Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Bc. Martina Brendlová

An Examination of African-American
Vernacular English as represented
in A Raisin in the Sun
Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph.D.

2018
 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..
Author’s signature
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph.D. for her kind guidance,
valuable suggestions and for sharing her immense knowledge during writing this thesis.

I also thank my parents for their care, patience and unceasing support throughout
my studies.

Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to PhDr. Josef Novotný
for his continuous support, words of encouragement and insightful comments.
Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1. Delineation of basic concepts ........................................................................................ 3
2. Standard English ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Evolution of Standard English .............................................................................. 5
2.2. Characterization of Standard English .................................................................... 6
2.3. Linguistic features ................................................................................................ 9
2.4. Standard American English................................................................................. 11
2.5. General American ............................................................................................... 12
3. African American Vernacular English ...................................................................... 13
3.1. Other terms for AAVE ........................................................................................ 14
3.2. Delineation of AAVE ......................................................................................... 15
3.3. Origins and development .................................................................................... 17
3.4. Perceptions of AAVE ......................................................................................... 21
3.5. Relation to Standard English ............................................................................... 23
3.6. Selected grammatical features of AAVE ............................................................. 24
3.6.1. Absence of auxiliary/copula be ....................................................................... 25
3.6.2. Invariant be ...................................................................................................... 26
3.6.3. Completive done .............................................................................................. 27
3.6.4. Multiple negation ............................................................................................. 28
3.6.5. Negative inversion ........................................................................................... 29
3.6.6. Subject-verb concord ....................................................................................... 30
3.6.7. Relative clauses ............................................................................................... 31
3.6.8. Formation of questions .................................................................................... 31
3.6.9. Other special features ...................................................................................... 33
3.7. Phonetic features ................................................................................................ 34
4. Literary dialect ............................................................................................................ 36
4.1. History................................................................................................................ 36
4.2. Fidelity of representation .................................................................................... 38
4.3. Transcription in dialect writing ........................................................................... 40
5. A Raisin in the Sun ....................................................................................................... 44
5.1. Characters ........................................................................................................... 45
5.2. Language ............................................................................................................ 47
6. AAVE in A Raisin in the Sun ................................................................................... 49
6.1. Absence of auxiliary/copula be .............................................................................. 49
6.2. Invariant be ............................................................................................................. 53
6.3. Completive done ..................................................................................................... 57
6.4. Multiple negation .................................................................................................... 60
6.5. Negative inversion .................................................................................................. 63
6.6. Subject-verb concord .............................................................................................. 65
6.7. Relative clauses ...................................................................................................... 68
6.8. Formation of questions ........................................................................................... 70
6.9. Other special features ............................................................................................. 73
7. Broadness of characters’ AAVE ............................................................................. 76
7.1. Mama ...................................................................................................................... 76
7.2. Walter ..................................................................................................................... 78
7.3. Beneatha ................................................................................................................. 80
7.4. Asagai ..................................................................................................................... 84
7.5. Mrs. Johnson ........................................................................................................... 85
7.6. George Murchison .................................................................................................. 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 90
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 94
Summary............................................................................................................................ 101
Shrnutí ............................................................................................................................... 103
Introduction

This thesis focuses on one of the most stigmatized English varieties, namely African

American Vernacular English (AAVE). The main objective of the work is to analyse

AAVE and determine in what respects it deviates from Standard English especially in terms

of grammar. For this purpose, A Raisin in the Sun, a play by a black playwright Lorraine

Hansberry is used as a corpus and material analysed. The secondary aim is to shed light on

how individual characters in the play make use of either AAVE or Standard English as

there is a hypothesis that the broadness of AAVE among characters will vary considerably.

This thesis is divided into two sections comprising theoretical background and the analysis

of the play in which the theory is applied. The findings are also supported by arguments of

scholars from various fields of expertise.

The first chapter briefly addresses the main concepts associated with the study of

language and dialects. It is stated that some of these terms are vague and often confusing.

For this reason, these concepts are clarified before proceeding to other chapters which

operate by means of using these terms.

The following chapter discusses the notion of Standard English. Attention is paid in

particular to its historical development along with circumstances of standardization

processes and features which make it the most noteworthy variety of English. Specific

linguistic characteristics from the field of grammar and partly also from the area of

pronunciation which distinguish Standard English from non-standard varieties are also part

of this chapter.

1
 The major part of the theoretical section is devoted to the description of AAVE.

While there are also other names for this variety such as Black English, the term AAVE is

used as a neutral term throughout the thesis. This chapter positions this variety into its

historical background including a dispute on its origin since there are voices claiming that

AAVE is a descendant of creoles while others believe it originates in historical English

varieties. At the same time, this chapter also shows how AAVE is related to Standard

English. These two varieties are compared and contrasted in terms of various grammatical

features ranging from the omission of copula be and multiple negation to subject-verb

concord and other minor idiosyncrasies. These AAVE deviations from Standard English

also gave rise to the impression that speakers of AAVE are incompetent and primitive.

Such attitudes are also reflected in one of the sub-chapters. Special features of

pronunciation are also addressed.

Since the analysis of AAVE is carried out based on a work of literature, it is also

necessary to mention how dialects are reflected in literature. A chapter on literary dialect

fulfils this purpose in that it states which writers either white or black have tried to recreate

dialect in writing throughout the American literature. To what degree such depictions of

dialect can be reliable is another topic connected to this sort of literature. In addition, the

issue of what features and how they can be transcribed from the spoken to the written form

is also discussed.

The last chapter in the theoretical section concerns the play A Raisin in the Sun

which is analysed in the practical section. The events, characters, their personal traits and

attitudes are of crucial importance in order to understand their motivation for using

a particular variety of language and its broadness. For this reason, a short characteristic of

2
selected characters is introduced as well as comments on the kind of language Hansberry

uses in the play with relation to her characters.

The practical section preoccupies with two research objectives. The first and major

part of the analysis aims at identifying selected grammatical features of AAVE in

utterances from various characters in A Raisin in the Sun. All the features discussed in the

theoretical section are more or less reflected in the play and commented upon. In addition,

where possible the comparison with Standard English is provided and supported by

evidence from the play. While this part might seem a bit factual and dull, the other part on

the broadness of characters’ AAVE allows far more space for speculating why certain

characters use AAVE or Standard English more than others and what their motivation is.

The different usage of the two varieties creates a continuum which enables the projection of

each character on the scale with AAVE and Standard English at the opposite ends.

1. Delineation of basic concepts

Before Standard English and African American Vernacular English (further referred

to as AAVE) can be discussed in detail, it is important to delineate basic concepts

associated with AAVE as it is often considered to be a dialect, variety or in some cases it

can be even labelled as a language, which might be confusing. These three main terms

should be distinguished. Across the resources the definitions of these concepts do not

diverge to any degree. According to Bauer (2002) dialect is “a kind of language which

identifies you as belonging to a particular group of people.” (p. 3). He suggests that it not

only reveals the group you belong to but also a part of country the speaker is from. He also

asserts that it is difficult to define the term language which might be confused with dialect

3
and that speakers always use a certain dialect of language (Bauer, 2002, p. 3). Since the two

terms are frequently misunderstood a neutral term “variety” is used and stands for:

language, a dialect, an idiolect or an accent; it is a term which encompasses all of these.

The term ‘variety’ is an academic term used for any kind of language production, whether

we are viewing it as being determined by region, by gender, by social class, by age or by

our own inimitable individual characteristics (Bauer, 2002, p. 3-4).

Chambers and Trudgill (1998) also speak of dialect as of the dialect of a language,

as a subcategory of language which is traditionally viewed as “substandard, low-status,

often rustic form of language, generally associated with the peasantry, the working class, or

other groups lacking in prestige.” (p. 3). Similarly, Romaine (2000) defines dialect as

“subordinate variety of a language“ which comprises regional and social dialects (p. 2).

Like Bauer, Chambers and Trudgill also face the problem of the difference between

dialect and language and the vagueness of the term as they demonstrate that language is

linguistically vague since the linguistic criteria for distinguishing languages are a mutual

intelligibility. However, Scandinavian languages are mutually intelligible by speakers, but

they are still treated as different languages. Therefore, languages are defined by criteria of

geography, politics, history and culture. They also share the view that variety is a neutral

term to denote any kind of language production (Chambers and Trudgill, 1998, p. 3-5).

From this it follows that both terms dialect and variety can be used interchangeably.

This brief introductory chapter has aimed at shedding light on three intertwined

concepts. Language is seen rather as an abstract term comprising many dialects which

4
represent a more specific representation of language. A variety is then used as a neutral

term.

2. Standard English
To understand the idiosyncrasies of AAVE, it is necessary to introduce the notions

of Standard English as a main point of departure setting the background around which other

varieties of English revolve and which will in the practical section of the work serve for the

comparison. This chapter will comprise information on the historical development of

Standard English as well as on features which distinguish Standard English from non-

standard varieties. The existence of Standard American English will be also discussed.

2.1. Evolution of Standard English

Despite a large number of resources on Standard English examining it from

different angles and perspectives, it is essentially difficult to find a precise definition of

what Standard English really is. In some cases, we find voices which use rather a negative

delineation and state what Standard English is not as in the approach by Peter Trudgill who

notes that even linguists do not agree on one definition of the standard. However, there

appears to be an agreement on the process of standardization whose outcome is the

standardised language (Trudgill, 1999, p. 117). He himself asserts that standardization

consists “of the processes of language determination, codification and stabilisation” in

which language determination refers to the choice of language for particular purpose,

codification referring to language being fixed and recorded in dictionaries and grammars

and finally stabilisation which makes language stabilized and stable (Trudgill, 1999,

p. 117).

5
 As far as Standard English is concerned there were several attempts to standardize

English throughout history. The first signs can be traced back to the 15th century when

Chancery standard was established. This was, however, only a specific kind of written

English with its own register which served only in legal discourses (Hickey, 2010, p. 1-2).

One of the first pioneers of promoting the idea of unified language was W. Caxton who

“complained about the varieties and the constant language change and expressed the need

of a standard written form for printing purposes.” (Strässler & Locher, 2008, p. 6). Standard

English as it is understood nowadays came into being later in the 18th century as some

writers for example Jonathan Swift expressed the wish to fix the language often for

practical purposes. Consequently, it was during this period that English was codified in

grammar books and dictionaries which were extensively produced. Nevertheless, as Hickey

(2010, p. 1-2). points out the idea of fixing English is generally at odds with the fact that

language changes constantly. Interestingly, unlike in France there is no language academy

that would represent the authority of prescribing proper use of English. Instead the

authorities were the authors of grammar books and dictionaries as they were perceived as

educated and prestigious. Consequently, the standard was accepted (Strässler & Locher,

2008, p. 6).

2.2. Characterization of Standard English

In the 18th century Hugh Campbell tried to develop the idea of what the standard is

and characterized at that time not yet developed Standard English as good use. The good

use was distinguished from bad use in the sense that it was reputable meaning that it is used

without vulgarisms and in a written form and formal spoken discourse. From this it follows

that this reputable use is associated with prestige (Hickey, 2010, p. 16). The prestigious

6
status of the developing standard is noted also by Hickey (2010) who mentions attitudes

especially of the middle class towards the language use as this class perceived language as

a tool for recognizing their standing in the social hierarchy and “an instrument of social

inclusion or exclusion” (p. 3). Both Hickey (2010, p. 3) and Campbell (Hickey, 2010, p.

17) also mention that the standard is recognized by national use. Hickey (2010) asserts that

standard became more and more characterized by its non-regional character. The

divorcing of preferred public usage from regionality and local identity meant that the

emerging standard was an essentially non-regional form of English. Hence favouring this

incipient standard in public, educated usage meant that the regional accents were

condemned accordingly. (p. 3)

Apart from being reputable and national Campbell reminds that the standard should

be also present without outdated terms (Hickey, 2010, p. 17).

To compare the modern idea of what Standard English is with its 18th century model it can

be stated that there are no striking differences in understanding the concept of the standard.

As a matter of fact, the modern concept draws on its predecessor at least in that it stresses

the national character and prestigious usage. Apart from this it must be noted that Standard

English does not involve much variation owing to the fact that it was fixed and codified in

grammar books and dictionaries (Hickey, 2010, p. 17-18).

Raymond Hickey (2010, p. 1) puts forward a straightforward definition of the

standard being “a variety propagated by education, codified in books and favoured by non-

regional speakers in a society.” This definition is in concord with Trudgill (1999) who

claims that Standard English is a variety of English which

7
 may be the most important variety of English, in all sorts of ways: it is the variety of

English normally used in writing, especially printing; it is the variety associated with the

education system in all the English-speaking countries of the world, and it is therefore the

variety spoken by those who are often referred to as “educated people”; and it is the

variety taught to non-native learners. (p. 118)

To determine a position of Standard English in the hierarchy, he labels it as a dialect

while carrying out the following analysis: “Standard English is simply one variety of

English among many. It is a subvariety of English. Sub-varieties of languages are usually

referred to as dialects, and languages are often described as consisting of dialects.”

(Trudgill, 1999, p. 123). It follows that technically Standard English is on the same level

with other English dialects. However, this is not entirely true owing to the fact that the

standard attains a rather prominent position from the sociolinguistic point of view since

among other English dialects it is the most significant one when social, intellectual and

cultural properties are taken into account (Trudgill, 1999, p. 123).

In addition, unlike other dialects the standard is a social dialect but not geographical

dialect in spite of the fact that the origins of the standard can be traced to English southeast.

Taken from the social point of view, the standard is spoken predominantly by

representatives of the very top of the social hierarchy. On the other hand, non-standard

varieties are spoken by people occupying the opposite end of the social ladder (Trudgill,

1999, p. 124). Consequently, the notion of nationality and prestige of standard that was

discussed earlier resonates here again. According to Trudgill (1999) it is for these reasons

that this variety was standardized because it was “associated with the social group with the

8
highest degree of power, wealth and prestige.” (p. 124). Since the standard is used in

education it only perpetuates the powerful position of Standard English (Trudgill, 1999,

p. 124).

2.3. Linguistic features

After characterizing general attributes of Standard English, it is now necessary to

outline also its linguistic features. Drawing on Peter Trudgill he insists that Standard

English is independent of phonology and lexis while the only feature which determines the

standard is grammar (Trudgill, 1999, p. 125). By arguing so he proposes a number of

arguments.

Speaking of phonology and pronunciation in relation to the standard, there seems to

be no connection for Standard English has no accent. The standard being a prestigious

variety might appear to be connected to RP and to some extent it is true since all RP

speakers speak the standard but not all who speak the standard use RP. As a matter of fact,

the standard is spoken in many regional accents (Trudgill, 1999, p. 118).

The independence of the standard of lexis springs from the assumption that there is

no connection between style and register - both determined by choice of lexis - to the

standard. While style uses lexis to distinguish between formal and informal, register

preoccupies with a subject matter. It is true that lexis in formal style and lexis in technical

or scientific registers will be expected to appear in Standard English, however, this kind of

lexis might be well found in non-standard varieties. For that reason, the connection between

lexis and Standard English is doubtful (Trudgill, 1999, p. 119-122).

Trudgill (1999, p. 127) concludes that Standard English vocabulary does not exist.

He argues that while it is easier to determine non-standard vocabulary since it is not used

9
by Standard English speakers at the same time it is difficult to determine standard

vocabulary since it is used not only by Standard English speakers but also by speakers of

non-standard varieties.

As mentioned above, the only determinant in deciding what is standard is grammar.

Although the number of grammatical features which Standard English shares with other

dialects is high there are a few forms typical exclusively for the standard (Trudgill, 1999,

p. 125). Trudgill (1999, p. 125-126) presents the following characteristics:

1. Unlike other dialects Standard English does not make a difference between

auxiliary do and main verb do in present and past tense. Dialects often differentiate

between auxiliary I do, he do and main verb I does, he does in present and auxiliary

did and main verb done in past.

2. In Standard English only the 3rd person singular attaches the s-ending in present

tense verbs as in he goes but I go. Dialects use zero or s-ending for all persons.

3. Unlike dialects, Standard English does not allow multiple negation.

4. Reflexive pronouns in Standard English are formed in combination with either

possessive pronouns (myself) or objective pronouns (himself). Dialects usually

employ only possessive pronouns (hisself).

5. Standard English uses pronoun you both for the 2nd person singular and plural.

Other dialects distinguish between the use of thou and you or you and youse.

6. Standard English has a different form of the verb be for persons in present and past

tense (I am, he is, they are, I was, they were). In other dialects one form is used for

all persons (I be, he be, I were, he were).

10
 7. Standard English differentiates between irregular verbs in preterite and past

participle (I saw and I have seen). Dialects use only past participle forms (I seen

and I have seen).

8. Standard English uses two demonstrative pronouns this and that. In dialects there is

one more pronoun yon.

2.4. Standard American English

Considering the number of varieties of English, it is a legitimate question to ask

whether there exists only one Standard English or not. According to Trudgill (1999, p. 124)

Standard English has many different forms hence it is possible to distinguish for instance

Standard American English or Standard Scottish English.

The beginnings of Standard American English can be traced back to the 18th

century when the United States declared the independence of British. American people “felt

that they were, as a group, distinct enough from the British, not only to have their own

country, but also to have their own language.” (Bauer, 2002, p. 93). Standard American

English was established as a result of the codification. Noah Webster was an influential

figure propagating not only the idea of American language but also a spelling reform.

