1. beyond the ebonics debate

Beyond the Ebonics Debate: Attitudes about Black and Standard American EnglishAuthor(s): Andrew C. BillingsSource: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Sep., 2005), pp. 68-81Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40027322 .Accessed: 16/03/2011 00:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of BlackStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40027322?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

BEYOND THE EBONICS DEBATE Attitudes About Black and Standard American English

ANDREW C. BILLINGS Clemson University

This study of 261 Black and White participants determined how standard American English and Black English were perceived on 20 credibility measures. Results indicated that although standard American English was preferred by all participants on several key measures (including all measures of competence), speaker dialect did not alter perceived trustworthiness and likability. On measures of social distance, dialect played a secondary role to the race of the speaker, as White participants preferred White speakers and Black participants preferred Black speakers regardless of dialect.

Keywords: Black English; Ebonics; dialect; credibility

DOI: 10.1177/0021934704271448

The acceptance or rejection of Black English (BE) dialect has been a societal dilemma for many decades; numerous studies have convincingly shown that BE speakers are rated as "less credible" than speakers of standard American English (SAE). This study sheds new light on dialectical speaker evaluation research by (a) introducing a previously untested regional dialect (midwestern) and (b) measuring potential influences that the Ebonics debate may have had on changing perceptions of BE dialect.

For years, social science research has focused on the relationship between language attitudes and BE use. Labov (1972) found that both linguistically and functionally, BE serves all communication functions. Tucker and Lambert (1969) were the first social scientists to address Black dialect evaluatively. Within the educational context, Williams (1976) found that even African American teachers associate negative characteristics to students who speak BE.

JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES, Vol. 36 No. 1, September 2005 68-81

© 2005 Sage Publications

68

Billings / BEYOND THE EBONICS DEBATE 69

Giles and Bourhis (1976) studied evaluative aspects of British and Black dialects, finding that participants preferred accents and dialects that appear to be most authentic. Confirming the work of Giles (1970), Elwell, Brown, and Rutter (1984) advanced the literature as they were the first to study differences between standard and nonstandard accents using videotape. Researchers such as Doss and Gross (1994) have discussed the modern dilemma of code switching, referring to the decision to either endorse BE or switch dialect to something considered more socially acceptable. Seymour and Seymour (1979) argued that "those responsible for molding and shaping the speech and language skills of Black children should select models that are likely to receive fewer of our society's penal- ties and more of the rewards" (p. 409).

Since the inception of the Ebonics debate in 1995, opinions have been mixed as to how the issue would best be handled. Smitherman and Cunningham (1997) focused on the need for American society to become better educated on the issue, noting that "negative pro- nouncements on Ebonics reveal a serious lack of knowledge about the scientific approach to language analysis and a galling ignorance about what Ebonics is and who speaks it" (p. 227). Many scholars have also examined the ways in which BE permeates and stimulates cultural perception. Nelson (1997) argues that even in small cit- ies and towns, elements of Black culture have begun to permeate schools and cultural events, often crossing racial barriers. Bock and Pitts (1975) analyzed the relationship between BE and perceived speaker image; Doss and Gross (1994) studied interracial perceptions of code switching; Koch and Gross (1997) addressed ways children cognitively receive the dialect. In addition, other scholars have employed the one-shot BE case study, varying the context, the region, the measure, and even the dialect itself.

In a seminal study of the effect of Black dialect on White and Black culture, Johnson and Buttny (1982) analyzed the effects of "sounding Black" and "sounding White." Although not dealing with BE specifically, the study used 93 college participants and employed Mulac's (1975) 21-item Speech Dialect Attitudinal Scale to underscore two key findings. First, White participants ren- dered even more negative assessments of speakers who sounded

70 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / SEPTEMBER 2005

Black if the content of the message was abstract and/or hard to comprehend. Second, the researchers found that sounding Black caused White participants to describe the speaker in stereotypical terms. Still, one hypothesis furthered by Johnson and Buttny (which predicted that White participants would universally view sounding Black in negative terms) was not supported. Thus, this study emphasized the importance of breaking down variables that affect such assessments to see which variables are effected by dialect and which variables remain constant. The Koch and Gross (1997) finding that Black children actually prefer BE over SAE makes the need for future research even more clear.

