Bill Cosby ruffles some feathers.

[HornedFrog Purple]

The way I have always seen it:

Dialect: The most common example I can think of is down here. "I want a coke" Now coke is not necessarily a Coca-Cola. "coke" = anything

A friend of mine from Vermont says "I want a soda". "soda" = anything

In both cases, they then turn around and specify what exactly they want.

Accent is myself and my friend both saying the word "soda". I say "so-dah", he says "soooooo-dah."

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

There I would say conventional English books on style and form

Can you elaborate on why you consider writing (and by inference, reading) conventional English as a different issue than speaking it?

[Easy Mac]

Print v. vocal... come on Coug, even you can understand that... even the Court makes a distinction.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

The way I have always seen it:

Dialect: The most common example I can think of is down here. "I want a coke" Now coke is not necessarily a Coca-Cola. "coke" = anything

A friend of mine from Vermont says "I want a soda". "soda" = anything

In both cases, they then turn around and specify what exactly they want.

Accent is myself and my friend both saying the word "soda". I say "so-dah", he says "soooooo-dah."

I agree with that description. As long as you don't say the p dash dash word

When I visited my grandparents in Georgia they told me about the "coke" thing and I got totally screwed up the couple of days I was down there heh.

[WSUCougar]

Easy, there, Mac. I want to see the difference in the context of this greater argument.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Can you elaborate on why you consider writing (and by inference, reading) conventional English as a different issue than speaking it?

I think the key differences are time and how are brain works. When you write, you generally have more time to refine and perfect your writing (and you should push yourself to do that). When you speak, you don't have time to refine your words. While you can work on your speaking to make it conform, that is a much more difficult process. Therefore I'm much more tolerant of "errors" and "imperfections" in spoken form than in written form (especially when it comes to things like resumes). I would never hold someone to the same standards on their resume as I would in a spoken interview (although they both serve the same purpose).

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I agree with that description. As long as you don't say the p dash dash word

When I visited my grandparents in Georgia they told me about the "coke" thing and I got totally screwed up the couple of days I was down there heh.

yeah, I had to adjust from pop to soda when I moved down South... granted I was 6 months old at the time, but it was difficult.

Its great when my cousins come down to visit... they ask for a pop and get stared at or order tea and are shocked to get sweetend iced tea.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Easy, there, Mac. I want to see the difference in the context of this greater argument.

Don't try to be punny or else I'll pwn you.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think the key differences are time and how are brain works. When you write, you generally have more time to refine and perfect your writing (and you should push yourself to do that). When you speak, you don't have time to refine your words. While you can work on your speaking to make it conform, but that is a much more difficulat process. Therefore I'm much more tolerant of errors and imperfections in spoken form than in written form (especially when it comes to things like resumes). I would never hold someone to the same standards on their resume as I would in a spoken interview (although they both serve the same purpose).

However, I think there is a difference between imperfections in speech (such as mispronounced words, incorrectly used words...) and using slang.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Can you elaborate on why you consider writing (and by inference, reading) conventional English as a different issue than speaking it?

When you hear a prepared speech, do you not subliminally hold it to a higher standard because it was prepared ahead of time?

We chastise our own Presidents because when they are on the cuff (ie away from their prepared speech) they blunder English themselves.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think the key differences are time and how are brain works. When you write, you generally have more time to refine and perfect your writing (and you should push yourself to do that). When you speak, you don't have time to refine your words. While you can work on your speaking to make it conform, that is a much more difficult process. Therefore I'm much more tolerant of "errors" and "imperfections" in spoken form than in written form (especially when it comes to things like resumes). I would never hold someone to the same standards on their resume as I would in a spoken interview (although they both serve the same purpose).

Correct me if I'm mis-stating your position, but this seems to imply that the same individuals you spoke of in your previous posts (like immigrants) should get no tolerance for their inability to communicate in written English. Correct?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

However, I think there is a difference between imperfections in speech (such as mispronounced words, incorrectly used words...) and using slang.

