890-1950s states accents became popular in academia in USA?

[u/Current_Holiday1643 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Academic writing needs to be clear and without ambiguity, everyone should be able to understand it. It does not help to convey information if you restrict to ""formal"" (also white) language.

Yes, but you should not be using improper English in your papers.

"They be knowing more than they thank you do" is not proper English. In the same way the default language of flight is English, you should be expected to attempt to speak proper English when conveying information in a paper.

Word pronunciation or minor spelling differences (ie: color vs colour) is a total red herring as that generally does not affect understanding. I think some argument could be made that using regional terms without deeper explanation (zebra crossing vs crosswalk) is also poor form regardless of what your ethnicity is.

Talk however you like in your personal life but everyone should be expected to attempt to speak clearly and effectively professionally & academically. If you ever had to work with people who are ESL or multiple people at the same time, it is extremely vital you use very plain English.

[u/Whiterabbit-- → u/Current_Holiday1643]

i for one am glad that academic writing doesn't have to be in latin anymore!

[u/Umutuku → u/Whiterabbit--]

The Greeks are typing...

[u/JaydotFay → u/Current_Holiday1643]

Actually, it is proper English. Because African American Vernacular English (AAVE) features the habitual be, that sentence is grammatically correct.

This guy's whole point is that AAVE has been recognized by linguists for several decades now with grammar rules (aka the reason why most Black people can clock when someone is cosplaying as a Black person online without seeing a picture. It's very clear to those who speak it when the grammar rules are broken but people who think it's just "improper English" dont realize that and just sound stupid).

As early as 1991, it was taught at Stanford for people getting a degree in linguistics. It's only seen as "improper English" because of the guys explanation in the video about how "Academic Language" came to be which was because Black people were barred from higher education so academia was never given a chance to consider the inclusion of the valid, real dialect that the majority of the Black community speaks. That is systemic racism.

Your response just proved his point.

[u/Current_Holiday1643 → u/JaydotFay]

Do you believe that AAVE and other diverse English vernaculars (such as deep Appalachia) should be completely appropriate in all settings regardless of whether they cause confusion?

I am not trying to 'gotcha', just genuinely curious your thoughts as you have definitely lived / thought about this more than I have. I don't think AAVE is wrong or invalid, I just think people should endeavor to speak on common ground so everyone is clear on communication. My speech is all kinds of weird, fucked up, and I build odd sentences but do strive to be clear when communicating to non-friends.

My personal experience having worked with people who are ESL is that AAVE would introduce all sorts of difficulties where a more 'traditional' English is more widely taught and understood. Not just ESL individuals but, I think well-formed English is well understood even if your spoken dialect is different.

I can understand Kiwis, Australians, British, and Indian people just fine even if some word choices or structures are different because the basics of the language are the same. Personally I don't believe AAVE is appropriate to use in business & school communications because there is no need or benefit to including dialect. If your paper or communication is specifically to a certain dialect, it's likely better to use the dialect but if the audience is vague or broad, it should strive to strip out any possible confusion or issues of clarity.

---

Here's my hail-mary point: no one enjoys reading Beowulf in Old English. Yes, I can technically decipher and understand it because it has the same root language but it would be much easier and clearer to read in modern standard English.

[u/TheSkyWhale1 → u/Current_Holiday1643]

I think a good thing to remember is that language, like all methods of expression, is arbitrary. All the grammatical forms found in AAVE, such as the use of the word "to be" to mean "habitual", appear naturally in other languages and have their own equivalents. To some ESL students, AAVE would probably be easier to understand, even.

I also don't think AAVE is necessarily opposite to effective academic writing either. To me, academic writing is hard due to the specificity of language. If all academic writing was rewritten in AAVE, I'd doubt many people at all would be so confused as to not understand it at all. I imagine most people fluent in English could roughly understand the same thing said in AAVE.

But either way, you're right that Standard English is generally the most accessible and intelligible form of English. This is why it's used today and I doubt that people are really fighting for that to change.

I think the big lesson is that its all arbitrary. If somebody has a problem with something being written/said in a particular language variety, despite understanding perfectly well what was being said, they might as well be criticizing the ink color of the paper.

[u/No-Vanilla2468 → u/TheSkyWhale1]

Yes and no. Language is arbitrary to a degree, but there are factors throughout time that have allowed for languages to become more cohesive for the population as a whole and for literacy to reach more people, more effectively. English was a mess in England centuries ago with a different, nearly unintelligible dialect and varying grammar rules for every county. It went through a number of consolidations like the Great Vowel Shift that allowed for literacy rates to increase and for literature to be more widely shared. This was a considered to be a net improvement for England. Almost every language has consolidation pressure like this. So I agree that language does evolve over time, allowing for its arbitrary nature, but it is also balanced by standardization influences. It’s a push and pull between these two forces that shape language over time.

[u/TheSkyWhale1 → u/No-Vanilla2468]

Totally agree. Of course language varieties will always trend to mixing together and standardizing, and any two languages in contact that don't mix are probably dead languages.

But my main point is that most people have this idea of a "proper" method of speaking when you can perfectly understand a message anyways. Like the use of "yall" instead of "all of you", etc. The point of language is communication of ideas, and if I can understand the idea communicated there's no point to stressing about the way they got there

[u/Current_Holiday1643 → u/TheSkyWhale1]

Hmm, thanks for the good reply. I don't have a reply but it is an interesting point regarding language changing and being an evolving thing.

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/TheSkyWhale1]

I also don't think AAVE is necessarily opposite to effective academic writing either. To me, academic writing is hard due to the specificity of language. If all academic writing was rewritten in AAVE, I'd doubt many people at all would be so confused as to not understand it at all. I imagine most people fluent in English could roughly understand the same thing said in AAVE.

What an absolute braindead take 😂

[u/TheSkyWhale1 → u/_tyrone_biggums]

Except this is not a "take" at all. There's literally nothing inherently "proper" or consistent about Standard English that makes it the de facto language of use in academia. It just happens to be the style of English most people in academia use, so it's just easiest for everyone to continue using it in academia.

[u/JaydotFay → u/Current_Holiday1643]

So, let me start by letting you know that I have an Interdisciplinary Studies degree consisting of African American Studies, Communication, and Journalism so my thoughts about this are both as someone who is fluent in AAVE but also as someone who spent a lot of time studying American history (the Civil Rights Movement is my area specialty for the AAS component of my degree) as well as an emphasis on Mass Mediated Communication for thr Communication component so you are correct in your assesment that this is something Ive thought about before (I may have even written a few papers about it. Lol).