Generally, his goal was to simplify the spelling. In the end he managed to produce

dictionaries which clearly made a distinction in British and American spelling. Apart from

dictionaries he also issued a grammar. Consequently, American English was codified at the

turn of the 18th century (Bauer, 2002, p. 94-98). As it is evident the most striking

difference between the two standards is spelling and as Trudgill (1999, p. 127) adds also

different vocabulary items. Specifically, Standard American English will be used in the

following chapters for the comparison with AAVE.

11
 2.5. General American
The existence of Standard American English presupposes the existence of its

standard pronunciation. This section will briefly outline some of its most salient phonetic

features.

Accents in the United States traditionally comprise three major accents: Eastern

which covers for example New York City, Southern spreading from Virginia to the South;

and General for the rest of the country (Cruttenden, 2014, p. 87). J. C. Wells (1982)

characterizes General American (GenAm or GA) as follows:

GenAm is not a single unified accent. But as a concept referring to non-eastern non-southern

accents, the label has its uses. It corresponds to the layman’s perception of an American

accent without marked regional characteristic. It is sometimes referred to as ‘Network

English’, being the variety most acceptable on the television networks covering the whole

United States. (p. 470)

Schneider (2008, p. 43) prefers the term Standard American English and adds that its

quality depends on the ability of speakers to suppress the regional elements which

consequently allows certain variation.

In terms of consonants intervocalic /t/ is often produced as a voiced tap, hence /t/ in

latter or better will be pronounced with /d/. T can be also omitted when it occurs between

vowels in a nt cluster as in winter. Postvocalic l often becomes vocalized as in the word

milk. The palatal glide /j/ is retained in cure but omitted in Tuesday. /R/ is sometimes

pronounced as /ɹ/ or in some cases by moving tongue upwards and backwards without

raising its tip. (Schneider, 2008, p. 48; Cruttenden, 2014, p. 88). Regarding r Wells (1982,

12
p. 490) also mentions R dissimilation in which /r/ is omitted if the non-final syllable is not

stressed as in surprise.

To include all the special features falling into the category of vowels would require

an extensive listing which would be beyond the scope of this work, hence only a few

representatives will be mentioned. General American uses vowels and /r/ instead of

diphthongs /ɪə/, /ʊə/ and /ɛː/ as exemplified in the word sure. Instead of ɒ GA uses ɑː as in

bottle. Diphthongs /eɪ/ and /əʊ/ are often produced as monophthongs /eː/ and /oː/ in words

like late. (Cruttenden, 2014, p. 87-88).

According to Schneider (2008, p. 49) speakers of General American are more prone

to make use of the secondary stress which in effect creates a different pattern of rhythm

which is distinct among other varieties of English. An interesting difference concerning

stress is observed in the southern United States. Americans generally stress the second

syllable of special words like police or umbrella, however, speakers in the South place

stress on the first syllable. (Schneider, 2008, p. 49).

This chapter has introduced selected phonetic features of General American accent

including consonants, vowels and the suprasegmental feature of stress.

3. African American Vernacular English

This chapter represents the core of the theoretical part of the thesis as it deals

directly with African American Vernacular English. It will also function as the main point

of reference for the analysis in the practical section. A large part of the discussion will be

devoted to the linguistic parameters of this variety especially in terms of grammar. Among

13
other issues, naming the variety, its origins and history will be also examined along with

the question of how AAVE is perceived among other speakers.

3.1. Other terms for AAVE

Before addressing the main points concerning African American Vernacular English

(further referred to as AAVE), it is desirable to devote some space to other names of this

variety since it seems that there has been much confusion on how to call the variety owing

to a large number of different names.

In her work on African American English, Lisa Green (2002, p. 5-6) provides an

extensive list of different labels given to this variety. Among them for example: Negro

dialect, Negro English, Black street speech, Black English, Black English Vernacular,

African American English and African American Vernacular English to name a few. She

argues that these various names are directly related to the speakers of the variety. From this

it follows that different names of the variety are a result of different names given to its

speakers over the time as the society was changing. Green (2002, p. 6) also asserts that

labels which include the term English are designed to stress the relation to other English

varieties. On the other hand, those labels which exclude it rather underline African

connection. Interestingly, some scholars distinguish between above mentioned labels as

distinct entities. For instance, Bailey (2007, p. 29) uses African American English as an

umbrella term and AAVE as a specific type. A similar stance is taken by Spears

(Mufwene, 2001, p. 31). By the same token, William Labov uses Black English and Black

English Vernacular (Green, 2002, p. 7). On the other hand, Dillard (2014, p. 60) does not

seem to distinguish between the two. However, despite all these differences in perception

Green (2002) concludes: “Today, while some researchers choose to use African American

14
English, others African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and still others African

American Language, they are all referring to the same variety.” (p. 7). It is also of interest

that while linguists are consistent about the existence of AAVE regardless of how they

label it, in a survey carried out by Mufwene (2001, p. 25-26) half of the African-American

respondents declined the existence of such a variety for they believe to speak an American

English variety but only differently than the rest of Americans. He (Mufwene, 2001) adds

that “the average African American, regardless of level of education, is sure they speak

American English….” (p. 28).

In addition, there is one more term which is used in connection with this variety and

that is Ebonics. The author of the label was Robert Williams in 1973. In spite of the fact

that media used this term in 1990s to refer to AAVE, the classification is not correct since it

includes also languages spoken in Caribbean (Green, 2002, p.7). Interestingly, Mufwene

(2001) notes that “even some speakers of (near-) basilectal AAVE thought that Ebonics

refers to a language variety other than their own.” (p. 35). What is more, scholars do not

even recognize Ebonics as a dialect of English (Green, 2002, p. 7-8). For the purpose of

this work, the label AAVE will be used throughout the thesis.

3.2. Delineation of AAVE

If there is the need to define AAVE precisely, there are several perspectives from

which the definition can be approached. On the most general level of how laypeople

understand it and also from the sociolinguistic perspective it can be stated that since

language is connected to its speakers then AAVE is a variety of English spoken by people

of African American origin (Mufwene, 2001, p. 21; Bailey, 2007, p. 29; Green, 2002, p. 5).

Some resources (Green, 2002, p. 5-6; Bailey, 2007, p. 29) are even more specific when

15
defining the speakers of the variety as members of lower or working class often located in

cities, hence AAVE can be also referred to as a social and ethnic dialect.

It should be also noticed that in spite of the fact that this definition presupposes that

African Americans speak AAVE it is not entirely true. Green (2002, p. 1) and Pullum

(1999, p. 39) suggest that being an African American does not automatically mean being an

AAVE speaker. As a matter of fact, speakers of AAVE from a higher than working class

often do not use it; on the other hand, other speakers use only some features. Others

conscious of the stigma which AAVE carries limit speaking this variety in order not to

stand out in the society. In addition, the profession of some of the speakers does not allow

them to speak AAVE. However, in their communities they often speak black (Bailey, 2007,

p. 34-35; Mufwene, 2001, p. 33-35).

A more linguistically-oriented definition is introduced by Green (2002) who states

the following:

AAE is a variety that has set phonological (system of sounds), morphological (system of

structure of words and relationship among words), syntactic (system of sentence structure,

semantic (system of meaning) and lexical (structural organization of vocabulary items and

other information) patterns. (p. 1)

From the definition above it could seem that as far as linguistic parameters are

concerned, AAVE can be equal to other English varieties. However, Zeigler & Osinubi

(2002, p. 590) demonstrate AAVE is not perceived as equal in form, function and structure

since there is no separate territory for African Americans, therefore it is not possible to

think of AAVE as a unique variety unlike British or Australian English.

16
 Given the above definitions it is necessary to mention that AAVE is not a

monolithic variety but that it also allows variation. Mufwene (2001, p. 32) mentions

regional variation and Green (2002, p. 1-2) agrees that there are differences between AAVE

speakers across the United States, hence speakers from different states are likely to share

syntactic and semantic patterns, on the other hand their pronunciation of vowel sounds will

be different.

3.3. Origins and development

Throughout the history of research of AAVE, there has appeared an interesting

debate preoccupying with the question of how AAVE emerged. Generally, there are two

main approaches to the origin of AAVE: Creolist and Anglicist (Mufwene, 2014, p. 349).

The proponents of the creolist theory among whom can be found Dillard and Labov

claim that AAVE developed from a creole similar to Jamaican creole or Gullah which was

spoken on plantations in the South. Once African slaves who spoke various African

languages were brought to the United States they used pidgin, a simple contact language,

which supposedly combined items of their African languages and English. This pidgin later

developed into a more complex creole (Bailey, 2007, p. 30; Green, 2002, p. 9; Mufwene,

2014, p. 349-350). Green (2002) also points out that “it is quite possible that slaves from

Africa and those imported from the West Indies brought established creoles with them.”

(p. 9). Zeigler and Osinubi (2002) specify this possibility as they argue:

African American language varieties began as pidgins and creoles in the western coastal

regions of Africa when Europeans began trading with Africans. And they developed into

17
 other creoles in the Atlantic island colonies and the American coastal sea colonies when

Europeans began trading in African laborers. (p. 593)

Hence it is true that Africans already brought established creoles as argued by

Green; on the other hand, these creoles only later further developed in America to become

what we understand as AAVE. Nevertheless, here is where it gets into a conflict with the

other party called Anglicists as for instance an advocate of this approach Mufwene (2014,

p. 351) asserts that trade between Africans and Europeans was rather indirect since the

trade was ensured by mediators, consequently no pidgins would emerge.

The position of Anglicists relies heavily on the evidence that the origin of AAVE

can be traced back to other historical English varieties especially British, Irish and

American which means that AAVE shares more patterns with English rather than with

creoles (Green, 2002, p. 9-10; Bailey, 2007, p. 30; Miethaner, 2014, p. 365). Some

linguistic features can be found in current dialects in Britain which implies that slaves were

in contact with white speakers of these dialects (Bailey, 2007, p. 30). By the same token

McWhorter (1997, p. 11) adds AAVE is more similar to the dialect of British settlers with

whom slaves came into contact in America. He also exemplifies that a creole language like

Sranan as compared to AAVE is much more incomprehensible and hence the Anglicist

arguments seem to be more solid than the creolist ones. Another advocate of this stance is

Mufwene (2014) who asserts that

AAVE’s vocabulary is as English as that of a North American English variety; it is not

more divergent from Standard American English than, say, Appalachian, Ozark, or Amish

18
 English. Its phonology and grammar are very similar to those of American White

Southern English (AWSE) varieties… (p. 351)

His arguments again show that AAVE is more likely of the English origin. A

research which focused on slaves written evidence as captured in slave narratives also

counts in favour of this perspective. Both Green (2002, p. 10) and Schneider (2014, p. 50)

agree that although some of these narratives might contain creole elements, the majority of

work resembles English. However, features of AAVE are more complex and not all of

them can be simply classified as having roots in either English or creole. Consequently, this

view offers a compromise when both approaches are partly acceptable (Bailey, 2007,

p. 31).

Regardless of what position one decides to take, there seems to be a general

consensus on when AAVE emerged. Most scholars refer to the 17th and 18th century as a

point of time when African slaves encountered the need to learn English, hence this marked

the beginnings of AAVE (Green, 2002, p. 8; Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002, p. 593; Dillard,

2014, p. 60).

As mentioned above, this was also the time when African slaves got into contact

with whites. Not surprisingly this had its consequences. For instance, Mufwene (2001)

asserts that “Africans have been suspected since the early 18th century to have influenced

Southern White varieties of American English, making them different from British and

other North American English varieties.” (p. 23). From this time onwards, African slaves

shared plantations with white farmers in the Southern part of America where their contact

led to mutual influencing of language which made AAVE and White Southern English very

much alike (Mufwene, 2014, p. 360). Later, towards the end of the 19th century the

19
application of Jim Crow laws caused that the two varieties drifted apart. As a result of Jim

Crow policy, a large number of African Americans migrated to the North to improve their

prospects. This migration wave is also known as the Great Migration (Mufwene, 2014,

p. 358-359). Mufwene (2014) depicts the situation of African Americans in the North as

follows:

… they found themselves living in ghettos that kept them segregated from the White

population, in which they have continued speaking in fundamentally the same ways the

always did in the American Southeast. Northerners identified this otherwise nonstandard

American Southern English, as Black English, now referred to as AAVE. (p. 359)

African Americans were separated from whites and therefore their language variety

could develop in isolation and become clearly distinguished from White Southern English

and strengthen African American identity. This independent development of AAVE

became known as the divergence hypothesis (Mufwene, 2014, p. 359; Miethaner, 2014,

p. 366; Bailey, 2007, p. 31).

It is interesting to note how the development of AAVE correlated with the situation

of African Americans based on what social climate they happened to be part of. Accepting

the creole origin of AAVE, it can be observed that there is a tendency to decreolize and use

White English when the social situation is favourable for blacks and on the other hand it

shifts back to a more creolized variety when the situation is not good. The decreolization

became the case when the import of slaves was stopped in the first half of the 19th century

up to the 1960s. Slaves wanted to become a part of the American society hence they

20
accepted Standard English and gave up creole patterns (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002, p. 599-

600).

During 1980s and 1990s AAVE went the opposite direction as “the new civil rights

fighters take AAE further away from the mainstream accommodation voice of LWC. They

establish the AAE community as the central, generating force of power, language, and self-

identification” (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002, p. 593). As the success of the civil rights

movement gradually faded the recreolization continued to resemble a secret language not

comprehensible to the public. Consequently, in such cases recreolization functions as a

defence mechanism against oppression (Zeigler & Osinubi, 2002, p. 603). An important

role in facing the oppression is their community and culture specifically the use of AAVE

in hip-hop music and other forms of culture which is especially useful for “establishing

their identities as African Americans, for integrating themselves into their community, for

building and maintaining relationships, and for expressing pride in their racial heritage.”

(Bailey, 2007, p. 35).

3.4. Perceptions of AAVE

In discussions on AAVE one comes across one aspect which makes this variety

specific among other varieties in the United States. It is the assumption that AAVE is

believed to be the most stigmatized variety. According to Mufwene (2001) “The tendency

here has been to associate AAE, especially AAVE, with the lower strata of the African-

American community, with the less educated and less affluent.” (p. 32). Pullum (1999)

observes the same phenomenon when he states:

21
 Most speakers of Standard English think that AAVE is just a badly spoken version of their

language, marred by a lot of ignorant mistakes in grammar and pronunciation, or worse

than that, an unimportant and mostly abusive repertoire of street slang used by an ignorant

urban underclass. (p. 39-40)

This view of lay people on inadequacy of AAVE contributed to racist attitudes

towards AAVE speakers and their ridiculing (Bailey, 2007, p. 34). Beliefs of the public are,

however, at odds with the opinion of linguists. They have proved the above-mentioned

arguments of lay people wrong (Bailey, 2007, p. 34; Pullum, 1999, p. 41).

A real-life example of how the stigmatization works in practise can be seen in the

Oakland case. In a local school AAVE was approved to be officially used in classrooms in

order to improve poor performance of students as the standard language was perceived as

an obstacle for most of the African American students. What followed was an immediate

interest of media not only in the United States. The decision makers were ridiculed and

criticized only because of the special status of AAVE which arouses emotions (Pullum,

1999, p. 39-40). Based on this example Pullum (1999) summarizes the American attitude

towards AAVE as follows: “The horror with which Americans react to the idea of using

AAVE in the classroom has something to teach us about the prejudice still targeted on

America’s Black citizens, whose variety of English is decried as if it were some repellent

disease…” (p. 56).

Ruminating about the cause of the scandalous status of AAVE, Zeigler and Osinubi

(2002, p. 594-595) offer the explanation in which the reason for the stigmatization of

AAVE is the low social, political and economic status of African Americans throughout the

history of the United States which determined also their linguistic standing in the society.

22
By the same token, Mufwene (2001) adds that “stigmatization of AAE was an extension of

the (further) segregation of the African-American population after the Jim Crow Laws were

passed in 1877.” (p. 23).

3.5. Relation to Standard English

Preparing the background for the presentation some of the peculiar features of

AAVE which are unique for this variety, it might be of interest to show in what respects

AAVE is related to the Standard English.

In arguing for the similarity of AAVE with the standard Pullum (1999, p. 44) states

that as a matter of fact the two varieties share most of the vocabulary and grammar,

however, at the same time he seems to almost contradict himself when he adds that in

relation to the standard, AAVE is significantly different. It might be because of this

dichotomy that some people come to a conclusion that speakers of AAVE speak the

standard but while doing so they make mistakes. This is a myth which Pullum tried to

refute by pointing to the fact that AAVE is a separate dialect with its own grammar and

rules. Apart from the apparent linguistic features the difference between the two varieties

lies also in the fact that AAVE lacks the prestige which the standard enjoys but the reason

is not that AAVE would be somehow deficient (Pullum, 1999, p. 57-58).

In the reaction to the Oakland resolution McWhorter has also some points to make

about closeness of AAVE and Standard English. In agreement with Pullum he (McWhorter,

1997, p. 9) suggests that the standard was chosen by political decision and not because it

would be better than any other dialect or AAVE. Again, there is an assertion that AAVE is

similar to the standard since “It is a fact that Black English is not different enough from

23
standard English to pose any significant obstacle to speaking, reading, or writing it. Black

English is simply a dialect of English, just as standard English is.” (McWhorter, 1997,

p. 9). McWhorter (1997) also points out a parallel of AAVE and the standard when he

argues that AAVE “is mutually intelligible with standard English both on page and spoken

and its speakers do not occupy a separate nation.” (p. 9). In addition, both AAVE and

Standard English have its own slang although AAVE is sometimes perceived to be only

a slang (McWhorter, 1997, p. 10).

