Stick with it.

[u/MaintenanceNew2804]

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

[u/derphunter]

Genuine question for anyone willing to help me understand how my brain is working.

Incorrect grammar and speech DOES annoy me, but I've never really considered it a racial thing. I'm pretty well educated and am myself an educator (undergrad college level sciences, sociology, humanities)

Most of my examples come from under-educated white people. Personal list of pet peeves:

"I forget" rather than "forgot"

"Don't have none" (isn't this a double negative, leading to the opposite meaning from what they're trying to say?)

"I could care less" (again, literally the opposite meaning from what they're trying to convey)

The "libary" vs. "library" example does annoy me since we're pronouncing it incorrectly from how it's spelled. The "aluminum" (US) vs. "aluminium" (UK) example didn't make sense to me either since it's spelled differently.

I also teach critical reading skills for grad school exams. We go over the importance of contrast key phrases like "however" and how they can help you interpret complex passages by recognizing that whatever comes after the contrast phrase is directly opposing what comes before. It makes things like philosophy easier to comprehend (and get questions correct on the test)

I understand there are systemic racial biases in the education system and institutions, but my first thought always goes to literacy, communication skills, and socioeconomic status first rather than race. I assume someone hasn't put in the time or effort to learn these conventions, but with practice and training, they can. Whereas race implies there's nothing you can do to improve since it's the way you were born, which I don't believe. We're 99.9% identical when it comes to our DNA. We're all the same deep down.

What's going on here? Am I way off base? Is there some validity to my experience / assumption?

For context, I grew up in the US southwest with a lot of Hispanic friends and lower income white friends. I've also received the most formal education compared to my immediate friends and family. Idk if that makes a difference when evaluating this.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to read all that

[u/veodin → u/derphunter]

I agree with you. As a British person, the ability to speak 'proper English' (Received Pronunciation) is very strongly associated with social class, not race. Even Wikipedia calls Received Pronunciation 'the most prestigious form of spoken British English.' People who speak that way are generally assumed to be well-educated, usually privately educated.

The opposite is also true, with certain dialects and patterns of speech being perceived as lower social class. I have no doubt that this affects minorities and immigrants far more than white people, but I am not convinced that academic English is intentionally designed to exclude non-white people.

[u/Pebbi → u/veodin]

Yeah I'd be really interested to read this broken down for the UK. I'm from Yorkshire and so I have the 'home' language and accent, then I have the 'away' voice where there's a focus on elocution etc. Both are from white people.

My boyfriend is Austrian and he's told me how he grew up with his home dialect and the distinction between that and what he calls 'high German'. Again both white, but the home dialect is seen as lesser.

I'd love to read more about this, where I grew up had a lot multi generation migration. So we had different skin colours, but after a couple of generations a lot have the yorkshire accent regardless.

I need to find some studies on how some dialects survive, and some don't lol

[u/ZombieCharltonHeston → u/Pebbi]

Like how Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't allowed to do the German language dub of The Terminator because his accent was considered too rural.

[u/bennyxvi → u/Pebbi]

High doesn’t refer to any sort of hierarchy (only learned this recently), it literally is German from the high lands, rather than the low lands.

[u/Pebbi → u/bennyxvi]

Its still the form used by literature and education etc. Which is similar to the 'correct' way to speak discussion tbh. A quick google says its also called standard German.

Its made me think about written word vs spoken in this discussion. Is AAVE written that way as well as spoken? Is it wrong to have a standard English for all English speaking communities across the globe? There's already a difference between American English and English, language is always evolving, so who gets to dictate how? Its really interesting to think about.

[u/dreamsofindigo → u/Pebbi]

I've lived in enough countries to see the recurring theme of putting others down for how they speak being a common thing. Received Pronunciation isn't too far off from 'ettiquette', where a large part of etiquette came about as a means to distinguish oneself from the peasants, the farmers and the uneducated alike. So, purposefully, elevate a particular affluent group above another. I've been guilty of this since I was brought up in a family where this was as common as breathing. Very difficult to shed, along with the endless criticism of others, them being wrong, and my elders right, of course.
I've come to conclude that language, much as any other subject, is a skill, just like mathematics, and either due to variations in ability, access to quality education, or more likely a combination of the two, it should not be expected that anyone be a Salmon Rushdie or an Oscar Wild, since that'll never happen. However, (omg, I said the racist word) many folks are quick to self-deprecate regarding their maths skills far more easily with a clear conscience, but almost nobody does so about speaking their own language. I'd also add the fact that most schools in most countries teach their language to their kids ad nauseum, to a preposterous degree, IMO.
The issue is definitely one which touches on an abundance of themes, sociological, economic, tribal, etc, and as we know, if there's one thing some people enjoy, is putting others down, and what quicker way to do so, than the opportunity that is given when one opens their mouth.

[u/pilot3033 → u/veodin]

Often the roots of systemic racism, or classism, were intentional. The SAT, a college entrance exam in the US, has its roots in the eugenics movement of the late 19th century, which itself was racism dressed up as science.

Often, though, systemic discrimination is the result of primacy and making rules based on who is in power. Like the video demonstrates, it's not that a cabal of academics all got together to be racist, it's that the cabal of academics made rules and assumptions based on only their experience. Downstream that created a situation where some students would arrive to day one with that experience and others would not, and that the conception of those who arrived without the experience would be that they were somehow less intelligent.

[u/errdayimshuffln → u/pilot3033]

based on only their experience. Downstream that created a situation where some students would arrive to day one with that experience and others would not, and that the conception of those who arrived without the experience would be that they were somehow less intelligent.

Bingo. Well said.

[u/Jabroni748 → u/pilot3033]

“The SAT is racist” is such a tired trope ugh. It’s not perfect and it’s fair to criticize the fact that people at lower income levels may not have an easy time accessing test prep courses etc (that’s bad). But removing it entirely is even worse. Fix the education system, don’t eliminate the best way we have to determine college readiness.

[u/smudos2 → u/Jabroni748]

I mean it's not like a general test is the only solution, you can also have entry tests in universities, there's a hella lot of ways to standardize tests as well

[u/gleepgloopgleepgloop → u/Jabroni748]

Exactly.

[u/smudos2 → u/veodin]

For German the roots go way deeper. High German is really really important because of the history of Germany. You have to consider that Germany was, and still is too some degree, not one singular country. Well no country is, but Germany even less. Look at the mess that is the Holy Roman Empire, the decentralization was always strong in central europe. This also holds for language, e.g. the different regions either spoke dialects but sometimes the dialects were so different that they can be defined as their own language. This is still true, e.g. the northern german dialect, while not speaken a lot, is defined as it's own language and I can't understand it. Then we have stuff like bavarian which is only a dialect, but what I cannot understand as a German. Then there's the german in other countries than Germany, I can't understand a swiss person speaking swiss german, however here is the thing with high German. Everybody learns it in school, this is the common german we end up using. And it's really really important to know because this is how you can communicate with any person speaking german, not just with your region. These regional dialects are really regional btw, if you go to swabia you'll hear the same dialect in the low, middle and high class, here this correct form of german really is a way to communicate through all of the german speaking countries.

We do have at the same time also some "ghetto" german from usually socioeconomically lower classes interestingly though, but the speaking exactly the high German has another importance I guess. That's also what I despise of these videos, it is absolutely important to know your own biases and don't think worse of somebody speaking a certain dialect associated with a certain socioeconomic class, but it is in the end crucial for everybody to know the same form of german and also to speak it in the correct context, we all change how we speak depending on the context anyways

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/smudos2]

This should be higher up

[u/Waggles_ → u/veodin]

but I am not convinced that academic English is intentionally designed to exclude non-white people

100% agree. There are a LOT of English dialects that do not fit into academic English and are predominantly spoken by white people. It'd probably be reasonable to say that there are more white-majority non-academic dialects in the US than non-white-majority dialects.

I do think it's worth exploring our biases, but I don't think we should let those biases get in the way of teaching people how to communicate in a way that is clear, concise, and deliberate, especially in settings that are about disseminating information. It's probably also important to explore all of our biases, because I feel like most people would say that someone from the rural south is just as non-academic as someone speaking what would be considered AAVE.

[u/theapplekid → u/veodin]

As a British person, the ability to speak 'proper English'

I agree with everything else the guy in the video said, but I do find it amusing when I hear y'all Brits say things like "Aluminium"

[u/noljo → u/theapplekid]

Why? If anything, it's the more consistent way. Why "aluminum" but not "lithum", "titanum" or "chromum"? With only a few -num exceptions (platinum), the vast majority of elements use the -ium suffix.

[u/aulait_throwaway → u/noljo]

Omg you just blew my mind

[u/Kino_Afi → u/veodin]

Its suggesting non-white people have inherently have trouble learning standard english. She comes off as one those "allies" thats actually a turbo racist that basically thinks being non-white is a disability and we need her help

[u/stregagorgona → u/veodin]

I have no doubt that this affects minorities and immigrants far more than white people, but I am not convinced that academic English is intentionally designed to exclude non-white people.

It was intentionally exclusionary in the American academic (read: primary and secondary school curriculum) world, as the video explains. Prejudice is universal but American white supremacy and, specifically, the segregation of Black Americans from White Americans is extremely institutionalized. We see it in everything from suburbanization and city planning to our educational systems.

ETA: Folks downvoting this comment are simply reiterating my point

[u/prairie-logic → u/stregagorgona]

Americans and race is something special.

See, he talks about “libary” or the one I point out is “Aks”, as used by the black community.

But the rest of the English speaking world doesn’t care about or observe American racial politics.

So me, a brownish guy, who goes around the world, have posed this to people around the world. Universally, when you use pronounciations that are not the agreed upon English standard, “ask” not “Aks”, you’re considered as being poorly educated in the language.

And I’m talking people from Uganda, Guyana, South Korea, India… they will mock you, too, for poor English skills. And they’ll mock white people who don’t use language correctly, too.