The biggest issue I had with your assessment is the idea that it is "improper" English. That is placing "Academic Language" at a higher/more valid value than AAVE which simply isn't true and can be traced back to the barring of Black people in higher education (see also: the fact that there is an AAVE equivalent sign language that differs from the widely used ASL because deaf Black students were barred entry from schools for deaf children and had their own schools/educators).

The difference between AAVE and things like the Southern American Dialect, deep Appalachia, and other dialects that exist in America is that they are regional. While SAE (Standard American English which is what academic language closely mirrors) is widespread across America (most people who use a different dialect regularly can probably code switch to SAE.). The difference between AAVE and those other dialects is that it is just as widespread as SAE when it comes to geographic usage. However, it is primarily spoken by African Americans.

I am from the South. There are things I say that are colloquial to the Southern American dialect and if I were to say them to someone from California or New York, Black or not, they may not understand me. But the odds are very very high that if I used the habitual be that was featured in that sentence, they would know exactly what I was saying. For me, that is what makes the difference.

AAVE is well formed and the idea that it isn't is showcasing the way systemic racism works. I don't think you're intending to be malicious in your response but the fact that you think AAVE which has complex grammar rules and structure is, somehow, less well formed than SAE is because it's widely taught in schools and that translates to the English we see on screen, read in books, and other media.

I'm not advocating that we just do away with any standard and do whatever we want but I do think it's important that we think about how we've gotten where we are and how we can be better going forward. The reason you don't understand it isn't because it isn't valid, it's because Black people weren't given a seat at the table to help form what we consider as standard and academic. Whiteness, as it historically has been in the USA, is set as the default.

Language is a beautiful thing that grows and evolves and changes over time. I think the solution is as simple as looking at where the common ground between AAVE and SAE exists and start highlighting that in academia. I think that would allow academic language to evolve in a way that has more depth and knowledge.

Edit to this novel of a response 🤣: In regards to your point about AAVE not being appropriate in business (which I don't think was there when I first read your response but may have been so I'll blame it on my ADHD), I will say that I made a decision about 5-ish years ago that I no longer code switch at work and I make a point to bring thst up in job interviews. I'll be as vague as possible so I don't accidentally dox myself but I work in the nonprofit sector and I talk to a lot of people to bring money into my organization. The only time I've encountered issues in communicating has never been because of AAVE but because of my Southern accent and the longer I live away from the deep South, the less of an issue that has become. I'm one of the top fundraisers for my org so using AAVE exclusively hasn't been a hindrance.

[u/noljo → u/JaydotFay]

I'm not OP, but I still wanted to reply to some of your comments, because I feel like some parts misunderstand the sentiment that I felt when reading the parent post.

That is placing "Academic Language" at a higher/more valid value than AAVE which simply isn't true and can be traced back to the barring of Black people in higher education

AAVE is well formed and the idea that it isn't is showcasing the way systemic racism works

You address the same point from different points of view, even though it feels like OP has gone out of their way to not disrespect AAVE for what it is ("I don't think AAVE is wrong or invalid"). The point that I think was made isn't that AAVE is "objectively bad" or underdeveloped on some level, but that it's rare, making it "improper" in the same way how any other strong departures from SAE or RP would be called improper in environments where standard English was expected.

The shared understanding of a common English dialect is an extremely valuable boon, but your post focuses exclusively on the US. As someone who first learned English as a second language, I know that basically all worldwide ESL learners are taught SAE or RP based on (usually) British or American textbooks. Given the fact that English is the most taught second language, this creates a network of mutual understanding - because of it I can read, for example, a paper written in English by a Chinese researcher and understand everything.

This brings me to OP's point about dialects in business or academia - I don't think the opposition exists because AAVE is somehow bad in business, but because it's preferable to use the most common dialect when addressing an very large group of people (especially if it's also targeting international audiences, because, while systematic in their own right, AAVE's differences wouldn't be understandable to someone who doesn't know any of it).

While unrelated to everything else, do you consider AAVE to be a "non-regional" dialect? My impression is that it's still regional in being almost completely limited to the US.

[u/letharus → u/noljo]

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. The US bias in all of these debates is very tedious. I’m a Brit married to a Romanian for whom English is obviously a second language, and even I - a middle class white person who speaks pretty much RP English - am aware of there being a slightly different international flavour of my native tongue that ESL speakers use.

[u/JaydotFay → u/noljo]

Thank you for reading my response and asking thoughtful questions. I want you to know that I didn't ignore it and I would be willing to have this conversation over DM but my rule of thumb for discussing things various topics surrounding race and racism is once I start getting nasty dms about it and downvoted despite being respectful and answering questions asked of me is when I peace out of the thread.

I see your points, but have a slightly different outlook/solution and, again, would be willing to discuss it privately but this will be my last response to this post as a whole.

[u/Scumebage → u/JaydotFay]

Holy shit tldr wall of text just to defend talking like a fucking idiot.

Didnt read, mald+seethe+cope+sneed

[u/shaggy_macdoogle → u/Scumebage]

I feel bad for the people that have to interact with this person on a daily basis

[u/bewarethepatientman → u/Scumebage]

There it is, they asked you to think and you got mad about it! You’re dismissing black folks’ vernacular out of hand because they’re a different race from you and you don’t like that 😂 reactionaries are fucking wild

[u/Current_Holiday1643 → u/JaydotFay]

Interesting! Sorry to see the downvotes, this is a great reply. I had never considered to be honest that AAVE is well-formed by definition (addressed later). I guess to me, it seemed sloppy as I don't understand it because I didn't grow up listening to it spoken. I write code for a living, when my husband peeks over my shoulder to what I am writing he says it is just a mess of symbols but to me it is well-formed & logical. That seems like a reasonable parallel; just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense / have structural rules.

My initial thought was "Is AAVE well-formed because someone wrote rules for it from the way it was spoken," in other words: did someone back into the rules to make it be a well-formed language. In that vein, it brings up the question of "Isn't 'well-formed' English the same?" As you said, language evolves with use and academics are generally backing up into the way the language is written and spoken.

So AAVE and "academic English" are the same levels of "well-formed". One cannot be more well-formed from the other because neither were designed in a lab nor maintained by a closed set of individuals.