Garner and Rubin (1986) were the first to connect the concepts of code switching and perceived credibility. In a series of in-depth interviews with Black southern attorneys, they wrote that "many of the informants revealed a great deal of sensitivity to the role of speech style in impression formation. The term 'credibility' arose repeatedly. . . . This matter of constructing credibility through speech style was a particular concern" (p. 43). Using this study as a model, the connection between dialect and credibility becomes clear. Many researchers (Cronkhite & Liska, 1976; McCroskey, 1966; McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Whitehead, 1968) have argued the dimensions of credibility, but the most widely accepted was derived from the work of Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz (1969), who pointed to three credibility dimensions: competence, trustworthiness, and dynamism.

Atkins (1993) tested potential factors that affect credibility in the ultimate first-impression scenario: the job interview. Using a sample of 65 employment recruiters, Atkins found that BE caused negative evaluation ratings on 16 of 20 (80%) scales. However, 3 scales yielded no difference and 1, the perceived trustworthiness of a person, actually improved with the use of BE, prompting Atkins to note that BE use does not uniformly alter all aspects of person perception. Operationalizing the terms "standard" and "substandard" dialect, Buck (1968) studied Whites and Blacks with New York accents. She found that the ethnicity of the speaker did not effect credibility; Rather, the dialect of the speaker was the deter-

Billings / BEYOND THE EBONICS DEBATE 7 1

mining factor in participant assessments. Both White and Black speakers of standard dialect were deemed competent, whereas both White and Black speakers of substandard dialect were not. Conse- quently, Buck's research offers a theoretical basis for this form of research while also offering a springboard for updated perceptual studies of BE dialect.

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Buck (1968) and Atkins (1993) found that speakers of BE were evaluated as possessing less credibility and status than speakers of SAE. This study addresses this limitation through postulating and answering three broad-based hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Measures of competence will vary significantly when the speaker uses BE instead of SAE.

Hypothesis 2: Measures of trustworthiness will not vary significantly when the speaker uses BE instead of SAE.

Hypothesis 3: Measures of social distance will not vary significantly because of the race of the speaker rather than the dialect the speaker is using.

Through the dimensional breakdown of these three variables, conclusions pertaining to attitudes about BE as well as the methods in which we measure credibility are offered.

METHOD

The 2x3 factorial was designed to analyze two independent variables: race of speaker and dialect of speaker. The first and second levels of the condition of speech variable (Black speakers of BE and Black speakers of SAE) determined potential differences attributable to language; the second and third level of the condition of speech variable (Black speaker of SAE and White speakers of SAE) indicated any differences attributable to the race of the speaker.


Black and White students from both high school and college speech classes were given course credit for their participation in the study. All six cells contained no fewer than 35 participants and no greater than 50 participants. A pilot study, drawing on the work of Garlick and Mongeau (1993), was conducted to control for attractiveness. Focus groups were asked to rate pictures of speakers on a 0-10 scale. Speakers of moderate to above-average attractiveness (6.0-7.0 composite ratings) were chosen. All Black speakers that were used for the study were also judged to be of above-average darkness of skin tone as compared to other Blacks. Other threats to external validity (attractiveness, age, gender, speaking ability, etc.) were controlled through the other choices present in the experi- mental design. Manipulation checks of these external threats were performed to ensure that all variables were controlled.

A total of nine video clips were produced for the project. Three of the nine clips had a White person speaking SAE; three more had a Black person speaking SAE; the final three had a Black person (the same Black speakers as in the second group) speaking BE. In essence, a matched-guise technique was employed with the addition of three White speakers of SAE. Six speakers were used, with the three Black speakers being used twice (once with SAE and once with BE). Although a fourth group (Whites speaking BE) could have completed the design, pilot testing of these speakers was deemed unwise, as White BE speakers were often seen as "per- forming" the dialect, as opposed to authentically using it (the con- verse was not true with Black speakers, who were determined to be authentically code switching between SAE and BE). All of the speakers were of the same sex (male), were approximately the same age (18-24), and were judged by focus groups as delivering the speech at the same level (6.0-7.0 on a 10-point scale). As Johnson and Buttny (1982) warn that context and subject can alter perceptions, each speech lasted approximately 3 minutes with the same dialectically and racially neutral subject (graduated drivers' licens- ing: the practice of giving teenagers progressive steps [i.e., at age 16, a person can drive only if he or she has adult supervision] to achieving a full-fledged license at age 18). In the condition in


which BE was used, all aspects of BE (semantics, phonology, and grammar) were manipulated. All speakers had midwestern accents, thus controlling for regional speaking differences. The only dis- cernible difference among the speeches was the use of BE and the race of the person giving the speech. Participants watched speeches from one of the three conditions, with the order of the video clips randomized. No participant viewed speeches from more than one condition (three speeches total).