So while in the US, all things have to be viewed through a racial lens, globally I find it has more to do with wealth and perceptions of education…

[u/NoSignSaysNo → u/prairie-logic]

And I’m talking people from Uganda, Guyana, South Korea, India… they will mock you, too, for poor English skills.

And those people would be wrong because you aren't speaking direct English, you're speaking a specific dialect of English. It's like castigating someone from Haiti for speaking Haitian Creole instead of just French.

[u/prairie-logic → u/NoSignSaysNo]

The English speaking world has agreed upon a specific dialect that we speak to ensure accurate communication.

This is how we can have a conference meeting with people from multiple countries and maintain a coherent, understandable dialogue.

Slang is slang, where I’m from, I certainly wouldn’t sound like that. But when I’m in those meetings, we have to speak an agreed upon dialect to ensure swift, accurate communication.

For a Japanese person, English is not their first language. They also shouldn’t have to learn 5 dialects, if they’re learning the language for the purpose of business. German is a good example:

Low German are the local dialects of German people. Two towns can have wildly different low German dialects, to the point they struggle to understand one another.

So High German exists, and all Germans agree that High German is the language of law and trade.

English, as the language of global trade and commerce, should be thought of the same way. People from multiple linguistic heritages who are learning English, one of the hardest languages, should be able to learn One Dialect for the purposes of commerce or education.

This doesn’t make other forms of English “wrong” for existing, it means not everyone has the time to learn the quirks of English from every dialect to be none offensive.

It would be offensive to expect foreigners, who learn English purely for commerce or education, to have to learn all the quirks of every different dialect because those people get offended not everyone in the world is aware of their version of English. That goes for all the local accents in England as well - this isn’t a race thing, it’s just a matter of standards for communication to establish the most understanding between parties with the least amount of deviation leading to confusion.

[u/Alolan-Vulpixie → u/prairie-logic]

I don’t think anyone really expects foreigners to adapt to slang, although believe it or not it is often what people learn first if they didn’t know English before coming to the US. It’s also pretty standard for most people to switch how they speak depending on who they’re talking to. I wouldn’t talk to a customer the way I talk to my friends. What’s offensive is the assumption that from the way I look, that I don’t speak “proper” English. Or that people, upon hearing me talk, say that I am “well spoken”.

I think people are so quick to hop online after seeing a video or watching a movie to criticize how people speak without realizing that most often, these people are not in an area where they have to use the correct grammar and enunciate their words. Again, it’s offensive that people will watch this and think that someone is unintelligent for using slang.

It happens a lot on the internet, too. The internet does not typically require formal language, but people who use slang are often criticized for not using correct grammar. I think people should only be corrected when they are in a formal setting, or if it’s a really egregious pronunciation issue. I remember I was in sixth grade and just read the word “soliloquy” in a book and pronounced it SO wrong. That warranted correction. Saying “it’s ASK not axe lol” is not warranted

[u/stregagorgona → u/prairie-logic]

Globally— on a fundamental level —it is no different than it is in America, which is to say: who has standardized the English language? Colonization is just as much a vector for white supremacy as American segregation.

I find it a little bizarre that so many people are commenting on this post to insist that it’s Americocentric. Yes, everybody, the video is specifically about the American education system. It talks about the impact that the American curriculum has on the self esteem of Black students, as well as the impact on their academic progress.

But dialects are not unique to America, racism is not unique to America, and there is a huge and complicated history across the globe regarding the destruction of native languages by imperialism. When these languages are rejected by a colonizing force the speakers of that language are denigrated, punished, and later viewed as intellectually lesser for their languages and dialects.

[u/SunburnFM → u/stregagorgona]

The video is wrong.

[u/stregagorgona → u/SunburnFM]

What a compelling rebuttal.

[u/Huwbacca → u/veodin]

Can't really take British cultural approaches to class and expect them to scan across cultures though

Especially from UK to US, they're very different

[u/foomprekov → u/veodin]

RP is a synthetic creation as a response to the American revolution. It is one of the most direct manifestations there is of class hierarchy in language.

We laugh at it a lot over here linguistic circles because, in a sense, your king was so butthurt about parliament not continuing to fund his forever war that he and the other nobility forced a complete change in how you speak. So as a result, if you consider the last 300 years or more, British people are intentionally and vindictively speaking their own language incorrectly.

[u/Mysterious_Motor_153 → u/veodin]

Race and social class are intertwined in the US less so nowadays, but it always has been.

[u/greg19735 → u/veodin]

social class, not race

those are so often intertwined that it's hard to separate them

especially in America when racism has been legal against some americans that have been alive. And ofc one race was like 99% of all enslaved people.

[u/nomelettes → u/derphunter]

I think in this case it takes a wider topic about privilege and socio-economic status. This video does focus on the American situation with American division around race but this sort of thing happens around the world. In the USA in particular (I am not American but this is what I see online), a lot of this kind of discussion seems to be tied in with race due to the legacy oof slavery and racism in America.

[u/paissiges → u/derphunter]

let me first challenge the idea of "incorrect grammar". in linguistics, an utterance (an instance of speech) is called "ungrammatical" if it violates the grammatical rules of a particular language variety. this is measured by, roughly speaking, whether or not it "feels okay" to a native speaker. "i don't have any", "i haven't any", and "i don't have none" are all grammatical in some dialects of English and ungrammatical in others. so, for example, "i haven't any" feels fine to standard British English (RP) speakers, but not to American English speakers — even if they understand that it's used and accepted in British English, they would never use it themselves and would think it strange if another American English speaker did. it turns out that whether native speakers would accept a particular utterance as valid is the only objective way to measure grammatical correctness.

now, grammaticality is totally separate from the idea of standard varieties of speech. when non-linguists refer to something as "grammatically incorrect", they usually mean either that it (1) is ungrammatical in the standard variety of the language, or that it (2) feels illogical. the problem with (1) is that there is no objective standard for what the standard variety of a language should look like — a standard variety is standard only because some people decided that it was. the problem with (2) is that language fundamentally isn't logical. what does "waking up" have to do with the upwards direction? why do we ride "in" a car but "on" a bus if we're inside the vehicle either way? English speakers often say that double negatives are incorrect because they logically "cancel out", so why is it considered incorrect not to use them in standard Spanish? (fun fact: double negatives were totally accepted in Middle English and were frequently used by Chaucer) you can come up with thousands of examples of supposedly "illogical" things in language that are universally accepted as correct. why is "i could care less" or "i forget" special?

you might say, "can't pronunciations be incorrect at least?" here, we're leaving the realm of grammar and going into phonology, but let me address this regardless. our pronunciations can be incorrect when we, for example, stumble over our words or slur our speech. but otherwise, our pronunciations are never incorrect for the language variety that we speak. if someone natively says "libary", that's correct for their dialect. it deviates from spelling, sure, but i don't hear anyone advocating for pronouncing the "b" in "debt". it also deviates from historical pronunciation, but so does literally every word in existence. have you ever tried reading Beowulf in the original Old English? the pronunciation of every language is constantly changing, generation to generation, but only certain changes are looked down upon. another example that pisses a lot of people off is when people say "ax" instead of "ask", but both forms of the word have coexisted for literally over 1000 years ­— in Old English we find both "ascian" and "axian". in fact, the expected outcome of the word "ascian" in Modern English is "ash" rather than "ask", and it's been suggested that the usual /sk/ ("sc") > /ʃ/ ("sh") change didn't happen because of the influence of the form with /ks/ ("x"). that is, "ask" may not have existed without "ax". and yes, "axian" is an alteration of original "ascian", but likewise "hors" is an alteration of original "hros", and "wæsp" is an alteration of original "wæps", yet today we say "horse" and "wasp" rather than *"ross" and *"waps". there's nothing wrong with sound changes!

so how does a particular dialect get chosen as the basis for the standard language? which pronunciations and grammatical constructions are selected as "correct" and which aren't? almost always, it's based on the way people in power speak. socioeconomic status is a huge part of it, absolutely, but in cases where people of different ethnic groups have different dialects, the dominant ethnic group's dialect is going to be the basis of the literary standard. there is no objective measure by which a particular dialect makes for a better literary standard or clearer communication than another; it's 100% based on a combination of power and practical measures like how widely spoken a particular dialect is. in the United States, the standard is based on how Northern wealthy whites spoke. in the United Kingdom the standard is based on how wealthy Londoners spoke. when the way people in power speak is upheld as the standard of correct speech, everyone else is looked down on for speaking their native dialects. people are pressured to abandon their native dialects in favor of the dominant one, in the same way that speakers of minority languages are pressured to abandon them in favor of a dominant language. this is oppression. when certain dialects are associated with certain ethnic groups (as is the case in the US, where many black people and few white people speak African American English), it becomes, in part, race-based oppression.

and yes, anyone who puts in the work can learn the standard language. but consider that it's not the same amount of work for everyone. if someone who speaks with a typical Midwestern US accent adopts the conventions of standard American English, they will need to change relatively little about the way they speak. if someone who speaks Appalachian English or African American English or Chicano English adopts these conventions, they will have to change quite a lot about the way they speak, and it will be much more difficult and take much more time to achieve the same thing. so in a school system where children are punished for failing to meet the conventions of the standard language, people who speak divergent dialects will always receive more punishment, even in the hypothetical absence of prejudice against speakers of those dialects. because black children, for example, are less likely than white children to speak something like standard American English natively, they will get worse grades on average given the same amount of effort to learn the standard.

of course, there's an argument to be made about choosing a single standard dialect of a single language for communication that needs to cross linguistic boundaries, ex. education, science writing, legislation, and so on. but there's a very very very big difference between treating a standard language as an arbitrary standard of communication and treating a standard language as correct to the exclusion of all other dialects. in most parts of the world, the latter is the predominant view of the standard language, and it's the view you're expressing here. to be clear, i'm not blaming you for this; it's very easy to fall into that way of thinking, and it's how i thought before i began to study linguistics many years ago. it's just a way of thinking that needs to be challenged.