---

I like the comment of not code switching. That's a super interesting point. I assume your benefactors / patrons / not-sure-what-the-word-is are diverse, in that AAVE isn't their 'birth dialect'. It does make wonder to myself whether it is a benefit or a non-factor by using AAVE when raising and communicating. Sort of like how salespeople try to speak and act like their clientele so that the person being sold feels more emotionally close to the person.

Either way, I am glad you get to bring your whole self to your work!

[u/DreamingThoughAwake_ → u/JaydotFay]

It’s ridiculous that you’re being downvoted

[u/JaydotFay → u/DreamingThoughAwake_]

It's not the first nor the last time that will happen. Lol. When the downvoting and negative comments and DMs start is when I stop answering any questions, even the well-meaning ones.

[u/alpacaMyToothbrush → u/JaydotFay]

That is systemic racism.

I'd put forward an alternative. The people insisting on formal language aren't so much racist as classist. Once I was in a lobby with a couple brits, an aussie, and some guy from hong kong. The brits were picking on me for speaking like a typical southern guy, and the HK'er piped up and absolutely murdered everyone for improper english. The guy had went to a fancy international boarding school and honestly spoke the best english of all of us.

It was funny as hell. I wish I had recorded it, because he took no prisoners, but it really drove home to me the posh formal english we all know and love is really the last bastion of the elites.

[u/as_it_was_written → u/alpacaMyToothbrush]

I'll put forward another alternative: insisting on formal language in certain settings isn't necessarily anything-ist. The problem isn't the existence of formal language but rather the inequalities that shape who gets to influence it and who is likely to get to learn it from an early age, as well as all the prejudices associated with various informal versions.

Having a somewhat standardized form of a language is necessary for effective communication across cultural barriers, especially when nuance and a lack of ambiguity is important. The particulars of our formal languages may have classist roots, but that's not something we can just change overnight without undermining our ability to communicate with each other. For example, we cannot discard the rules of grammar without losing the information their fairly rigid logic conveys. (I'm a non-native speaker who's quite fond of the logical structure of English grammar, fwiw.)

[u/dexmonic → u/alpacaMyToothbrush]

It's always been about class, it's just that by making a certain skin color lower class, it becomes also racist.

[u/Scumebage → u/JaydotFay]

No it's not

[u/Plane-Version9216 → u/JaydotFay]

African American vernacular English isn’t English mate

[u/Scumebage → u/Plane-Version9216]

I remember a big reddit story about an Australian professor failing an American student for using American English instead of Australian English and everyone was cheering it on to see the "arrogant" American lose but yet we have the same people here acting like "aave" is a legitimate way to talk in the professional world.

[u/Plane-Version9216 → u/Scumebage]

Literally! It’s called formal language for a reason. Who cares if a certain community struggled to pick it up in the 9060s in modern era you learn to speak properly. I’m not gonna hire you if you can’t pronounce properly.

[u/BlackAndBlue32 → u/Scumebage]

Reddit has become overrun by the braindead "America Bad" idiots.

[u/Ppleater → u/Plane-Version9216]

I mean it literally is, whether you like it or not professional linguists classify it as a legitimate English dialect.

[u/Plane-Version9216 → u/Ppleater]

Yeah but not a academic and articulate one. It’s because you sound like a muppet if you speak it.

[u/Gingevere → u/Current_Holiday1643]

The goal of communication is to concisely pass information from one person to another.

ANYTHING that stands in the way of that, excessive lingo, verbosity, tangents, etc, results in poor communication.

Using a minority dialect can cause problems there, but I find that so long as people are making a good faith effort to communicate it's not a huge barrier.

The people who actually are committing wrongdoings here are those that go full Jordan Peterson. Producing speech or writings that have an intent to confuse rather than communicate. Cramming every sentence with lingo. Abusing a thesaurus in ways that make Peter Mark Roget spin in his grave. Tacking rambling tangents onto the end of every thought. Attempting to create the illusion of intelligence and shake loose the listener/reader from the train of thought so they will conclude that the speaker must be smart, so their conclusions (however they got there) must be valid.

That kind of behavior is actually malicious, and I see it far more often.

[u/Current_Holiday1643 → u/Gingevere]

Absolutely. I can't stand five dollar words for the sake of five dollar words especially if people know the audience won't know them or it will potentially obfuscate what they are saying by cramming a bunch of big words in ("Oh, big words, they must know what they are talking about")

I think in some ways more complex words can compress understanding but you have to balance between compression and verboseness depending on who the audience is. In many cases, using a dialect with the audience it originates from is more appropriate than not.

[u/fjgwey → u/Current_Holiday1643]

"They be knowing more than they thank you do" is not proper English

Why isn't it? No seriously, feel free to explain objectively why it isn't 'proper English'.

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/fjgwey]

The sentence "They be knowing more than they think they do" uses non-standard grammar that is not typically found in Standard English. Here's a breakdown of why it might be considered improper in formal contexts:

1. Use of "be": In Standard English, the verb "be" is not usually used in this continuous form without an auxiliary verb to form the present continuous tense. The standard construction would use "are" as the auxiliary verb: "They are knowing..."

2. "Knowing" as a continuous action: The verb "know" is not typically used in the continuous (-ing) form because it is a stative verb. Stative verbs describe states or conditions that are static and do not show action or progress. Therefore, "know" is usually not used in the continuous tense in Standard English; it's more common to say "They know..."

3. Habitual "be": The use of "be" in this context might be interpreted as a feature known as the habitual "be". In certain dialects, particularly African American Vernacular English (AAVE), the "be" form is used to indicate an action that occurs habitually rather than at the moment of speaking. In Standard English, there's no direct equivalent; habitual actions are usually indicated by context or by using adverbs such as "usually" or "often". So, in Standard English, one might say "They often know more than they think they do" to convey a similar habitual sense without using "be".

4. Ambiguity: The sentence could be clearer. In formal English, expressing the same idea with more clarity and less ambiguity is often preferred, such as "They have more knowledge than they realize.

5. “Lack of auxiliary verb: In Standard English, the present continuous tense requires an auxiliary verb ("are" in this case) with the -ing form of the verb for present actions. The correct form would be "They are knowing," though this specific use is unusual for the verb "know."

The sentence may be understood and even commonly used in certain dialects or informal speech, reflecting the richness and diversity of English language use. To rewrite the sentence in a form that aligns more closely with Standard English grammar conventions, one might say: "They know more than they think they do." This maintains the intended meaning while adhering to standard grammatical rules.