Individual cases in which AAVE deviates from the Standard English will be

discussed in the next chapter.

3.6. Selected grammatical features of AAVE

Speaking of specific linguistic features involved in AAVE it is reasonable to first

mention data which linguists have used in their research on AAVE. Interestingly,

researchers during the 1980s focused especially on teenagers often those living in large

cities in the North and at the same time involved in street culture. This group appealed to

them mainly because the speech of young people demonstrates more peculiar items than the

speech of adults who are constrained to speak AAVE as it is not compatible with their

profession or they would be stigmatized (Bailey ,2007, p. 32; Mufwene, 2001, p. 33).

However, other sources were included later and comprised interviews with African

Americans from the rural South in the 19th century, historical recordings with formers

slaves and their correspondence, and others (Bailey, 2007, p. 32). Hence the various data

help to see the AAVE more comprehensively. Rickford (1999) also argues that AAVE

grammatical and phonological features are generally “used most often younger lower- and

working-class speakers in urban areas and in informal styles, but the extent to which this is

24
true, and how often the features are used varies from one feature to another.” (p. 9).

Nevertheless, there is one more variable that plays role in the existing features, it is the

regional variation. Wolfram (2004, p. 114) suggests that the southern AAVE differs from

the northern AAVE in urban areas hence for example the 3rd plural -s is not found in urban

AAVE unlike in the southern variety. However, the modern AAVE does not reflect the

distinction between rural and urban, instead there is a shift to a non-regional variety which

spreads from the urban areas (Wolfram, 2004, p. 116). The list of selected grammatical

features associated with AAVE follows.

3.6.1. Absence of auxiliary/copula be

The omission of auxiliary be which is also known as copula is one of the most

distinctive features of AAVE. Auxiliary be which includes am, is, are, being, been, was

and were might be under certain circumstances omitted. It is observed that this feature with

slight differences in use and frequency appears also in other varieties of English especially

in white southern English. Although the omission of auxiliary be is frequently considered

incorrect or random it is in fact governed by a set of rules (Green, 2002, p. 38-39; Pullum,

1999, p. 45-46; Wolfram, 2004,117-118). In spite of the fact that the copula omission might

seem to occur frequently, there are more cases in which it cannot be left out, Pullum (1999,

p. 45-46) recognizes the following cases in which copula is required:

● Copula is stressed, especially at the end of a phrase

● In cases of remote past a unique tense of AAVE with the use of been

● Copula is used in negative

● Copula is in infinitive

25
 ● In a structure be V + ing which denotes habituality

● Copula is in past tense

● Copula is in the 1st person in present tense

● Copula is at the beginning of a clause

● Copula functions as a question tag

Consequently, it can be generally stated that copula can be omitted in cases when

“copula is present tense, not first person, not accented, not negative, and not expressing

habitual or the remote present perfect” (Pullum, 1999, p. 46).

3.6.2. Invariant be

Invariant be can be also found under different labels such as habitual be, be2 or

aspectual be. It is probably the most iconic feature of AAVE. It is distinguished from

auxiliary be in that its form is not variable and is treated as a main verb with helping

auxiliary do, at the same time unlike auxiliary be it cannot be omitted. Traditionally, it

precedes verb with -ing ending and its meaning describes a habitual activity. Interestingly,

it seems to be used more frequently by younger speakers and seems to be linked to black

youth culture. However, recently researchers in the field have observed that it does not

appear only with verbs denoting habitual activity but also with nouns and its meaning

changes to emphasize stativity. By the same token it is also used in this environment to

signal black speech (Wolfram, 2004, p.118-119; Green, 2002, p. 47). On the other hand,

Green (2002) observes that habitual meaning is involved even in structures where

“the be + verb/adjective/preposition/adverb/aspectual/passive verb sequence has a ‘happens

on different occasions’ or ‘is in a certain state or place on different occasions’

26
interpretation.” (p. 49). When the habitual meaning of invariant be is considered and

compared to general American English it can be stated that to achieve the same effect verb

would have to be modified by an adverb which would express the habituality such as

usually or always (Green, 2002, p. 47). In AAVE adverbs of frequency can be also used

with invariant be in that case they are likely to appear preceding be (Green, 2002, p. 51).

Interestingly, it is important to distinguish also forms that resemble invariant be but

lack the habitual meaning. Such cases often imply future meaning, the form then seems to

lack will/would, which is, however, a result of phonological activity (Wolfram, 2004,

p. 118). Wolfram (2004) proposes an example:

In constructions such as She be there in a minute, the be comes from the loss of /l/ before

a labial (she’ll be → she be) (see Edwards, other volume), whereas in a construction like

If they get a DVD player they be happy, the form is derived from the loss of /d/ (they’d

be → they be), since /d/ before a labial may geminate to the /b/ and then be lost in a

general phonological process of degemination” (p. 118).

The occurrence of aspectual be is also reported in other varieties of English

specifically in Hiberno English and Carolina English in which be is often used similarly but

unlike in AAVE, Carolina English be might lack habitual reading (Green, 2002, p. 54).

3.6.3. Completive done

The structure of this verbal marker combines done and verb in past tense. In AAVE

this feature expresses a completed action, recent past and an activity or change of state

which is supposed to be highlighted. Considering this a sentence like I done finished it can

27
be uttered. This construction then might be in some respect compared to present perfect in

Standard English although it is not certain whether it possesses all meanings. The problem

involves especially two entities common for standard present perfect - stative verbs as it is

difficult to say where they finish and adverbs such as for two years which AAVE allows

only in special cases. In terms of phonetics done is unstressed hence in some materials it

occurs as dən (Wolfram, 2004, p. 119; Green, 2002, p. 60-61).

3.6.4. Multiple negation

Another feature which deviates from Standard English is the multiple negation

which AAVE allows. Negation can be expressed both in auxiliary verbs (don’t, ain’t) and

also in indefinite pronouns (anybody, nothing, etc.). Multiple negation enables speakers of

AAVE to use an unlimited number of negatives which contrasts with Standard English

grammar where only one negation is acceptable. It is also of interest that two negatives do

not create a positive meaning as in mainstream English. For this reason, AAVE formation

of multiple negative might seem illogical (Green, 2002, p. 77; Pullum, 1999, p. 48).

Nevertheless, Pullum (1999, p. 48-49) explains that AAVE is not illogical but rather has a

different logic similar to Italian whose grammar is governed by negative concord and hence

needs negative items. He concludes that “their grammatical rules for expression of

indefinites in negated clauses differ from the rules for Standard English.” (Pullum, 1999, p.

49). However, this is not the only dialect with negative concord. Apart from AAVE

multiple negation concerns also London dialect Cockney and other vernacular dialects. It

must be noted that social stratification also determines that this kind of concord occurs

predominantly among working-class speakers (Pullum, 1999, p. 49; Wolfram, 2004,

p. 123). In addition, according to Green (2002, p. 78) scholars refer to multiple negation as

28
pleonastic which means that the first negative element marks negation and others do not

add any extra negation.

Speakers of AAVE use ain’t as a preverbal marker of negation. It is used both in

present tense forms of be instead of am not, isn’t and aren’t and also in perfective aspect

instead of haven’t which is a property common for other vernacular English varieties.

Additionally, it also substitutes for past tense didn’t which on the other hand makes it

distinct enough from other vernaculars (Wolfram, 2004, p. 124).

3.6.5. Negative inversion

Negative inversion is another syntactic property that is unique to AAVE and does

not occur in Standard English and other dialects. The essence of the principle of negative

inversion lies in that negative auxiliary verb in declarative sentence precedes indefinite

subject. In accordance with negative concord negative must be expressed both by auxiliary

verb and subject in negative form. The inversion is preferred form over the standard word

order, however, it is not likely to be used with subjects in forms of names or when they

begin with a definite article or possessive pronoun. When compared to Standard English,

the standard allows inversion of auxiliary and subject only in questions and in a special

case when declarative sentence begins with a negative adverb (Pullum, 1999, p. 49-50).

Wolfram (2004) adds that negative inversion is “often used for emphasis, especially if the

indefinite is stressed” (p. 124). By the same token Green (2002, p. 80) also discusses the

factor of emphasis when she mentions Labov and his assertion that negative inversion

emphasizes negation, but she claims that there are also other features that establish

negation.

29
 3.6.6. Subject-verb concord

Another well visible feature of AAVE which deviates from Standard English is the

agreement between subject and verb. As Green (2002) argues “number distinction between

singular and plural verbs in neutralized, resulting in the use of one form in both singular

and plural contexts” (p. 99). From this it follows that plural verb form can be used with the

third person singular and on the other hand singular verb form with -s suffix can occur with

the third person plural. The discussion can be divided into two phenomena based on the

type of verb: verbal -s marker and conjugated be.

As far as verbal -s is concerned researchers has observed a frequent absence of

verbal -s in the third person singular context in modern AAVE. The rate of omission

especially among teenagers was surprisingly high which consequently led scholars to

question the existence of rules for verbal -s concord in AAVE. Interestingly, earlier AAVE

used verbal -s more often not only in the 3rd person singular but also plural and in 1st and

2nd person (Wolfram, 2004, p. 122). Apart from the fact that verbal -s marker is used in

the agreement with 3rd person singular it is also believed to have two more functions.

While some studies proposed a special function that it could mark narration others did not

prove such a pattern. The last function that is associated with verbal -s is that which

expresses habituality which means that events occur on some occasions (Green, 2002,

p. 100; Wolfram, 2004, p. 122). Again, when the uses of verbal -s are compared to

Standard English, it can be concluded that “Verbal -s in general American English will

always occur in third person non-past singular contexts, which may also have habitual

interpretations (e.g., Bruce runs two races [𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘]).” (Green, 2002, p. 101).

30
 Another trait that plays role in concord is conjugated be which undergoes levelling

in AAVE. This means that present tense forms of be am and are converge to is and in past

tense to was. As a result, be is regularized as in many other English vernaculars. This

levelling of be is then more frequent in present tense rather than in past tense (Wolfram,

2004, p. 122-123).

3.6.7. Relative clauses

Relative clauses are clauses that modify or further specify nouns in various

positions. They are generally introduced by relative pronouns that, who and which. In

Standard English relative pronouns might be omitted only under certain circumstances

(Green, 2002, p. 89-90). In contrast to AAVE “relative clauses that modify nouns in the

predicate nominative or object positions are not obligatorily headed by relative pronouns.”

(Green, 2002, p. 91). That means that the omission of the relative pronoun in AAVE is not

conditioned unlike in Standard English. Additionally, relative pronoun what which AAVE

allowed earlier is not used by speakers of current-day AAVE (Wolfram, 2004, p. 126).

3.6.8. Formation of questions

There are cases in which the formation of questions in AAVE differs from Standard

English, however, there are also cases which overlaps with the standard. The main

difference between the two varieties is that auxiliary verbs in AAVE yes-no questions can

be omitted as in You like it? Instead of Do you like it? Hence, they have a declarative

structure and what marks them as questions is not the initial auxiliary but intonation. There

are, however, limits which determine that some modal verbs and past tense auxiliary be

cannot be omitted in questions (Green, 2002, p. 42).

31
 Apart from forming questions simply by adding a special intonation, it is also

possible to use a standard way of inverting subject and auxiliary verb in which auxiliary

precedes subject as in Can he go? (Green, 2002, p. 85).

However, as far as wh-questions are concerned these questions ask for specific

information and always involve wh-words such as what, which, who etc. and how which

also falls into this category. This type of questions is formed in a way common to Standard

English that is by subject-auxiliary inversion in which auxiliary is placed prior to subject.

On the other hand, a specific way unique to AAVE is the formation of questions which

does not always invert subject and auxiliary verb. In that case wh-word is in the initial

position followed by a clause resembling declarative structure such as What he was doing?

(Green, 2002, p. 85-87; Wolfram, 2004, p. 126)

Speaking of indirect questions which demand answer but not in a direct manner

unlike the above-mentioned questions, they are also formed differently than in the standard

(Green, 2002, p. 87). These questions are “clauses themselves (because they contain

a subject and a verb) that are embedded or set within the larger declarative sentence”

(Green, 2002, p. 87). These sentences are governed by two rules. First, if the indirect

question is introduced by if or whether there is no subject-auxiliary inversion as in I wonder

if he arrived which is not different from Standard English. However, once if or whether is

not present in the sentence then inversion of subject and auxiliary verb occurs: I wonder do

you like it. However, the use of if or whether is not to be mixed with the inversion

otherwise the sentence will be incorrect. This example justifies the existence of specific

rules governing AAVE. In addition, similar patterns are observed also in other English

vernaculars (Green, 2002, p. 88-89).

32
 In sum, AAVE is specific in a way that in yes-no questions auxiliary can be omitted

and in wh-questions subject and auxiliary verb is not inverted. On the other hand, inversion

occurs atypically in indirect questions.

3.6.9. Other special features

Apart from the above mentioned linguistic features specific for AAVE, there are

also others which are worth mentioning briefly. Wolfram (2004) lists a few attributes that

AAVE shares with other vernaculars in the category of pronouns such as “the extension of

the objective form them for attributive demonstratives such as She likes them apples, and

the use of objective forms in coordinate subjects as in Me and him got style. It shares

benefactive datives as in I got me a new car with Southern dialects.” (p. 125-126). All these

specifically used pronouns are not found in Standard English. The formation of reflexive

pronouns in AAVE also differs from the standard ones. These pronouns are regularized

hence resulting in forms such as hisself. (Wolfram, 2004, p. 125).

All in all, as can be seen from the above-mentioned special features it can be said

that AAVE is distinct enough from Standard English in a number of features on the

grammatical level although an extensive number of other features was not mentioned. It has

been also argued that they are not random occurrences but rule-governed entities some of

which are also shared by other varieties.

This chapter has provided a thorough examination of AAVE. It focused not only on

peculiar grammatical parameters of AAVE but also on its nature and complexities in

general including its history, origins and negative perceptions which it carries with it as

a burden throughout its history.

33
 3.7. Phonetic features
Apart from the differences in grammar, AAVE also deviates from Standard English

in pronunciation. This chapter aims at describing the most frequent special uses of

pronunciation and suprasegmental features.

What speakers of AAVE often do is that they omit consonants at the end of a word,

hence they pronounce lef’ instead of left or han’ instead of hand. However, while it is

tempting to simply state that consonants in the final positions are deleted, this feature has

strict rules (Green, 2002, p. 107-108; Pullum, 1999, p. 50-51). Pullum (1999) formulates

the following rule: “A stop consonant at the end of a word may be omitted (and usually is)

if it is preceded by another consonant of the same voicing.” (p.51). Hence p in up is

retained since there is only one consonant, p in dump is retained since m is voiced and p

voiceless. Or s in rats is retained since it is not a stop. Only t in test can be omitted since it

is a stop and both s and t are of the same voicing (Pullum, 1999, p. 51).

On the other hand, Green (2002, p. 109) suggests that the attention must be also

paid to the environment in which clusters occur, specifically to suffixes or words that

follow the clusters. Consequently, “the generalization is that the cluster remains intact

preceding suffixes that begin with vowels, but when clusters precede suffixes that begin

with consonants (e.g., -ly in friendly), the are more likely to be reduced (frienly).” (Green,

2002, p. 112). It also matters if the cluster is followed by a word which begins with

a vowel. In such a case the consonant in the cluster is likely to be retained (Green, 2002,

p. 109)

Another feature of AAVE applies to some voiced consonants in the final positions

which are made voiceless. This rule concerns voiced b, d and g which turn into voiceless

34
p, t and k as in cab devoicing into cap. As can be seen the resulting word might become

ambiguous (Green, 2002, p. 116).

AAVE speakers frequently change the th sound of the general American English to

f/v or t/d based on rules which are determined by voicing. That means that voiceless f/t is

used instead of voiceless th sound in all but the initial position where the voiceless th sound

is retained such as baf for bath, wit for with but thing for thing (initial th sound retained). In

contrast, voiced d/v is used in initial and final positions belonging to th of the general

American English for instance dat for that, smoove for smooth (Green, 2002, p. 117-119).

In discussion on pronunciation of r and l Green (2002) states: When these sounds

follow vowels within words, they are not necessarily produced as liquids; instead they may

be produced as an unstressed vowel (schwa ə or uh sound) if a sound is produced at all.”

(p. 120). This means that if r and l are vocalized schwa is used and they sound like a vowel,

in some cases they do not have to be pronounced at all such as toe for tore or brotha for

brother. The r vocalization is common not only for AAVE but also for other English

varieties including Southern English or NYC dialect (Green, 2002, p. 120-121).

Another myth about AAVE concerns the pronunciation of the -ing suffix in which

g is believed to be omitted. In Standard English it is pronounced as the ng sound, AAVE

pronounces it as the -in sound written as -in’ such as nothin’ instead of standard nothing.

(Pullum, 1999, p. 51). This property does not concern one-syllable words such as sing. It is

also common in general American English under the condition that the syllable is not

stressed and in other non-standard varieties of English (Green, 2002, p. 122).

Unlike speakers of general American English who use str in the first syllable of the

word, AAVE speakers developed skr, hence they do not say street but skreet. This pattern

is reported to exist also in Gullah (Green, 2002, p. 122).

