For Dec. 26 Gibbs, Drummer Column, 675 words
Eschew obfuscation
Beigonics needs formal approval. It must be considered a second language to English, and our schools must receive extra money from the government for workshops and curricular material to address it.
Beigonics (beige + phonics) is the language of the average, non-reading American. It is the language of limited vocabulary -- that bland, long-winded, monosyllabic speech we hear most every day. Beigonic speakers require 200 words to say things that could be summed up in a few sentences.
For instance, a Beigonic speaker might say, "The rude, mean old man said terrible things to the poor man who was begging for money down on the corner of the street."
An erudite reader might save breath and say, "The curmudgeon castigated the mendicant on the street corner." This not only eliminates 15 unnecessary words, but also earns the ire of a majority of people who think the bookworm is showing off with his big, fancy words.
One only has to pick up a Steinbeck novel to see that concise communication doesn't have to require a dictionary. John could say things simply and crisply without polysyllabic obfuscation.
Another element in Beigonics is its attempt to fill the vocabulary gap by inserting esoteric terms and phrases -- usually invented words or shop talk from movies, television, video games, high technology, illegible music. Words like "da bomb," Nukem, dot com, and mega-whatever are tossed around just enough to give English teachers the willies.
The cold point is that limited vocabulary creates a dialect that inhibits learning. Special funding must be augmented if we are to ameliorate this problem.
A distinction must be made, as well, between written and spoken language.
Human linguistics is as multifaceted as people themselves. People talk differently in different regions, sure. I saw the movie Fargo. But, people also talk differently in the same states, and even within the same families. My wife and I have noticeably dissimilar speech patterns. In fact, each person switches diction throughout his day, depending on his audience. I don't talk to my dog the same way I talk to the shoe repair guy.
Audience is the lock. When talking, one has control over one's audience. One can chat with one's buddies in a mutual slang, then switch idioms during an important business meeting.
Switching is the key. If people can't switch to standard English from their original dialect, then what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Writing is the gateway. When writing one can lose control over one's audience. A letter intended for a friend could be read by a business associate. An essay that mom loves could earn a D from an English teacher. Once words are committed to paper, they can be passed around the world and shared with Kings and Queens, peasants and plebeians, Australians and Irish, Texans and Topekians. That's why we have standard written English. The standard is based on Oxford English.
The rub here is that 49 out of 50 Americans do not speak Oxford English. Thus, 98-percent of us write in a foreign dialect. We all need special funding.
About Ebonics, the latest buzz word - I think it's alive and well. Black English has a marvelous set of inflections and verb forms that distinguish it as a dialect. It's been watered down over the centuries, but it is still discernable - if one wants to make it so.
I don't think the Oakland schools intend to teach Ebonics any more than they intend to teach Gullah. They've just decided to recognize black English and be sensitive to it; they may even get a little extra school money because of it.
A lot of people have taken sides on this issue. I've heard plenty of negative comments. I don't want children to think Ebonics is an approved standard simply because it's being recognized. It's no more a standard than Boontling or Beatnik. If proclaiming Ebonics helps more children read, speak, and write better in standard English, when needed, then I'm for it. If it weakens the foundations of our evolving standards, then it is not groovy.