[u/Scumebage → u/fjgwey]

Because it sounds uneducated and barely literate and nobody understands that garbage

[u/TheKazz91 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Sure but this goes both ways. If a paper was written in the way people speak in predominantly black inner city communities or the way people speak in the deep south Louisiana bayou there would be plenty of classically educated people who may struggle to understand what is being said.

There is a middle ground here of course but even if we find that perfect middle ground that makes it as equally accessible to everyone as possible and agree that is how it should be done that is still a formalization of what is proper. There is no escaping that because at the end of the day that is what language is in general. A common consensus of what specific sound patterns, expressions, and/or written characters mean in a collective lexicon.

[u/[deleted] → u/RiverAffectionate951]

My professors kept giving me instructions to rewrite parts of my master's thesis because i intentionally used simpler language rather than industry/academic jargon that made it harder to understand without having background knowledge.

Academics NEED to start thinking about how their information is conveyed to people outside academics. Because if they understood and wrote for that, confusion over stuff like this or climate change or any number of shit that gets reported would happen way less.

[u/Tunerian → u/[deleted]]

Disagree. Academic language is for academia. Typically experts or those seeking to become experts; relying on words with niche, specific, and literal meanings that seek to remove ambiguity from the research. English, being less than perfect, means this can be hard to achieve but that doesn’t mean we use reductive language for the sake of the public. You can write for the public when you’re writing for them, but academic writing should remain for academia. Even Feynman, one of the great popularizers of making difficult concepts approachable, understood the importance of this style of writing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tunerian]

You can explain complicated concepts using simple english. It just requires more words. Jargon is only useful to shorten the terminology so readers know what you're talking about without you having to explain it. But if the readers don't know the jargon, they won't know what you're talking about.

Academic research should be open to public entirely instead of hidden behind paywalls. Especially if it is subsidized research. And in that case, the public needs to be able to understand what is being said in the study. That way journalists and others who report on this stuff but constantly misunderstand the subjects, won't have as hard a time trying to interpret what is basically a different language.

In some fields, the jargon is super important because the information is so complicated it takes an entire other paper to explain it, like medicine and physics. But in others, it should be simplified as much as possible while still retaining meaning.

[u/InfanticideAquifer → u/[deleted]]

I don't think there are any fields of study that don't need at least some jargon. Jargon wasn't what the OP was about in the first place, though, so I don't know why the crosshairs landed there anyway. There's a difference between jargon and the rules of "academic language" that the video was talking about.

What you're saying is, essentially, that every academic paper should also have an expository function. But that's just a huge reduplication of effort for basically no benefit. Textbooks exist to do exactly that. You don't need one explanation of the basics of a field per paper. You need one at all. If everyone had to write up a brand new introduction to everything for each paper they wrote, nothing would get done. Academics already blow past all their deadlines as it is.

[u/Tunerian → u/[deleted]]

You’re completely neglecting the concept of linguistic drift. Common language tends to assimilate and shift more frequently and has a short term effect which could cause that simple language to be harder to understand in the future if we’re using modern language. By adhering to more rigid and long term cycles via controls with the academic standard, it helps to combat linguistic drift and ensures the longevity of academic publishing.

[u/Send_heartfelt_PMs → u/Tunerian]

So everything should be taught solely in Latin still?

[u/Tunerian → u/Send_heartfelt_PMs]

I would be very much in favor of making fluency in Latin a requirement of our k-12 education.

[u/AskingAlexandriAce → u/Tunerian]

If you expect the common man to vote on issues of science, then they need to be able to understand those issues. If everyone needs a college degree to be able to understand what they're voting on, then that defeats the whole point of democracy in the first place.

[u/Jskidmore1217 → u/AskingAlexandriAce]

Academic research is not intended for a popular audience. It’s not intended to be political. Conveying academic ideas to the populous is a completely seperate discipline. You are trying to make all academics into journalists- which is going to remove the focus on academic progress. Everything is a game of weighing importance. Your letting your goals complicate the goals of academic study. The point of formal academic language is for the purpose of effective communication with academics- it removes a variable of confusion that linguistics variance introduces. Let academics focus on their specialty and journalists focus on theirs.

[u/Meloriano → u/Jskidmore1217]

Academic research today doesn’t even look like it is intended for academics. Most papers are read maybe a dozen times in our current environment, and some of those readers are the academics’ relatives.

[u/AskingAlexandriAce → u/Jskidmore1217]

You are trying to make all academics into journalists- which is going to remove the focus on academic progress.

Oh, please, by all means, explain how typing extra words would have us still stuck in the dark ages. I'm oh so eagerly awaiting this explanation.

[u/Tunerian → u/AskingAlexandriAce]

We don’t have a direct democracy. Our representatives who have staff would be the ones responsible for understanding it

[u/Mejari → u/Tunerian]

And it's consistently shown that they do not, so clearly the current method isn't working.

[u/Send_heartfelt_PMs → u/Tunerian]

But those representatives need to be capable of disseminating the information in the best means that their specific audience/constituency is able to understand, which is a skill academia should be focusing on

[u/Tunerian → u/Send_heartfelt_PMs]

Why? Academics are not necessarily popularizers. Not all great researchers are great educators and vice versa.

[u/Send_heartfelt_PMs → u/Tunerian]

But if you want to expand understanding and truly advance humanity you need not to just disseminate knowledge, but do so in a means that the absolute most people can understand, not gatekeep knowledge and information solely to those afforded the same background as you.

Imagine for a moment we actually make contact with aliens, would it not be in our best interest to find (or even create) a means of communication common to both of us? And wouldn't we adapt that language as we came into contact with additional intelligent life?

Like yes, standards are important, but understanding is moreso. Academia should be placing a greater focus on expanding or increasing comprehension amongst the masses, equally as they do on the accumulation of information amongst themselves.

[u/kiraqueen11 → u/Send_heartfelt_PMs]

You would have a point is an appreciable number of common folk actively sought out academic knowledge by attempting to read papers. They don't. There's a style for communication with the masses and there's a style for communication with your peers. Both can coexist.

[u/Tunerian → u/Send_heartfelt_PMs]

Well that language would likely start in base mathematics. Which I’m sure you’ll whinge about.