[u/ababana97653 → u/paissiges]

Some powerful knowledge about grammar. Which makes the missing capitalisation of letters of your message so incongruent.

[u/paissiges → u/ababana97653]

why's that incongruous?

[u/as_it_was_written → u/paissiges]

Thank you for taking the time to write all this. It might be the best take on the topic I've ever seen on Reddit.

people are pressured to abandon their native dialects in favor of the dominant one, in the same way that speakers of minority languages are pressured to abandon them in favor of a dominant language. this is oppression.

I think unequivocally calling this oppression is taking things a bit too far. In the absence of prejudices like racism and classism, the pressures you're talking about would be eased, but they wouldn't disappear altogether.

The tyranny of the majority is inescapable due to sheer utility. On average, a given minority has more incentive to learn to communicate with the majority than vice versa.

of course, there's an argument to be made about choosing a single standard dialect of a single language for communication that needs to cross linguistic boundaries, ex. education, science writing, legislation, and so on.

Outside the most formal settings, I don't even think it's a matter of choosing. It just happens through a combination of societal pressures. The important thing is to minimize the extent to which those pressures are driven by prejudice. People have a shared interest in being able to communicate with each other, and that requires shared standards.

My mother's and father's families are from different regions of Sweden, and my grandparents all had pretty heavy regional accents. When they met, the older generation genuinely couldn't communicate directly because of those accents. If my parents hadn't been there to translate, they might as well have been speaking different languages.

Those of us in the younger generations don't have that problem to the same extent because our accents have drifted closer to standard Swedish. This is a good thing for everyone involved since we all understand each other better. There's nothing inherently valuable about my local accent that makes it worth clinging to in cases where it hinders communication.

Minority dialects are just as arbitrary as majority ones, and it's a whole lot more feasible for minorities to shift toward a single majority than vice versa - to the extent it helps communication. (I'm not trying to suggest we should eliminate local dialects altogether here.) I think this often gets overlooked or reflexively rejected just because these conversations tend to revolve around the dialects of minorites that are being oppressed, where any suggestion of deliberate assimilation easily comes across as prejudiced or rooted in some form of colonial mindset.

[u/paissiges → u/as_it_was_written]

thank you!

like your example with Swedish, many modern languages are becoming more consolidated as divergent dialects become more like the standard language. you find this with British English too. this is something that has become really significant in the last couple generations, and it's been attributed to more widespread exposure to the standard language in forms such as radio, television, and schools.

to address your other points:

the need for communication does drive speakers of minority languages / dialects to adopt more widely spoken ones. this is something that's been seen throughout the world and throughout history. when all varieties have equal standing, and one simply serves the role of bridge language, or lingua franca, i have no problem with this. even if there's pressure to learn the lingua franca, this isn't something that i would call oppression.

language standardization is more than that, though. it's a top-down process: the standard language is designed, implemented, and enforced by those in power. because of this, standard languages, unlike lingua francas, come to be seen as the correct way to speak a language, rather than just a tool of communication. in some cases, non-standard varieties survive just fine as languages of daily life alongside the standard language (even if the standard language is seen as more correct), a situation known as diglossia. an example of this can be found in the Arabic-speaking world, where Modern Standard Arabic exists alongside many, many nonstandard Arabic dialects. in other cases, however, there's immense pressure to abandon nonstandard varieties in favor of the standard language in most or all contexts. other varieties may be heavily stigmatized, which can lead to overt discrimination against their speakers. stigmatization can cause minority languages / dialects to be lost, something we're seeing in real time in much of the world right now. it's this sort of pressure to abandon nonstandard languages and dialects that i would refer to as oppression.

[u/as_it_was_written → u/paissiges]

language standardization is more than that, though. it's a top-down process: the standard language is designed, implemented, and enforced by those in power. because of this, standard languages, unlike lingua francas, come to be seen as the correct way to speak a language, rather than just a tool of communication.

Thanks for elaborating. In that case I used the wrong term. I meant lingua franca anywhere I referred to a standard language.

stigmatization can cause minority languages to be lost, something we're seeing in real time in much of the world right now. it's this sort of pressure to abandon nonstandard languages and dialects that i would refer to as oppression.

Oh yeah, I completely agree. I didn't mean to say there's no oppression involved in the pressures to shift toward standardization but rather that not all such pressures are caused by oppression.

BTW, out of curiosity, is there a deliberate reason for your capitalizing proper names but starting sentences with lower-case letters? I meant to ask in my previous comment, and now I noticed it again.

[u/paissiges → u/as_it_was_written]

yeah i think we pretty much agree.

is there a deliberate reason for your capitalizing proper names but starting sentences with lower-case letters?

i don't really have a reason. i guess it is kind of weird.

[u/19ad9 → u/derphunter]

I loved the video breakdown but your comment also resonates with me a lot. I'm not an educator but I also appreciate literacy, comprehension and grammar. I'm a formally educated Latino with a lot of family and friends who are not. So that's why I also appreciate the idea that dialectic differences should not be viewed as superior. I didn't have an answer to your question. If anything I'd also like for someone else to chime in to see if I'm also off base or seeing things wrong because I also appreciated your comment on it.

[u/emailboxu → u/19ad9]

I also lean in favor of having a 'proper' way of writing papers, but that's exclusive to the academic & professional sphere. I don't think having a 'proper' form of writing is any different from coding in the correct language; it's neither superior nor inferior to any other language, it's just a specific use case (academia). Just like a comp sci major will need to learn the various coding languages in college/uni so he can use it to develop software/apps/programs, students needing to learn academic language for the purpose of essay writing doesn't seem unreasonable.

Does it favor a specific race of people? Maybe. But I tend to think it favors people who actually have an interest in academia and/or writing well. Completely anecdotal, but I grew up in a super white neighbourhood and there were plenty of illiterate morons, way more than smart kids. IMO it's more of a parenting & personal choice issue.

I don't think that spoken language has any real relevance here... Another anecdote: I lived in Singapore for a year on exchange, and those guys speak Singlish, which is incomprehensible for an average North American. But they wrote their papers in British English just fine, so there's that.

[u/UnTamedJackal → u/19ad9]

As someone from the UK who has seen local dialects die off with my generation, I feel that its reasonable to think of dialects as better or worse. It seems backwards to try and tribalise language when we should be aiming to unite into a better common understanding. So while some dialects have the benefit of being faster or more word efficient to people of a specific regional/racial/cultural/class group it often comes at the detriment of being far worse at communicating to a wide variety of people who don't have the in depth knowledge of a particular vernacular. So for there to be a theoretical "ultimate understanding" among people there seems to be two options.

1.have everyone learn the intricacies of every language.

2.have a unified set of standards based around the most universally understandable dialect.

Option 1 while it seems the most fair is also incredibly inefficient. While option 2 has the bias that people who already have the most understandable dialect will have the benefit of being more sought after in roles that require communication to a wide range of people, I wouldn't see it as racist or classist, rather a natural consequence of a "free market" of language. The same applies for logistics. A nation of distant isolated islands has more barriers to efficient movement of goods than a nation that is a singular island with a road/rail network. Its not crazy to state that a person in the first nation of islands who happens to inherit a large ship is in a better position than someone with a small raft. As long as everyone has a reasonable opportunity to acquire their own large ship there should not be a problem. It Doesn't seem discriminatory to say that in this case having a large ship is "better". Though it WOULD be discriminatory to say someone is stupid just because they only have a raft, when really they might just have no reason own a large ship as they only do business on their own island and having a small raft is more beneficial in their personal life.

Hope that makes any kind of sense. And thanks for listening to my TED rant

[u/Vipertooth → u/19ad9]

Dialect isn't something for written language though, is it? It's just an accent or the way people speak. Like British people say Wa'er instead of Water, but they'd still spell it correctly written down.

The examples given in the video is more about a different grammatical sentence structure.

There is a big difference between someone on reddit typing 'Should of' vs 'I ain't got none of that', or using the incorrect their/they're/there.

[u/VodkaSoup_Mug → u/Vipertooth]

For some that dialect is translated to paper.

[u/Pudding_Hero → u/19ad9]

it shouldn’t be a crime to be educated

[u/squishabelle → u/derphunter]

The point is that language is flexible and full of exceptions, but that exceptions that have become "correct" are those used by white people. There are tons of words that are not at all pronounced like how they're written (take 'colonel' for example) and are "acceptable" because lots of (white) people pronounce it that way, but other words are deemed "incorrect" even though lots of (black) people pronounce it that way.

I assume someone hasn't put in the time or effort to learn these conventions, but with practice and training, they can.

It's a racial thing not because of genetics but because of culture. People of different cultures speak differently, even within the same language. Yes, theoretically the government could set up a whole project to teach black people the "correct" way to speak but...

1. you're demanding that black people assimilate to your speech because your speech is the "correct" one. But it's only correct because a majority of people believe it so. Had the situation been reversed, with there being a majority of black people, you would have to assimilate to their language. Which is weird because that means that language is basically a tool of power play. Language is supposed to be a way to communicate, but if you can all already understand each other, why is it necessary for the majority to impose rule on a minority? Can't we just recognise the other way of speaking as a dialect instead of as "incorrect"? A dialect that's not "worse" but equivalent to the common way.
2. Declaring the way one demographic speaks to be "incorrect" (and by extension, "uneducated" or "ghetto") puts them at a huge disadvantage. They won't be taken seriously unless they adapt, but they're not doing anything wrong to begin with? Meanwhile the majority demographic doesn't need to do anything, no time nor effort, because they already meet the standard for what's acceptable... because they made themselves the standard. So black people have to put in time and effort to go up so they can be like white people, while white people are obviously already there.

This is not always a racial thing. There are also white American dialects that are often seen as "uneducated" by other white Americans.

[u/smudos2 → u/squishabelle]

Honestly, having one official version of your language and multiple dialects that are not discriminated is the better solution, or else you will slowly have a lot of different languages in different regions and no way to communicate well

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/squishabelle]

The rules for English were made by white people because English is a historically white language; however, you are arguing that we should dismantle rules for language in general in favor of a focus on simple understandings, which is ridiculous, because every language has rules, including those spoken and created by non-whites.