And I'm not defending most slang - but things that are accepted in subcultures (like "y'all") are fine with me. Words like "shit," however, usually are inappropriate.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

yeah, I had to adjust from pop to soda when I moved down South... granted I was 6 months old at the time, but it was difficult.

Its great when my cousins come down to visit... they ask for a pop and get stared at or order tea and are shocked to get sweetend iced tea.

Growing up in Syracuse it's always been soda so when I went to lacrosse camp before college started in Buffalo I went to the snack shack and ordered a hot dog. The girl asked if I wanted any pop to which I stared at her for like 5 minutes with a confused look on my face til she said "You know, orange, cola..." and I go "OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH soda!" and she gave me a funny look back

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And I'm not defending most slang - but things that are accepted in subcultures (like "y'all") are fine with me. Words like "shit," however, usually are inappropriate.

But "shit" may be accepted in certain subcultures. Or are we only accepting certain subcultures now? I know in the high school subculture "shit" and "fucK" are 2 of the most commonly used words.

[cthomer5000]

accent = the way words are pronounced

dialect = different words mean different things in different places. shopping cart vs. carriage, soda vs. pop, etc...

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And I'm not defending most slang - but things that are accepted in subcultures (like "y'all") are fine with me. Words like "shit," however, usually are inappropriate.

I think that was the point Cosby trying to make in his rant, that these are not imperfections, but just a bastardization of the English language that people are trying to use in all manners of life, and they cannot understand why they get rejected when they do so.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Chubby

But "shit" may be accepted in certain subcultures. Or are we only accepting certain subcultures now? I know in the high school subculture "shit" and "fucK" are 2 of the most commonly used words.

Thats some fucking shit bitch.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

When you hear a prepared speech, do you not subliminally hold it to a higher standard because it was prepared ahead of time?

We chastise our own Presidents because when they are on the cuff (ie away from their prepared speech) they blunder English themselves.

But a presidential speech is a different form of communication, and certainly wouldn't be considered "basic."

As for chastising presidents, I only do so when they make fools of themselves. They stumble because they are trying to remember their prepared stance on topics. By all accounts, George W. Bush is a very personable individual and a great communicator face-to-face.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Growing up in Syracuse it's always been soda so when I went to lacrosse camp before college started in Buffalo I went to the snack shack and ordered a hot dog. The girl asked if I wanted any pop to which I stared at her for like 5 minutes with a confused look on my face til she said "You know, orange, cola..." and I go "OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH soda!" and she gave me a funny look back

Was she hot, becuase that would have made staring easier... and my cousins are from Illinois, so its a bit different from NY.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Was she hot, becuase that would have made staring easier... and my cousins are from Illinois, so its a bit different from NY.

Yeah she was hot, was only working the snack shack cause she was a lacrosse groupie. It made it easier on the eyes to be staring at her trying to figure out what the hell "pop" was

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Yeah she was hot, was only working the snack shack cause she was a lacrosse groupie. It made it easier on the eyes to be staring at her trying to figure out what the hell "pop" was

You should have replied, "I don't know what this pop is; but if you're a virgin, we can try to find out." Asking for sex outright seems to work with groupies... mmmm soccer groupies.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Correct me if I'm mis-stating your position, but this seems to imply that the same individuals you spoke of in your previous posts (like immigrants) should get no tolerance for their inability to communicate in written English. Correct?

No. They should always be tolerated, but they may not get the job in front of me if they can't meet minimal standards of writing. This can also be true of speaking, but only in the case of incomprehensibility or extreme disfunction. As I've said in many other threads, tolerance does not equal relativism.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Chubby

But "shit" may be accepted in certain subcultures. Or are we only accepting certain subcultures now? I know in the high school subculture "shit" and "fucK" are 2 of the most commonly used words.

Certain words (like racial slurs) are inappropriate in almost every occassion. Other words (like swear words) are inappropriate in some occassions. Tolerating difference doesn't mean you have to accept everything in all situations.

[Philliesfan980]

Wow, not to get off topic. But outside a release of a new text sim, this has got to be the fastest growing thread I've seen in my time at FOFC.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I think that was the point Cosby trying to make in his rant, that these are not imperfections, but just a bastardization of the English language that people are trying to use in all manners of life, and they cannot understand why they get rejected when they do so.