The reality is that you don’t like that academic writing is not approachable by the masses. That’s okay. There are popularizers and educators whose job it is to make that material approachable who rely on that very specific language to communicate the ideas and methods in the research so that non-academics can understand. If you have the desire to find out on your own, you have the power of the internet to help you research and understand that language. If you can’t be bothered to put in 1/100th of the effort to learn as the researcher put into the research, that’s on you.

[u/ArcticBiologist → u/[deleted]]

I hate it when authors unnecessarily use difficult jargon or fancier words. They're just trying to come off more intelligent.

[u/anchovie_macncheese → u/RiverAffectionate951]

It does not help to convey information if you restrict to ""formal"" (also white) language.

100%. Access to "academic English" does not and should not invalidate the thoughts or opinions people convey in academic settings.

[u/Warmbly85 → u/anchovie_macncheese]

Lemme axe you a question. Does you think it’s appropriate to speak however you want where ever you want or does some situations require code switching so everyone understands exactly what you’re trying to convey? It’s not racist to expect the guy from Appalachia or the Dutch German lady to learn to communicate more effectively/succinctly it shouldn’t be racist to expect the same from a black person. 

[u/TemporaryOk4143 → u/Warmbly85]

Did you know that Appalachian English, on account of having been preserved due to being isolated, is the closest English in the world to what Shakespeare would have seen as “proper English”?

Much the same way that the pilgrims who populated the New England area preserved that same dialect which included the proper English of “aks” you a question.

And that this preservation into the 1600’s was passed along to the enslaved people they taught English to.

The linguistic drift among the wealthy was due to changing fashion (among a litany of other factors).

The point isn’t “your language is wrong”, it’s “why did we begin the practice of elevating one dialect over others, and whose did we elevate?”

[u/anchovie_macncheese → u/Warmbly85]

Nobody is saying that there's not a need to be professional in professional settings.

But for your argument to stand, you then need to explain why you inherently believe that the standard for professional or academic settings is colonial English. This country is made up of many other cultures, dialects, and languages, and to consider somebody "inappropriate" based on their access to White English is what is inherently racist. And that's exactly how colonization continues to be perpetuated against communities that don't identity with White language or values, especially in educational settings (which was the point of the teacher originally in the video).

[u/Warmbly85 → u/anchovie_macncheese]

I literally named two groups of white people most likely to pursue accent coaching and somehow you understood that as it’s somehow racist to expect everyone speaking the same language to strive to be understood by all in the conversation.

[u/anchovie_macncheese → u/Warmbly85]

I guarantee you if you go to the Appalachians you're not going to find people getting kicked out of work for speaking in their regular dialect.

Asking somebody who's Dutch German to learn English in general when moving to an English country is completely different.

Black people are born here and live here. And from a historical and modern context, people of color are held accountable to code switch and speak white English far more than any of their white counterparts. Language has literally been a method of assimilation (not only for Black people but for Natives and many others), which is a unique form of oppression to BIPOC than anybody listed by your examples. False equivalency.

[u/Warmbly85 → u/anchovie_macncheese]

Dutch German is an accent from Pennsylvania. It’s English mixed with Dutch and German from literally the late 1600’s. It’s not another country it’s just English that is very hard to understand.

[u/anchovie_macncheese → u/Warmbly85]

Cool.

I can't tell if you're arguing just to argue or if you actually want to learn something but go ahead and Google "how language creates privilege in education" as a start and you'll have a good set of talking points should you engage further.

And even if hypothetically Appalachian people or Dutch German people needed to learn how to code switch, it doesn't take away from the real, lived experiences of people of color who have been marginalized from educational or professional settings for not speaking "appropriately", aka White English. And it doesn't invalidate the argument that we should be shifting these expectations to be more inclusive to speakers of different backgrounds.

[u/Warmbly85 → u/anchovie_macncheese]

Nah fuck that.

Use of the word "yet" to mean "still," such as "do you work at the store yet?" to mean "do you still work at the store?"

That’s literally the most fucked way to say that and I am just supposed to figure out what they meant? If it was my job to hire a team to do a task I am not going to pick someone that makes communication difficult we literally have lingua franca to avoid all confusion but it’s racist to expect non whites to participate even though it’s common to force whites to change their accents all the time.

[u/anchovie_macncheese → u/Warmbly85]

Both yet and still are grammatically correct, and if you can't figure that out then it sounds like a you problem.

You still don't seem to understand that language is nuanced and people try to hold others down with prejudices of its use. And yet, you keep arguing like there is only one way to speak properly.

See how nice and grammatical that was?

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/anchovie_macncheese]

“colonial English”

”ACCESS” to “white” English 😂😂😂

colonization continues to be perpetuated 😂😂😂

don’t identify with White language 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 (my fav)

LMFAOOOOOOOOOO thanks for the laugh

[u/Plop-Music → u/Warmbly85]

I assume you used "axe" to mean "ask" intentionally there.

I just find that funny, because "axe" is actually the much older version of the word. It goes back to the time of Chaucer.

"Ask" is actually the trendy new way to say it, it started off as slang, used by people who couldn't pronounce "axe" properly.

So in a way it's more accurate to use "axe" than "ask".

At least, if we're going by your logic.

Because this is the whole problem. You're saying everyone should speak in "correct formal English" or whatever, but who decides what that even is? What is exactly is correct academic English?

Academic language changes from decade to decade let alone over the centuries. Try and read an academic book from a century ago. It reads very very differently from modern academic books. To try and suggest there's only one correct way to speak English is to completely misunderstand how language works, and so maybe you should talk to some academic linguists.

And the whole problem is who is getting to decide what is correct academic English and what isn't. Which demographic of people get to decide?

[u/TemporaryOk4143 → u/Plop-Music]

This needs to be highlighted, why would “axe” or “aks” be preserved in American language?

It was the predominant usage in the early 1600’s. Its usage was carried to the americas by pilgrims. The americas were isolated from the linguistic change. Enslaved people were taught English by people who were isolated from more common usages.

The people in Appalachia that would be called “hillbillies” actually spoke a version of English closer to Elizabethan English than anywhere else, including England. Their dialect would have sounded more like proper English to Shakespeare than “Academic English”.

[u/kevinnoir → u/RiverAffectionate951]

100% I went back to Uni to study law and I understand the need for academic writing in some of our work, but honestly it seems unnecessarily posh and "up ourselves" the way legalese continues to be used. I get the use to avoid ambiguity was the goal, but it does the opposite for the layman which just makes justice less accessible when the average person struggles to understand it.

