Thursday, May 31, 2012
Pretty or Not Pretty?: African American English
In this short (3-minute) video, Linguistics Professor Mary Zeigler of Georgia State University and some of her students discuss African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and the way many people unfairly dismiss its legitimacy. They argue that AAVE is in no way linguistically inferior to the kind of "Standard American English" often taught in schools.
After watching the video, consider some of the reasons why Skloot might have thought it necessary to explain her decision to adopt the “the words interviewees used to describe their world and experiences.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This video was very intriguing to me. My mother speaks with a strong southern drawl and frequently uses words like "y'all" and "gonna." My friends never hesitate to comment about my mom's way of speaking. In the past, I was embarrassed by the way she spoke and the things that others said about her accent, but now, I have come to realize that my mom's dialect is one of the many factors that makes her who she is. She was raised in North Texas, and she was brought up by two Texans who have accents and dialects of their own. It is no surprise that children learn from listening to their parents, and the community in which a child grows up greatly influences the child's dialect. Skloot has adopted the words and phrases of the interviewees into the book so that readers will be able to compare and contrast the culture in which Henrietta Lacks was raised and lived in with the culture of the individual readers.
ReplyDeleteEmily Davis
I believe Skloot uses the original dialect of Ms. Lacks and everyone involved because to do otherwise would take away from their story and the very essence of each person. I agree with the parallel example of the southern drawl associated with myself and other "Okies" which reveals a piece of us only conveyed through our speech. I personally enjoy the differences in dialects and it even aids the reader in living out the book around them.
ReplyDeleteOne reason Skloot may have decided to explain her decision is to save her editor a lot of grief.
ReplyDeleteBut really Skloot is just setting the tone and letting the reader know that she's going to lay it all out on paper exactly how it was in real life. Just think if she had eddited the grammar in Deborah's crazy reactions towards the end of the book. Those moments would've really lost their sincerity.
I completely agree with Zach and Rachel. I think it was smart for Skloot to stay true to how each person spoke. If she would have made changes to the way they spoke, I really believe it would have taken away from each of them as who they really are, and that is not honesty and reality. Everyone is different. Whether by how they talk, what they like, how they dress, I think it was the right choice to stay true to who they are, even if it means going against the "status quo" and being imperfect. Everyone has imperfections. I think it was insightful to see how different they were from what society expects, like crossing t's and dotting i's. I don't like how some people are so judgemental of others. We are who we are for a reason, and for Skloot to change anything about any of the people involved, no matter how small, wouldn't be real, or the truth, or fair to them at all. Coming from my perspective, I am a southeastern Oklahoman, so yes, I have a country accent. And if someone was trying to portray me, I wouldn't want them to change how I spoke or anything about me for that matter. I'm proud of who I am and where I come from and I believe everyone should be that way. (:
ReplyDeleteKelsey Jackson
I think it was imperative that Rebecca Skloot use "the words interviewees used to describe their world and experiences." If she would have left anything out or changed anyone's words, it could have effected the meaning of their words to us, the readers. Therefore, if she had changed anything, it would have been a misrepresentation of each person's separate story. Since Skloot's book is about the misuse, misrepresentation, and deception of Henrietta's life and remains, it would not be fitting for her to misrepresent her interviewees. Also, I think the way people speak is like a fingerprint, in the way that we are all different. So, I agree with Rachel in the fact that changing their responses would have taken away from the over all picture that we as readers are conjuring up as we read Henrietta's story.
ReplyDeleteDo ya'll think people who say "ain't" are uneducated? Do ya'll think uneducated people are less intelligent than educated people? In a country like ours, where public education is free through high school, what other reason, besides intelligence, might explain why some people do better in school that other people? What other reason, besides education level, might explain why some people say "ain't" and other people don't? What's so bad about "ain't" anyway? I'm gonna come back and read the answers ya'll wrote.
ReplyDelete