![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marjaerwincross-posted from my tumblr: http://ananiujitha.tumblr.com/post/45282616776/english-diversity-and-intra-english-appropriation
A few weeks ago, someone argued that the phrase "to side eye" originated in African-American Vernacular English, and its use in other dialects is appropriation. Now I'm pretty sure I'd grown up with the phrase "to side eye" meaning "to look askance," and I'm surprised to hear that using my native dialect is appropriating from someone else's dialect. It appears to have had other meanings in seventeenth through nineteenth century texts, and first appears in its present meaning in nineteenth or twentieth century texts.
English is a fairly diverse language. Unfortunately, many dialects weren't written languages until recently, and one dialect, Estuary English, became the most respectable written language for some time, so that the peculiarities of Estuary English became the measure of correct English. Most dialects were rhotic, even in Britain, until the last century, but Estuary English was non-rhotic, and influenced others. Most dialects retained certain features which Estuary English has lost. North American English also borrowed from Dutch, German, and Yiddish, which has probably reinforced some of the irregular grammatical elements in the language. Gullah has a more complicated tense system, influenced by West African languages, than other dialects of North American English. North American English has a more complicated tense system, not as closely assimilated to Latin, than British English. It's one reason why British people sometimes stumble over the distinction between 'got' and 'gotten.'
English contains more diversity than English writing records. And sometimes terms and constructions drop out of written use while remaining in spoken use.
English also borrows. A lot. And sometimes it has been because of the English being colonizers, and sometimes the English being colonized, as we see with the Norse and Norman words all over the language.
If the same expression appears in African-American Vernacular English, and other dialects, there are several possibilities involved. First, both dialects could have inherited these from early modern English, while other dialects lost these. Second, both dialects could have derived these from early modern English, while other dialects did not. The verb "to side eye" is such an obvious derivation from the verb "to eye," that I suspect that is what happened, although some dialects developed another verb "to side eye" with different meanings on the same derivation ["side" as in "secondarily" vs. "side" as in "askance"]. Third, one dialect could have borrowed from the other, or both dialects could have borrowed from a third. But appropriation depends on the circumstances of borrowing, and yes, the time of borrowing. If someone has grown up with the borrowed expression, then they probably aren't appropriating it, even if their parents were.
A few weeks ago, someone argued that the phrase "to side eye" originated in African-American Vernacular English, and its use in other dialects is appropriation. Now I'm pretty sure I'd grown up with the phrase "to side eye" meaning "to look askance," and I'm surprised to hear that using my native dialect is appropriating from someone else's dialect. It appears to have had other meanings in seventeenth through nineteenth century texts, and first appears in its present meaning in nineteenth or twentieth century texts.
English is a fairly diverse language. Unfortunately, many dialects weren't written languages until recently, and one dialect, Estuary English, became the most respectable written language for some time, so that the peculiarities of Estuary English became the measure of correct English. Most dialects were rhotic, even in Britain, until the last century, but Estuary English was non-rhotic, and influenced others. Most dialects retained certain features which Estuary English has lost. North American English also borrowed from Dutch, German, and Yiddish, which has probably reinforced some of the irregular grammatical elements in the language. Gullah has a more complicated tense system, influenced by West African languages, than other dialects of North American English. North American English has a more complicated tense system, not as closely assimilated to Latin, than British English. It's one reason why British people sometimes stumble over the distinction between 'got' and 'gotten.'
English contains more diversity than English writing records. And sometimes terms and constructions drop out of written use while remaining in spoken use.
English also borrows. A lot. And sometimes it has been because of the English being colonizers, and sometimes the English being colonized, as we see with the Norse and Norman words all over the language.
If the same expression appears in African-American Vernacular English, and other dialects, there are several possibilities involved. First, both dialects could have inherited these from early modern English, while other dialects lost these. Second, both dialects could have derived these from early modern English, while other dialects did not. The verb "to side eye" is such an obvious derivation from the verb "to eye," that I suspect that is what happened, although some dialects developed another verb "to side eye" with different meanings on the same derivation ["side" as in "secondarily" vs. "side" as in "askance"]. Third, one dialect could have borrowed from the other, or both dialects could have borrowed from a third. But appropriation depends on the circumstances of borrowing, and yes, the time of borrowing. If someone has grown up with the borrowed expression, then they probably aren't appropriating it, even if their parents were.