35
 As far as suprasegmental features or prosodic features are concerned, it can be said

that they are important in identifying the speaker with their ethnical background. These

features are also responsible for determining what sounding black means. They include

intonation and stress which together create a rhythm (Green, 2002, p. 124-127). The key

differences lie in a wider pitch range and in intonation of yes-no questions. The intonation

of these questions has level or falling final contour. Wh-questions’ final contours seem the

same as in general American English. Stress patterns in selected set of words also differs as

in police in which the first syllable is stressed in AAVE (Green, 2002, p. 126-131).

4. Literary dialect
A representation of different varieties of speech is part of many literary works by a

variety of writers including a masterpiece by Lorraine Hansberry which will be a subject of

the analysis in the practical section. This chapter will briefly touch upon issues associated

with literary dialect and at the same time it will also address the question of reliability of

a dialect used in works of literature in comparison with real speech.

4.1. History
Literature representing dialect towards the end of the 19th century enjoyed great

popularity and influenced literary trends of the time. It must be addressed that the majority

of authors who made use of a black dialect in their works were white. Among such authors

were most notably Mark Twain and Joel Chandler Harris. Additionally, some white authors

such as T. N. Page used dialect to perpetuate propaganda of white superiority in the South

(Minnick, 2004, p. 9-10). Minnick (2004) further argues that white authors influenced

black authors in that they avoided the use of dialect:

36
 The representations of black dialect that were endemic to the stories of the plantation

tradition, along with the dialect performed in minstrel shows, became in many white

minds inextricably linked with reality and accepted as symptomatic of black inferiority, an

image that proved persistent. Largely for this reason, many black writers of the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century avoided representations of dialectal speech in their

work. (p. 11)

During this time the first black authors including Charles W. Chesnutt and

P. L. Dunbar start to represent their dialect in writing. Interestingly, Chesnutt was among

those writers who faced the problem of using the dialect and he was seemingly included in

the plantation tradition in order to be published. He balanced these factors by employing

subversive strategies (Minnick, 2004, p. 14-15)

The trend of literary dialect in the 20th century was no less popular than earlier.

However, the impact of Harlem Renaissance played role in the change of direction of black

dialect representation (Minnick, 2004, p. 19). According to Minnick (2004)

African American dialect was

no longer used for minstrel-like entertainment purposes or for the mostly humorous intent

of nineteenth-century dialect writing, literary African American English was wielded by

twentieth-century authors in new form, to enact new themes, and to represent changing

social and political ideas. (p. 19)

37
 From the above it seems that changing social climate played a crucial role in the

transformation of the dialect writing. For African American writers this new reality meant

a change from the previous state of affairs in which some of them felt discouraged from

using their dialect as mentioned above. Now writers of Harlem Renaissance “used dialect

in their work, in part, to help reclaim African American voices for its speakers.” (Minnick,

2004, p. 24).

From that time onwards, African American authors follow the heritage of Harlem

Renaissance writers with the most prominent voices being A. Walker and Toni Morrison.

However, there is a decrease of white writers who try to depict black dialect in their work

probably caused by a difficulty to achieve proper authenticity (Minnick, 2004, p. 27).

4.2. Fidelity of representation

Alongside the representation of dialect in works of literature goes the question of

whether the dialect depicted in literature is reliable or not - an issue that is more likely to be

raised when white authors who are not presupposed to be entirely familiar with the dialect

are concerned.

In the discussion on the topic Cooley (2014) asserts that “literary dialect suggests or

corroborates rather than directly records language varieties. Literary dialect also serves

purposes internal to the literary concerns of the text such as establishing authorial tone or

the story’s setting as well as representing the character’s language.” (p. 57). Therefore, it is

up to the writer to what extent they decide to twist the dialect to achieve desired effects.

The dialect will be more accurate if the objective is realism and less if the purpose is comic

(Cooley, 2014, p. 57). Similarly, Minnick (2004) introduces Krapp’s observation that

38
 literary dialect was not always intended to represent reality nor did it always show respect

for the linguistic varieties represented or its speakers, but rather it could indicate

a condescension shared between author or narrator (or both) and reader toward the

characters whose speech is represented dialectically. (p. 30).

Krapp was not the only one who noticed the inaccurate depiction of dialect and

attributed it to author’s disrespect for dialect speakers. For instance, Birnbaum insists that

the majority of depictions of black dialect are intended to humiliate its speakers (Minnick,

2004, p. 33).

Dialect writers such as Twain or Harris are considered to write authentically when

their writing was compared to realistic data, however, that is also thanks to the fact that

they were writing in period which was favourable to realistic depictions although some

scholars doubt the realism of dialect in Harris’ work. In contrast there are depictions of

dialect which are not perceived as realistic but rather stereotypical often making use of eye

dialect which does not correspond to reality. Consequently, such representations cannot be

granted as a historical evidence (Cooley, 2014, p. 57; Minnick, 2004, p. 12). This view was

also held by other linguists such as E. W. Schneider who was “sceptical of literary dialect

in terms of its potential value of particular types of linguistic research.” (Minnick, 2004,

p. 28).

It is observed that during the first half of the 20th century including Harlem

Renaissance the use of eye dialect diminished, and more linguistic features associated with

black speech appeared. Especially Zora Neal Hurston used a great variety of linguistic

patterns from all levels of language which made her dialect look realistic (Green, 2002,

p. 178-179). Ralph Ellison’s work continues in the set authentic tradition but unlike

39
Hurston he makes his dialect more prominent in terms of syntax (Green, 2002, p. 188-189).

Green (2002) concludes that “The level of dialect use may be directly related to a number

of factors: the author’s knowledge of and views about the dialect, the characters’

ethnographic background, the makeup of the character's speech community and issues

related to publishing.” (p. 189.)

To sum up, representation of dialect in writing has a rich tradition in the American

literature and is represented by a number of both white and African American authors.

Some of the writers depicted black dialect more accurately than others depending on what

their motivation was and what effect they aimed to achieve. For that reason, the fidelity of

representation of the dialect in literary works might be questioned and only in comparison

with real data it can be stated whether the displayed dialect is authentic and reliable.

4.3. Transcription in dialect writing

The fidelity of representation of literary dialect is connected to the issue of how the

speech uttered in a dialect is transcribed and recorded in the written form. Opinions on

what to transcribe, how and what makes a successful transcription vary among scholars.

This chapter outlines some of the findings regarding the transcription of speech in dialect

writing.

Once the writer decides to write in a dialect he comes across a number of obstacles.

While capturing lexis and grammar does not represent a big difficulty, transcribing speech

or pronunciation poses a serious problem (Ives, 1955, p. 90-91). Macaulay (1991) agrees on

the problematic nature of dialect writing since

40
 readers interpret the written text in terms of their own pronunciation. It becomes

problematic only when the writer tries to suggest a particular form of pronunciation, as is

the case when the writer wishes to indicate a dialect form. The problem arises because the

attempt is unlikely to be successful if the reader is unfamiliar with the dialect. (p.281)

However, as Ives (1955, p. 91) notes despite certain limitations of English spelling

it is generally capable of conveying distinct sounds which is in accordance with Macaulay’s

claim (1991) that the writer can be successful in transcribing the dialect only if he is able to

“exploit the phonetic power of normal orthography to guide the reader to an interpretation

of nonstandard speech.” (p. 281). Standard orthography is also employed for the sake of

readability although there exist variant spellings (Macaulay, 1991, p. 285).

Regarding the transcription it is necessary to realize that it provides only a limited

amount of data since not all features can be represented in order to avoid too extensive

transcription which would be disturbing for the reader. Certain reduction then takes place to

avoid any redundant or irrelevant material and only the most salient features are

represented (Macaulay, 1991, p. 282; Fine, 1983, p. 326).

In the discussion on converting speech into the written form Preston (1982, p. 309)

asserts that respellings writers produce are a result of their pursuit of accuracy. However,

the resulting representations are often flawed and redundant. His main argument revolves

around the assumption that respellings are not necessary if the pronunciation is predictable.

For instance, hafta represents have to as in I have to go. Since the pronunciation of have

implies /f/ and to is weakly stressed hence resulting in schwa there is no need for the

transcription as both sounds are predictable (Preston, 1982, p. 310-311). Consequently,

Preston (1982) states that “phonological rules predict the great majority of phonetic shapes

41
of forms… Such automatic phonetic realization rules do away with the need for respelling”

(p. 311). Moreover, some forms can be also predicted based on characteristics such as low

status of the speaker, ordinary topic, speech area of the speaker, male speaker, black

speaker, etc. (Preston, 1982, p. 311-312).

Preston’s rules became a subject of criticism of Fine (1983, p. 328) who claims that

the application of the rules demands a very good knowledge of phonetics which not all

readers possess and consequently they are not able to make sense of the proper

pronunciation of words which are not respelled. By the same token, high demands are

placed on readers also in terms of their knowledge of the contextual information from

which they should get the right pronunciation (Fine, 1983, p. 328).

Nevertheless, Preston (1982, p. 319) also observes that not all respellings are

representative of a dialect. Instead they are rather features of casual speech which is

common for speakers across the United States. Hence for instance of can be respelled as -a

(kinda), to as -a (gonna), because as ‘cause, -ing as -in’ not only in the speech of black

people but also anyone else. The use of an apostrophe to signal elision of consonants or

vowels might also fall into this category since it looks like the casual speech as in ev’ry

(Macaulay, 1991, p. 283).

Similarly, another kind of transcription which is based on appearance is the eye

dialect which is “a type of spelling that conveys no phonological changes in

pronunciation.” (Fine, 1983, p. 328). This means that pronunciation is no different from the

standard and only the spelling visually aims to represent dialect. An example of the eye

dialect is to transcribed as tu, said as sed, was as wz or wuz (Fine, 1983, p. 328; Macaulay,

1991, p. 284).

42
 Macaulay (1991) then evaluates the reader-oriented approach of the writer that

transcription

should convey the information which its reader needs, no more and no less. Conveying

more information than needed is to overwrite the dialect, and less than needed is to

underwrite it. The writer must gauge his prospective audience’s previous experience and

temper his transcription accordingly. He must be able to judge which rules of reading his

audience knows and can therefore assume without entering them in the transcription.

(p. 290)

Preston (1982, p. 323) adds that being a successful transcriber requires not only

a very good command of the transcribed variety but also historical forces that formed it

combined with the knowledge of phonological processes which is equally essential.

As far as A Raisin in the Sun is concerned Hansberry’s transcriptions include in

majority examples of what Preston would not considered dialect but common usage. This

would include words with apostrophes such as yellin’, ‘bout, ‘course, ‘low, but also less

obvious yes’m, ‘em found throughout the play. There is, however, an exception where

Hansberry makes use of eye-dialect by means of overt orthography especially when Walter

imitates black inferior stereotype. In such case words are transcribed in this way: yassuh for

yes sir, Mistuh for mister, de for the, yo’ for you, and fo’ instead of for. Although Peterson

(2004, p. 432-433) argues that this sort of orthography is frequently used and most visible it

can never represent vernacular accurately. Instead there are other ways to depict it by

grammar and vocabulary items, which seems to be the approach taken by Hansberry. The

43
pronunciation of AAVE in A Raisin in the Sun can be illustrated by a film version of the

play available here: https://youtu.be/cBUYaL2HvVo (8mmhistory, 2017).

In sum, this chapter examines different views on transcribing speech into the written

form. Respelling rules and examples of them have been foreshadowed and limitations of

such processes have been also addressed. The eye dialect as a special form of transcription

has been also briefly discussed with relation to specific examples from A Raisin in the Sun.

5. A Raisin in the Sun

A Raisin in the Sun is a play written in 1959 by Lorraine Hansberry, an African-

American playwright. The play became an immediate success on Broadway and Hansberry

won the New York Drama Critics Circle Award for the Best Play of the Year as the first

black author. The play was translated into dozens of languages and later was produced as

a film and a musical. The title of the play makes a reference to a poem Harlem by Langston

Hughes (Wilkerson, 1963, p. 8-10).

The play tracks the struggles of the Youngers, a working-class black family from

Chicago. After the death of Walter Younger, Sr., Mama or Lena Younger receives a cheque

for 10.000 dollars as an insurance. While she wants to spend money on a new house in

a white neighbourhood and Beneatha’s education her son Walter plans to invest money into

a business. Although Mama gives him a certain amount of money to start the business he

loses it but might regain the money if the family accepts the offer by Karl Lindner not to

move to the white area. Their racial pride wins, and they reject the offer (Wilkerson, 1983,

p. 10; Wilkerson, 1986, p. 443).

44
 5.1. Characters
The main characters of play comprise the Younger family: Lena, in the play referred

to as Mama, her daughter Beneatha, son Walter with his wife Ruth and son Travis. Apart

from the family members the play also includes Asagai, Mrs. Johnson, the only white

figure Karl Lindner and others. Each character in the play is distinct as Carter (1990) puts it

“The three generations of the Younger family depicted in the play differ in dreams, speech

patterns, and religious, musical, and stylistic preferences within the African-American and

African traditions, thus displaying the richness and diversity in black culture.” (p. 22).

The most visible character in the play is Lena Younger called Mama. She seems to

fulfil the stereotypical image of a black mother, the pivotal element of the family and

household (Wilkerson, 1983, p. 10). She is the caring and loving mother for whom the

family is the most important value which is also the reason for buying the new house

(Washington, 1988, p. 112-113). Her dream of buying the house is somewhat modest as

compared to Walter’s high aspirations which she does not understand since “hers is the

thinking of a Black woman born near the turn of the century in a racist American society,

and she does not understand the modern ways and thinking of her children.” (Washington,

1988, p. 113). Consequently, her experience determines her view on “what a Black person

could reasonably expect to achieve in American society.” (Washington, 1988, p. 113).

Lena’s son Walter represents a completely different stream of thinking. His

qualities include “iron will, his high expectations of himself, and his determination to

succeed” (Washington, 1988, p. 112). He deviates from other blacks in that he challenges

their inferiority and accepts American values. In doing so he was inspired by white men he

saw and who represent his American dream. This, however, does not mean that he would

45
ultimately abandon his black values (Washington, 1988, p. 114-117). Washington (1988)

concludes that

Walter is the product of two cultures whose character is shaped by the permanent

possession of two different sets of values, his tenacious adherence to the mainstream

American values that he believes are morally sound is no less surprising than the

seemingly sudden and unexpected resurgence of the Black values his parents had instilled

in him. (p. 123).

To support of this thesis Wilkerson (1986) adds that “His image is typical

Americana ... and the women around him with their traditional values are holding him

back.” (p. 447).

Other characters in the play involve Walter’s sister Beneatha and her friend Asagai.

Beneatha who aspires to become a doctor initially “largely associates herself with a white-

washed academic culture, ending her phone conversations with “Arrivederci” and using the

word “thee” in casual conversation.” (Doyle, 2015, p. 2). However, once she consults

Asagai, he helps her to rediscover her black roots and consequently she recreates her image

according to African customs (Doyle, 2015, p. 2-3). Asagai is a Nigerian intellectual who

establishes a link between Africans and African Americans (Doyle, 2015, p. 2; Wilkerson,

1986, p. 451). Norman (2010) further understands Asagai as “a mouthpiece of postcolonial

independence, Afrocentric intellectualism, and ethnic self-confidence.” (p. 34).

Karl Lindner a single white character in the play is also of interest. A representative

of the association which wants to buy the Younger’s dream house is referred to as “the ugly

head of Jim Crow’s northern cousin” by Norman (2010, p. 25).

46
 5.2. Language
It is not only the plot which depicts the characters and their qualities, but Hansberry

also skilfully uses language as an important tool of characterization of her figures. This

chapter will elaborate this idea.

Hansberry’s mastery of language in her work with characters is highly admired by

Carter (1990) who asserts that Hansberry “had an astonishing awareness of differences in

speech and what they imply, as her meticulous and lively delineations of such widely

contrasting speech patterns as Mrs. Johnson’s, Lena’s, Beneatha’s, Karl Lindner’s, and

Asagai’s abundantly demonstrate.” (p. 27).

As far as fidelity of Hansberry’s representation of black dialect is concerned it can

be considered realistic as based on Carter’s (1990) observation:

Hansberry did not attempt to recreate this African-American idiom with the precision of a

linguist. Like Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn, she used a modified form of speech that

retained enough of the basics to be realistic and convincing while being sufficiently

general to remain readily comprehensible to future generations. (p. 29)

Speech patterns among characters considerably differ which again demonstrates the

richness and variation of black speech. While most of the characters in the play use black

English, which concerns Lena, Walter, Ruth, Travis and Mrs. Johnson other characters use

formal English.

Significantly, it is evident that Hansberry distinguishes her educated characters as is

the case of Beneatha and Asagai whose education clearly influenced their speech patterns.

Beneatha speech is governed by formal English with occasional slang words. Similarly,

47
Asagai uses also formal English with a large number of learned academic words of foreign

origin while hardly ever using colloquialisms (Carter, 1990, p. 27-31). Devereaux and

Wheeler (2012) arrive at the same conclusion concerning Beneatha’s use of language when

they observe that “Beneatha's world of education has encouraged her standardized English

usage.” (p. 98). Jakubiak (2011) supports the above mentioned and further specifies which

characters use Standard English contrary to characters who speak AAVE: “Hansberry

differentiates the educated and uneducated characters, assigning African American

Vernacular English (AAVE) forms to most of the Youngers and standard English to

Beneatha, Asagai, George, and Lindner” (p.555).