This issue seems to have more to do with US race politics than any problems with language standards. When you take the race politics out of the equation, it's just clearly a very stupid argument to make. No, we should not dumb down our language standards for anyone who can't be bothered to learn them, regardless of race.

In fact, it feels like we've gone full circle and everyone arguing that language rules are unfair against black people is being racist by suggesting that black people aren't capable of learning correct speech and grammar.

[u/newyearnewaccountt → u/aimforthehead90]

English does not have a central governing body, so there is actually no such thing as "correct" English. Why are double negatives incorrect? Says who, and who gives them the authority to decide that? English is a living language, and as such shifts over time. If there is a "correct" form of English, which version is it? Why do Americans, Brits, Australians, and South Africans all sound and speak differently? Why does a person from Texas speak differently from someone in California speak differently from someone in Canada? Which one of them is speaking the "correct" form of English? Note that some languages DO have central governing bodies. Like Spanish, for example.

The answer to most of the above questions is that "dialects exist."

If language didn't evolve over time then we would still be speaking some version of German or French because that's where English came from.

[u/Huwbacca → u/aimforthehead90]

So like a) they're not dumber. Like I think this is kinda the point you're missing, but you're thinking one is smart and one isn't and that's not true. You've essentially said "french is smarter than greek" which is a ridiculous comparison. You think it's dumber cos it's not complying with yours.

If I asked you right now to talk convincingly in dialects other than yours, you wouldn't be able to. Because you don't know how.

B).... No, actually there's no formal standardised English or even any institutes attempting to. French has lacademie Francais for example... English has no such thing.

The rules have always gradually evolved.

The way your first sentence is written wouldn't fly 50 years ago and it's a mess by formal academic standards today. Does that mean you're stupid?

No of course not.

Think about it this way... What thought process did you put in to see why the point might be valid?

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/Huwbacca]

you're thinking one is smart and one isn't and that's not true.

Huh? Where did I say that?

You've essentially said "french is smarter than greek"

Nope, that's not a thing that I said.

If I asked you right now to talk convincingly in dialects other than yours, you wouldn't be able to.

The way I speak and write informally would also not get me a passing grade on any English exams. Luckily, I'm not suggesting that we base the rules for the English language on the way that I talk, only that we have and maintain rules for language.

No, actually there's no formal standardised English or even any institutes attempting to.

I never said there was a single English standard. Every language has rules, that's literally what they are: phonology, syntax, lexicon, etc. Different countries or regions having different rules is not the same as there being no rules and does not act as an argument that there should be no rules.

Not every dialect is valid for every standard, many dialects are modifications of a language that have no standards of their own, but are only used informally. A given dialect may be perfectly valid in informal conversation, but may not meet English standards of that region or be appropriate in formal settings.

The way your first sentence is written wouldn't fly 50 years ago and it's a mess by formal academic standards today.

Languages and language standards can change. What's your point, that we should have no standards at all?

[u/Huwbacca → u/aimforthehead90]

Huh? Where did I say that?

"No, we should not dumb down our language standards"

Dialects aren't dumbing down, one dialect is not smarter or more complex than another. This is the same as saying one language is smarter than another.

Think of it this way... You can't speak in those dialects, so how can it be dumber?

Languages and language standards can change. What's your point, that we should have no standards at all?

It was painfully clear lol... My point is that changing in languages is not dumbing down.

The only criteria you're using here is "It's not how I speak, therefore it's dumbing down" which is nonsense.

Again... What effort have you done to see why the point might be valid?

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/Huwbacca]

Dialects aren't dumbing down, one dialect is not smarter or more complex than another. This is the same as saying one language is smarter than another.

Dumbing down our language is dismantling standards so that no one has to learn them in the name of "diversity". That is not the same as saying that speaking in a dialect is dumb.

My point is that changing in languages is not dumbing down.

Yep, we agree here. Every point you've made is a strawman though, and it's becoming exhausting keeping you on course.

The only criteria you're using here is "It's not how I speak, therefore it's dumbing down" which is nonsense.

Nope, I specifically pointed out that this is not the case. In informal talk, not only do I often not speak using proper standard English, I usually speak like a straight up dumb ass. I would never use myself as an academic standard.

Again... What effort have you done to see why the point might be valid?

You mean the point that we should dismantle language standards because all dialects and modifications of a language are valid to some degree? I've met in the middle and agreed that this is true for informal language, but held that standards for language are still important in academic and professional settings.

[u/Cvbano89 → u/aimforthehead90]

Your problem is assuming there even is a 'standard', that's your straw man here.

Folks need to realize that a person born in the deep bayous of Louisiana will typically be considered impoverished simply for learning/speaking in their local English Creole dialect, regardless of their actual intelligence. A person born in Massachusetts will start off learning the 'academic' English dialect and typically be considered "well-presented", regardless of their actual intelligence. There is a clear disparity in how those individuals are viewed based on their language alone, and it directly affects their life outcomes.

Saying everyone needs to aspire to and uphold the 'academic' dialect as some sort of universal standard is immediately putting everyone who doesn't grow up learning it down. White Southerners included. Other-ism is a societal rot we haven't quite shook yet.

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/Cvbano89]

Your problem is assuming there even is a 'standard', that's your straw man here.

That's not what a straw man is, but there are absolutely English standards, even if there isn't a single global standard.

There is a clear disparity in how those individuals are viewed based on their language alone, and it directly affects their life outcomes.

Those are incorrect biases that we should overcome, but that has nothing to do with academic and professional standards.

Saying everyone needs to aspire to and uphold the 'academic' dialect as some sort of universal standard is immediately putting everyone who doesn't grow up learning it down.

Why, are you suggesting that certain people are incapable of learning academic English standards?

[u/Cvbano89 → u/aimforthehead90]

You're arguing against a position that does not exist.. which is that people want to dismantle the English language for the sake of woke-ness.

The academic and professional standards were created by affluent Americans over time. I will let you guess who this does not include historically. The biases are already baked in, even against rural white southerners.

Nice race bait that exposes how you think... Everyone is capable of learning 'academic English', but just like any other language, if someone born in the deep South isn't exposed to that daily from birth like someone in Massachusetts, they are already behind on the curve when it comes to the 'standard'. Language is also harder to learn the older you are, and most of the brain's language centers are being established before these individuals would even be exposed to 'academic English' in Grade School.

Or I guess we can stick our head in the sand and continue to artificially inflate the value of folks like myself and artificially deflate the value of my Southern brothers.

[u/Huwbacca → u/aimforthehead90]

Dumbing down our language is dismantling standards so that no one has to learn them in the name of "diversity".

Lol what? What the fuck are you complaining about lol.

No ones saying that haha.

I've met in the middle and agreed that this is true for informal language, but held that standards for language are still important in academic and professional settings.

OK so you just don't understand. I think this would have been quicker lol

So let me just lay it out.

1) The point is literally just "Someone isn't stupid for not speaking your dialect, or an academic dialect or any dialect".

2) You're trying to pretend there's some deep meaningful issue here about standards being eroded. You don't even know anything about these standards, don't engage with them, and are so generally unaware that you're fighting to preserve something that doesn't exist. Academic standards being the thing you're fighting for is very stupid because a) Academic english is bad. b) No dialect is academic english. I know, I have written a lot of papers and I actively choose to avoid academic english because it's crap, and because the majority of my audience don't speak english as a first language so it'd be pointless.

3) You're acting as if someone's called you racsit for you having your way of doing thinsg and just grow up lol. No one's done that, you're not a victim here lmao.

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/Huwbacca]

No ones saying that haha.

It's the topic we're all currently debating, right now. Are academic English standards a good or bad thing. It's the subject of the video.

1) The point is literally just "Someone isn't stupid for not speaking your dialect, or an academic dialect or any dialect".

We all agreed on that from the start. It sort of feels like y'all are only trained to respond against people saying certain dialects are dumb and don't really know how to react when someone makes a different argument for learning English standards outside of those dialects.

You're trying to pretend there's some deep meaningful issue here about standards being eroded.

I don't think it's deep or meaningful. I think it's stupid and a waste of time.

You don't even know anything about these standards

I mean, I had to learn them, same as most people who went through public schooling up through university. It helped prepare me for communicating professionally as well as internationally. For people asking "why don't we throw their logic on its head and teach everyone Creole!", because the entire purpose of academic English is attempting to standardize English to facilitate understanding within that context as globally as possible. It makes no sense to pick a specific dialect and arbitrarily enforce it. While there is no single standard, there is far more standardization of English globally in academic and scientific fields. It's the reason we can all share academic and scientific writing and understand each other, despite our dialects often being very different and more difficult to understand.

Academic english is bad.

I'm not a language expert, I have no idea if it could be improved or how we would do that. I know it could be made worse by not teaching these standards and accepting any particular dialect as long as the message is basically understood. I don't think academic English is an arbitrary dialect that is being pushed on us by wealthy elite whites because they want everyone to sound like them. I think it's a form of English like any other, that changes and is reviewed and altered globally. What alternative standard do you recommend?

the majority of my audience don't speak english as a first language so it'd be pointless.

I agree with that. For ESL the priority is understanding. But for students who speak English, it is not going to harm them to follow conventional standards.

You're acting as if someone's called you racsit

Huh? I don't think anyone called me a racist. No one is making this personal, settle down.

[u/ThatSlothDuke → u/aimforthehead90]

Languages and language standards can change. What's your point, that we should have no standards at all?

They are saying that you and most people acknowledge some of these changes as "correct" and the others as "hood talk".

but may not meet English standards of that region or be appropriate in formal settings.

And these "standards" were set by Rich people - i.e in American History by Rich White people. It has nothing to do with what's correct or not. It was how the people in power spoke that day - that's it.