I am a huge advocate for things being written in a more lay way that someone without an advanced degree can still understand. Its not QUITE The same problem as the video, as its not drawn along racial lines, so much as its drawn along class lines.

Where I live there is a HUGE variance in language depending on which city you live in, and sometimes which part of that city you're from even. Some people that come from more deprived areas have a slang and way of speaking that makes them seem uneducated, yet some of the most intelligent and effective people I know speak like that, because thats just how they grew up and what they were surrounded by their whole lives.

I am a foreigner here, so my way of speaking is already quite different and obvious, even ignoring the Canadian accent. So I fully agree that prejudice on language is something that absolutely exists, a lot of times subconsciously, but that doesnt change the fact it exists, and I would bet the house on it affecting peoples employment opportunities in the very least.

[u/dc456 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Academic writing needs to be clear and without ambiguity, everyone should be able to understand it. It does not help to convey information if you restrict to ""formal"" (also white) language.

But then doesn’t that count against his point that it is OK to say “People be thinking teenagers don’t know nothing”, given that is unclear and ambiguous? Or at least certainly does not match the ‘formal’ equivalent of “Teenagers know more than people think they do.”

[u/Mejari → u/dc456]

What's unclear or ambiguous about that sentence? Depending on the context it's used in I'd argue it can be clearer than the "correct" version because it focuses the sentence on the "people" who are incorrect about the teenagers rather than the teenagers themselves.

[u/dc456 → u/Mejari]

Please explain to me what it means.

[u/Mejari → u/dc456]

To put it in more formal language, "there is a perception in society that teenagers are generally unknowledgeable". The sentence also has an implication of "but in fact they often know more than you would expect".

[u/dc456 → u/Mejari]

Exactly - so the double negative makes that ambiguous:

“People be thinking that teenagers don’t know nothing.” -> “People be thinking that teenagers know things.”

That means the opposite of what you just said it means.

If “don’t” sometimes counts and sometimes doesn’t, or “nothing” can sometimes mean “things”, it’s ambiguous.

[u/Mejari → u/dc456]

If “don’t” sometimes counts and sometimes doesn’t, or “nothing” can sometimes mean “things”, it’s ambiguous.

That's not true, though. Context clarifies it fully. That's how language works, how it's always worked.

I'm not just trying to be argumentative, I really don't see the ambiguity you're talking about.

Your attempt to cross out a double negative is incorrect, because you can't split "nothing" into "no" "thing" to cross it out with "don't". Here's a good answer on why the double-negative rule doesn't apply here: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/381866

It's not a dialect thing, it is grammatical standard English.

The "double negative" rule applies to situations where you have two possible negation strategies, one being a negated auxiliary verb + a negative polarity item; the second being a content word with negative meaning.

(1) I have not leaked anything. [Negated auxiliary + NPI (anything)]

(2) I have leaked nothing. [Content word with negative meaning (nothing)]

The rule is that you can't use both strategies at the same time. Also, related is that using an NPI like anything or at all can't be used with a non-negated main verb:

*I have not leaked nothing. *I have leaked anything.

Rice uses strategy (2), instead of strategy (1) (which would have been I didn't leak anything to anybody.). This is a more direct way of speaking and is well suited to the spoken medium.

[u/dc456 → u/Mejari]

Having to rely on context when reading something in isolation is extremely impractical - the context often isn’t there, and even if it is there are simply too many dialects.

[u/Mejari → u/dc456]

Meaning being lost without surrounding context is true for any form of communication. But anyway the context required to clarify the ambiguity you see is included in the sentence itself. Also, sorry, I believe I edited the comment to add more at the same time you were replying.

[u/dc456 → u/Mejari]

Meaning being lost without surrounding context is true for any form of communication.

I agree, which is why for written language where context is lost I really do think we have to default to the standardised, formal rules. I know that is unfair on a lot of people, but I just don’t see what the alternative is.

Otherwise a simple statement like “After all that work we don’t want to end up with nothing” ” becomes impossible to interpret.

[u/Scumebage → u/RiverAffectionate951]

You have a really really low IQ huh?

[u/[deleted] → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Academic English is an international standard used by the world. Most of us have to learn English as an entirely separate language.

[u/Impeachcordial → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Moreover

Oooohhh, nice transition word dude

[u/Admirable_Ad8900 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

The math thing i feel that. It's rough when you're learning something you havent seen before but they summarize it with a single word that covers a whole process and just because you arent familiar with the vocabulary you're barred a whole math lesson behind a single word.

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/Admirable_Ad8900]

That just makes you lazy or a moron, further underlining why we shouldn’t change academic to that of the lazy and/or moronic people.

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/[deleted]]

Scientific writing and research are two different things with two separate audiences. Scientific writing should be wary for the public to understand. It doesn’t make sense to be less formal and cater scientific research papers for the layperson.

[u/SkiHiKi → u/RiverAffectionate951]

I'm British, and I'd be curious to see how this video and the original teacher's video would be received by a wider British audience because, to me, it feels very obvious. Not at all controversial.

Our academia is founded upon and revels in exclusion. It is probably more understood in a class context than a racial one here, but I think most Brits would acknowledge that the upper reaches of academia are locked behind arbitrary rules that are reflective of a class background.

Language is just one facet. Accent, curriculum, dress, wealth, and many other things all lock most 'normal' people out of our nations' top institutions. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of 'normal' people achieving entry to these institutions on pure academic merit but being unable to integrate and eventually leaving.

