strawpx - Tumblr blog

strawpx · 5 years ago

Text

Outraged: Ashley ‘Dotty’ Charles

"Make outrage great again" Much like the misguided and obtuse words of Donald Trump, Dotty Charles seems to miss the point of what she is saying and even contradicts herself throughout much of this book. Although it is relatively short, I found it quite hard to get through. I picked this up initially because I had seen the outraged cancel culture machine in motion online and thought it would be good to get another perspective on it. However, the message came through to me as being very confused, especially in the middle. I found myself wondering frequently But what is your point? as I trawled through endless cherry-picked cases I'd never heard of, such as a Target greeting card. By the end, Dotty seemed to have come back to her original locus; make outrage great again, channel outrage into something productive. However, I personally feel that she misses the bigger picture here, while also coming across as pretty hypocritical; Ashley 'Dotty' Charles was so outraged about outrage culture that she decided to write an entire book about it. From what I understand, Dotty is a Radio 1 presenter with the BBC whose inspiration for writing all of this was simply that she thought it was pointless for people to get so angry over seemingly minuscule issues online, be that a black boy wearing a monkey shirt in a H&M ad or Rachel Dolezal bizarrely claiming herself to be 'trans racial'. I feel that she has a good point in that these case studies do become overblown and often, people do take these situations too far. One need only reflect on the suicide of Caroline Flack to remember that while 'cancelling' people is justified in theory, online bullying is a real thing and grabbing for torches before starting a conversation is unlikely to lead anywhere positive. However, I don't think you really need a whole book to say this and the structure of this one tells me that Dotty struggled with the task fulfilment of getting her publisher's minimum word count in. We are taken through poorly-structured, meandering chapters where Dotty gets ahold of controversial figures Katie Hopkins and Rachel Dolezal, patronisingly writing up her interviews with them and covertly labelling both as narcissistic arseholes. She also writes about her groundbreaking theories around mob mentality and people liking to follow others opinions, as though Nietzsche didn't cover this topic in the 1800s already. While she astutely points out that many people jump on the twitter outrage bandwagon out of narcissism and boredom, she incorrectly ascertains that 'clicktivism' as she has branded it, or 'slacktivism' as everyone else has, has no discernible impact in the wider scope of activism at all. Perhaps this is just me, but I profoundly disagree with this stance. As someone with "little to no protest experience", Dotty over-romanticises past activism movements such as Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, seemingly just because they took place before the internet age and people had to walk around putting posters up to advertise their civil-rights conferences. She waxes at length about how "before the internet age, activism was truly active" (not something she would exactly know from personal experience), a one-sided take on activism that almost entirely ignores the way that social media has transformed the landscape of activism and made spreading the message far easier. For example, there are a number of movements such as Reclaim the Night that started on social media and moved into the physical landscape once they had gained sufficient following. That is to say, activism hasn't 'died' as Dotty seems to think it has, but changed its platforms. Dotty hyperfocuses on seemingly minute instances of internet outrage, such as the H&M scandal, conflating outrage with modern social justice, without really offering a balanced outlook. This scandal was not necessarily about the 'racism' of a black boy wearing a monkey shirt, but that H&M's hiring policies clearly excluded anyone who would have told them this was an insensitive idea, denoting institutional racism. Most of the nitpicky cases she lists off in the book are in truth coming from this same angle. I'm sure that there were people who thought that Rosa Parks was being dramatic when she refused to move her seat on the bus in 1955, but just because an issue seems small does not mean that there isn't a wider sentiment behind it. Also, as someone who is part of a couple of campaigns to widen diversity/address sexual harassment and assault, I found her sweeping accusations of 'clicktivism' irritating when she has already admitted herself that she does very little for activism overall. There is nothing wrong with not being an activist, but I find her virtue signalling on this topic of outrage to be a little presumptuous as all she seems to be doing is sitting doing very little at her desk, telling everyone else not to get angry and getting annoyed when they do. I feel that Dotty herself could have put the energy she used writing this book into a movement that would have actually enacted the change she talks about.

