The goal of the following paper is to present an ‘argument mapping’ of William Labov’s article “The logic of Nonstandard English.” In the process of mapping, I will first define any terms that are necessary to understanding the article. I will then state what I believe to be the author’s main assumption in the article. Following the main assumption, I will state the six interrelated claims Labov makes. I will then rename the claims based on the relationship between the claim and the type of evidence it is linked to, so that the claims can be categorized by the roles they fill in Labov’s argument structure. I will then specifically argue that there are four strong ethnographic facts, one weak ethnographic fact, and one general ethnographic conclusion. Finally, I will relate the author’s four strong ethnographic facts back to his general assumption.
In order to fully understand the following mapping, I will define two terms Labov uses in his argument. The first term is nonstandard Negro English (NNE), which Labov defines as African American Venacular English (AAVE). NNE is mainly spoken by children and adults from urban ghettos. The second term is Standard English, which is the form of English taught in schools and used by white middle class Americans. It is widely accepted as the ‘correct’ form of English.
In the article, Labov discusses the deficit theory, and examines why it is incorrect. He primarily focuses on previous claims put forth by other linguists and psychologists, and explains why these claims are false. He makes five interrelated claims to support his main assumption that African American NNE speaking children speak with sound logic and intellect. The first claim Labov presents is that children from urban ghettos use monosyllabic speech as a defense mechanism in situations where they feel threatened.
127 our experts are availableright now
His second claim states that working class-speakers are actually more effective speakers than many middle-class speakers. Labov’s third claim states that although NNE speakers may not use the forms of standard English, they comprehend the underlying grammar patterns of standard English. His fourth claim states that NNE speakers operate with the same logic as standard English speakers. His fifth claim is that the deficit theory gives educators a “theoretical basis for the prejudice they already feel against the lower-class Negro child and his language.” Labov’s sixth claim is that the work done by Bereiter, Deutsch, and Engelmann in support of the deficit theory is biased and incorrect.
Labov collected the evidence for his argument while conducting field work in south central Harlem. All the claims mentioned above are supported by at least one type of ethnographic evidence, which includes previous ethnographic work done by other researchers, observations made by other researchers, and specific observations Labov made during interviews with speakers of NNE. The validity of Labov’s evidence is based on the idea that what he observed is actually true.
Labov’s first four claims are all supported by the kinds of ethnographic evidence just discussed. Therefore, in my argument mapping I will label them all strong ethnographic facts. His fifth and sixth claim should not be grouped with the others above. His fifth claim, which states that the deficit theory gives educators a “theoretical basis for the prejudice they already feel against the lower-class Negro child and his language,” is a weaker claim. It lacks the direct evidence the previous four claims had, therefore I will label it a weak ethnographic fact.
The sixth claim is supported solely by the previous five claims. The sixth claim, which states that the work done by Bereiter, Deutsch, and Engelmann in the support of the deficit theory is biased and incorrect, needs Labov’s previous five claims to be true in order to be true as well. It serves as general statement of what the author is trying to prove in his paper; that deficit theory is false and African American NNE speaking children speak with sound logic and intellect. Therefore, I will label Labov’s sixth claim as a general ethnographic conclusion.
All four of the strong ethnographic facts put forth by Labov support his main assumption; that African American NNE speaking children speak with sound logic and intellect. By determining that children from urban ghettos use monosyllabic speech as a defense system when they feel threatened, the first strong ethnographic fact shows that teachers will likely be unable to elicit speech from African American children due to the power imbalance, but that does mean they do not know how to form complex thoughts.
Labov’s second strong ethnographic fact directly supports the main assumption, he argues that working class-speakers are actually more effective speakers than many middle-class speakers because they do not unnecessarily complicate their speech and writing. By stating that NNE speakers comprehend the underlying grammar patterns of standard English, and that the meaning and structure of an NNE sentence is equal to that of a standard English sentence, Labov’s third and fourth strong ethnographic facts, prove that the logic and intellect of an NNE speaking children is equal to that of children who speak standard English.
I have now completed my argument mapping of Labov’s article “The Logic of Nonstandard English.” I first defined two key terms used by the author throughout the article. Next, I stated what I believe to be the author’s two main assumptions. I then stated that the author’s argument is composed of four strong ethnographic facts, one weak ethnographic fact, and one general ethnographic conclusion. Finally, I discussed how the four strong ethnographic facts relate back to Labov’s main assumption.
