Language Reappropriation: African American Language and Diasporic Identity
Classification is often necessary in forming the basis of discussion. Concepts develop in relation to other pre-existing concepts, and classification maps out these dynamics for the sake of organization. However, classification is hardly ever a neutral process; it is almost always shaped by power. Consequently, the line between beneficial classification and toxic hierarchization is dangerously thin, especially in the comparative analysis of diverse human behavior and culture. Linguistic classification of communication modes is far from impervious to the influence of hierarchized superstructures. Though linguistic classification is informed by historic traceability of language roots, the ultimate grouping of communication modes into language families, languages, dialects, and slangs is shaped by power. As prominent Yiddish scholar Max Weinreich once quipped, “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.”[1] A communication mode’s seemingly arbitrary positionality in these categories determines its origin narrative and its agency within institutional frameworks. The societal stakes of speaking a different language are different from those of speaking a non-standard dialect, but there might be more overlap between those two realities than is apparent at first glance. With all of this in mind, I cannot help but ponder this: What are the stakes in different linguistic classifications of African American communication modes? What do they then reveal about the African American community’s relationship to hierarchized superstructures?
We have already considered framing AAE as a dialect of English. We have acknowledged the dialect’s linguistic legitimacy and argued that AAE should be actively incorporated into school curricula to some capacity. Yet, many of these assertions inherently, and maybe inadvertently, accept that AAE points to American roots. In other words, this understanding of African American modes of communication is dominated by the English of the American context. The dialect is then viewed as either a celebrated nuance, an aesthetic and nonessential variation, or a degenerative mutation of the English language. Language reparation purports the need for AAE to be accepted and institutionally supported by an American English-speaking society. Of course, as aforementioned, there are some benefits to functioning in English’s strikingly universalizing framework, particularly when it comes to securing resources. But does African American English do enough to rebel against English’s historic and current hegemony? Or is it just a reduced and appropriated part of an English-framed discourse? Perhaps there is another concept that would generate more radical discussion, one that would go so far as to conjecture that the main African American communication mode could be a language of its own.
Language reappropriation shares many of the same goals as language reparation, but it grows from a slightly different soil. Language reappropriation still advocates for the recognition of linguistic legitimacy and institutional support, but for the distinct African American Language (AAL), rather than a dialect of English. Instead of having American roots and African influences, African American Language has African roots and American influences. Unlike AAE, AAL emphasizes the desired connection to a homeland in Africa. Education expert Alice Lee, like speech pathologist Julie Washington, wants African American communication modes to be incorporated into education. However, as she notes in the beginning of her article “Why “Correcting” African American Language Speakers is Counterproductive”:
“The difference between a language and dialect is often defined by whether or not it is understood by speakers within the same group. Some would argue that speakers of AAL understand “standard English” and vice versa… However... languages such as Norwegian and Swedish are considered two different languages, even though monolingual speakers of each group often understand those from the other group because of the linguistic similarity between the languages...that what is considered a dialect versus a language is not solely based on linguistics, but involves decision-making entrenched in power.” [2]
Lee prefers the terms of AAL over those of AAE because it lends the speakers more power and agency over their mode of communication. Throughout the rest of her article, Lee describes potential methods of AAL integration that greatly overlap with Washington’s for AAE. There are similar actionable items that are grounded in different terms. Instead of Washington’s supported method of bringing AAE to classrooms through embraced bidialectical code-switching, Lee advocates AAL to be presented as a language to master.
This shift from nonstandard dialect to distinct language is an assertive rhetorical and practical risk. African American Language is more likely to be estranged from academic and financial resources in an English-speaking society, which could in turn discourage consistent institutional implementation. However, I would still maintain that language reappropriation is worth this risk. Language reappropriation not only embodies a rebellion against English’s hegemony that language reparation lacks, but it also offers another means of establishing continuity within African American identity. Language reparation creates continuity between spheres of cultural self-acceptance and institutional access. Language reappropriation does the additional work of also pointing to the continuity engendered in African diasporic identity. By claiming African roots, AAL encompasses African Americans in the far-reaching narrative of the African continent, their ancestral homeland. And the story of African languages on American soil is no longer one of obliteration, but of survival.
[1] Lee, Alice (2017) "Why “Correcting” African American Language Speakers is Counterproductive," Language Arts Journal of Michigan: Vol. 32: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.9707/2168-149X.2162
[2] Ibid.