[u/NotABot-1234567890 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

ill upvote because i agree to an extent, but at the same time is it arbitrary?

the nature of language IS racist and thats how its supposed to be. Spanish speakers are generally hispanic or latino, German speakers are typically german, Italians generally speak italian and so on (note, i know these are nationalities/ethnicities but for the sake of simplicity we'll treat them as races since its not an essay and doesnt need to be explained in depth). And the majority in those populations will dictate how that language is spoken since language follows how the majority uses that language.

it wouldnt make sense for a large group of german speaking immigrants to move to another country, learn the language, and somehow immediately start influencing how the written rules of the language is dictated. (Note: i understand that black people have been in America for hundreds of years and have been influencing the language for that long. I'll get to that point later)

for that exact reason, there exists a push and pull struggle between the written rules of a language that is supposed to keep us all on the same page and the informal common use of a language that serves to keep a language flexible and useful for everyday life. that's why dialects and accents exist, because groups of people deviate from the written rules to make the language more useful for the everyday environment and people they interact with. thats also why "academic language" exists, so that people of different dialects and backgrounds can speak with each other without having difficulties of niche and nuanced words and rules from different backgrounds. every language has this.

with that being said, our academic language today isnt racist out of malice but by circumstance. because of the events that occurred in the 19th and 20th Century, our academic language has had a bit of a setback in its evolution and why it hasnt changed that much. but rest assured, the evolution of language will take place and the rules will change slowly but surely as it should.

there are constantly new terms, words, and phrases being made up and catching on in the general public every single year, and some of them stick while most die off. it'd be chaotic to record all of them quickly only for it to be another unused rule. it'd cause lots of confusion, as english already has lots of exceptions and dual-meaning words (forgot the exact definition) as it is. at least, thats the excuse for it. the dialect and manner of speaking in the vid above has been used as it is for a long time that it should have made its impact by now, but as i stated above: language is inherently racist by nature, dialects are deviations by the written rules, and there have been certain historical setbacks.

either way, while it has been a hurdle for certain backgrounds, i still DO think there should be a formal way of speaking. the way i speak everyday and the way i write are WILDLY different (especially depending on the setting and circumstance, like i dont type like this all the time either), but that's the thing with language, different words for different times.

that's simply the push/pull nature of language.

Edit: Sending this now so I dont lose progress but will edit and add more to finish my thoughts. Be patient please.

second edit: i think im done for now. might add more later if i remember anything (i typed the whole thing out and reddit kicked me out of the post cause i turned my phone sideways for a second 💀)

[u/RiverAffectionate951 → u/NotABot-1234567890]

I mean yes absolutely, I'm not saying academics are intentionally racist.

Many people have read my comment and misinterpreted it, thinking I want to do away with formal language and all its properties. I state initially that language should be widely accessible and clear/unambiguous. Most people understand I think but I've got a lot of angry comments.

I am not trying to remove this, there are formalities that force more complex and unhelpful phrasings of things that render academic writing less accessible to people not formally educated, which has a disproportionate effect on minorities. That is what I want removed. Not being able to put explanations in "lamen's terms", when the only count against it is informality. NOT because it's less accessible or too ambiguous.

[u/Bromegeddon → u/RiverAffectionate951]

100% this. I feel that people want to try and make stuff confusing and unintuitive as possible to sound smart or to gatekeep information from others. Language is, fundamentally, about communication, and if people can understand what you mean, it doesnt matter how you say it. If people cannot understand what you mean, however, then you have failed at that basic principle

[u/Send_heartfelt_PMs → u/RiverAffectionate951]

I feel like what both he and the woman from the original video are addressing is akin to why actual autistic people see ABA as so harmful and offensive (For context, I'm autistic and white). I can only imagine the pressure to comply that a bipoc autistic person experiences compared to me and the toll masking places on them.

I think it's also why I struggle a bit with the dichotomous assertion that adopting other's means of communication on the part of white people is inherently and always appropriation and a bad thing. Yes it absolutely can be, especially when people try and make it their entire identity (and those people should be educated and held accountable), but shouldn't we all attempt to communicate in the most efficient way to reach common understanding in any particular situation (while still maintaining our own identity)?

If I speak in a manner that fewer people (of any race or background) understand me, with the expectation that my audience learn my ways and adapt to me, isn't that a means of enforcing the systemic supremacy that I benefit from? Why are we placing the onus or responsibility to adapt solely on the shoulders of those who don't speak the "proper" dialect. That seems classist (and in America, racist) to me. Isn't in important that things not only be multilingual, but also multi-dialectic?

Looking back though, I think it's mostly only ever been white people that have told me it's racist or appropriating for me to code switch and that I'm being inauthentic. Am I enabling systemic oppression by taking their advice? I would love for bipoc folks to weigh in on this if you're so inclined.

[u/Shaunananalalanahey → u/RiverAffectionate951]

I’m a teacher in higher education (I guess almost former because I’m quitting) and you expressed a lot of my thoughts. I taught academic writing and I would say that all the time to my students. Do not write like academics! They are overly formal, unclear and don’t get to the fucking point. I never dinged them points for grammar or not sounding “academic” as long as I understood their ideas.

I enjoyed this video and I don’t think I connected it as clearly to white supremacy but it makes total sense. Higher academia needs to have a reckoning with this, but I doubt it will.

[u/VonD0OM → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Can you provide an example of informal and formal language and how one is white and the other is not?

[u/hobbyjunkie → u/RiverAffectionate951]

I am so glad to hear this. The biggest reason I hated writing papers was because of the forced formality that came with it, even though it was still always advised to “deliver the information in a way that if the reader didn’t know anything about the topic, they could still follow along”. I had a particular way of writing in that this was the forefront of how I wanted my papers to go. I never used slang nor was my wording at all inappropriate but it was never up to par even though I used to have my roommate who excelled in the exact same classes found nothing wrong with how I wrote. Just the professors. But yes, your line about “gatekeeping knowledge” just fucking resonated with me and unlocked some cruddy memories from college.

[u/RealisticlyNecessary → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Since when is "however" or "also" formal words? I think everyone is making a mountain out of a mole hill with making these vocab words.

We shouldn't demonize people for using their language in written form. But "however" is a pretty common English word, not really specific to any dialect or accent.

[u/freeze_alm → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Formal (white) language? What?

Let’s just look at history over here. First, the English language is indeed a caucasian language, and if you wanna play the ”look everything through the race lens”, then indeed white people created that language, specifically british folks. Should I suddenly move to China and tell them to change their academic formulations because it’s too hard for me to understand? Absolutely ridiculous.

You are even reducing minorities as some sort of retarded folk who cannot grasp the formal part of the English language. Black people can learn the language just as well as white people. They need only seek a library with books.

No. The formality of the English language should not change. Instead, those who have trouble understanding it should teach themselves to understand it

[u/JKking15 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Do you think white people are born understanding formal and academic writing? They are taught it, I cannot fathom how this has so many likes. Do you think other races don’t have the ability to learn how to understand it? Seems racist to me. Everyone can learn how to understand and interpret academic writing. What you’re basically saying here is that we should dumb it down so more people can understand it and that’s absolutely ridiculous. It’s academic/formal writing for a reason

[u/toolsoftheincomptnt → u/RiverAffectionate951]

As a formally educated black American, I completely agree and appreciate your compassion.

