Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice (review)

The term ‘Ebonics’ first appeared in 1973 and its definitions have ranged from ‘the equivalent of black English … considered to be a dialect of English’ to ‘the antonym of black English … considered to be a language other than English’ (74). To the best of the author’s knowledge, an ‘empirically defensible [definition of] Ebonics [has not yet been] fully articulated’ (102). What is Ebonics? According to John Baugh, as long as contradictory definitions exist, there are ‘perils of attempting to adopt Ebonics as either a technical linguistic term or as an educational philosophy’ (86).

We now have a considered treatment of this topic by B, professor of education and linguistics at Stanford University; what makes his discussion of the issues surrounding the nature of Ebonics particularly interesting and valuable is the fact that he is an African-American.

The book consists of nine short chapters and three appendices. Chapter topics range from the origin of Ebonics and its linguistic and legal status to the discussion of the need to achieve a fuller understanding of linguistic differences. B reports in some detail on the controversial unanimous resolution concerning Ebonics passed by the Oakland (California) School Board in December 1996 and the subsequent revision of the resolution by the same board four weeks later. Also covered are the Ebonics hearings convened by Senator Arlen Specter in 1997, during which William Labov testified. One chapter, ‘Racist reactions and Ebonics satire’ (87–99), cites an offensive translation of the Lord’s Prayer into Ebonics, and offers quotes from, among others, Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey.

The three appendices consist of the Linguistic Society of America resolution on the Oakland ‘Ebonics’ issue, a House Resolution (no. 28) of the Texas 75th regular legislative session, and a Senate Bill (no. 205) of the California 1997–98 regular legislative session. The Texas resolution was aimed at students who ‘use a derivative of Pan African dialects sometimes referred to as Ebonics as a means of communication’ (120), while the California bill, defeated in committee, would have ended the requirement of ‘proficiency in Standard English for speakers of Black Language program’ (122).

The book is informative, and the presentation of issues is fair. As Dell Hymes says in the foreword to the book, ‘John Baugh takes us through the mixture of prejudice and good intentions, ignorance and insight, that the Ebonics issue has thrown into relief’ (viii). This book should be made widely available in public libraries.