I actually don't care about the Cosby thing. I thought this whole discussion was a tangent. Maybe that is a cause for confusion.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think the key differences are time and how are brain works. When you write, you generally have more time to refine and perfect your writing (and you should push yourself to do that). When you speak, you don't have time to refine your words. While you can work on your speaking to make it conform, that is a much more difficult process. Therefore I'm much more tolerant of "errors" and "imperfections" in spoken form than in written form (especially when it comes to things like resumes). I would never hold someone to the same standards on their resume as I would in a spoken interview (although they both serve the same purpose).

I have to admit I always find it funny in these grammar discussions when a person pushing for proper grammar has a grammatical mistake in their statement.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by primelord

I have to admit I always find it funny in these grammar discussions when a person pushing for proper grammar has a grammatical mistake in their statement.

its (sic) not funny!

[primelord]

Dola,

I would also like to point out that I ran that sentence through Word's spelling and grammar checker and it said it was fine. That grammar checker is a great tool.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by primelord

I have to admit I always find it funny in these grammar discussions when a person pushing for proper grammar has a grammatical mistake in their statement.

And remember - I'm the one who is supposed to be pushing for "anything goes."

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Instead of just outright calling "bullshit" on this, I think we should take up a collection and send you to spend the summer with Sky Dog.

Your day is now complete.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Certain words (like racial slurs) are inappropriate in almost every occassion. Other words (like swear words) are inappropriate in some occassions. Tolerating difference doesn't mean you have to accept everything in all situations.

The way I hear "nigga" being thrown around in public leads me to believe that it has acceptance and appropriateness in most social settings.

[Easy Mac]

you keep thinking that you cracka.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by stevew

The way I hear "nigga" being thrown around in public leads me to believe that it has acceptance and appropriateness in most social settings.

Not when used as a slur.

[Ben E Lou]

I still can't get used to white teens and black teens saying, "What up nigga?" to each other...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I still can't get used to white teens and black teens saying, "What up nigga?" to each other...

"Fo shizzle mah nizzle"

or if you don't like that saying,

"I am completely in concert with your line of thinking on this matter, Mr. SkyDog"

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

No. They should always be tolerated, but they may not get the job in front of me if they can't meet minimal standards of writing.

I think you're hedging your bets a little, JG. Explain why I can't substitute the word "speaking" for the word "writing" in your statement above. Both are integral forms of communication in the workplace; speaking is certainly so, writing perhaps less so.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I think you're hedging your bets a little, JG. Explain why I can't substitute the word "speaking" for the word "writing" in your statement above. Both are integral forms of communication in the workplace; speaking is certainly so, writing perhaps less so.

They are both equally valuable (at least in my profession). I've never denied that. I've also said that is how most people will treat them. However, I'm preaching tolerance in speaking because it is much harder to conform speaking habits (especially for people who weren't raised speaking "proper English") than it is to conform to writing habits. I respect difference where there is reason to - that doesn't mean all difference should be tolerated. Again, tolerance does not mean acceptance of everything.

[dawgfan]

A few general observations:

- Regarding John Galt's points about tolerance of spoken english; while many would like to think that 'proper' english is static, it's not; take a look at books from prior centuries and take note, not just of different spellings, but of how people spoke (and wrote) as compared to today. 'Proper' english is in fact a slowly evolving thing that is generally pushed in new directions by hip slang that survives into the mainstream culture.

- That said, I think that there are rather obvious distinctions in what is appropriate speech given the context. I speak differently around my friends than I do at work, or around my parents, or in formal situations. If I'm meeting someone for the first time I will likely use more formal english until I get familiar with them and guage how casual they are with their speech and calibrate what's appropriate around them and what isn't.

- I fully recognize that as an upper middle-class white male born in an accent-free region of the country I have a big leg up in this category from someone that comes from a region, economic status or cultural situation different from mine. Thus, it's hard for me to fully understand the impact on the expectations of speaking 'proper' english in comparison to say Noop. It's easier for me to fall into this kind of speech, and doing so doesn't carry nearly the same political/cultural overtones as it may for Noop (I'm assuming this from his comments already in this thread - I apologize if I've mischaracterized him).

