Yes, the "burden of communication" section of Lippi-Green's English with an Accent builds on an amazing study by Donald Rubin reported in 1992:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=18053876336300254670

    It's definitely a real phenomenon.  I would caution against over-interpreting it, however.  The fact is that there's probably as much variation within Ebonics/Black English/AAVE as between it and any other variety.  I have a story that I tell my students about this:


    When I first arrived for grad school at the University of Chicago twenty years ago, I arrived in Midway and took the 59th Street bus right across the South Side.  When we got into the black parts of town, people got on the bus and started chatting with the (black) driver.  They would occasionally smile at me and make some small talk.  I realized that I couldn't understand most of what they were saying.

    I generally understood when black Chicagoans spoke directly to me, but I was pretty much lost when listening to a conversation between two people.  I eventually figured out that I had developed receptive competence in New York Black English, but that didn't carry over into Chicago Black English.  It took me two months to get to the point where I didn't have to strain to understand.


    You should always be skeptical when someone says "I'm not a racist, but..."  Still, I hope you all believe that I really wanted to understand these Black English speakers that I met in Chicago.  I'm a linguist, I'm proud of my ability to understand language, and I wanted to reciprocate the friendliness that people were showing me.    I didn't blame them for my inability to understand them.  I had just read Labov's dissertation, and as I talked to South Siders I listened for phonological differences, like the palatalization of the "s" in "street" [ʃʧɹit].  Sometimes intelligibility is about exposure to a variety.

    It's also quite common for intelligibility to be asymmetric.  It's been widely reported that Portuguese speakers have an easier time understanding Spanish than vice versa, and that speakers of other varieties understand Cairene Arabic better because of the Egyptian film industry.

    At the LSA in 2008, there was also a talk by someone about two varieties in Cameroon that had been classified as separate languages based on reports that they were mutually unintelligible.  A team who returned to the area reported that the varieties were in fact very close and that the responses were more along the lines of, "Oh, nobody can understand them!  They talk really weird in that village!"


On 8/1/2013 4:11 PM, Kephart, Ronald wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Yes.  I've told this story several times, hopefully not here though.  Back when I was taking field methods, we had an in-class consultant from Nigeria who spoke Isoko, and that was the language we were working on.  He told us about a closely related language, Urhobo, spoken by some in the same region.  As he explained it, the speakers of Urhobo were the dominant or elite group, while Isoko speakers made up a group that considered itself exploited or dominated.  Anyway, he told us that Urhobo speakers insisted they could fully understand Isoko, but that Isoko speakers could not understand Urhobo.

I've always felt (but never formally investigated) that white speakers of Accepted English who claim they can't understand Ebonics speakers really just don't "want" to understand them, or maybe assume they won't understand them, and so don't even try and kind of tune them out as "noise."  This would be sort of the reverse of the Urhobo-Isoko situation, I guess.

The other thing is that in my classes, I often show students a few sentences in Ebonics and ask whether they know what they mean.  They generally don't.  This is getting back to looking at single grammatical or lexical items.  I think the ones that are most misleading are the ones that actually look like Accepted English, but have a different meaning.  My favorite example comes from English Creole in Carriacou (Grenada), from which I can get a sentence like 'They go in the store.'  Nobody ever correctly interprets that as 'they went into the store and haven't come out yet.'

Interesting, and important, stuff.

Ron



From: Bryan James Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:44 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Intelligibility of AAVE and other dialects by speakers of other varieties

However, I would be remiss if I did not through a critical wrench in the wheel. The fourth chapter of Rosina Lippi-Green's textbook English with an Accent, particularly the part beginning on p. 69, speaks directly to non-intelligibility-related explanations for reported unintelligibility. We like to criticise syntacticians for accepting grammaticality judgments at face value, and we ought to subject ourselves to the same scrutiny with respect to intelligibility judgments.


-- 
				-Angus B. Grieve-Smith
				[log in to unmask]


The Variationist List - discussion of everything related to variationist sociolinguistics.

To send messages to the VAR-L list (subscribers only), write to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe from the VAR-L list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=VAR-L&A=1