Although measures of dialect were furthered by Mulac (1975), they did not deal specifically with the concepts of credibility and its relationship to desired social distance. Consequently, in selecting the instrument to be used in the present study, 10 semantic differen- tial scales (first tested by Liska, 1978) were constructed to measure multiple aspects of competence and trustworthiness and, in addition, 10 measures of social distance to discern whether cogni- tive measures of credibility would alter potential behaviors. Both sets of scales had seven response options. Several of the first set of scales mirrored the dichotomous terms (i.e., honest/dishonest, intelligent/unintelligent) constructed by Zahn and Hopper (1985), whereas several other scales were unique to the measurement of BE, thus lending heuristic value to the measure. A pretest was conducted to test the reliability of the instrument. Factor analyses indicated that no measure needed to be dropped from the study (a =

.7139). Additionally, the scales were analyzed as being in three broad categories; the categories were subsequently labeled as (a) competence, (b) trustworthiness, and (c) social distance. Still, as Cronkhite and Liska (1976) argue, the mere presence of three broad categories does not warrant the collapsing of scales into these categories; consequently, results on each scale were evaluated as separate from these broader dimensions.

After each speaker was shown to the participants, the videotape was paused to allow time for the participants to complete the 20 scales. The session with each class of students lasted approximately 30-35 minutes. After data collection was completed, the computer sheets were scanned into a data file that was compatible with SPSS for Windows 8.0.


RESULTS

A total of 261 participants took part in the study and were dis- tributed equally by gender (129 men, 132 women) and race (138 White, 123 Black). Ages ranged from 16 to 22, which, although offering a young demographic for generalizability, still yielded results with heuristic value. One hundred thirty-three were college students (median age 19.8) and 128 were high school students (median age 17.2). No significant differences were determined dependent on the gender or age of the participant and thus were deemed unnecessary for reporting with cross-tabs. Table 1 repre- sents scale ratings for each of the 20 scales, subdivided by the three larger dimensions of competence, trustworthiness, and social distance. For all scales, 1 .00 would be a score matching the term on the left, whereas 7.00 would be a score matching the term on the right. Means are derived as being on a continuum between 1 .00 and 7.00.

The table indicates many significant differences. Six differences were detected on the first 10 scales, which measured competence and trustworthiness. First, Black speakers of S AE were preferred to White speakers of S AE on all 1 0 scales. These differences appear to be the result of a novelty effect - many respondents have surmised that a Black speaker would use a form of BE, thus causing them to rate Blacks more favorably when they instead spoke SAE.

Second, not surprisingly, BE clearly lowered the ratings of speakers, leading to diminished ratings in 7 of the first 10 dimensions including intelligence, articulation, aggression, education, and qualification (all five measures of competence). Still, several of the scales measuring trustworthiness - particularly honesty, likability, and attractiveness - barely wavered at all. Although one cannot confirm the null hypothesis, one could postulate that competence aspects of person perception affect BE speakers more than trust aspects. Third, scales measuring competence (qualified, educated) were all found to yield higher ratings from White participants. Similarly, Whites preferred speakers of their own race in several measurements of character (likability, believability, honesty). Fourth, Blacks found White speakers of SAE to be more attractive, kind, and articulate. In fact, Black participants were much harsher

<o * * * * * * * * * * * e rn d o » i- en ô o ^ - \o oo r-- ^ -t M in ^h o h o\ to vo vo vo t- i on 5^ q O\ On (1 in in r--_ en en eN ^r cN *-*

s£i, en >o on ^t <n oodoood cn oo oo h-^ ^ ^ in en - 1 ^-

O rf ^rs o oo m m ts o ^f o o m en r- in S >. «, .S< o on ^t- -h cn oo vo en <o oo o o - "^ to

>. <j ^ P ^ "^ ^ •"""I in in ^ - (N O en rn

~^<3\K to <j

od'-^^D'-^ inoodO(N O O en

I ^ Pi C

Q ***** * ** ** ••S» r~~inO\Om cNmooinin cn <N >- i

>."J2 O\ ^ ^t t^ ^-i ^t-m^HOON on vo O

^S h \d on * in r^ - < d r^ -< en ^5 cn O inr-~eno^ - ^_ ,_

<«n r- >, cd X) o <C >XNT3o> >. n cd

i xt- in ^t -xt" ̂ en en ^t xh en en en ^f

P DQrJ:^ ^r^ôr^.^-, en^^t-oor-- en o\ m ]^ °4 oo rn in m ^ ^t io m cn tI; ^"~; °°.