- Interestingly enough, I've been in situations where I felt I was at a disadvantage in terms of spoken english. I've worked with athletes on a number of different occasions, most of them minorities. They were all capable of speaking 'proper' english, but around each other they preferred to speak with more of a 'street' slang. When we've had game designers with us on these situations that were black, they were able to communicate with them much more easily on their level, whereas I felt a little out of the loop. I could've tried to fit in, like "Yo dog, whatup?" but coming from me saying it to them it would look forced and kind of silly, whereas I can talk like that to my white co-workers and we both recognize the humor in geeky white guys trying to talk street.

- Bottom line, I think it's important to recognize that most people make some kind of sacrifice or sacrifices in order to get ahead in their lives. They may not like it, and they might want to work to change expectations when they reach positions of power and authority, but sometimes you have to play the game in order to get anywhere. You can accept this, work your way into the system until you're in a position to change things, or you can sit on the sidelines complaining about how unfair it is while not getting anywhere. I'm very lucky in that I work for a very casual, tolerant company - on any given day I'll run into a whole range of different looking people, from those who are clean-cut and wearing suits to those in t-shirts and shorts with scruffy beards to those with multiple piercings and ornate tattoos, and pretty much anything in-between. That said, you can't just walk up and down the halls screaming "Whazzup bitch? Yo, that shit you sent me is all fucked-up, knowwhatI'msayin'?"

[Noop]

^^Very Well said. And you didn't mischaracterized me I just can't convey what my opinions are toward a given topic very well. So I did it to myself because I chose to join this debate knowing full well I can really explain myself without shooting myself in the foot or worse someone else.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I still can't get used to white teens and black teens saying, "What up nigga?" to each other...

Aww, dawg. How you gonna treat a nigga like that? Crackers are down, too. Jive turkey man!

[Noop]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Aww, dawg. How you gonna treat a nigga like that? Crackers are down, too. Jive turkey man!

You almost had me fooled but you messed up at one small point. It is Cracka'z and no one says Jive unless your talking about the record label. One more thing the right way to say what you said is this...

Dang, P... How you gon do a nigga like dat? Dem Cracka'z be riding at times... (end)
I have no idea what jive turkey mean....lol



noop

[mordhiem]

Okay, I haven't read all of the discussion yet, but can guess what has been said.

Until anyone defines 'proper english', then the argument is impossible.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Noop

I have no idea what jive turkey mean....lol

That's whack, yo.

[mordhiem]

Okay, I'll add something to the discussion other than ask a dissmissive question.

Firstly, what dialect and accent you use whilst speaking does have a huge impact on the impression you give to other people, but in different situations, different dialects carry different prestige. Howard Giles' proved this by delivering two identical presentations on a controversial topic to different groups of Birmingham sixth-formers (16-18 year old students taking A-Levels (optional qualifications required to go to uni), one in a brummie accent (think Ozzie Osbourne) and one with Recieved Pronounciation (think 1940's BBC newsreader). Afterwards, the audiences were surveyedfor their opinion's on Giles' inteligence and knowledge. Those who hear the presentation in RP rated him considerably higher than those who heard him give the very same presentation in their own accent and dialect. So, it undoubtably has an effect. However, we all knew that already.

