Філологічні науки / Етно-, соціо- та психолінгвістика

К.ф.н. Гоца Н.М.

Тернопільський національний педагогічний університет імені Володимира Гнатюка

AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE VS

AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S LANGUAGE: THEORETICAL PREMISES

To date, linguistic research has focused primarily on men (European and African American) and European American women. Because of the dearth in research on the language of African American women, this thesis focuses on African American women’s language (AAWL) and traces in what way it differs from African American Language (AAL) in general.

Very often AAWL is by mistake identified with African American language (AAL) that can also be called African American Vernacular Language (AAVL), African American English (AAE), African American (Afro-American) Black English, Black English Vernacular (BEV), Ebonics, and other. AAL is an object of discussion of many linguists. They debate about its status in a language system. Some scientists name it as a language, others – as a dialect. Great influence on AAL reception was made by scientific literature that studies this branch of linguistics. With the help of these works the attitude and politics concerning AAE changed. But the drawback of all these scientific works is that they pay attention not to basic linguistic phenomena of the Black language, but to the main aspects of linguistic ethnics. In the frameworks of our investigation we consider AAL as a component of AAWL, its constituent part and expressive means of its sociocultural aspect.

It should be mentioned that AAWL can’t be investigated separately from AAL and women’s language in general, as it undoubtedly combines linguistic features of both these notions. But, we also admit that AAWL can be called a separate linguistic phenomenon, as it represents African American feminism that in its turn reflects combination of gender and sociocultural aspects of African American women’s life. The other problem that makes this theme urgent is that at present, AAWL is still largely misunderstood and mispresented not only in Black male society, but also in White mainstream society.

So, the aim of our study is to determine some peculiar characteristics of AAL and AAWL and to show that AAWL can function as a separate linguistic notion.

We should say that not so many scientists try to investigate thias urgent but rather contradictory subject of AAWL. The most well-known are Denise Troutman [9], Sonja L. Lanehart [7], Marcyliena Morgan [8]. Much more investigations are dedicated to social, historical, psychological, methodological and less to linguistic peculiarities of AAE. To such researchers belongs J. A Fishman [4], R. Burling [2], R. Fasold [3], J. Haskins [5], R. H. Bentley [1], C. Kramasch [6], J. F. Trimmer [9], and others.

Marcyliena Morgan asserts that first steps in studying AAWL can be traced in famous “Language and Woman’s Place” written by Robin Lakoff. Although Lakoff’s focus was on her own language and that of her peers, this work is a matter of particular importance for African American women’s discourse as it displays how the field of linguistics can be changed through the raising of urgently needed questions that are both particular and universal. In this way it determines a structure from which to move African American women to the very core of language and gender studies [8, p. 253].

Denise Troutman also made great contribution to this theme. She has found some peculiarities of AAWL similar to European American women’s language. This scholar distinguished the main problems AAWL faces with. The first problem is connected with “Black men’s speech”, the second – with “White women’s speech”. She admits that given the dominant paradigm in research in women’s language in which White women are privileged and Black women are silenced, one might assume there is a place for African American women in research on AAE. She says that however, there is a little research in AAE that corrects or redresses the absence of the discourse of African American women since research in AAE privileges African American men. As a result, Black speech style is not viewed as available to or indicative of African American women. A perception of African American speech are synonymous with African American men (just as it is seen as synonymous with White women’s language in the literature on women’s language) and leaves little or no room for actual voices of African American women [10, p. 212].

Even nowadays AAWL is contrasted with AAE and White women’s speech as the following linguistic stereotypes exist: 1) Black speech – male speech; 2) Black speech – verbally aggressive; 3) Black speech – implicitly, sexually aggressive speech; 4) Black speech allows Black women to speak only like men, in verbally and sexually aggressive way; 5) Black women have only one linguistic choice (to avoid being verbally and sexually aggressive); 6) Women’s speech is White women’s speech, therefore, Black women’s speech is White women’s speech [10, p. 212-213].

Scientist Sonja L. Lanehart also pays great attention to AAWL. But within the frameworks of her investigations one can notice differences within AAWL itself. Making comparisons among use of language, S. L. Lanehart demonstrates how differences in age, education and social status lead to various abilities in using AAWL language.

Interconnections between notions discussed in the investigation can be organised in the scheme:

So, AAWL is two-dimensional phenomenon. It combines two main linguistic tendencies – sociocultural and gender. Women’s language and African American language are that very aspects that form such linguistic product as African American Women’s language in particular.

Література

1. Bentley R. H. Black Language Reader / R. H. Bentley, S. D. Crawford. – Scott, Foresman and Company, 1973. – 245 p.

2. Burling R. English in Black and White / R. Burling. – HOLT, RINEHART AND WINSTON, INC, 1973. – 178 p.

3. Fasold R. Some Linguistic Features of Negro Dialect / Ralph Fasold // Black American English : its Background and its usage in the schools and in literature / edited and introduced by Paul Stoller. – A Delta Original, 1975. – P. 49–83.

4. Fishman J. A. Language and Ethnic Identity / Joshua A. Fishman. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999. – 468 p.

5. Haskins J. The Psychology of Black Language / H. Butts, J. Haskins. – Barnes & Noble Books, 1973. – 95 p.

6. Kramasch C. Language and Culture / Claire Kramasch. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2000. – 134 p.

7. Lanehart Sonja L. Sista, Speak!: Black Women Kinfolk Talk about Language and Literacy / Sonja L. Lanehart. – University of Texas Press, 2002. – 252 p.

8. Morgan M. “I’m Every Woman”: Black Women’s (Dis)placement in Women’s language study / Marcyliena Morgan // Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries / ed. by Mary Bucholtz. – Oxford University Press, 2004. – 320 p.

9. Trimmer J. F. Black-American Literature: Notes on the Problem of Definition / J. F. Trimmer. – Ball State Monograph Number Twenty-Two, 1971. – 28 p.

10. Troutman, Denise. African American women: Talking that talk / Denise Troutman // Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English / ed. by Sonja L. Lanehart. – John Benjamins Publishing, 2001. – 371p.