Speaking of Karl Lindner, the only white character, Carter (1990, p. 31) makes an

interesting point when he suggests that Lindner speaks Standard English but in a very

ordinary and boring manner which represents his community; consequently, there is a

contrast between “the intriguing diversity of the black characters’ speech patterns and the

uniformity of those of the white character”.

The fact that for Hansberry language of her characters does matter is also reflected

in her play’s directions in which she stresses the use of accents. Thanks to the emphasis on

speech the characters gain credibility and realism. What Hansberry achieved is that variety

of the characters’ background reflects the variety of language they speak (Carter, 1990,

p. 32).

In addition, Hansberry did not keep AAVE and Standard English separate. She also

managed to mix the two varieties not only in her speech which she argues happens simply

for vitality of expression, but she also applies it to her character especially to Walter who

switches codes on a few occasions as also argued by Devereaux and Wheeler (2012, p. 97;

Carter, 1990, p. 35).

48
 To conclude, the complexity of Hansberry’s play relies also on her use of different

speech patterns as exercised by her characters. It is apparent that in spite of the fact that the

majority of characters is black they speak differently based on their different background,

situation and opinions. Consequently, characters’ speech remains an important tool in their

depiction.

6. AAVE in A Raisin in the Sun

This chapter will be devoted to the analysis of roughly nine selected features of

AAVE discussed earlier and the way they are represented in A Raisin in the Sun which

serves as a corpus. Each feature will be commented upon in detail while using enough of

examples to illustrate the point. The comparison with Standard English will be also

provided. All examples come from A Raisin in the Sun (Hansberry, 1994).

6.1. Absence of auxiliary/copula be

As noted in the theoretical section on one hand there are cases where auxiliary be is

retained in AAVE, on the other hand it can be absent in clearly defined cases. Drawing on

Pullum (1999, p. 45-46) it is possible to first use sort of negative delineation of cases in

which the copula cannot be omitted and gradually arrive at those cases which allow the

omission of be.

Speaking specifically, copula is expressed if it is located at the end of a sentence:

(1) RUTH You know he is. (p. 41)

(2) MAMA ...“Rat trap” yes, that’s all it is. (p. 44)

49
Similarly, it must be retained in case of remote past in which the copula takes the form of

been:

(3) WALTER I been married eleven years and I got a boy who sleeps in the living room...

(p. 34)

Copula must also appear in a negative sentence often occurring as ain’t.

(4) MAMA Now I ain’t saying what I think. But I ain’t never been wrong ’bout a woman

neither. (p. 56)

The same is true in infinitive or base form:

(5) WALTER How come you always try to be so pleasant! (p. 31)

(6) MAMA … Be the man he was… (p. 75)

Other cases in which copula is not omitted include the first person singular, past tense and

question tags:

(7) RUTH I’m tired. (p. 42)

(8) ASAGAI Why?—you were quite glad when I went away. What happened? (p. 61)

(9) JOHNSON He’s good, ain’t he? (p. 99)

Finally, when all these parameters that exclude the possibility of copula omission

are taken into consideration then grammatical patterns that enable copula to be deleted can

be easily derived as the opposite of the above stated. Hence, the omission is possible with

50
other than the first person singular, present tense, affirmative utterances, etc. These

conditions are applied in the following examples:

(10) WALTER… He just going to have to start getting up earlier… (p. 26)

In this sentence copula is missing in its standard position following the subject he.

Consequently, its Standard English counterpart would be He is just going to have to start

getting up earlier. Based on the criteria set above copula can be omitted since the sentence

is affirmative, third person singular and the action takes places in the present. At the same

time neither infinitive nor remote past is used hence the criteria are met and copula can be

deleted.

(11) WALTER That’s what you mad about, ain’t it? (p. 27)

This utterance interestingly juxtaposes three occurrences of copula two of which are

retained and one which is deleted. The standard reading of the sentence is That’s what you

are mad about, isn’t it? First, the deleted copula is following the subject you. The following

conditions for the deletion of copula are met: not the first person singular, present tense,

affirmative phrase, other than final position of copula and non-presence of infinitive. In

contrast, the next case is introduced as a contracted form of auxiliary be in That’s.

Interestingly, apart from the third person singular it bears the same properties and

conditions as does copula in contracted ‘s. It is equally in present tense, affirmative, neither

infinitive not in final position, hence it could be also deleted. For some reason, however, it

is not. It can be only speculated that the form might be stressed which would in effect fulfil

51
the condition for its retention. The third copula appears in the question tag and takes form

of ain’t reflected in standard contracted form isn’t. The possibility of deletion of this copula

is excluded on account of two criteria. One being the fact that copula is negated and the

other that it occurs as a question tag.

(12) RUTH I know what you thinking ’bout. (p. 32)

This sentence seems plain. In Standard English this utterance states I know what you

are thinking about. Copula would be placed directly after the subject you. The sentence is

purely affirmative, headed by the second person singular consequently avoiding any kind of

infinitive, action is carried out in present tense. There are no criteria which would require

the presence of copula hence it might be well omitted.

(13) LINDNER ...Anybody can see that you are a nice family of folks, hard working and

honest I’m sure... (p. 117)

For the purpose of comparison of AAVE and Standard English the only white

character in the play Karl Lindner can serve as a representative of the standard as also

observed by Carter (1990, p.31). Speaking of the copula absence in the above example

uttered by Lindner there are two copulas present: are following subject you and the

contracted form I’m. Pullum (1999) asserts that unlike AAVE, Standard English “does not

entirely omit the copula, but almost omits it, reducing it to a single consonant when

unstressed and in the affirmative present tense.” (p. 47). Bearing this in mind copula are in

the example (13) must be retained in order to maintain the claim that the example

52
represents Standard English. The other copula am which is contracted to ‘m in the example

is also standard without the possibility to be omitted despite the fact that it diminishes to

the contracted form but never disappears in its entirety.

6.2. Invariant be
Invariant be represents another kind of be which is different from be discussed

above. As the title suggests unlike auxiliary be this invariant exists only in one form

regardless of what person is used. At the same time, it cannot be omitted under any

circumstances. It is used exclusively to convey the meaning of habituality or an action

which occurs repetitively. However, the form might be a result of phonological process in

which will disappears and instead of habitual reading it expresses future. In the play there

are only a few propositions which could be labelled to illustrate this feature. The following

examples will be examined:

(14) WALTER Mama would listen to you. You know she listen to you more than she do

me and Bennie. She think more of you. All you have to do is just sit down with her when

you drinking your coffee one morning and talking ’bout things like you do and—(He sits

down beside her and demonstrates graphically what he thinks her methods and tone should

be)—you just sip your coffee, see, and say easy like that you been thinking ’bout that deal

Walter Lee is so interested in, ’bout the store and all, and sip some more coffee, like what

you saying ain’t really that important to you— And the next thing you know, she be

listening good and asking you questions and when I come home—I can tell her the

details… (p. 32-33)

53
 The centre of the attention is the highlighted clause she be listening good and

asking you questions. Superficially, it appears to be a prototype of invariant be as it shows

typical be plus verb with -ing ending denoting an activity. However, to classify it as

invariant be it must meet the criterion of habituality. For the purpose of determining

whether or not the recurring action takes place it is necessary to provide more context,

hence Walter’s entire utterance is provided. Instructing Ruth what she should do Walter

describes a typical morning Ruth and Mama share, drinking and speaking. So far, the event

expresses habituality as this activity usually happens which can be implied from phrase like

you do. Then the information about the store is introduced as new and the question is

whether she be listening good and asking you questions applies directly to this new

information making it unique or whether it is the usual way of reacting to any kind of

information making it the habit.

If the first option is accepted Standard English would express it as she’ll be

listening good and asking you questions hence will is used to denote future action, that she

will be concerned about the store. In such case the meaning of habituality is excluded and

so invariant be is not the case in this example. Instead the form resembling invariant be is a

product of phonology which makes /l/ in contracted ‘ll disappear before /b/ in be.

On the other hand, if the clause is understood as a repeating activity of always

asking questions it can be considered as the example of invariant be. The Standard English

translation would contain an adverb expressing the habituality such as she usually listens

good and asks you questions.

54
TRAVIS Yes’m. (He darts into bedroom for stickball and bat, reenters, and sees

BENEATHA on her knees spraying under sofa with behind upraised. He edges closer to the

target, takes aim, and lets her have it. She screams) Leave them poor little cockroaches

alone, they ain’t bothering you none! (He runs as she swings the spray gun at him viciously

and playfully) Grandma! Grandma!

(15) MAMA Look out there, girl, before you be spilling some of that stuff on that child!

(p. 55)

The second example represented by you be spilling again shows the form of

be + verb with -ing suffix, hence visually suggesting the existence of invariant be. To test

this hypothesis the examination of the meaning of habituality must be carried out. Context

is provided for a better understanding of the situation from which the meaning will be

derived. The situational context being presented clearly depicts a momentary event to

which Mama directly reacts. There is no other clue which would imply that Beneatha spills

the spray on more than this one occasion. For that reason, the habitual reading seems to be

unlikely and consequently this example cannot be regarded as invariant be. Instead it is

likely that the standard reading would be Look out there, girl, before you’ll be spilling some

of that stuff on that child! In this case future would be expressed by means of contracted

will which would again be left out because of the proximity of /l/ and /b/ and its

pronunciation.

(16) WALTER Yeah. You see, this little liquor store we got in mind cost seventy-five

thousand and we figured the initial investment on the place be ’bout thirty thousand, see.

55
That be ten thousand each. Course, there’s a couple of hundred you got to pay so’s you

don’t spend your life just waiting for them clowns to let your license get approved (p. 33)

In this sentence invariant be could be represented by clauses the initial investment

on the place be ’bout thirty thousand and That be ten thousand each. Contrary to examples

(14) and (15) in this case it seems there is invariant be which is however not followed by a

verb but a noun phrase. This fact as such is not a problem since the verb is the most typical

complement of be but not the only possible one. Invariant be might be also complemented

by adjective or noun and still express the habituality which is not quite the case in these

utterances. Both refer to one particular occasion which does not seem to be repeated. There

are in fact two possibilities in Standard English to express what Walter says. One is by use

of future will to express certainty about the amount the initial investment on the place will

be ’bout thirty thousand and That will be ten thousand each. If the contracted form ‘ll

would be pronounced it would disappear because it occurs in the environment of /b/. The

other possibility is the use of would resulting in the initial investment on the place would be

’bout thirty thousand and That would be ten thousand each. If would is contracted to ‘d it

again disappears because it is followed by /b/. In both cases, however, the criteria of

habituality is not met hence it is not a proper invariant be.

(17) LINDNER … And of course, there is always somebody who is out to take advantage

of people who don’t always understand. (p. 117)

56
 Unlike AAVE Standard English as represented by Lindner does not possess

invariant be. Instead to express the habituality it makes use of adverbs of frequency such as

usually or always. This is also the case of the above-mentioned utterance by Lindner. He

uses always to express the recurring facts which could be in AAVE introduced by invariant

be.

6.3. Completive done

Completive done as the name suggests denotes an activity which has finished. In

function it is similar to Standard English present perfect which depicts recent past, change

of state, emphasizing, etc., however, the form is rather different consisting of done and verb

in past tense. The following examples demonstrate this feature.

(18) RUTH No—he don’t half try at all ’cause he knows you going to come along behind

him and fix everything. That’s just how come he don’t know how to do nothing right

now— you done spoiled that boy so. (p. 40)

The focus of this statement is the clause you done spoiled that boy so. It is a

prototypical example of completive done. It comprises done and verb spoiled which is in

past tense. Its Standard English counterpart would be stated in present perfect: you have

spoiled that boy so. In this situation Ruth refers to Mama who spoiled Travis for doing all

housework for him. Given this context completive done’s most likely function would be

that of stressing the change of state. Supposedly, the boy was used to doing chores but once

Mama started to do it all for him he changed and does not make up his bed anymore.

Although one might argue that the change took place only recently hence this feature would

57
denote recent past. In all cases completive done fulfils its main function of conveying the

fact that the event ended.

(19) MAMA What done got into you, girl? Walter Lee done finally sold you on investing.

(p. 42)

In this example there are two occurrences of completive done. In both cases there is

done in combination with verb in past tense either got or sold. In both cases the event is

completed for these reasons these occurrences can be labelled as completive done.

Considering its function this utterance reacts to one by Ruth who keeps talking about

business just like her husband Walter, which is surprising. In Standard English What has

got into you, girl? is most likely to denote recent past as it immediately responds to what

Ruth has just said. The other sentence Walter Lee has finally sold you on investing stresses

the completion of the event by adding the adverb finally. Otherwise it similarly denotes

recent past as providing the answer to the previous question.

JOHNSON Oh, honey—you know I’m praying to God every day that don’t nothing like

that happen! But you have to think of life like it is—and these here Chicago peckerwoods is

some baaaad peckerwoods.

(20) MAMA (Wearily) We done thought about all that Mis’ Johnson. (p. 102)

This example was selected to show another function of completive done. Johnson’s

utterance introduces context while Mama’s sentence contains completive done which is

58
used to more or less repeat what Johnson has said. It not only repeats it but in the first place

emphasizes it which is the key function in this case. The standard way of saying this would

be We have thought about all that Mrs. Johnson.

(21) MAMA No—there’s something come down between me and them that don’t let us

understand each other and I don’t know what it is. One done almost lost his mind thinking

’bout money all the time and the other done commence to talk about things I can’t seem to

understand in no form or fashion. What is it that’s changing, Ruth. (p. 52)

However, not all examples are that straightforward. This utterance features two

cases of completive done which differ from each other. While the first done in One done

almost lost his mind shows done and verb in past tense the other one which is juxtaposed in

the other done commence to talk also features done but with a present-tense verb. In the

context of Walter thinking about investing money and Beneatha finding her African roots

both cases seem to denote recent past although the other one might not be considered

completive done at all as it does not meet the criterion of verb in past tense. Nevertheless,

Wolfram (2004) states that “in AAVE, done occurs only in preverbal auxiliary position

with past tense forms whereas it occurs with a bare verb stem (e.g. They done go) and can

occur in clause-final position in some creoles.” (p. 119). In compliance with this assertion it

could be argued that Mama conscious of several generations of her ancestor who were

African slaves and sharecroppers might use a form of completive done which is attributed

to creoles.

59
(22) LINDNER … I am from the Clybourne Park Improvement Association and we have

had it brought to our attention at the last meeting that you people—or at least your

mother—has bought a piece of residential property… (p. 114)

As discussed above Standard English way of expressing AAVE’s completive done

is by means of present perfect. It is illustrated in example (22) in which Lindner uses two

occurrences of present perfect: we have had it brought and you people—or at least your

mother—has bought. In both cases its function is arguably the representation of recent past.

6.4. Multiple negation

A salient feature of AAVE is the use of an unlimited number of negative markers in

a sentence which is in a stark contrast to Standard English where only one negative is

allowed. The play contains dozens of examples of this feature. Here are some of them with

appropriate comments.

(23) RUTH (Wearily) Honey, you never say nothing new… (p. 34)

To begin with, this example shows the simplest multiple negation as there are only

two negators never and nothing used, hence negation is marked on both indefinite

pronouns. In Standard English the sentence would be read Honey, you never say anything

new; using anything to avoid multiple negation which would be considered ungrammatical.

In addition, in general American English it would not even be considered a negative since

the logic is that two negatives cancel each other and therefore result in a positive meaning.

60
This logic does not apply to AAVE which might be seen in this comparison as illogical.

However, the first negator never does all the work to mark the sentence as negative and the

other negator nothing only agrees with the negation and does not emphasize the negation as

could be thought.

(24) MAMA … You ain’t never done nothing with all that camera equipment you brought

home— (p. 47)

In this utterance there are three negators which mark multiple negation. The first

one which is to be discussed is ain’t. It illustrates negation which in this case is marked on

verb. This negator might not only stand for present tense verb isn’t but also for past tense

didn’t or present perfect haven’t. From the context and verb from done which follows it can

be inferred that ain’t substitutes haven’t and the sentence is therefore in present perfect

tense. Further negation is marked on indefinite pronouns never and nothing. If the sentence

is converted into Standard English: You have never done anything with all that camera

equipment you brought home what happens is that only one negator can remain while the

form of the two indefinite pronouns is changed in terms of their prefix from no- to any-

which enables the emergence of a grammatically correct sentence.

(25) WALTER … We don’t want to make no trouble for nobody or fight no causes, and we

will try to be good neighbors… (p. 148)

61
 Interestingly, in the play there are often instances of three negators and it also seems

to be its maximum. There are only about two examples of more negators one of which is

shown in utterance (25). There are four negative elements: don’t, no, nobody and no. The

first and major negation is marked on the verb do. Other negators only add to the meaning.

In no trouble and no causes negation is marked on adjective and finally nobody refers to

negation on indefinite pronoun. Standard English would express the sentence as We don’t

want to make any trouble for anybody or fight any causes, and we will try to be good

neighbors. Again, only one negator is possible for a correct usage while others are

transformed in order not to interfere with the negator.

To exemplify the usage of Standard English in the play there is an exchange

between Ruth and Beneatha which juxtaposes the standard and AAVE:

(26) RUTH (Anxiously, with frightened eyes) You didn’t say nothing bad to him, did you?