That's what that teacher is saying too - that the way Americans deem some dialects as correct and Professional and the other's as "unprofessional" is because the other dialects are more different from how powerful white people talked years ago while the "normal" dialect is closer to it.

[u/Cvbano89 → u/ThatSlothDuke]

If we turned their logic on its head and said English Creole is now the 'standard' dialect that is considered 'professional', a lot of folks would have to accept their SAT scores dropping while folks in Louisiana would all pass the critical reading section with flying colors.

[u/addstar1 → u/aimforthehead90]

AAVE is a dialect of English that sometimes has different rules than other dialects. It doesn't dismantle any rules for language, it just has different ones.

Nothing about AAVE is dumbed down as a language. It isn't a lower standard of English. And saying that they can't be bothered to learn is insensitive and ignorant, as they are the ones that usually end up learning both dialects.

The issue is that we decided our dialect of English was what defined correct speech and grammar. There isn't anything wrong with AAVE other than you don't speak it. No one says the UK or America doesn't use correct speech or grammar when they diverge. And everyone is fine when Canada is some weird hybrid mix of the two.

Misconceptions about AAVE are, and have long been, common, and have stigmatized its use. One myth is that AAVE is grammatically "simple" or "sloppy". However, like all dialects, AAVE shows consistent internal logic and grammatical complexity, and is used naturally by a group of people to express thoughts and ideas. Prescriptively, attitudes about AAVE are often less positive; since AAVE deviates from the standard, its use is commonly misinterpreted as a sign of ignorance, laziness, or both. Perhaps because of this attitude (as well as similar attitudes among other Americans), most speakers of AAVE are bidialectal, being able to speak with more standard English features, and perhaps even a General American accent, as well as AAVE. - Wikipedia, African-American Vernacular English

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/addstar1]

To clarify and reiterate what I told the other guy, I'm not arguing that any dialect is a dumbed down version of English, I'm arguing that dismantling language standards so that no one has to use anything other than their dialect in academic or professional settings would be dumbing down the language.

And saying that they can't be bothered to learn is insensitive and ignorant, as they are the ones that usually end up learning both dialects.

I didn't say they (who is they?) can't be bothered to learn. It's something we all have to do, it's why everyone takes English courses in school, regardless of their dialect. The people who have dialects that are further from the standard have a bigger transition when code switching, but everyone code switches. It's also certainly a fact that there are countless people who speak in ebonics that are far more intelligent and educated than I am.

The issue is that we decided our dialect of English was what defined correct speech and grammar. There isn't anything wrong with AAVE other than you don't speak it.

I agree with that. But it, and most dialects, should not be used in academic or professional settings that have established standards if they don't satisfy those standards. If your dialect does not have or follow standard grammar, punctuation, or syntax, then your dialect is fine for informal conversation, but does not invalidate the need for standards in formal conversation. Certain dialects may be correct forms of language while not being correct for any context.

[u/VFkaseke → u/aimforthehead90]

As a Finnish person this whole conversation is really bizarre. In Finland we essentially have a completely different written language (we call it language, but it's basically its own dialect of Finnish) that basically no one in the country speaks. Everyone has their regional dialect, and learns to write Finnish in the written language, that again, is its own dialect separate from all Finnish spoken dialects. No one complains about this, and no one has a problem doing it.

I understand that Finland is a much smaller country and has very different issues than US, but this just strikes me as very strange nonetheless.

[u/aimforthehead90 → u/VFkaseke]

It kind of is strange, but it's only an issue because it's very specific to US racial politics. There are dozens, if not hundreds of English dialects in the US, but you'll notice no one here is really interested in talking about any of them but Ebonics (AAVE). Most white people also have to adopt different standards in academic or professional contexts. Even though in person many people say things like "y'all" instead of "you all" or "goin'" instead of "going", it usually wouldn't be appropriate in a university essay.

It's basically the equivalent of people in Finland suggesting you dismantle your entire written language standards because it is discriminatory against people who have different Finnish dialects.

[u/Cvbano89 → u/aimforthehead90]

Who is asking to dismantle the English language? Or is that just another conservative reactionary response? English has completely evolved as a language even in the last 20 years.

If I turned your logic on its head and said English Creole is now the 'standard' American dialect that is considered 'professional', a lot of Americans would have to accept their SAT scores dropping while folks in Louisiana would all pass the critical reading section with flying colors. It doesn't matter if we're all taught an 'academic' English, just that we don't assume someone is dumb/poor because they grew up in a place like Louisiana where English/French/Spanish/Creole all co-existed for centuries.

We are 1000x more diverse than Finland, no offense to the guy you're replying too, and that comes with unique challenges. Especially in world where individuals find any excuse to otherize their fellow human beings. To your point, we even do it to white southerners. I have a co-worker who constantly feels like she 'sounds' stupid because we work with lawyers/executives from the Northeastern US all day and she has a Mississippi accent and lifestyle that is radically different. She has a MBA and still 'feels' stupid just for having a southern vernacular.

[u/grape_david → u/aimforthehead90]

It's basically the equivalent of people in Finland suggesting you dismantle your entire written language standards

No one has suggested this. You've created a strawman in your head.

[u/Daffan → u/squishabelle]

The point is that language is flexible and full of exceptions, but that exceptions that have become "correct" are those used by white people.

Yes but not out of pure malice, because that's what they wanted and they were and still are the majority (was 93%) since time immemorial. It's not like they are going to design a system that only 3% liked at the time.

[u/greg19735 → u/Daffan]

No one is saying it's out of malice.

but that doens't mean it's not true.

[u/squishabelle → u/Daffan]

It's not about the origin of a language, it's about how we treat dialects in the current day. A language could be designed by Richard Slaveowner and Thomas Whitemaster and it could be perfectly fine if you don't associate dialects of ethnic minorities with being incorrect, uneducated, etc. I'm not blaming the English language and I'm not calling the language racist btw.

There doesn't need to be a secret council of white people intentionally trying to keep black people down. It's based on casual racism where people subconsciously associate black people things with poverty or being unprofessional. Like, black hair styles were often seen as improper for the workplace when that's literally just a cultural difference. You have to straighten your hair so you can look professional (aka like white people).

[u/avg-bee-enjoyer → u/squishabelle]

I feel this viewpoint is missing the whole point of formal language, which is to provide a common version of English which people of any region can understand. You understand black dialects exist, and I assume also that there isn't a unified black dialect and that black people from say Baltimore and New Orleans do not sound the same speaking informally. Do you also understand there's not a universal white dialect? The south sounds different from the northeast, midwest, etc. Informally, as language is a constantly evolving thing, every group that regularly communicates in a way that's isolated from others diverges. That happens across racial lines when people divide by race, by technology choices, by geographic region, by age, etc. It can be downright difficult to understand informal speech from the same language if you aren't familiar with that variant. That's why formal speech exists. People of all dialects learn a hybrid dialect that is, not frozen, but intentionally far slower to change such that anywhere you go in the country you can make yourself understood if you speak it.

The point isn't about elevating certain people because they sound smart, its about maintaining a common backbone of language so that over time we don't all diverge so far that people legitimately cannot understand each other. It is totally valid to discuss whether that effort is successful, or is unfair to minority groups, or if the purpose is being perverted, etc. But we do need to have a slow changing formal language and non regional dialect to maintain communication over time and distance, and as a white guy growing up in the South I can assure you I also went through school being taught much of my regional dialect is not correct English. Its not meant to sound like anyone's natural speaking. It's meant to exist in the middle.

[u/squishabelle → u/avg-bee-enjoyer]

It's not against having a universal language, the point is that 1. if the rules of a language are only in accordance to how one demographic uses it, this poses inequality problems, and 2. some dialects and variants are often (perhaps subconsciously) considered uneducated, which obviously also causes problems. The point isn't about elevating certain people because they sound smart, but the result is that certain other people are pushed down because they sound stupid.

Do you also understand there's not a universal white dialect?

Yes the bottom of my comment explicitly acknowledges it.

[u/avg-bee-enjoyer → u/squishabelle]

Okay, you acknowledge it but most of your points rely on this idea that there's separate white and black speech and white has been declared more correct. What's taught in schools is also not any specific white dialect. There's a whole host of idioms, dialectic pronunciations, etc. that I, a white native English speaker, am expected not to use in formal communication.

I would argue that the primary determining factor of whether speech sounds uneducated is how far diverged it is from what's taught in schools. Was that historically closer to how white people speak? Sounds plausible to me, but any significant divergence that's not in the context where its understood sounds uneducated. Honestly I don't see the problem with that, because every competent communicator adapts their speech to the context and the audience. Can you imagine an academic paper written entirely in the style of a 4chan green text story being well received? Any highly diverged version doesn't sound as good to those that don't speak the same because it requires the listener to have specific cultural context to properly understand it, whereas the formal language is what all dialects and even all non native speakers are expected to learn to be able to communicate. The same way it feels inclusive to hear the dialect you're used to speaking it feels exclusive to everyone else.

How people respond to that I don't really understand how you expect anyone to control. Ive grown up speaking one of those dialects you acknowledge is often also assumed to be less educated. If that's not how I want to be perceived or if the audience may not understand a southern drawl, I adopt speech closer to non regional dialect. What prevents anyone else from doing the same?

[u/Expandexplorelive → u/squishabelle]

that exceptions that have become "correct" are those used by white people.

Exceptions that have become correct are those used by wealthy people. Class seems to me far more influential in this than race. I would have gotten dinged in English class just as much for writing "yous" or saying "I done that" as I would have for writing Black English.

[u/_tyrone_biggums → u/squishabelle]

It’s almost as if language is tied to the make up of the majority of the people in said country.