^H enTfen^t-^J- (N(Nenen'(N ^}- ^t en

^* .î rvC -^ to o\ Tt in oo in OOno^-cn eN in O

qi Oî^ rvC

^

to ^ ^ "*. ^ ^ PP1^^10. ^ ^°. ^

rj'-K ^ ri ri (N ci (N eneneneNcN cn fN in

S I ^ cT* to . \o \o \o -rj- oo *c h Tt oo rt c-- r- in

'fHCL to ^ ^ .

'sC?rit^:r^0^ ^P00.0^^ ^ ^ ^ Wfl o ^ cn en cn cn cn cn en en en cn en cn cn

5 n . ccr rt£o&, ^^ £

HfeT ^^^°Q T^(N.v-:^^-: f^^^P00. ^ ^ ^ 22 "g o^ enenenen'en enenen'^t-en en en -xt-

*C S c - a,- CO*- , c £ O Oh ^rt C

- ?z ~- -. tj- tj vo vo ^ oo ^ o ^ m o»n on m. -^^r1^^ ^^^P^ ^^^P"*. ^ ^ °° ^ m.

CS^"^^ en cn en en cn cNenenen^f-' cN <N en

flj1^ ^g» u in bC£ ^ .^, .- , CJT3 •-S <ij -LtT^ r-oor-incN oo m -^ -> o on oo oo

$j Q ^ CQ ^"'^""^"^"^J" eNen'en'en'en en en ^f

O *^ Oj J3 ••- > *^ til 'S ,£)4^bX)o^ cd .-h T3 OT3

CZ5 [«: j (v (NcNf-rÔN eNinooNr- r^ "- in ^li

Co ^to "3

(v f-~;^^-iMDr-; h q ô (N in on r~; on

*-+ Co "3 cn cn en cn cn eNcn'enencNi cN cn en

CZ3 QJ

^^ Cm LvT ~St ^ o cd *rd ^^ v- ">) *? enONenenoN en^teNinoo rf O on tSÔ cn cn cn cn oq ri<r!r~~:TtrN! °^ °^ ^

CO^Q enen'enencN enen'enenen cN CN ^t

mu -M lliili fllll Sill I!l!s:

sluii .plifi it |t st s III ail | Hill Îilglli C 3 O.

.Q h

ri m 't vi j-HMOrôooNd 3

o - i cn en

75

***** in oo o\ oo r-H \o oo in co in in oo co co (N CO *- ' CO OO O C-; - '- oo r^ m5 r^ r- o

CN CN i- '

O * * * w

^t CN CO On O OO ^ v

£ p1 8 - § S p^ co - ^ r-' cn ^ -st o &

0) o

** * * * * *<£ CNCN ^ OO CN On r-^C t~- cn in oo on oo o> -^ coon oq in Tf O cn~ cn'vo co r~~- co o ô^ in co co cn -- < c

o

inin io ^^ io c~~- ^-*c/5 inoq on co oq in r-;^^ ^j-'co co co co co <^5

<D X) o -O or) X) o T3 ^

ôt- - oo cn >n "* *j in^t in vq <- i ^q in*j Xf Tf ^t CO Tt rl"' CO S,

*j 3 > ^ X "j3 OnOn CO CO OO Tf ooPh r-- r^ vo rf r--~ oq oq CN CN CN CN CN CN CN X5

^ 3 > £ X £ CNCN OO 00 OO [-- ^pj co - i On vo ^>q co ^k> COCO Tt CO CN CO Ô

C O D- CT ^

min oo \o ô -^t i~ - 1 1 p >n oq ^ ^q On r-; COCO CO ^t CO CO

<N^

c o &< cr ^5 ^00 CN CN 00 in ^D.,-, CN On ^ <- ; Ô ^-; On

"^J. CO CN '*' CO CN CO CN pH w

c

ôoo in ^ o xi- ^Jrl »o ^ cn in p - ; ô^ Xt" rf 'si" CO "st -st CO S

« ^ S1 5 .- .^ 1 oor^ cn cn cn co co^ OOn On i-i t~^ ^ °^§ CO CN CO CO CN CO CN *j