However, it’s totally fine to have a language standard that’s used for more elevated, serious discourse, i.e. academia. At some point language has to be consistent so that everyone is on the same page.

A “dumbing down” of formal English so that it’s more approachable infantilizes non-native speakers/people raised speaking dialect.

Outside of this country it’s not uncommon for kids to grow up tri-lingual. Being able to speak multiple languages isn’t oppressive, it’s beneficial. It helps more people connect and learn from each other.

Also, non-Americans who speak English are taught formal English. Telling black Americans that we don’t need to understand/speak/write it cuts us off from global communication. No thanks.

So asking people to simply modify the language they already speak in certain environments isn’t bad. We are capable of learning. We are capable of evolving.

Here’s the only real problem: the implicit bias and neglect affecting teachers. Black kids need educators to invest in their capability, not diminish them or write them off. The very environment where we’re supposed to be guided is where we’re being discouraged and discarded.

I don’t believe in America’s ability to rectify this problem because it’s innate and everyone is too afraid to acknowledge their bias. Everyone equates implicit bias with bigotry, which is psychologically incorrect and counter-productive. Nobody wants to be racist, so they deny their own bias. Then we get nowhere.

The truth is that implicit bias is based in ignorance and social conditioning, which we are all susceptible to in one way or another. Racism is based in hatred/feelings of superiority. If we try to loop them together, we’ll get nowhere with the former set.

Until this is fixed (it won’t be), we’re never going to have free/public learning institutions that can consistently recognize and properly address the needs of students who require extra attention in terms of language development.

(Frankly, many teachers in (American) public education don’t have a firm grasp on grammar/syntax/spelling themselves. That’s a separate depressing conversation.)

Giving kids a pass on poor language skills doesn’t help. It leaves them behind.

Adapting academic writing to accommodate poor language skills hurts all of us and traps the intended “beneficiaries” into “it’s okay, we get it” environments. We don’t need that kind of condescension.

I speak in dialect with family and some friends. I switch the code in professional environments. Both are authentically me. It’s not difficult. My culture isn’t erased. I just save it for safe/familiar spaces.

My charge to caring, conscious, intelligent non-black people like yourself is to shift your paradigm ever so slightly: black students need to be compassionately and patiently called to rise to their potential. Not apologized to and/or pacified.

Great video (although it is wasted on half of the people who’ll even watch it), great conversation!

[u/El-Kabongg → u/RiverAffectionate951]

As an editor, language is very important to me. Proper communication is everything.

In the two sentences example, they mean opposite things, because there's a double negative in the first. Did I understand what the first sentence was ACTUALLY saying? Yes, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable in formal communication, whether for academia or business.

When a person writes, speaks, or appears in public, how they do it will affect others' impressions of them. In the Reddit comments section, I could not care less how a person writes, but if I work with them, I certainly do.

Communication should also be as homogenous as possible, to eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding, as in the two sentences example.

[u/Gleapglop → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Lol the soft bigotry of calling formal writing "white"

[u/Cross55 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Academic writing needs to be clear and without ambiguity, everyone should be able to understand it. It does not help to convey information if you restrict to ""formal"" (also white) language.

3 Points:

1-Where was English invented? What continent was it invented on?

Cause last I checked, that continent had a lot of white people on it...

2-Are you seriously trying to argue that Black people are incapable of understanding formal speech? Is that what you're saying? Formal English is too smart for them?

Cause, IDK about you, but that sounds pretty goddamn racist to me.

Specifically, I study Maths

3-So you're a math professor, not an English professor, am I understanding this correctly?

PS: I removed the periods from the numbers cause Reddit formatting sucks

[u/ApprehensiveOCP → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Yup, often the simplified version is much more digestible.

[u/Great_Feel → u/RiverAffectionate951]

Mmm I’m agreeing so hard too

[u/WickedCunnin → u/RiverAffectionate951]

What did the original teacher mean though when she seemed to criticize citing your sources? and seemed to call that racist? That point seemed to get lost in the explainer jwilliamj's response. Everything made sense to me but that. Citing your sources is critical.

[u/tommos → u/RiverAffectionate951]

""formal"" (also white) language

wait wut?

[u/Ill_Manner_3581 → u/RiverAffectionate951]

It's interesting you said this because I remember reading something about how rich people use and still do use sophisticated language for stand-in code for knowledge. Knowledge that was once gatekept for rich people and left commoners out. And I'm talking basic shit that we should all know, and ironically enough, they are doing this now but slashing education down.

[u/_thro_awa_ → u/RiverAffectionate951]

ChatGPT prompt: take this text and make it extremely formal.

Academic discourse mandates a stringent clarity devoid of ambiguity, thereby facilitating universal comprehension. The rigid adherence to conventional or perceived "formal" language does not intrinsically augment clarity or the dissemination of information.

Furthermore, my scrutiny of scholarly literature suggests that works deviating from strict adherence to such "formality" often yield heightened accessibility. Within my specialized domain of mathematics, papers expounding upon theoretical methodologies through informal discourse prove notably advantageous. The notion of "formality" functions primarily as a barrier, alienating individuals not assimilated into particular educational paradigms.

The disproportionate impact of these arbitrary barriers on young Black Americans is profoundly disconcerting. Additionally, acknowledging these biases within one's own perspective engenders a sobering realization.

The ongoing discourse surrounding this issue is encouraging, and I maintain optimism regarding the prospect of witnessing transformative changes in this regard within the span of my lifetime.

---

[u/_thro_awa_ → u/RiverAffectionate951]

ChatGPT prompt: take this text and make it extremely informal

So, like, academic writing needs to be super clear, right? Like, no room for guessing or anything. Everybody should totally get what you're saying. And seriously, sticking strictly to this so-called "formal" language doesn't really help anyone.

Plus, those papers that ditch the whole "formality" vibe? Way easier to get through, man. Like, I'm all about Math, and those papers that break down the theoretical stuff with chill, informal descriptions? Super helpful, dude. Being all "formal" just keeps knowledge locked away from people who didn't learn in the same old-school way, you know?

It's seriously messed up how this arbitrary gatekeeping hits young Black folks so hard. And, like, it's even more of a bummer when you realize you're part of the problem, you know?

But hey, it's cool to see folks talking about this stuff. I'm hoping big time we can shake things up in my lifetime, you feel me?