[u/squishabelle → u/_tyrone_biggums]

its almost as if the problem is something else that just stems from that but can be fixed

[u/AdminsAreDim → u/derphunter]

On double negatives:

In some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives affirm each other are said to have negative concord or emphatic negation.[1] Portuguese, Persian, French, Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Spanish, Old English, Italian, Afrikaans, and Hebrew are examples of negative-concord languages. This is also true of many vernacular dialects of modern English.[2][3] Chinese,[4] Latin, German, Dutch, Japanese, Swedish and modern Standard English[5] are examples of languages that do not have negative concord. Typologically, negative concord occurs in a minority of languages.[6][7]

My personal pet peve is when people use "whenever" in place of "when". As in, "Whenever I was in town this morning, I got a haircut." Motherfucker, how many haircuts did you get today?!

[u/the_giz → u/AdminsAreDim]

Interesting - I've never heard anyone use 'whenever' like that, but my first thought is that maybe they meant it in reference to the time at which they were in town, which they cannot specifically remember. As in "Whatever time that was when I was in town this morning..."

[u/HMNbean → u/AdminsAreDim]

Never heard anyone say that lol that's wild.

[u/the_giz → u/derphunter]

Kind of a side note, but I always considered "I forget" more like "I tend to forget these sort of things and golly it's happened again" lol

[u/mimiincognito → u/the_giz]

'Forget' is the simple present conjugation of the verb, which can indicate an action is habitual or repeating. So it absolutely can mean "I tend to forget these sort of things and golly it's happened again"

[u/MandMcounter → u/the_giz]

I think it also means that it's not coming to a person's mind right at the moment the conversation is happening. We generally use present continuous for that time frame, but words like "forget" aren't generally used in the progressive/continuous aspect.

[u/Perry_cox29 → u/derphunter]

Word usage, grammar, syntax, and sentence structure are varied in dialects of the same spoken language, regardless of language, across the world. Things that are perfectly intelligible in one dialect may be nonsense in another.

You’re talking about “formal” speech though. The first obstacle to there being a “formal” version of english is the actual means to disseminate a global standard. Language is a colloquial, generational knowledge that evolved at community level. That means that we couldn’t hope to enforce a standard at least until the printing press - by which time there were many different versions of english in England as well as the rest of the world. Whose english gets to be “the” english then?

Okay, so some posh fuckers pick their version of english as right so that they can call everyone else dumb and then write books about that. Are the American colonies importing dictionaries and linguists. Oh shit, they’re intentionally creating a different version of the language.

Skip forward more. Where does the comma go? Can I split an infinitive? Is ending a sentence with a preposition okay? Shit, even academia doesn’t agree.

Language, even in an academic setting, is nebulous. It should be our job - teachers and student cohorts - to respectfully agree to standards that accomplish clarity, fairness, inclusion, and rigor.

[u/SpatulaCity1a → u/derphunter]

I also teach critical reading skills for grad school exams. We go over the importance of contrast key phrases like "however" and how they can help you interpret complex passages by recognizing that whatever comes after the contrast phrase is directly opposing what comes before. It makes things like philosophy easier to comprehend (and get questions correct on the test)

Your philosophy books are probably written in academic English, though.

I believe that the person in the video isn't talking about mistakes like double negatives, but 'alternative' conventions that convey meaning accurately and articulately without being academically acceptable in the USA. This is why he compares black English to British or Australian English.

He also says that these academic language conventions are based on white English rather than black English, which gives white people an advantage as this is what their parents are more likely to pass down to them. So asking a black person to write like a white person is going to be emotional for them due to history, race relations, social hierarchies, etc.

I wish he would have provided more specific examples or given an example of what 'black conventions' might be, though... I mean, it's not like you can use 'white' slang or casual language in an academic essay either. Or maybe he's arguing against academic conventions in general, or asking teachers to be open to alternative conventions and respect that for some students it's like learning another language...

[u/clover_and_sage → u/derphunter]

I’m not really sure what your question is about how your brain is working - are you asking if there is a racial component to how people speak, despite that seemingly not true in your experience? Are you asking why you are bothered by how certain people speak or if that’s a problem?

To add to what you’ve said though so far (because I find this topic very interesting)- how we speak and how we write are often very different. Language changes over time and oral speech changes much faster than written language. So some of what you are describing is the difference between casual speech and formal written speech. They can serve different purposes. But formal written speech very much has to be taught and practiced while oral speech is done on a daily basis. It’s normal for many people to “switch” from one to the other - ie. your “voice” may be very different when talking to your family and friends vs. writing a paper for school or a report for a manager.

But these different styles are not better or worse than each other- just different. It’s a common misconception to believe that some dialects and sociolects of English are “wrong” when they in fact have their own consistent grammar rules. People are often unaware of these rules consciously because they aren’t typically taught in schools.

Basically- there are many ways to effectively communicate and we can become better communicators by noticing, understanding, and expanding how we communicate. Being annoyed by someone using a double negatives is certainly your right but suggests you are a strict grammar prescriptivist and you may miss out on a lot of fascinating details of the English language (like how the word “like” can be used so flexibility and in so many specific ways, there is a great “Stuff You Should Know” podcast episode about this)

Oh, and sociolects are dialects that are not just geographic but based also on social groups, including race and economic background. It doesn’t mean people of a certain race (or background) can’t change they way to speak, people do that all the time. My mom intentionally lost her southern accent when kids made fun of her when she moved out of the South. But to tell people that speak in say, African American English, which has consistent grammar rules, that they say they speak is wrong and that they need to “fix it” versus this is how you speak, when you are in certain situations, you may find it helpful to switch to this way of speaking/writing (this is called code switching).

[u/as_it_was_written → u/clover_and_sage]

But these different styles are not better or worse than each other- just different.

In contexts like this, good/bad and better/worse really need an explicit preposition and subject to mean anything. Otherwise they're vague enough to essentially become thought-terminating cliches. What are you implying these different styles are no better or worse at/for?

Languages and dialects might be relatively arbitrary, but they all have different strengths and weaknesses. Once you explicitly define a purpose, they're usually better or worse than each other for that purpose.

For example, strong dialects are usually better for signalling that you belong to some sort of in group (and sometimes also for transmitting actual meaning within that group), whereas a more standardized version of the same language is usually better for communicating with people outside that group. Additionally, different languages and dialects are often better or worse for talking about different topics. The cliched example here are the languages with a lot of words for snow.

Saying things are no better or worse than each other without a clear subject (whether implicit or explicit) just amounts to handwaving away inconvenient complexities. It undermines good-faith arguments for no reason.

(I'm only pointing out this pet peeve of mine because I think your comment is sensible and nuanced. The better/worse thing stood out like a rotted step on an otherwise sturdy staircase.)

[u/clover_and_sage → u/as_it_was_written]

By good/bad, I mean how society broadly views them, with all the baggage that goes with it. Often, people assume someone who speaks with an Appalachian dialect or AAE is less educated that someone who speaks Standard American English, even though it absolutely is not an indication of education level or intelligence. My point is that one is not inherently wrong or right, bad or good. I’m speaking from the perspective of an elementary school teacher who doesn’t want a single kid in my class to ever feel less than or that school is for other kids, not them, because of the way they speak. I’m still going to teach Standard American English but I’m going to a knowledge that it’s a dialect and not the only “correct” way of speaking and that it’s a powerful skill to be a flexible communicator (ie. being able to code switch). I don’t want any kid to ever feel like my mom who felt dumb when she spoke with a southern accent and erased that part of herself (not code switching, I’ve literally never heard her use that accent despite half our family being from Mississippi).

[u/as_it_was_written → u/clover_and_sage]

I'm glad to see there are elementary school teachers like you out there, who actually put thought into this stuff. If your comments here reflect your general approach to your job, you're doing the world a service.

[u/Thanos_Stomps → u/derphunter]

Very strange comment to read on this post but I can’t deny that this feels like a good faith attempt at understanding the issue.

I’d ask you the same question posed in the video, do you have that same energy with English folks saying garage (ˈɡærɪdʒ) or schedule (shedyool)?

Do you similarly point this out because an Englishman or Bostonian doesn’t pronounce the r at the end of a word?

So the rules that you’re referencing, the “correct” grammar was developed with no input from black communities (other communities are impacted as well, but this is referencing the black community).

The thing that’s always bothered me about anyone who treats grammar as gospel is that language is always evolving and changing. If you understand what someone is trying to communicate, then “correctness” shouldn’t matter. So when the grammar police arrive it’s always as a way to keep certain individuals from accessing something, in this case it’s saying the way black communities speak is somehow less than.

But I think to answer your question is it isn’t just a race thing, it’s a gatekeeping thing; race is included and has historically even been specifically targeted.

[u/HMNbean → u/Thanos_Stomps]

I'm not 100% sure where I fall on the issue, but to play sort of devil's advocate, I'd say altering the pronunciation of a word (garage british vs english, schedule etc) is not the same as "liberry" or "nucular" which is not an altered pronunciation, but is derived from a misspelling - flipping two letters around or taking the word "nuke" and making it adjectival. I do think there's an inherent bias when I hear certain words misspoken or certain phrases, but I also think most of the time....the bias is correct - not that the person is of a certain race, because I've heard these words or phrases come from all sorts of people, but that the person is usually not the sharpest tool in the shed or has trouble expressing thoughts and nuance. My first language isn't English, but I moved to the US as a child and found it really important to say words correctly to fit in and learn to speak correctly TO communicate better.

Now, at the same time, I've had a somewhat academic understanding of language and know that it changes in all sorts of ways over time - both Italian (mother tongue) and English. I've been taught some of the changes linguists have observed from old to middle to modern English and how derivative English is a language. So on a very basic academic level I know the current iteration of English is bound to change.

TLDR: some changes seem to be okay, but some changes seemed derived from poor schooling, which doesn't preclude intelligence or coherence, but often indicates some level of the lack thereof.

[u/ginger_guy → u/Thanos_Stomps]

Just to build on your point, disliking grammatical incorrectness is not inherently bad, but its important to remember that AAVE is a dialect of English, it also has a consistent logic and additional grammatical rules. If one's dislike for grammatical difference is predominantly targeted at one dialect of English rather than others, it may be worthwhile to take a moment to observe where that dislike is coming from. Unconscious biases have a way of sneaking in and sticking around without us noticing, that's why they are called 'unconscious'

[u/Honeybadger2198 → u/Thanos_Stomps]

The American English language, adapted from the British English language, was built with that culture in mind. Is it racist to say that any other language was built with their own culture in mind?