II

in^- ^ on cn o oo<; - cn p <n <- i in oqîo CO CO "^t" CO' CO CO CN P

t v '•S B I c* § S "S .a ^ II c o|S^ S-1 2=^ - •§ ô Sg pqo

Hi I i.s § 12 &i II • p d Mi

li 111? s-gis sli ili !1|S ^1

st in'^ r-~ oo o\ o ^

76


critics of BE than were Whites, a result that implies a repudiation of the perceived connection between Blacks and the use of BE. Fifth, Blacks still rated Black speakers of SAE much more highly than White speakers of SAE in several areas, most notably attractiveness, believability, aggressiveness, and qualification. In contrast, the only time Black speakers of SAE scored higher than White speakers was within the realm of honesty. Finally, the use of MANOVA indicated that dialect, race, and even the interaction of the two almost always resulted in significant differences. Thus, it can be concluded that within almost all variables, the dialect used and the race of the person who is speaking can significantly alter ratings of person perception. More succinctly, both Hypothesis 1 (which argued that measures of competence would vary greatly when race and dialect variables are manipulated) and Hypothesis 2 (which purported that measures of trustworthiness would not vary greatly when race and dialect variables are manipulated) were confirmed. Significant differences were noted on many levels, often being subdivided between these two broad dimensions.

In addition, three major findings can be witnessed within the 10 scales measuring desired social distance. First, although all 10 of the competence and trustworthiness measures indicated slight to significant preferences for Black speakers of SAE over their White counterparts, results on social distance scales did not mirror these findings. When the Blacks spoke BE instead, all 10 ratings of the same Black speakers lowered when the dialect changed from SAE to BE Second, almost universally, Whites preferred Whites and Blacks preferred Blacks. The fact that behaviors still seem to be largely separated based on race and regardless of dialect is very important to the understanding of race relations in this country. Blacks were found to be harsh critics of BE speakers within dimensions of competence and trustworthiness, yet still preferred to be in the company of these speakers more than with the White speakers of SAE. Finally, MANOVA results indicate significant overall interactions within the domain of social distance. Race and dialect were found to often cause significant differences in ratings of person perception separately and collectively. Thus, for many reasons, Hypothesis 3 was confirmed, as measures of social dis-


tance fluctuated greatly when the variables of race and dialect were manipulated.

DISCUSSION

Conclusions derived from the results of the study can be articu- lated at many levels. In attempting to explain differences that occurred with the manipulation of races and dialects, perhaps the most logical reason for such differences lies in the Black bias many participants likely expected entering the experiment. Because many Black speakers have been portrayed as having poor grammar and BE dialect (Smitherman, 1977), a small but significant seg- ment of the participants may have expected the same from the speakers on the tape.

Similarly, even more distinct profiles were detected when com- paring Blacks speaking SAE with the same Black speakers speaking BE. Within the first two dimensions, 7 of the 10 scales indicated lower person perception of the BE speakers. The only scales that did not show significant movement between dialects were honesty, likability, and attractiveness - all of which were measures of perceived trust. Although stating that these three variables are not affected by dialect changes would be an incomplete leap, one could argue that the relationship between dialect and these three variables is not as strong as the relationships with the seven other variables measuring competence and trust.

Within measures of social distance, the same concrete profile differences emerged. Only two of the scales did not yield significantly lower ratings for speakers of SAE. Still, with eight of the measures resulting in negative ratings of BE speakers, one could ascertain that not only does a dimensional profile exist, but also this profile points to problems with the way people feel about and would potentially act toward speakers of the BE dialect. Even more intriguing, however, was the complete change in ratings that imme- diately took place within this second realm of the study, where Blacks preferred these same speakers 7 times out of 10 on measures of desired social distance.