BENEATHA Bad? Say anything bad to him? … (p. 138)

While Ruth makes use of standard AAVE multiple negation expressed in didn’t and

nothing which in Standard English would be reflected as You didn’t say anything bad to

him, did you? Beneatha echoes the question just in this Standard English manner instead of

simply repeating Say nothing bad to him? This one example proves that Beneatha aims at

speaking Standard English. This fact is perfectly depicted in another utterance:

(27) BENEATHA I have never asked anyone around here to do anything for me! (p. 37)

62
 Here Beneatha uses only one negator never and therefore avoids marking negative

on other possible items which is in compliance with the standard. If she wanted to use

AAVE, she would probably mark also have, anyone and anything which would result in a

sentence such as I haven’t never asked noone around here to do nothing for me! counting

four negators.

6.5. Negative inversion

The essence of this feature is based on the inversion of auxiliary verb and subject.

In Standard English it would clearly introduced a question, however, in AAVE it is

common for a declarative structure. In addition, both auxiliary verb and subject are marked

for negation which implies that subject is expressed by negative indefinite pronoun.

Examples from the play follow:

(28) RUTH Ain’t nothin’ can tear at you like losin’ your baby. (p. 45)

This proposition is introduced by ain’t - like all propositions which show this

feature throughout the play - and followed by negative indefinite pronoun nothin’. Both are

already marked for negation hence they are also examples of multiple negation. However,

the syntactic position deviates from the standard subject followed by verb having the effect

of inverted order in which verb precedes subject. The result of the inversion and multiple

negation then is negative inversion. The standard sentence would not include inversion but

a standard word order: Nothing can tear at you like losing your baby.

63
(29) MAMA ... Lord, ain’t nothing as dreary as the view from this window on a dreary day,

is there?... (p. 53)

Another example of negative inversion is uttered by Mama. There is again verb

ain’t which precedes indefinite pronoun nothing. By the same token both items are marked

for negation hence leading to negative inversion. It is of interest that contrary to (28) the

Standard English reading is different. It is not a simple statement that Nothing is as dreary

as the view from this window. But more precisely the entire sentence would have an

existential meaning: Lord, there is nothing as dreary as the view from this window on a

dreary day, is there? The existential there is then also reflected in the question tag at the

end of the sentence. Green (2002) labels this type of sentence as “multiple negation

constructions in existential sentences” (p. 78).

(30) WALTER (Violently) No! ’Cause ain’t nobody with me! Not even my own mother!

(p. 85)

In this case, the obvious negative inversion is represented by ain’t nobody. There is

one note to be made about this kind of sentences. The use of negative inversion is not the

only way to express something. The sentence could also look like this: ’Cause nobody ain’t

with me! Hence the subject and verb would not undergo the inversion. However, as Green

(2002, p. 80) suggests negative inversion adds prominence. This argument can be well

applied to this example since situational context is provided by stage directions (Violently)

64
and at the same time by exclamation mark at the end of the sentence. Both justify the usage

of negative inversion in order the emphasize the utterance.

(31) LINDNER … there is nothing left for me to say… (p. 149)

Lindner’s utterance will serve as a Standard English counterpart in the discussion

on negative inversion. Standard English does not allow this kind of negative inversion

hence Lindner’s utterance is similar to the example (29) after the translation to the standard.

On the other hand, inversion is possible in questions such as: BENEATHA …Is it

business? (p. 114) which is still far away from negative inversion.

6.6. Subject-verb concord

As discussed above in the theoretical section AAVE often does not distinguish

number in verbs consequently the verb form is the same for the third person singular as

well as for the first person plural. Conjugation of verb be is also affected by a non-standard

subject-verb concord. In that case verb form of be in present tense turns into is and in past

tense into was. Following examples will prove to be more illustrative than theory.

(32) RUTH When we come out of the show it was late and dark and all the stores and

things was closed up.… and it was kind of chilly and there wasn’t many people on the

streets … and we was still holding hands, me and Walter. (p. 112)

65
 This example shows three occurrences of the conjugation of verb be. All of them

are illustrations of how be levels to the form was. The three subjects are stores and things,

many people and we. They all are in plural number and for that reason would be in

Standard English accompanied by verb in plural form were. This is, however, not the case

of AAVE. Since the utterance is in past tense the verb form in all three cases levels to form

was. This is a proof that the conjugated be is regularized since all persons in all numbers

merge the verb form into was in past tense.

(33) MAMA … You know how these young folks is nowadays, mister…. (p. 149)

(34) WALTER … And things is going to be very different with us in seven years, Travis…

(p. 108)

Examples (33) and (34) demonstrate the conjugation of be in present tense. Subjects

folks and things are found in plural number, however, be occurs in a form of is which is at

odds with Standard English which in this case would allow only verb in plural that is are.

In contrast AAVE levels be into is in present tense.

Turning from conjugation of be to verbal -s, following examples provide material

for the examination.

(35) WALTER … You know she listen to you more than she do me and Bennie. She think

more of you… (p. 32)

These two sentences include three occurrences in which verbal -s is absent. In all

cases the subject is the third person singular and the tense is present which in Standard

66
English always causes the verb to bear the -s ending to mark the concord. The sentence

would then look like this: You know she listens to you more than she does me and Bennie.

She thinks more of you. However, in AAVE it is common that this person and number lack

verbal -s. The result is the verb forms in (35).

(36) MAMA … They charges for that too. (She sits down, fingers to her brow, thinking)

Lord, ever since I was a little girl, I always remembers people saying, “Lena—Lena

Eggleston, you aims too high all the time. You needs to slow down and see life a little

more like it is. Just slow down some.”... (p. 139)

Interestingly, it is not only the absence of -s in the example above which appears in

AAVE. Utterance (36) shows a different pattern in which verbal -s seems to be redundant

as it is attached to subjects other than the third person singular. In fact, it is connected to

subject they in 3rd person pl., I in 1st person sg., and you in 2nd person, sg. Wolfram

(2004) suggests that in some cases, Southern rural AAVE had verbal -s attachment with

subjects other than 3rd sg., particularly 3rd pl. subjects… but also with 1st and 2nd

subjects.” (p. 122). This is in compliance with subjects in (36) which are exactly this case.

Based on the subject-verb concord used it could be argued that MAMA is a representative

of Southern rural AAVE while her son WALTER in (35) of a more recent urban variety.

On the other hand, Green (2002, p. 100) proposes that verbal -s might appear as a narrative

or habitual marker. In (36) Mama comments that moving people charge also for not moving

if the family cancels their moving. Hence it could be argued that they charges bears

properties of habituality in the sense that they always charge this fee. The other three

67
occurrences are clearly to be argued as narration of past events including and emphasized

by direct quotation. Perhaps also I remembers could be considered to have a habitual

meaning which is further stressed by the use of always implying the recurrent event.

(37) LINDNER … Now, I don’t say we are perfect and there is a lot wrong in some of the

things they want. But you’ve got to admit that a man, right or wrong, has the right to want

to have the neighborhood he lives in a certain kind of way… (p. 117)

In contrast to AAVE, subject-verb concord in Standard English as represented by

Lindner is different as it respects the rule that singular subject agrees with singular verb, the

same is valid for plural subject and verb. Hence, for example man is a singular subject in

concord with singular verb has, similarly he lives in which the verb is marked with -s for

the 3rd person sg. Singular subject I agrees with singular verb don’t and in they want both

subject and verb are plural.

6.7. Relative clauses

Relative clauses in AAVE not always make use of relative pronouns such as that or

who. This is a key difference as compared to Standard English where the omission of

relative pronouns is strictly conditioned. Omitted relative pronoun is substituted by

underscore in examples below.

(38) RUTH … You ain’t the only person in the world _ got to use a bathroom!... (p. 25)

68
 Standard English sentence would for this utterance would be You ain’t the only

person in the world who got to use a bathroom! Therefore, as apparent the omitted relative

pronoun is who which modifies the noun person in the object position. In contrast to the

standard which in this case would require the relative pronoun as a subject of the relative

clause, AAVE allows relative clause which is not headed by subject.

(39) MAMA No—there’s something _ come down between me and them that don’t let us

understand each other and I don’t know what it is… (p. 52)

(40) WALTER … Ruth, what is it _ gets into people _ ought to be close? (p. 88)

Similarly, in (39) the missing relative pronoun is that which modifies something. In

(40) there are two relative pronouns omitted. First, that modifying it and then who which

further specifies people. In both sentences the relative pronoun functions as the subject of

the relative clause. For that reason and in contrast, relative pronouns would have to be

present in Standard English.

(41) WALTER Mama—you don’t know all the things a man what got leisure can find to

do in this city …(p. 105)

In contrast to previous examples this one (41) poses a special case in relative

clauses found in the play. This utterance seems to be a relative clause owing to the fact that

man is the noun which is being further modified, however, the relative pronoun is not

omitted. Instead its place is taken by what which is not considered to be the relative

69
pronoun used in relative clauses but rather an interrogative pronoun. Wolfram (2004)

comments on this obscure pattern in some relative clauses as follows: “The use of what as a

relative… found in some forms of earlier AAVE, is no longer found to an extent in urban

AAVE.” (p. 126). This pattern then represents a remnant of earlier AAVE.

(42) LINDNER … I am sure you people must be aware of some of the incidents which

have happened in various parts of the city when colored people have moved into certain

areas… (p. 116)

Here Lindner’s standard usage of English shows a relative clause introduced by a

relative pronoun which providing details on incidents in the object position. The relative

pronoun in this case functions as a subject in the clause hence it cannot be omitted.

6.8. Formation of questions

In the discussion on formation of questions, it is necessary to be conscious of the

existence of two main types of questions. First, yes-no questions are formed with the

absence of auxiliary verb. The other type of wh- questions is then formed without the

inversion of subject and auxiliary verb. Both types are distinguished in this respect from

Standard English.

Speaking of yes-no questions the following utterances will be examined.

(43) MAMA … You - you mourning your brother? (p. 144)

70
 This question is formed without auxiliary verb be which would be normally found

in the standard. The auxiliary would be found in the initial position preceding subject,

therefore it would be the case of subject-verb inversion and the resulting question would be

Are you mourning your brother? However, in this AAVE question there is no auxiliary

verb and consequently there cannot be the inversion. Therefore, the question has a

declarative structure in which auxiliary can be omitted as discussed above and it is only the

intonation which makes it a question.

(44) WALTER (Stares at the money) You trust me like that, Mama? (p. 107)

(45) RUTH You know what I’m going to do soon as I get in that new house? (p. 111)

Examples (44) and (45) also belong to yes-no questions for the expected answer is

either yes or no. In these two cases the missing auxiliary in questions is verb do which

should be placed prior to subject in Standard English. They also demonstrate the

declarative structure but in contrast to (44) auxiliary is not used in declaratives unless

stressed. To distinguish between a declarative and a question the appropriate intonation is

needed.

The examples below will be analysed with regard to wh- questions.

(46) MAMA … How you feeling this evening, Ruth? (p. 89)

(47) RUTH When we moving? (p. 92)

71
 Questions in (46) and (47) show that unlike in the standard auxiliary verb be is

absent. Standard questions would be How are you feeling this evening? and When are we

moving? Auxiliary verb would precede subject as a result of inversion. In AAVE the wh-

word or in (46) also how is followed by a declarative structure that is the second position is

occupied by subject you or we and then the third position is prepared for auxiliary be which

is, however, allowed to be omitted. The rest of the sentence takes the final position.

(48) MAMA … What you tell him a minute ago?... (p. 145)

(49) RUTH … What kind of eggs you want? (p. 26)

Examples (48) and (49) exemplify the formation of questions without auxiliary do.

In Standard English do would be placed between wh- word and subject. AAVE, however,

allows the formation in which auxiliary is absent. After wh- word then declarative structure

follows. That means that the first position is reserved for wh- followed by subject you in

both cases and then a full verb follows. In addition, question (48) displays past tense which

is marked only by a phrase a minute ago. Without this phrase the question without further

context could become ambiguous as from the isolated question What you tell him? it is not

apparent whether the missing auxiliary is do or did. Given the phrase it is certain that

auxiliary did is absent.

(50) LINDNER … Well - with whom do I negotiate? … (p. 146)

72
 Here is the example of the proper standard formation of wh- question. Wh- word

whom is followed by auxiliary do which inverts its position with subject I in order to form a

question. The full verb then follows.

6.9. Other special features

Other features which have not been mentioned yet include particularly pronouns.

Examples below illustrate the point.

(51) MAMA… Me and Beneatha still have to share our room,... (p. 92)

(52) WALTER … We just got to find him - me and you got to find him.... (p. 128)

(53) JOHNSON … Me and Isaiah talks all the time ‘bout what fine children you was

blessed with…. (p. 100)

Examples 51-53 illustrate the use of pronouns in objective form for coordinated

subjects. In all utterances there is subject me combined with another subject. The form of

personal pronoun me is objective hence it would be expected more to appear as object

rather than subject. Compared to Standard English this subject would be expressed by

subjective personal pronoun I resulting in coordinated subjects I and Beneatha, I and you, I

and Isaiah.

(54) MAMA … I figure if the—new baby—is a boy, we could get one of them double-

decker outfits… (p. 92)

(55) WALTER … Then I just sat in the car and looked at them big black chimneys for

hours… (p. 105)

73
(56) RUTH (Coming toward him slowly) You talking ’bout taking them people’s money to

keep us from moving in that house? (p. 142)

Another special feature which frequently occurs throughout the play is the presence

of pronoun them. This pronoun takes an objective form which is surprising since the

meaning prefers the use of demonstrative pronouns in the standard. Standard English

version would be one of those double-decker outfits, looked at those big black chimneys

and taking those people’s money.

(57) MAMA… And there’s a yard with a little patch of dirt where I could maybe get to

grow me a few flowers… (p. 92)

(58) WALTER … Hell, yes, I want me some yachts someday!... (p. 143)

(59) WALTER (Doubled over with laughter) I’m sorry, Mama—but you look like you

ready to go out and chop you some cotton sure enough! (p. 124)

Other uses of objective form can be seen in utterances 57-59. Here the objective

form of personal pronouns me and you stand for benefactive dative. In contrast, in Standard

English it could be paraphrased by using reflexive pronouns such as I could grow for myself

a few flowers, I want for myself some yachts and You are ready to go and chop for yourself

some cotton.

(60) MAMA Why don’t you all never let the child explain hisself. (p. 90)

74
(61) MAMA … It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world

done whipped him so! … (p. 145)

Examples 60-61 show the only special usage of pronoun in the play restricted to the

character of Mama. The reflexive pronoun hisself is regularized unlike the standard form

himself. Standard English would therefore prefer utterances such as Let the child explain

himself or He can’t believe in himself.

(62) MAMA … He always said a man’s hands was made to make things, or to turn the

earth with—not to drive nobody’s car for ’em— or—(She looks at her own hands) carry

they slop jars… (p. 103)

In this sentence the personal pronoun they functions as a possessive pronoun their.

It would be paraphrased as not to carry their slop jars in Standard English. Wolfram (2004)

proposes that it “is quite robust in most urban and rural regions of the US, and it usually

distinguishes AAVE from benchmark European American vernaculars.” (p. 125). However,

example (62) represents the only occurrence of this sort in the play making it a rare feature.

In conclusion, this chapter has focused on the analysis of major grammatical

features found in the play A Raisin in the Sun. The discussion ranged from the most

common and frequent features such as absence of copula be or multiple negation to the

least occurring attributes such as the various non-standard uses of pronouns. The

parameters mentioned in the theoretical section have been applied and analysed on the

75
background of real utterances from the play by various characters. At the same time, they

have been contrasted to Standard English which was in most cases represented by the only

white character in the play Mr. Lindner. The selected examples have included not only the

most prototypical illustrations but also minor deviations for which a possible explanation

was provided.

7. Broadness of characters’ AAVE

This chapter aims at analysing and describing the use of AAVE by individual

characters in the play as there is a presupposition that the extent to which characters use

AAVE will differ. The other objective is also to shed light on a possible motivation of the

author for a different depiction of the characters’ speech. The analysis will comprise the

main and most distinct characters in the play particularly Mama, Walter and Beneatha.

Each character will be examined separately based on their speech patterns and their overall

character traits. Characters’ utterances come from A Raisin in the Sun (Hansberry, 1994).

7.1. Mama
Based on the use of AAVE features and their density it can be argued that Mama is

the character who uses this variety most. As can be seen from the analysis of individual

features above Mama uses a wide range of them. Interestingly, she is the only character in

the play to use the special features of AAVE, that is the regularized form of the reflexive

pronoun hisself and the use of they as a possessive pronoun their. Another special use of

AAVE is proved in the example done commence in (21) which deviates from AAVE

paradigm of done and past tense verb. Here I argued it could be a remnant of creole

76
language her ancestors used. At the same time, there is one more feature which is reserved

only for two characters in the play. Regarding the subject-verb concord specifically the

usage of the first person singular and verb with -s suffix. This construction is illustrated in

the example (36) as I remembers. It is this form which is used only by Mama and Mrs.

Johnson.

If there is a character on whose production of AAVE it could be relied on and who

is fairly consistent throughout the play it is Mama as she hardly ever fails to use AAVE.