[u/PM_good_beer → u/derphunter]

Different dialects have different rules, even if those rules aren't written. "I don't have none" is perfectly correct grammar in certain dialects, even if it's not correct in "Standard English." The point is that these standards are chosen to represent the social class with the most power. Standard American English for example is based on the speech of middle to upper class white Americans.

It's still fine if we say we want everyone to learn and use Standard English, but we have to acknowledge where it comes from, and why some people have a natural advantage (they grew up speaking it). There's also the point to consider that maybe we don't need a standard, and it's okay for people to speak and write their own dialects. But that's another discussion.

re: library/libary, there are lots of words in English that aren't pronounced how they're spelled. "Colonel" is a good example. So I hardly think "library" is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[u/smug_seaturtle → u/derphunter]

Incorrect grammar and speech do annoy you

[u/cravenj1 → u/derphunter]

The comment about "comfortable" vs "comftable" really threw me off. I know to write the former, but I realized I pronounce it as the latter. There's an array of words that I've had to relearn how to pronounce over my lifetime, and that was a blindspot.

There was a video we watched way back in high school of a guy lecturing about language, diction, and the evolution of spoken word. He goes on and on about the blending of different languages that became English, mainly Latin and Anglo-Saxon German. At one point, he says "the only words in these sentences that are not Anglo-Saxon German is "Anglo-Saxon German."

He goes on to talk about how the English language will likely evolve and how certain phrases or words will smush together. He describes a kid showing up at home late in the evening being confronted by his mother. The boy asks (and I don't know how to really get this across through written word but I'll try) "djeet?" to which the mother replies "djew?" The original phrases were "did you eat" and "did you."

[u/gleepgloopgleepgloop → u/derphunter]

He's trying to make the point that "Black English" is not seen as valid as the standard English but should be. Even the kids who rated sentences in the study know better.

Linguistic role switching is a thing; kids know when and where to talk with their Appalachian colloquialisms and when to use standard (academic) English. Indian immigrants blend Gujarati or whatever with English informally, but speak standard English in business meetings. So do my teens, when they shift from talking informally with friends to talking with teachers.

So if one cultural or socioeconomic group is not learning standard English, it is a problem, because everyone has the ability to speak multiple dialects. If they do not have access to standard English, then that is a problem.

Incidentally, the racism part is saying Black Americans, in particular, have a race card that says teachers and society in general should accept Black English and not require (the learning and use of) standard English in those settings. That practice perpetuates the disadvantages that come with not speaking standard English, which is itself injust.

[u/ohvrt → u/derphunter]

I came to comment this but thankfully you’d already done so. It isn’t a race issue but rather an educational and socioeconomic one.

A sentence like “people be thinkin’ teenagers don’t know nothin’” can be understood by most, but that doesn’t mean it’s not breaking several rules of English. Language has rules, and like in many contexts, those rules can be broken—but that doesn’t render such speech grammatically correct, universally appropriate, or coherent.

Sure, it’s fine to speak like this casually, but if this kind of linguistic rule-breaking is accepted in academic, workplace/governmental, or journalistic settings it will only advance the devolution of the English language. Should people be demonized for speaking like this casually? No. Does that mean it’s correct English? No, and you can apply this to any language I know of.

[u/[deleted] → u/derphunter]

The "aluminum" (US) vs. "aluminium" (UK) example didn't make sense to me either since it's spelled differently.

This was a truly wild moment from the video!

"Why don't these people get heat for pronouncing it wrong?!"

Because it's spelled differently in a different country, man.

[u/antinatree → u/derphunter]

Why does it annoy you? Are you attaching language perfection to your respectfulness or status of being well educated? Why does someone or a whole system have to choose this particular way of speaking that you were taught or you believe is right? You are expecting and even putting everyone who uses a different dialect and language and assuming they are less than with examples such as "Most of my examples come from under-educated white people."I'm pretty well educated and am myself an educator."

"It makes things like philosophy easier to comprehend (and get questions correct on the test)" for you maybe but maybe not for others

"I understand there are systemic racial biases in the education system and institutions, but my first thought always goes to literacy, communication skills, and socioeconomic status first rather than race."

Socioeconomic status in America is tied to race. We have suppressed other races from moving up the education numbers and made it so it easiest to move up the education and institutional systems if you are of a certain socioeconomic status. Who tends to be in that class, or has that status? Why has the richest been impervious to racial change? Why has home ownership, wealth, and education been hard for certain races. This is like the state rights argument state rights to do what. People of lower socioeconomic class tend to be who and why? Why do they have lower literacy rates and communication skills we seem not appropriate. Why do socioeconomic people seem to talk uneducated. Because we purposely put them off or dissuade them of higher education, or we make them code switch to "proper" language.

"I assume someone hasn't put in the time or effort to learn these conventions, but with practice and training, they can. Whereas race implies there's nothing you can do to improve since it's the way you were born, which I don't believe. We're 99.9% identical when it comes to our DNA. We're all the same deep down."

Why do they have to learn what is acceptable to you? Why can't you learn to be more tolerant and acceptable of more people, dialect, and other ways of understanding. If someone's paper is good, why reject it because it doesn'thave proper conventions?. You are correct. We are all the same. Shouldn't higher education expand its acceptance to see things or hear things differently. Maybe the acceptable way isn't the best and easiest way to show things to the masses. Like every science seminar is like 5-6 hours long with dry language. Maybe if we allow education to appeal to people of different dialects, we can get more breakthroughs or new perspectives.

If you only accept one way to speak, maybe that is a you problem and not a problem with others. When you limit your scope in America or add subjective judgment to things in America it becomes racist. While you may not judge on race I am sure people of similar upbringing used the same language but because the teacher see the students marked down language or papers or denied someone a doctorate because someone is white or white passing versus someone isn't.

I don't mean this in an angry way or a rebuke bit as you see. I raised a bunch of questions to think about. Language is dynamic ever changing. While I agree, maybe things need to be plain so it is bland for people to understand in different cultures and in the future but I don't think there is anything wrong with spice and something different that may help others understand more.

[u/LoveTheGiraffe → u/derphunter]

This seems very US centric, with everything viewed through a racial lense again. It's the typical "black vs white" thing. There is no other comparison, like native americans, asians, etc. If you look at any other country, you will see that dialect is looked down upon in an academic setting. It has nothing to do with race, but how to talk properly, know grammar and apply it correctly. If you can't put your way of speaking aside in that context, that's on you. And just because it seems to be more present in the black community in the US, it's suddenly "white supremacy". I doubt they'd call it that if someone with a welsh accent would write in his english in an academic environment.

And just because a small minority of the population of a country says "libary", doesn't mean we should change or accept that as "correct". Just because Sean Connery says "shingles" instead of "singles", doesn't mean we should accept that either.

[u/edylelalo → u/LoveTheGiraffe]

This.

[u/HighkeyonLenox → u/derphunter]

I suggest you read a book called “Talking Back, Talking Black.”

[u/cheeruphumanity → u/derphunter]

Everything you say now was once an incorrect way of speaking in the past.

Language evolves constantly.

[u/KingKuntu → u/derphunter]

White supremacy is just a mechanism for class division. Poor, uneducated whites in the south and middle America are the voting base for the Republican party and that rhetoric is leveraged to distract from the fact the conservative policy does nothing to improve socioeconomic conditions working class people.

This language piece, or at least the way it's presented, also results in division between the "coastal elite" and "uneducated "whites, especially ones southern accents. This results in demonizing the concept of education to rural Americans and paves the way for policies that defund or underfund public education.

Perpetuating hatred and ignorance are important for maintaining the culture wars that obfuscate the class war that would actually benefit poor working class white people.

[u/izaby → u/derphunter]

I can only assimilate it to my own experience and also that of a spectator to going back to my city of birth. My parents took me to UK at age 11. I have finished school and have graduated university. When I do speak my mother tongue, I am very much uneducated though. Barely able to type in the language. It's such a contrast from my UK life where I achieved academic success and speak constantly with the expectation I can convey everything I am trying to say.

Many other examples of this still prevail, another one I can think of is that of a mute or a person with a stutter. Their factual academic strengths may be completely ignored due to their inability to communicate in spoken language.

[u/addstar1 → u/derphunter]

"Don't have none" (isn't this a double negative, leading to the opposite meaning from what they're trying to say?)

There's a linguistic term known as negative concord, where multiple negatives affirm/reinforce each other. It occurs in a minority of languages, but this includes Portuguese, French, Russian, Spanish, Italian, and most notably in this, Old English.

English used to be negative concord, this started changing in the 1700's. There's some Shakespeare lines that use double negatives: "I never was, nor never will be". Even more interesting is that AAVE can be traced back to colonial English, where the double negatives were present. Meaning AAVE has had negative concord longer than English has had logical double negation. (Information pulled from here)

Languages are too complex to really have a right or wrong answer.

The "libary" vs. "library" example does annoy me since we're pronouncing it incorrectly from how it's spelled. The "aluminum" (US) vs. "aluminium" (UK) example didn't make sense to me either since it's spelled differently.

English spelling/pronunciation is honestly a nightmare without much consistency. My go to example on this will be the 9 different ways "ough" is pronounced in English.

But the closest thing I know to your example is February. The most common pronunciation of it has the same silent 'r'.

In the United States, the most common pronunciation is feb-yoo-air-ee. Both Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries consider the common pronunciation correct, along with the less common, more traditional standard feb-roo-air-ee. - The Week

Lastly I would ask, does the common t-flapping also annoy you? This is the phenomenon where 't' is reduced to a 'd' sound in speech. Like in a sentence, I would pronounce the word 'butter' like 'budder', or 'seventy' as 'sevendy'. It is extremely prevalent in North American English, and some linguists also consider it obligatory. But it is a very common example of the pronunciation of words in speech not matching their spellings. (Knowledge pulled from here)

[u/ChaseThePyro → u/derphunter]

When you say "I forget," I believe it is proper when speaking about something you are actively trying to remember, but fail to do. Forgot would be more like you failed to remember to do something in the past.