#review #2020 #ashley dotty charles #outraged #writing

0 notes

strawpx · 5 years ago

Text

Essay: Who is in the Wright? An investigation of linguistic minstrelsy and authenticity in representations of African-Americans in the works of Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright (Grade: 80)

Alain Locke’s anthology describes the Harlem renaissance as the nascent foregrounding of the ‘New Negro’ – a ‘cultural adolescence and the approach to maturity’ (Locke 1997: xxvi). This was in the face of popular racist stereotyping of African-Americans as irresponsible, lazy, stupid and dishonest (Lemons 1977: 111). This period brought a concentrated effort to marry the racial divide through arts (Huggins 1971: 5) and provide authentic African-American representation. However, ‘authentic’ Negro life here has been debated – Carl Van Vechten argued that it was the realist ‘squalor of Negro life’ (Vechten 1926: 219) offering the most to Negro art, while others thought it was the figure of the educated African-American. Naturalist fiction also sought this via the dissection of racism in the United States (Dudley 2011: 2). Zora Neale Hurston’s work centred on classic realism, sentimental folk tales with pervasive depictions of African American English (henceforth referred to as AAE) in her dialogue. Some critics compared her character portrayals to blackface, stereotyping African-Americans. The most prominent (and harshest) of these critics was naturalist author Richard Wright. However, in her rebuttal of Wright’s work, Hurston accused his work of having inauthentic depictions of African-Americans as well. At the tail end of the Harlem renaissance era, their views on how to produce an authentic African-American voice were discordant, begging the question: Is it possible that in attempting to be authentic these authors executed linguistic minstrelsy?

Literary uses of dialect are always inauthentic via Coupland’s five criteria of authenticity: ontology, historicity, systemic coherence, consensus and value. Authenticity is not an innate quality of speech, rather a subjective judgement by the audience (2007: 180-2). Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, a sentimental folktale describing the difficult life of an African-American woman named Janie and her failed marriages, initially received divided reception from the Harlem renaissance community. They took the resounding stance that although her work was ‘folklore fiction at its best’, she had misappropriated authentic African-American identity with ‘oversimplified’ characters (Locke 1937) that bought into racist stereotypes of African-Americans. Harlem renaissance intellectuals in this period were highly concerned with propagating a refined and educated image of African-American identity. This can be seen in the construction of DuBois’ ‘talented tenth’, a subsect of African-American society directly involved in positive social change (Chrisman 2013: 65). The late movement from a realist to naturalist countenance of race relations in America also influenced this perspective. Richard Wright metalinguistically questioned the authenticity of Hurston’s work in his review for New Masses:

Her dialogue manages to catch the psychological movements of the Negro folk-mind in their pure simplicity, but that's as far as it goes. Miss Hurston voluntarily continues in her novel the tradition which was forced upon the Negro in the theatre, that is, the minstrel technique that makes the "white folks" laugh. […] In the main, her novel is not addressed to the Negro, but to a white audience whose chauvinistic tastes she knows how to satisfy. She exploits that phase of Negro life which is "quaint," the phase which evokes a piteous smile on the lips of the "superior" race. (Wright 1937)

In summary, Wright argues that Hurston fails to realise authentic expression of the African-American, instead making a parody or ‘minstrel form’. By including ‘simple’ folk characters in this narrative, Hurston further perpetuated the stereotype of the uneducated African-American, or ‘Jim Crow’ minstrel character. Wright explicitly accuses her dialogue of being too ‘simplistic’, pandering to a ‘chauvinistic white audience’. In addressing this, Lopez argues by overplaying particular linguistic and stylistic features of AAE in such a way that they become obvious, authors can undertake a kind of linguistic minstrelsy (2017: 17). Bucholtz adds that a stereotyped dialect representation can reinforce racist ideologies (2011: 259). While they typify this linguistic minstrelsy as being on the behalf of white actors and writers, minstrels in the past such as William Henry Lane have identified themselves as African-American (Morris 2019). Thus, Hurston cannot be excused on this basis alone. While the Ebonics movement aimed to legitimise AAE as a legitimate dialect, in the 1930’s it was enregistered as ‘”lazy English”, “bastardized English”, “poor grammar” and “fractured slang”’ (Rickford 1999: 320). AAE was a stigmatised dialect, thus by representing it Hurston was potentially indirectly indexing her characters as uneducated (Mufwene et al. 1998: 207). On this basis the reader resistance from renaissance intellectuals was understandable; for them this could never be authentic representation of African-Americans.