The density of her usage of AAVE is also quite high. Take for example this utterance:

(63) MAMA My children and they tempers. Lord, if this little old plant don’t get more sun

than it’s been getting it ain’t never going to see spring again. (She turns from the window)

What’s the matter with you this morning, Ruth? You looks right peaked. You aiming to

iron all them things? Leave some for me. I’ll get to ’em this afternoon. Bennie honey, it’s

too drafty for you to be sitting ’round half dressed. Where’s your robe? (p. 40)

In these 9 sentences there are 6 features typical for AAVE including the special use

of pronouns, subject-verb concord, multiple negation and formation of questions.

Mama is the oldest in the family and she is depicted as a typical black mother. Her

ancestors were slaves as she herself states: “... I come from five generations of people who

was slaves and sharecroppers…” (p. 143) Unlike her children, she is a bearer of traditional

values, she realizes where the position of black people is and does not try to challenge it,

although she is courageous enough to buy a house in a white neighbourhood. Arguably, this

77
experience makes her a rather typical black character which influences her speech patterns

and consequently her wide range of AAVE features and their frequency.

7.2. Walter
Mama’s son Walter represents a different type of a black character. Unlike his

mother who embraces her inferiority and standing in society, Walter aims at climbing up

the social ladder and eventually becoming sort of white. The following utterance depicts his

attitude best:

(64) WALTER (Quietly) Sometimes it’s like I can see the future stretched out in front of

me—just plain as day. The future, Mama. Hanging over there at the edge of my days. Just

waiting for me—a big, looming blank space—full of nothing. Just waiting for me. But it

don’t have to be. (Pause. Kneeling beside her chair) Mama—sometimes when I’m

downtown and I pass them cool, quiet-looking restaurants where them white boys are

sitting back and talking ’bout things … sitting there turning deals worth millions of dollars

… sometimes I see guys don’t look much older than me— (p. 73-74)

From this it is clear that he admires these white rich boys and wishes to be like

them. His speech, however, proves him still black enough. The use of subject-verb concord,

personal pronoun instead of demonstrative and missing relative pronoun are all features

common in AAVE. The usage of these features is then similar to Mama’s although in lesser

concentration. It is also true that in contrast to Mama he does not use some of the special

uses restricted to her which makes his AAVE usage less intensive than Mama’s.

78
 On the other hand, speaking of Walter and his drive to become white there are

moments in which there are hardly any traces of AAVE especially in his long monologue in

which he envisions his future as a businessman. Here is only a short excerpt, the entire

monologue is twice as long:

(65) WALTER You wouldn’t understand yet, son, but your daddy’s gonna make a

transaction … a business transaction that’s going to change our lives. … That’s how come

one day when you ’bout seventeen years old I’ll come home and I’ll be pretty tired, you

know what I mean, after a day of conferences and secretaries getting things wrong the way

they do … ’cause an executive’s life is hell, man— (The more he talks the farther away he

gets) And I’ll pull the car up on the driveway … just a plain black Chrysler, I think, with

white walls—no—black tires. More elegant. Rich people don’t have to be flashy … though

I’ll have to get something a little sportier for Ruth—maybe a Cadillac convertible to do her

shopping in... (p. 108-109)

This example shows that Walter’s speaking of his white future shifts his speech

from AAVE towards Standard English. It is a speculation to state that once he manages to

achieve his ambition his AAVE will entirely diminish and he will speak only proper

Standard English.

Juxtaposing these two examples, one uttered in AAVE and the other mainly in Standard

English, Walter’s speech pattern could be illustrated by one of his own statements “Who

gets and who don’t get.” (p. 140) The first clause represents Standard English while the

other twists subject-verb concord which is robust in AAVE. This sentence perfectly

represents the duality of Walter’s speech patterns as a result of his personal traits as also

79
argued by Washington (1988, p. 123) who claims that Walter is shaped both by American

and black values.

The polarity is also apparent in a dialog between Walter and Lindner in which

Walter declines Lindner’s offer not to move to the new house. First Walter keeps up with

Lindner’s Standard English apparently to show that he is white enough to become a part of

the white neighbourhood, however, in his final decision when he declines the offer he

utters: “We don’t want to make no trouble for nobody or fight no causes, and we will try to

be good neighbors.” (p. 148) This sentence is a fine example of AAVE and its multiple

negation. At the same time and more importantly, the duality of this dialogue symbolizes

the victory of his black values and AAVE over his white ambitions and Standard English. It

can be concluded that the mixing of the two varieties results in code-switching which is

also observed by Devereaux and Wheeler (2012, p. 97).

7.3. Beneatha
Being Walter’s sister Beneatha represents equally progressive and ambitious kind of

thinking. However, she differs from him in that she is not so much concerned with money

and her experience is affected by her education. This fact is also reflected in her use of

language. Hansberry herself provides her readers with description of Beneatha’s speech:

“Her speech is a mixture of many things; it is different from the rest of the family’s insofar

as education has permeated her sense of English...” (p. 35) As such she together with other

black characters who speak Standard English such as George Murchison and Asagai prove

that not all African Americans speak AAVE.

If Mama has been argued to hardly ever fail to use AAVE, Beneatha can be said to

be her right opposite as she hardly ever makes a detour from her Standard English speech.

80
If Hansberry claims that Beneatha’s speech mixes different elements it can be proved in the

following examples:

(66) BENEATHA Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just

one idea I don’t accept. It’s not important. I am not going out and be immoral or commit

crimes because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get tired of

Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn

effort. There simply is no blasted God—there is only man and it is he who makes miracles!

(p. 51)

This excerpt shows there are no signs of the non-standard speech. At the same time,

it shows her critical thinking of the world and enlightened belief in human abilities which I

attribute to her education. The whole utterance is carried out in a rather serious and

academic manner. On the other hand, there are utterances such as this:

(67) BENEATHA You you are a nut. Thee is mad, boy. (p. 38)

Here it can be seen that Beneatha does not speak only in formal Standard English

but that her speech also includes the elements of colloquial language exemplified by nut

and boy which are more expected from a girl of her age. Nevertheless, in the same sentence

she also uses an archaic pronoun thee standing for its current form you. This is a good

example of mixing two seemingly incompatible expressions nut and boy which give her

81
speech a sense of youth and at the same time thee which shows her as an academic and a

speaker of formal Standard English.

A similar mixing takes places when she is on the phone with Asagai:

(68) BENEATHA … You have? Well, that’s different… What is it - Oh, what the hell,

come on over… Right, see you then. Arrivederci. (p. 56)

In this example Beneatha speaks in a very informal manner using a colloquial

expression such as what the hell, while finishing her conversation with Italian phrase

arrivederci. These two expressions again juxtapose her being a youngster which contrasts

with her educated and sophisticated self signified by a word of foreign origin.

Another demonstration of her use of foreign words can be seen in her utterance

directed at Walter:

(69) BENEATHA Yes—just look at what the New World hath wrought! … Just look! (She

gestures with bitter disgust) There he is! Monsieur le petit bourgeois noir—himself! …

(p. 137-138)

In this case she uses another archaic word hath standing for have and she continues

her otherwise Standard English speech in French when she calls Walter Monsieur le petit

bourgeois noir, that is a little black bourgeois man. All these words of foreign origin mark

her as an educated black woman. Therefore, it can be argued that education plays a crucial

role in forming her speech habits concerning the elimination of AAVE. Generally, as

Trudgill (1999, p. 118) asserts Standard English is a variety preferred at schools and as

82
such consequently influences Beneatha as a student and her standard speech patterns which

she applies not only at school but also at home and her community.

In addition, Beneatha’s fresh manifestation of language can be also seen in her

rhyming wordplay:

(70) BENEATHA Sticks and stones may break my bones but… words will never hurt me.

(p. 113)

So far it can be concluded that Beneatha’s speech patterns include Standard English

mixed with sort of formal expressions, foreign words and colloquial phrases. However,

there is one occasion in which she makes her AAVE apparent:

(71) BENEATHA What they think we going to do - eat ‘em? (p. 121)

It is obvious that this sentence is far from Standard English. Instead in formation of

this question the auxiliary verb do is omitted and a declarative structure is used. In addition,

copula be between we and going is also missing. Both features signal the presence of

AAVE. Beneatha just like Walter code-switches which according to Pullum (1999, p. 52)

might happen quite often to African Americans who are familiar with both varieties. Here

Beneatha reacts to the fact that white people do not want them to move to their

neighbourhood. It could be a sort of defensive position and sense of togetherness with her

black family that she suddenly decides to use AAVE as the rest of the family does.

83
 7.4. Asagai
Asagai, a Nigerian intellectual and Beneatha’s good friend is another black figure in

the play who uses language differently than all of the above-mentioned characters.

Although he as a Nigerian makes a bridge between America and African heritage there are

no traces of him speaking AAVE. Instead his speech is proper Standard English. In this

respect his use of language could be similar to Beneatha’s, however, unlike her he does not

use any colloquial expressions. Additionally, his speech includes even more learned and

foreign words which is also demonstrated in this example:

(72) ASAGAI …And then quiet again. Retrogression even. Guns, murder, revolution. And

I even will have moments when I wonder if the quiet was not better than all that death and

hatred. But I will look about my village at the illiteracy and disease and ignorance and I

will not wonder long. And perhaps … perhaps I will be a great man … I mean perhaps I

will hold on to the substance of truth and find my way always with the right course … and

perhaps for it I will be butchered in my bed some night by the servants of empire …

(p. 135)

This excerpt represents Asagai’s typical kind of speech uttered entirely in Standard

English as there are no signs of non-standard elements let alone of AAVE. Standard

subject-verb concord is respected, negative is formed without ain’t and copula is always

present. The use of foreign words which further emphasize his role of an intellectual and

academic are also evident as for instance retrogression, illiteracy and substance are all

84
words coming from Latin. Other occurrences of foreign words are represented in this

utterance:

(73) ASAGAI And so to accommodate that you mutilate it every week? (p. 62)

Here both accommodate and mutilate are Latin words. Furthermore, Asagai uses

metaphors which sound somewhat poetic and sophisticated such as servants of empire. In

contrast Beneatha is also capable of producing a metaphor such as toothless rat (p. 144)

when referring to Walter, however, it sure is far from the elevated and more formal

Asagai’s expressions. Comparing the two characters it can be concluded that Asagai’s

speech is more formal and stable than Beneatha’s owing to the fact that she switches

between formal and colloquial speech with the exceptional use of AAVE. Carter (1990,

p. 31) arrives at the similar conclusion that Beneatha’s speech is educated and youthful

while Asagai is even more mature and educated. In addition, these characters exemplify the

widely accepted stereotype that AAVE is used more by less educated people in contrast to

Standard English associated with those who are educated in this case Beneatha and Asagai.

7.5. Mrs. Johnson

Although there is not much space devoted to this character and the description by

the playwright is very vague, Mrs. Johnson’s speech is quite significant. It seems that her

speech is similar to Mama’s in terms of density of AAVE features in speech and also in

their range. This example shows her typical utterance:

85
(74) JOHNSON I know—but sometimes she act like ain’t got time to pass the time of day

with nobody ain’t been to college. Oh—I ain’t criticizing her none. It’s just—you know

how some of our young people gets when they get a little education…. (p. 102)

This example demonstrates the density of AAVE features. In these three sentences

there are at least two occurrences of multiple negation and two examples of other than

Standard English subject-verb concord. However, her repertoire of AAVE is much wider.

(75) JOHNSON Ain’t no … (The implication is pregnancy) sickness done hit you—I

hope…? (p. 100)

In this case she uses negative inversion and completive done. Other examples

include also using pronoun them as a demonstrative, omission of copula and also one

feature that is used only by Johnson and Mama and that is the subject-verb concord in

which the first person singular attaches -s ending.

Since Hansberry does not provide her readers with any particular description of this

character, it makes it possible to speculate to what category this character belongs based on

speech patterns. With regard to her frequent usage of AAVE features, their wide range and

observations of Mufwene (2001, p. 32) on social status of AAVE speakers it can be

asserted that Mrs. Johnson is likely to be classified as working-class and less educated

black speaker.

86
 7.6. George Murchison
Contrary to the character of Mrs. Johnson there is George Murchison who is given

roughly the same amount of attention and space, however his use of language is entirely

different, which can be seen from the following speech:

(76) GEORGE Oh, dear, dear, dear! Here we go! A lecture on the African past! On our

Great West African Heritage! In one second we will hear all about the great Ashanti

empires; the great Songhay civilizations; and the great sculpture of Bénin—and then some

poetry in the Bantu— and the whole monologue will end with the word heritage! (Nastily)

Let’s face it, baby, your heritage is nothing but a bunch of raggedy-assed spirituals and

some grass huts! (p. 81)

From the subject matter and amount of knowledge it is clear that George is an

educated man. As mentioned above education corresponds to the use of Standard English

which is also the case here. In his speech no AAVE or non-standard pattern is observed.

Instead, his speech respects prescribed rules of Standard English. Interestingly, he speaks

rather informal English with colloquial expressions such as baby and a bunch of raggedy-

assed.

If George is compared to other educated characters Beneatha and Asagai who speak formal

sort of academic English with foreign words on occasions, there are no such signs in

George’s speech. The reason for this might be revealed in his assertion:

87
(77) GEORGE Because this is stupid! I don’t go out with you to discuss the nature of

“quiet desperation” or to hear all about your thoughts—because the world will go on about

your thoughts—because the world will go on thinking what it thinks regardless—

BENEATHA Then why read books? Why go to school?

GEORGE (With artificial patience, counting on his fingers) It’s simple. You read books—

to learn facts—to get grades—to pass the course—to get a degree. That’s all —it has

nothing to do with thoughts. (p. 96-97)

For George education is simply only a degree without any interest in an academic

subject matter. On the other hand, Beneatha who clearly does not share George’s opinion

values education much more and is interested in intellectual debates with Asagai. These

different attitudes, interests and values then also mirror in the formal and informal language

of these characters. Consequently, those who engage in intellectual debates such as Asagai

and Beneatha also employ more formal English than George who is not intellectual as such

but who only appears so since he holds a degree.

So far it has been argued that George speaks Standard English on account of his

education. However, another factor which determines the variety used is a socio-economic

status as discussed above. And in his case Beneatha states this:

(78) BENEATHA As for George. Well. George looks good—he’s got a beautiful car and

he takes me to nice places and, as my sister-in-law says, he is probably the richest boy I

will ever get to know… (p. 49)

88
 With regard to Beneatha’s utterance it now becomes clear why George prefers

Standard English over AAVE. Based on the theory, education and wealth are likely to

discard the AAVE usage which is proved in George’s utterances.

To conclude, in the analysis of speech patterns of selected black characters in the

play, the hypothesis that the broadness of their AAVE differs proved right. As a matter of

fact, there are characters who speak exclusively AAVE on the other hand one can find also

characters who avoid using it altogether and instead prefer Standard English. In addition,

the use of either AAVE or Standard English among characters is not uniform as each

character uses the language distinctively. The way characters speak is determined by many

factors comprising frequency of features, their range, character’s education, social standing,

ambitions and personal attitudes. If projected on the scale the most intense speakers of

AAVE include Mama and Mrs. Johnson, Walter represents a transition between AAVE and

Standard English while his sister Beneatha can be located on the other end of the scale

towards Standard English along with George and Asagai at the very end.

89
Conclusion
This thesis has aimed at comparing African American Vernacular English with its

Standard English counterpart and showing especially grammatical features in which AAVE

differentiates from the standard. The play A Raisin in the Sun has been chosen as the main

material for the analysis and selected grammatical features of AAVE have been observed in

various utterances by different characters throughout the play. The other aim of the thesis

was to determine to what degree the use of AAVE or Standard English differs with

individual characters in the play. The hypothesis is that the variation among characters will

be significant.

Firstly, before discussing specific features of either AAVE or Standard English it

was necessary to clarify three main concepts of language, dialect and variety which are

directly linked to the two varieties above. These concepts are frequently misunderstood and

some of them can be used interchangeably. It was concluded that language is a vague term

often determined not linguistically but rather politically and geographically. As such it

comprises many dialects. A neutral term that encompasses any kind of language production

is the variety. The delineation of these basic concepts leads to a specific discussion of the

two above-mentioned varieties.

Standard English has been used as a background against which various AAVE

features were compared, hence it must be discussed here, too. The thesis uncovers its

origins being traced back to the 15th century when the standardization began and continued

till the 18th century as a result of pressures from writers and printers. As a variety it then

acquired its special status on account of its social prestige rather than linguistic qualities.

Specific linguistic features including grammar and pronunciation represented by General

90
American which differentiate the standard from non-standard varieties have been also

introduced.

Furthermore, after Standard English the focus has been on the other variety labelled

as AAVE but also known as Black English, Negro English or Ebonics. While there are

several labels AAVE covers all of them. It has been argued that it is associated with black

speakers, but this assumption has been disapproved since not all of them speak AAVE. The

problem is, however, that this variety is highly stigmatized, and its speakers are often

frowned upon for speaking improper English. In addition, there is an ongoing dispute on

the historical origin of AAVE as some scholars claim it originates in contact languages

such as creole. Contrariwise, the proponents of Anglicist approach argue that AAVE comes

from historical English varieties. The most important part has preoccupied with

grammatical features which make this variety distinct enough from Standard English.

These features involve copula omission, multiple negation, negative inversion, subject-verb

concord, and other attributes which are a crucial point of departure for the analysis in the

practical section as each of them is carefully examined.