Concurring with Cronkhite and Liska (1976), the situation obviously can affect how credibility is derived. Building upon Cronkhite and Liska, race and dialect should be considered integral parts of the communication situation that is being evaluated. Fur- thering the work of past social scientists, this study found speakers of BE to be perceived as having lower credibility in many areas. However, building upon such findings, this study isolates two new findings that positively alter the heuristic value of the research. First, although credibility decreased in many areas, it did not de- crease in all areas. This study found utility in measuring credibility through single-item measurements rather than broad, overarching dimensions. This confirms the work of Cronkhite and Liska, who argued that different items of credibility measurement should be employed depending on the given speaking situation. Second, this reevaluates how the race of the person evaluating the speaker effects overall ratings, finding that Blacks rejected the competence of the dialect even more than Whites. This finding is obviously very important because it could indicate that the change in terms from "Black English" to "Ebonics" was not merely a semantic shift. In- stead, the removal of the word "Black" in favor of using the term "Ebonics" may be the result of many Black speakers of S AE who desperately wanted to separate themselves from the dialect.

As American society continues to endorse multiculturalism in the 1990s, it has become clear that the only way to eliminate differences between the races is to first illuminate these differences. The Oakland School Board decision that endorsed the teaching of Ebonics as a foreign language only polarized both sides of this debate. This study shed light upon the differences that exist between the ways Blacks and Whites report their perceptions of credibility across dialectical boundaries. Although some may argue that the separation of races for the purpose of the study only widens the divide, it is more likely that this research can bring cultures together through explaining how Whites and Blacks were cognitively and behaviorally different. Once research demonstrates the ways in which the races differ, future research can begin to pin- point why these differences exist. And once we reach the level of


addressing the roots of difference, true integration, rather than as- similation, will soon follow.

REFERENCES

Atkins, C. P. (1993). Do employment recruiters discriminate on the basic of nonstandard dialect? Journal of Employment Counseling, 30, 108-1 18.

Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J.(1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563-576.

Bock, H., & Pitts, J. (1975). The effects of three levels of Black dialect on perceived speaker image. Communication Education, 24, 218-225.

Buck, J. F. (1968). The effects of Negro and White dialectal variations upon attitudes of college students. Speech Monographs, 35, 181-186.

Cronkhite, G., & Liska, J. (1976). A critique of factor analytic approaches to the study of

credibility. Communication Monographs, 43, 91-107. Doss, R. C, & Gross, A. M. (1994). The effects of Black English and code-switching on

interracial perceptions. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 282-293. Elwell, C. ML, Brown, R. J., & Rutter, D. R. (1984). Effects of accent and visual information

on impression formation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 297-299. Garlick, R., & Mongeau, P. A. (1993). Argument quality and group member status as deter-

minants of attitudinal minority influence. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 289- 308.

Garner, T., & Rubin, T. L. (1986). Middle class Blacks' perceptions of dialect and style shifting: The case of southern attorneys. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 33-48.

Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, 22, 21 1-227. Giles, H., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1976). Methodological issues in dialect perception: A social psy-

chological perspective. Anthropological Linguistics, 19, 294-304. Johnson, F., & Buttny, R. (1982). White listeners' responses to "sounding Black" and

"sounding White": The effects of message content on judgments about language. Com- munication Monographs, 49, 33-49.

Koch, L., & Gross, A. (1997). Children's perceptions of Black English as a variable of interracial perceptions. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 215-286.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in Black English. University of Penn-

sylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 36, 65-72. McCroskey, J. C, & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its

measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(\), 90-103. Mulac, A. (1975). Evaluation of the Speech Dialect Attitudinal Scale. Speech Monographs,

42, 184-189. Nelson, G. (1997, August 4). Gorging on the jam - kube calls the faithful; "party" is the man-

tra. The Seattle Times, p. Fl. Seymour, H. N., & Seymour, C. M. (1979). The symbolism of Ebonics: I'd rather switch than

fight. Journal of Black Studies, 9, 397-410.

Billings / BEYOND THE EBONICS DEBATE 8 1

Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin' and testifying The language of Black America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smitherman, G., & Cunningham, S. (1997). Moving beyond resistance: Ebonics and African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 227-232.

Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1969). White and Negro listeners' reactions to various American English dialects. Social Forces, 47, 463-468.

Whitehead, J. L. ( 1 968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54, 59-63. Williams, F. ( 1 976). The exploration of the linguistic attitudes of teachers. Boston: Rowley. Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation

instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 1 13-123.

Andrew C. Billings (Ph.D., Indiana University, 1999) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Clemson University. He has published more than 30 articles examining the role of gender, ethnicity, and nationality in televised sport.

1. beyond the ebonics debate

Documents