Another important piece off study is that of overt and covert prestige. For example, in the UK, RP ('The Queen's English') has overt prestige, i.e. it carries connotations of power and authority. An American equivelent would be the New England, JFK-esque accent maybe? However in the last few decades, these accents have fallen out of fashion and are seen as outdated, oldfashioned and are often parodied or satirised. In the UK 'Estuary English' (named after the Thames estuary, from where the accent originated) is quickly becoming the new standard, popularised by many celebrities such as Johnathon Ross (it sounds kind of like a soft cockney accent). The best American equivelent I can think of is the Mid-West, Jimmy Stewart accent. My (rather rambling) point is that what is the 'in' accent changes nand it changes by whom has power at what time. In the past, power, economic and political, was much more concentrated and climbing the social ladder was very difficult. In the 21st century, social mobility is multiple times greater than it was in the early 20th. Also, the proliferation of the media through television and the creation of the celebrity concept has changed the sources from whom we take our language, be it 50 cent, David Beckham, Tom Hanks, whoever. The prestigious accent doesn't just change over time either but from place to place too. I imagine that if you went into downtown Detroit and started trying to speak to some kids in a 'proper' American English accent you would be laughed off the street, or worse. If I entred a pub in Liverpool and started trying to talk to some of the locals, I would be seen as a 'posh southerner' because of my home counties accent and probably wouldn't get very far. Yet in the workplace, I am probably in a better position language wise then they are. In fact, my very English accent probably carries more weight than an 'urban-black' American one in America. The prestige of an accent depends entirely on the context. Just because you would be of benefit to speak in certain way in order to get a job does not make that certain way 'proper' english, or 'correct' english, or even 'preffered' english. I can certainly see the 'black uraban hip-hop' (for want of a better term) dialect making more inroads into society in the future to the extent that it will have overt as well as covert prestige. In fact, then it will probably lose it's covert prestige and the youth of the english speaking world will invent their own new dialect. And so the circle continues.

Remember there once was no such thing as 'proper english'.... but then the printing press was invented.

Wow, that was a rambly long post that actaully seems to have little to do with the subject. But what the heck.

[mordhiem]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I fully recognize that as an upper middle-class white male born in an accent-free region of the country...

There is no such thing as 'accent free', it is just that your accent is more highly valued at the present time by the media establishment that it seems to be accent free. In 100 years time, people will hear recordings of you speaking and laugh. (Nothing personal )

[wig]

You don't know how I butter my toast!

[wig]

*referenced from: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...6&postcount=83

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by mordhiem

There is no such thing as 'accent free', it is just that your accent is more highly valued at the present time by the media establishment that it seems to be accent free. In 100 years time, people will hear recordings of you speaking and laugh. (Nothing personal )

Well yeah, as it stands currently I live in a part of the country with no overt accent as determined by the 'norm'. Another way of putting it is that my speech is bland in comparison to pronounced accents.

As you say, the norms will likely be different in 100 years.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Where is your evidence for this assertion? Are the millions of people in NYC who speak with accents that are hard for many to understand lazy or stupid?

Honestly, speaking with an accent isn't a real problem, accents may be hard to understand, but in fact they're using the same words. The problem comes in when street jargon and other language words are entered into the conversations instead of using the english equivelents.

We're not discussing accents. We're discussing the inability or unwillingness to use the english language properly.

As for my evidence its based soley on my travels around the world. I've been to many foreign countries (17) and 38 of the 50 States. I've had to converse with people from all walks of life from the rich to the destitute.

In my experience I cannot actually say I think ANYONE is "unable" to learn and use english in a way that makes them easily understood, my own experience in fact, shows me that those who cannot be understood generally aren't willing to make the effort to do so.

I've tutored high school kids from the Alameda projects who could barely speak english, and those kids by the end of our tutoring, had learned, simply from working with me and others. (we tutored them in math, the language benefit was simply a great icing on their cake)

I made the statement earlier that there may be some who simply can't, because I wanted to give some of them the benefit of the doubt.

I believe ANYONE can learn, but not everyone is willing to do the work.

If people aren't willing to learn to communicate in the common language of the job/school/task/group etc etc, then they are only limiting themselves, because others will be chosen before they will.


As I said to Noop's post earlier, compaining about people not picking you for a job based on how you talk is their right, and complaining about such a thing is pitifully sad. Take responsibility for yourself, learn to communicate, get the job you want by providing the skills required, which, I'm sorry to say, might mean you have to learn to speak more clearly and use proper grammar in the work place.

[tabucko]

I applaude Cosby for what he said, but after reading the article, my first thought was - what kind of reaction would this get if it was said by Rush Limbaugh, or some other white conservative?