AAVE has its own grammar (which Kendrick DOES follow, since he's a native speaker of it). It's a form of English with its own rules that often get misused outside of the original Black American communities. Just look at how many White people misuse the habitual "be." It's lowkey really offensive for people like the prev anon to insinuate that rappers like Kendrick aren't following grammatical rules, just because they're following DIFFERENT grammatical rules from a distinctly Black version of English.
Exactly my friend. That is the point I was making in some of my previous points about Lamar's writing style. It comes down to the difference between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. I think people are too quick to dismiss writing simply because it does not follow the Euro-centric upper class prescriptive grammar rules. And- I do need to include all those modifiers. Grammar rules that are typically taught in k-12 schools all across the USA use a grammar rule book that was initially built on three guiding principles for prescriptivism 1) imposition of Latin linguistic structures superimposed on English 2) Nationalistic standardization meant to be a determinable social marker between socioeconomic classes 3) Limiting social mobility during the Industrial Revolution. All of these core tenets of "proper grammar" stem from an authoritarian romanticization of "purity" in language- one that was often used to hurt or push down people of color, diaspora, immigrant populations- or anyone otherwise considered undesirable to the upper classes of the USA. Here (if I were writing a proper essay) I would cite Foucault's linguistic theory on the "Will to Truth" and Glissant's theory of decolonial perspective advocating for linguistic resistance.
In 1970 Foucault argued that discourse is governed by systems of exclusion- as such people determine what is considered "true" and who has the authority to speak on which subject. (The entire higher education system is very much indicative of this- but I digress). The concept "will to truth" here is the argument the society establishes a regime for determining what constitutes legitimate knowledge. In the USA educational system, prescriptive grammar enforcement has historically functioned as a disciplinary tool- focusing on what counts as "true" or "correct" use of language. Rules like avoiding the double negative, creates a regime of truth- by marginalizing certain dialects and privileging few. Thus creating the hierarchy of linguistic construction of knowledge and power.
To use my own dialect as an example here, like saying: I ain't got no money! would be relegated as the language of the poor hillbilly white stereotype- and used against me often enough. I am not kidding- people in academia actually have been dismissive of my ideas because I sound like a southern small-town hick. The professor who taught me French was particularly rude about my accent- but alas, prescriptivism is not only a problem of English alone. Other language- cultures, etc have their own issues. To them, I am uneducated due to my dialect. (I use my dialect in everything I write due to this- I have a problem with authority like that). This same phenomenon is used to dismiss the ideas of anyone using a dialect that falls outside the constructed hierarchy which, honestly, privileges upper-class white people, who do their best to sound European, over everyone else.
Not only is Kendrick Lamar a brilliant writer in the AAVE dialect- he is also taking a stand against three centuries worth of linguistic suppression of his community. He operates with a set of grammatical systems that is just as complex as the prescriptive "standard" English system.
I think this critique of power, and institutional arraignment, is important to talk about whenever I ramble on about grammar- because it is endemic. The problem of prescptivism is a spectre which will haunt us all until "Free Speech" actually means FREE. I agree with Foucault on this subject, as to Foucault, discourse is shaped through exclusion- certain ways of speaking or writing are delegitimized, and the social institutions like schools become the main gatekeepers of language.
However, I think I agree more with Glissant- who built off of Foucauldian discourse. In the 1990's Glissant wrote about the poetics of relation, in which he discusses the nature of the relationship because language, discourse, and the construction of power. This type of linguistic suppression is what Glissant calls "linguistic imperialism" as process through which dominant social forces will suppress the natural evolution of language by branding some dialects as incorrect. Differently from Foucault, Glissant thinks that the counterforce to prescriptivism is Creolizaiton, opacity, and hybridity. Instead of rigid grammar rules- Glissant supports a linguistic fluidity. I think this is similar to what Lamar accomplishes in his work- if you notice he takes a lot of thematic points, refers from American culture or history, and adapts them through AAVE to more acutely match his intention with the work. In many ways Lamar's work is a actionable text of Glissant's linguistic theory, in that Lamar's work challenges cultural and social heirachies thought his complex engagement of identity, American history, and thematic deconstruction of power structures. Lamar's code-switching between AAVE and "standard" English is another way through which his mirrors Glissant's rejection of linguistic authoritarianism. Meaning, Lamar's work legitimizes multiple modes of expression. Glissant's insistence on linguistic fluidity dismisses the impose hierarchy of prescriptivism altogether- which is why I particularly enjoyed his theoretical framework. Because, Glissant, completely reframes language as a medium which is naturally dynamic, intercultural and meant for the free exchange of ideas- his theory offers a way out of prescriptivism and into intercultural dialogue.
As you may have noticed, I am a English teacher (as if I don't talk about that enough already lol), and, as part of the work I want to do on this planet before my time is done here, I want to break down some of those stigma's around the idea of "improper" grammar. In my classroom, I let people write in whatever dialect, in whatever language, they know.
Language is power- that is what I know. I know, too, that people construct community through linguistic cultural ties- meaning that the power is in a person's ability to communicate freely within their own grammatical expression.
I am here not to reenforce the "norm" but to live and let live- because there is so much more beauty, and depth in the free flowing waters of linguistic diversity than there will ever be in the stagnant, shallow pool that is prescriptive grammar rules.
I would love to keep talking about this! I want to show you exactly what I mean through using some actual examples- and maybe I will have the chance to sit down and write that ramble.
Anyway, thanks for the ask. Good night.