The analysis of AAVE in the practical section is based on a work of literature;

consequently, literary dialect was addressed. It has been noted that the tradition of

representing dialects in American literature has a rich history which encompasses both

white and black authors who approach the dialect differently. White authors often depict

dialect to perpetuate black stereotypes for that reason black writers feared using dialect

until the 20th century when dialect became a symbol of black pride. Transcribing spoken

dialect into the written form seems to be a bit problematic as to what should be transcribed

and how. Authors also often employ eye-dialect which however does not reflect the actual

pronunciation but only looks like it. The reliability of the depicted dialect is also questioned

91
since it might not always be accurate. The way the dialect is represented always depends on

writer’s literary purposes and effects he wants to achieve by more or less realistic depiction.

The play A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry has been briefly discussed in

terms of its characters and language in order to set background for the analysis of

characters’ speech patterns and their motivation for using different varieties. The play

shows a black family of three generations. Each member has his own dreams, different

attitudes and experience, different education and different standing in society. All these

factors determine the way each character speaks. Lena is a typical black mama, Walter

wants to do business, Beneatha is a young ambitious girl and Asagai is an African

intellectual to name a few. Hansberry shows a diversity of her black characters as well as of

speech patterns they use. The different speech patterns were the subject of the analysis in

the practical section.

The practical section has examined two subjects: the analysis of AAVE in general

and analysis of the broadness of characters’ AAVE in particular. First, the analysis of

AAVE was carried out using the examples from the play A Raisin in the Sun which served

as a corpus. In this part nine selected grammatical features of AAVE corresponding with

features in the theoretical section have been found in the play and dealt with. The features

include copula omission, invariant be, completive done, multiple negation, negative

inversion, subject-verb concord, relative clauses, questions and other special features. Each

feature has been treated separately using examples ranging from the most prototype ones to

less clear-cut or rather borderline cases if they have been detected. These examples have

been also commented upon in detail. Each AAVE feature has been then compared with its

Standard English counterpart represented in particular by the only white character in the

play Lindner or other black characters who were later argued to use Standard English, too.

92
 The other chapter in the practical section has focused on the speech patterns of

individual characters in their use of AAVE for the hypothesis formulated at the beginning

of the thesis is that the broadness of characters’ AAVE will differ. The speech patterns of

selected black characters have been examined based on specific examples from the play

and backed by findings of other scholars. It has been found that some characters use a

greater number of AAVE features with higher density than others. This concerns especially

the character of Lena and Mrs. Johnson. Some characters such as Walter use not only

AAVE but also Standard English and code-switch between the two varieties. On the other

hand, there are also characters speaking exclusively Standard English such as George

Murchison, Asagai and also Beneatha to a large degree. Therefore, based on their speech

patterns it is possible to place these characters on the scale with AAVE and Standard

English at the opposite ends. Reasons for this variation are argued to depend on character’s

experience, education, ambitions and their standing in the society. It can be concluded that

the hypothesis has been confirmed.

93
Bibliography
8mmhistory (2017, May 8). A Raisin in the Sun [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://youtu.be/cBUYaL2HvVo

Bailey, G. (2007). African American English. In Johnson, E., Montgomery, M., &

University of, M. The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture : Volume 5: Language (pp.

29-35). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=e4b4ed11-22d5-42c1-b520-

21d7a1d053bf%40sessionmgr104&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=670150&db=e000xww

Bauer, L. (2002). An Introduction to International Varieties of English. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail/ZTAwMHh3d19fODA5MjNfX0FO0?sid=e8

9262df-1b46-477d-9b33-4dc2c167b3b1@sessionmgr101&vid=18

Carter, S. R. (1991). Hansberry's Drama: Commitment Amid Complexity. Chicago.

University of Illinois Press. Retrieved from

https://books.google.cz/books?id=Fmc912Yc5y0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs

Cooley, M. (2012). An Early Representation of African-American English. In Bernstein C.

& Sabino R. & Nunnally T. E. (Eds.), Language Variety in the South Revisited (pp. 51-58).

Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=24&sid=e4b4ed11-22d5-42c1-b520-

21d7a1d053bf%40sessionmgr104&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=777508&db=e000xww

94
Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson's Pronunciation of English (8th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.cz/books?id=M2nMAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs

Devereaux, M., & Wheeler, R. (2012). Code-Switching and Language Ideologies:

Exploring Identity, Power, and Society in Dialectally Diverse Literature. The English

Journal, 102(2), 93-100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23365404

Dillard, J. L. (2014). A History of American English. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from

https://books.google.cz/books?id=8mmgBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs&output

=html_text

Doyle, R. M. (2015). “Assimila-who-ever?” Communication Between Characters in A

Raisin in the Sun Examined Using a Double-Consciousness Spectrum". Liberated Arts: a

journal for undergraduate research, 1(1). Retrieved from

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/lajur/vol1/iss1/3

Fine, E. (1983). In Defense of Literary Dialect: A Response to Dennis R. Preston. The

Journal of American Folklore, 96(381), 323-330. doi:10.2307/540948

Green, L. J. (2002). African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge,

U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=1ba66eeb-2344-4d24-821f-

5449601eaef1%40sessionmgr103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN=

125093&db=e000xww

Hansberry, L. (1994). A Raisin in the Sun. New York: Vintage Books.

95
Hickey, R. (2010). Varieties of English in Writing: The Written Word As Linguistic

Evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=1ba66eeb-2344-4d24-821f-

5449601eaef1%40sessionmgr103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN=

344797&db=e000xww

Chambers, J. K. & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=d0557ba1-

84ca-405b-bfb8-

987bba9f792f%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=112412&db=e000xww

Ives, S. (1955). Dialect Differentiation in the Stories of Joel Chandler Harris. American

Literature, 27(1), 88-96. doi:10.2307/2922314

Jakubiak, K. (2011). The Black Body in Translation: Polish Productions of Lorraine

Hansberry's "A Raisin in the Sun" in the 1960s. Theatre Journal, 63(4), 541-569. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41411239

Macaulay, R. K. S. (1991). "Coz It Izny Spelt When They Say It": Displaying Dialect in

Writing. American Speech, 66(3), 280-291. doi:10.2307/455800

McWhorter, J. (1997). WASTING ENERGY ON AN ILLUSION. The Black Scholar,

27(1), 9-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41068702

Miethaner, U. (2014). Innovation in pre-World War II African American Vernacular

English? Evidence from BLUR. In Buschfeld, S., Hoffmann, T., Huber, M., Kautzsch, A.,

96
& Schneider, E. W. (Eds.), The Evolution of Englishes : The Dynamic Model and Beyond

(pp. 365-385). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=e4b4ed11-22d5-42c1-b520-

21d7a1d053bf%40sessionmgr104&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=838701&db=e000xww

Minnick, L. C. (2004). Dialect and Dichotomy: Literary Representations of African

American Speech. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=ea592560-5a0a-4474-a401-

1584314ecb69%40sessionmgr101&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=279791&db=e000xww

Mufwene, S. S. (2001). What is African American English? In Lanehart, S. L. (Ed.),

Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English (pp. 21-51).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=e4b4ed11-22d5-42c1-b520-

21d7a1d053bf%40sessionmgr104&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=253400&db=e000xww

Mufwene, S. S. (2014). The English origins of African American Vernacular English: What

Edgar W. Schneider has taught us. In Buschfeld, S., Hoffmann, T., Huber, M., Kautzsch,

A., & Schneider, E. W. (Eds.), The Evolution of Englishes : The Dynamic Model and

Beyond (pp. 349-364). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=e4b4ed11-22d5-42c1-b520-

97
21d7a1d053bf%40sessionmgr104&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=838701&db=e000xww

Norman, B. (2010). JIM CROW JR.: Lorraine Hansberry’s Late Segregation Revisions and

Toni Morrison’s Early Post–Civil Rights Ambivalence. In Neo-Segregation Narratives:

Jim Crow in Post-Civil Rights American Literature (pp. 21-51). Athens. University of

Georgia Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nbh5.6

Peterson, J. (2004). Linguistic identity and community in American literature. In Finegan

E. & Rickford J. R. (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century (pp.

430-445). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

https://books.google.cz/books?id=s9L9rpxD9FEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs

Preston, D. (1982). 'Ritin' Fowklower Daun 'Rong: Folklorists' Failures in Phonology. The

Journal of American Folklore, 95(377), 304-326. doi:10.2307/539912

Pullum, G. K. (1999). African American English is not Standard English with mistakes. In

Wheeler, R. S. (Ed.), The Workings of Language: From Prescriptions to Perspectives (pp.

39-58). Westport CT: Praeger. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/aave-is-

not-se-with-mistakes.pdf

Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American Vernacular English: Features and Use,

Evolution, and Educational Implications. Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved from

http://www.johnrickford.com/portals/45/documents/papers/Rickford-1999e-Phonological-

and-Grammatical-Features-of-AAVE.pdf

98
Romaine, S. (2000). Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford:

OUP Oxford. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHh3d19fMzY2NjgxX19BT

g2?sid=30ead7c6-e4ff-4f9e-b867-

f871f1db8324@sessionmgr104&vid=4&lpid=lp_1&format=EB

Schneider, E. W. (2008). The Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.cz/books?id=bGjixKTt9JcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs

Schneider, E. W. (2012). Earlier Black English Revisited. In Bernstein, C., Sabino, R.,

Nunnally, T. E. (Eds.), Language Variety in the South Revisited (pp. 35-50). Tuscaloosa:

University Alabama Press. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=24&sid=e4b4ed11-22d5-42c1-b520-

21d7a1d053bf%40sessionmgr104&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=777508&db=e000xww

Strässler, J., & Locher, M. A. (2008). Standards and Norms in the English Language.

Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=e89262df-1b46-477d-9b33-

4dc2c167b3b1%40sessionmgr101&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN

=247583&db=e000xww

Trudgill, P. (1999). STANDARD ENGLISH: WHAT IT ISN’T. In Watts, R. J. & Bex, T.

(Eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate (pp. 117-128). London: Routledge.

Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=617f7404-3636-

99
4e3c-b6da-

5c084df256e8%40sessionmgr103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9Y3Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN=

460008&db=e000xww

Washington, J. (1988). A Raisin in the Sun Revisited. Black American Literature Forum,

22(1), 109-124. doi:10.2307/2904153

Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English: Volume 3: Beyond the British Isles. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wilkerson, M. (1983). The Sighted Eyes and Feeling Heart of Lorraine Hansberry. Black

American Literature Forum, 17(1), 8-13. doi:10.2307/2904160

Wilkerson, M. (1986). "A Raisin in the Sun": Anniversary of an American Classic. Theatre

Journal, 38(4), 441-452. doi:10.2307/3208286

Wolfram, W. (2004). The grammar of urban African American Vernacular English. In

Kortmann, B. & Schneider, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Varieties of English (pp. 111-132).

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Retrieved from

http://faculty.winthrop.edu/kosterj/ENGL507/assignments/WolframUrban_AAE.pdf

Zeigler, M. & Osinubi, V. (2002). Theorizing the Postcoloniality of African American

English. Journal of Black Studies, 32(5), 588-609. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180954

100
Summary
This thesis has aimed at examining AAVE in the play A Raisin in the Sun by

Lorraine Hansberry and comparing it with Standard English. At the same time, its focus has

been on AAVE of individual characters in the play since it is hypothesized that the degree

to which characters use this variety will differ.

The theoretical section provided background information needed for the analysis in

the practical section. For this reason, information on language varieties, Standard English,

AAVE, literary dialect and the play as such is included. First, the idea of Standard English

originated in the 15th century and the standard as such was founded later in the 18th

century when it was codified in dictionaries and grammar books. Although being equal in

many respects with other varieties it is the variety with the most prestigious status.

Contrariwise, AAVE belongs to the stigmatized language varieties and as such has

been carefully examined. It is spoken mainly by African Americans in the USA and it is

linguistically far from Standard English which is proven by a number of selected

grammatical features including copula omission, multiple negation, subject-verb concord

and other idiosyncrasies. The origin of this variety is also a subject of dispute between

those who believe that it originated in historical English varieties and those who assert that

it comes from contact languages such as creoles.

Since the analysis in the practical section is based on a play, literary dialect has

been also discussed as a frequent tool in American literature used both by white and black

writers although often with different objectives. Attention has been also paid to the

problems of its transcribing from the spoken to written form and consequently its fidelity as

writers manipulate it according to their needs.

101
 Furthermore, to understand different speech patterns of characters in the play, the

characterization of each of them must be mentioned along with a plot and language

Hansberry uses throughout the play. The distinctiveness of characters corresponds with

differences in their speech patterns as has been also examined in the analysis.

The practical section has focused on the two blocks of analysis. First and foremost,

nine different grammatical features such as copula omission, multiple negation, subject-

verb concord and others noted in the theoretical section have been examined using the

utterances from the play by different characters to illustrate the point. All features have

been found, carefully analysed, commented upon and also compared with Standard English

as represented by utterances by Lindner or black characters speaking Standard English. The

examples include prototypes and less typical cases which show the limits of the features

and enrich the discussion.

The other part of the analysis has examined the broadness of characters’ AAVE as

each character is different not only in terms of their ambitions, education or social status

but also in their speech patterns which are arguably influenced by these factors. It has been

proven that some characters speak AAVE more than others while there are also characters

who speak exclusively Standard English. At the same time for example Walter is capable of

code-switching. As such characters create the continuum from AAVE to Standard English

which proves the hypothesis.

102
Shrnutí
Cílem této diplomové práce bylo zanalyzovat Afroamerickou angličtinu v díle

Lorraine Hansberry A Raisin in the Sun (Jako hrozen v parném slunci) a zároveň ji

porovnat se Standardní angličtinou. Vedlejším cílem práce byla analýza Afroamerické

angličtiny jednotlivých postav v uvedené hře, neboť byla stanovena hypotéza, že rozsah

použití jednotlivých variant angličtiny se v závislosti na postavě bude do jisté míry lišit.

Teoretická část práce uvádí základní informace, které se později využívají v analýze

v praktické části. Proto jsou zde k nalezení kapitoly týkající se jazykových variant,

Standardní angličtiny, Afroamerické angličtiny, literárního dialektu a hry A Raisin in the

Sun. Pokud jde o Standardní angličtinu, její počátky se datují do 15. století, jako taková

byla ale kodifikována ve slovnících a mluvnicích až později v 18. století. Standardní

angličtina si v rámci ostatních variant vybudovala nejprestižnější pozici, i když je

považována za jazykově rovnocennou s jinými variantami.

Na druhém konci žebříčku prestižních jazykových variant se nachází Afroamerická

angličtina, která s sebou stále nese společenské stigma. Touto angličtinou mluví převážně

černoši na území USA, ačkoli zdaleka ne všichni. Co do gramatiky se v některých

aspektech zásadně liší od Standardní angličtiny, což také dokazují vybrané gramatické

prvky jako například vynechání sponového slovesa být, vícenásobný zápor, shoda podmětu

s přísudkem a další nestandardní jevy. Dlouhodobě se také spekuluje o původu

Afroamerické angličtiny, která podle některých vznikla z historické varianty angličtiny

nebo z kontaktních jazyků z dob obchodu s otroky.

Hra A Raisin in the Sun slouží jako korpus a zdroj příkladů pro analýzu

Afroamerické angličtiny v praktické části. Z toho důvodu byla pozornost věnována také

literárnímu dialektu, který je v americké literatuře oblíbený a využívaný jak bílými, tak

103
černošskými autory, i když jejich cíle se často rozcházejí. Problematika přepisu mluveného

dialektu do psané formy a jeho věrohodnosti byla také předmětem zájmu, neboť autoři ne

vždy přepisují dialekt realisticky, aby tak dosáhli různých zejména literárních efektů.

Děj hry A Raisin in the Sun stejně tak jako jednotlivé postavy a jejich jazykové

prostředky jsou také nastíněny, protože se dále používají v analýze, která zkoumá míru

využití Afroamerické angličtiny jednotlivých postav. Je patrné, že různorodost postav se

také odráží v různorodosti jazykových variant, které používají, což analýza také prokázala.

Praktická část práce se stává ze dvou kapitol. První z nich se zaobírá analýzou devíti

vybraných gramatických jevů Afroamerické angličtiny, mezi které patří vynechání

sponového slovesa být, vícenásobný zápor, shoda podmětu s přísudkem a další jevy

uvedené v teoretické části. Všechny tyto jevy byly zanalyzovány na konkrétních příkladech

ze hry A Raisin in the Sun, zároveň byly pečlivě okomentovány a porovnány i ve vztahu ke

Standardní angličtině, která byla zastoupena výroky jediné bílé postavy p. Lindnerem

případně černošskými postavami užívající také Standardní angličtinu. Příklady obsahují

nejen typické ukázky, ale také méně typické až hraniční případy, které ukazují limity

daných jevů.

Druhá část analýzy se týká míry užití Afroamerické angličtiny jednotlivých postav.

Každá z postav se od ostatních liší v závislosti na svých osobních cílech, vzdělání a

postavení ve společnosti. Tyto faktory zároveň ovlivňují i to, jaké jazykové prostředky

postavy využívají. Analýza prokázala, že některé postavy používají Afroamerickou

angličtinu více než ostatní, zatímco další postavy využívají zejména Standardní angličtinu.

Například Walter mluví oběma variantami a je schopný mezi nimi volně přecházet. Podle

míry, jakou postavy užívají jednotlivé varianty, je možné je zobrazit na stupnici, kde

Afroamerická angličtina je na jednom konci a Standardní angličtina na konci druhém.

104