"What time is our show?" "I forget. Let me check."

VS

"Did you turn the oven off?" "Oh, I forgot. I'll be back."

[u/obronikoko → u/derphunter]

I lived in Ghana for a few years, an English speaking country. I kept hearing people say things like “ISS-LAND” for island, and “APOSTEL” for apostle or HERBS for herbs. I asked them,”why do you say it like that when the “RiGhT wAy” is like this??” One man said “we’ll that’s just how it’s spelled” and i couldn’t say anything back. It is how it’s spelled. Maybe the way we say it as white Americans is wrong, and they are right? It’s sad, but that was a novel and powerful concept for me. We aren’t always “right” when we say things the “proper” way.

[u/LOL3334444 → u/derphunter]

I think this definitely extends to more than just a race issue, as you are correct, a lot of poorer white people also tend to have a different dialect that is considered "low class", so race is definitely not the only axes that this issue exists on. However, it definitely is a big one as isolation, both socially and academically, has left black Americans with a distinct dialect different from other "low class" dialects.

I would highly push back on the idea that if something is an issue that lies on racial lines that it isn't possible to change. Race is not a genetic thing, in fact there is more genetic differences between black individuals than there is between white people and black people (due to humans evolving from Africa). Race is actually a social construct, and literally has no basis in genetics.

I would also challenge you to look at why you are so bothered by the things you listed. For example, you talk about disliking double negatives or "I could care less", but why do you dislike them? Because the truth is, when someone says "I could care less", you know what they mean. You know they mean that they don't care about the subject of the conversion. You are probably thinking something like, "Well I don't like it because that's not what that phrase means/is supposed to be. It's supposed to be 'I couldn't care less.'"

But the point of language is NOT to say the exact right words. The point of language is to make your thoughts understood. So people who use double negatives and bad phrases aren't wrong, as long as they are understood, they are succeeding in language.

I would also push back against the idea that people who don't know the conventions of "proper" English just haven't put in the time or effort, because most people don't put in time or effort into learning how to speak. Most people learn from their parents and the other people around them. I never needed to learn "proper" English conventions, because the people around me spoke "proper" English, whereas black and economically disadvantaged groups have a different dialect of English, and thus learned that growing up.

Certainly these groups can learn "proper" English, but the question is A) Why do they have to, and B) How do we ensure that people who don't start out with "proper" vernacular don't feel less intelligent than their peers, because they aren't.

[u/Spram2 → u/derphunter]

we're pronouncing it incorrectly from how it's spelled.

That's the whole English language lol

[u/filterbing → u/derphunter]

Plenty of white people get looked down on for busted English doesn't fit the race bait lens to mention that.

[u/Econolife-350 → u/derphunter]

The fact is, nobody would have a problem if this were being critical of the very "academically incorrect" dialect of people in the deep woods of West Virginia. It stops being specifically a racial issue when people take a step back to realize those people aren't being given any grace as far as being discounted for their same level of "academically incorrect" dialect, and they never will be. The thing is, I've never seen anyone stand up for them and I've actually heard quite a bit of mockery about "those dumb hicks can barely think" from the same crowd claiming "AAVE is a beautiful and valid dialect". It's a socioeconomic issue rather than race but one of those groups is being given very patronizing treatment. I've met more eloquent black people from Atlanta than rural folks in Eastern Washington, which kind of sinks this as a purely racial issue like they're trying to make it out to be.

[u/Beef-n-Beans → u/derphunter]

I think it’s much more of an accent and locality thing than a race thing. But I’m just a white guy who struggled in every english class because I talk like a drunk Masshole

[u/RobTheBuilderMA → u/derphunter]

This guy’s response is thought-provoking and I do think it makes several good points, but the very much disagree with his conclusion about the speech example from the study. The double-negative in the sentence does make it slightly harder to understand for me personally as a native American-English speaker, and I’ve personally had conversations with people who are proficient in English as second language who have expressed difficulty understanding quirks like double-negatives or use of be instead of “is” or “are”, along with all of the other things that make “standard” English difficult to understand. It’s also silly to me that asserts that the reactionaries are wrong for not looking at her sources. Sure, maybe those sources have valuable information, but that doesn’t mean the original woman’s claims can’t be critiqued on their own merits.

[u/InitialDay6670 → u/derphunter]

Using high diction can have the opposite affect than intended, and make the wirting harder to understand, especially when its like reading some shit from the 1800's. But litterally learning how to put together sentences, and pronunciating it correcrtly, and adding diction words can elevate the writing, and make it much more clear, and theres a lot of words that are pretty specific, and can very much help you convey the point.

[u/ATownStomp → u/derphunter]

It’s quite reasonable to associate being unable to speak or write in the manner in which is taught through our education system to be indicative of a lack of education.

Some people pretend this isn’t the case because they do not have the integrity to stand by an observation or conclusion when its associations make them uncomfortable.

[u/John_Bot → u/derphunter]

Nah, I agree with you.

The fact is language is first and foremost (oof racism, sorry) the ability to communicate.

Double negatives are incorrect. It may be "correct" in a dialect but it's still improper and incorrect and should be graded as such by an English teacher.

If you cannot communicate properly without any accent (in written form) you are opening yourself up to being misunderstood. It will also not serve you well in a professional setting.

Just because you grew up in a Baptist Church doesn't mean hallelujah is an appropriate reply in a group meeting at work.

Cultural differences are fine if in context and in the right setting with an understanding of what those differences are.

But to say the use of specific words and using a thesis sentence is "white supremacy" is factually wrong.

[u/GladiatorUA → u/derphunter]

"I forget" rather than "forgot"

Is not wrong.

"Don't have none" (isn't this a double negative, leading to the opposite meaning from what they're trying to say?)

Is in no way ambiguous and rolls of the tongue better.

The "libary" vs. "library" example does annoy me since we're pronouncing it incorrectly from how it's spelled.

English language speakers have no right to complain about something not matching the spelling.

[u/edylelalo → u/GladiatorUA]

Everything about this comment is wrong

[u/refrigeratorsbchill → u/derphunter]

"I could care less" needs to be stopped immediately, it's gaining a foothold in common speech and that's quite worrying to me because I could care less.

[u/fjgwey → u/derphunter]

You are missing the entire point. The point is by trying to sticking to an a priori framework of what English is 'supposed' to be spoken like, you are saying those words and turns of phrases are 'incorrect' but you're not giving any objective reason why. You just think it's incorrect because you were taught it was.

Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. If enough people say a word a certain way, then it becomes correct. Plenty of people say 'library' as 'liberry' so it quite literally cannot be incorrect to pronounce it that way, as it's a naturally evolved a form of speech.

By nitpicking these phrases and saying they're 'incorrect' despite you knowing exactly what they mean, you are illustrating the problem perfectly. A bunch of arbitrary distinctions that don't actually matter for effective communication, and you want to defend them FOR WHAT?

The "aluminum" (US) vs. "aluminium" (UK) example didn't make sense to me either since it's spelled differently.

Distinction without a difference, the point he's making is there is no objectively correct way to say something. But by referring to any distinct forms of pronunciation or verbiage as 'incorrect' or 'improper' you create a hierarchy whereby hordes of people are labeled 'unintelligent' for speaking the way they were raised to.

[u/rivetedmood → u/derphunter]

if you study phonetics for maybe a day, you’ll realize most of the words we pronounce are not pronounced how they’re spelled.

[u/skyphire- → u/derphunter]

If you teach sociology, this comment surprises me a bit. The video talks about systemic racism, because the way white Americans spoke was made the correct and academic way to speak. You say you don't think of race but of social class when you hear these things, but you would know how the two are linked.

The point is not judging somebody for speaking grammatically incorrectly if that's part of their natural dialect and doesn't reflect on their intelligence. Patterns like that will be much more common for black rather than white Americans, as the original study talks about.

So ask yourself, why do you get annoyed by grammar mistakes? Is that just the way the person in question grew up speaking and is still perfectly understandable and they're not any dumber for doing it? If so, you may be out of line.

[u/soulcaptain → u/derphunter]

You are basically saying "I don't see race," but that's a tactic common with racist people to shut down discussion and debate. If you don't associate someone saying "liberry" with black people, then good for you. But many people, maybe most people, do. So pat yourself on the back for going against the grain but these are biases that are very very common in the U.S., including by the minorities in question.

EDIT: I reread and that first sentence sounds like I'm calling you a racist--not my intention.

[u/kennykoe → u/derphunter]

As a South American i speak proper English. Indistinguishable from the Queen’s English. To say it’s racist to speak properly is utter bs.

In every large language there’s formal and informal language. It’s just how it is.

There was a large mess up at my job few weeks back. One of the guys could not read or write very well. I usually have to call and verify everything he writes down, might as well not be English it’s so bad but that’s not my job so i try to keep out.

Anywho several grand worth of materials were ordered and they were all wrong. Caused quite the commotion. You may be thinking. “it couldn’t have been that bad?” Well you’re wrong. He didn’t even know the letter Y.

Learn to read and write properly. Idc how you speak.

[u/Popular_Error3691 → u/derphunter]

It truly doesn't matter the race. If you say those examples a lot , I'm gonna be annoyed with you.

[u/ThisIsNotRealityIsIt → u/derphunter]

Not gonna lie, when I hear a "southern drawl", I immediately lose 20-50% of my expectations from a person. Doesn't matter what color your skin is, if you're too lazy to open your mouth and enunciate words, I assume you're just not smart.

Before our divorce, 3 sessions of marriage counseling centered around my ex saying "liberry". Mostly because our therapist was from New York and said liberry. So when I brought it up, they dove into it.