There are 11 typical features of AAE that Hodson cites as common features in AAE (Hodson 2019). In the attached passages, Hurston uses 10 of them. A few of these features, such as the use of the word ‘ain’t’, are enregistered features of AAE.

Passage 1 includes: - Multiple negation: ‘She don’t want nobody’ - Deletion of the copula ‘BE’: ‘white man throw down’ - Absence of third person singular ‘s’: ‘he pick it up’ - The word-final ‘ng’ assimilated into ‘n’: ‘nothin’’ - Monopthongisation of [ai]: Respelling ‘I’ as ‘Ah’ - Phonetic respelling representing th-stopping: ‘de’. - Habitual ‘BE’: ‘Ah been prayin’’ - Deletion of word-final consonant: ‘Set in her lap lak yo’ use tuh’ Passage 2: - Enregistered feature ‘ain’t’: ‘Ah ain’t been sich uh good wife’ - Generalisation of ‘is’ and ‘was’: ‘you and how you wuz’ (Hurston 1986: 19, 113-14)

The only feature missing in these passages is metathesis. Many of these features are stigmatised features of Standard American English, like th-stopping and multiple negation (Newlin-Lukowicz 2013: 152, Martinez 2003: 479). Hurston also employs the respellings of <to> as ‘tuh’, a controversial choice. Reviewer Otis Ferguson alluded this too was linguistic minstrelsy through eye-dialect. He argued ‘To let the really important words stand as in Webster and then consistently misspell all the eternal particles that are no more than an aspiration in any tongue, is to set up a mood of Eddie Cantor in blackface’ (1937). Adamson argues that eye-dialect is always read as misspellings and that the characters attached to it gain the social stigma associated with illiteracy (1998: 600). However, there is legitimate linguistic work being undertaken here. It represents the vowel change from the Standard English /u:/ to /ʊ/ in AAE. It is unlikely that this is true eye-dialect, only being perceived as such. Still, authenticity is based on the intention of the author and the perceptions of the reader, so this could be linguistic minstrelsy.

As can the character representation of Janie. In her ability to produce a full-length novel herself, Hurston was clearly educated in Standard English. Yet, Janie ‘didn’t read books’ (103), indicating that Hurston was indeed happy to provide a figure of the uneducated African-American. Combining this with saturating her dialect with such pervasive forms of AAE, Hurston can be argued to be wilfully perpetuating a minstrelised stereotype of African-Americans as wilfully uneducated. However, Jaffe and Walton’s study of perceptions of dialect representation in literature found that in non-standard orthography of dialect representation it was almost impossible to avoid stigma (2002: 582-3). Therefore, in attempting to represent AAE at all, Hurston was risking presenting her characters as ill-educated. Furthermore, although her characters are not shown to be formally educated, they are not unintelligent. Passage 1 is an oratory piece from Janie’s grandmother describing the negative intersections of race and gender, with African-American women being ‘de mule uh de world’ and receiving poor treatment from both white individuals and black men. Evidently, Hurston’s text is also an perceptive realist take on the state of race in America at the time – it is due to the reader resistance to her dialect, and possibly resentment from Harlem intellectuals that she does not frame only the white man as the oppressor, that is more likely to drive accusations of linguistic minstrelsy.

Furthermore, while her phonological representations of dialect were viewed as inauthentic, Hurston had been trained in transcribing the speech of the African-American in the anthropological work she carried out for the Federal Writers Project from 1936-1938. Not only did she transcribe folk and real-world stories during interviews with former slaves (Garner 2000: 215-216), but Sterling Brown cited her as one of three authors whose use of dialect other interviewers could mimic. He claimed in her work “truth to idiom be paramount, and exact truth to pronunciation secondary” (Rawick 1972b in Garner 2000: 218). Thus, Hurston’s dialect representation acted as a vehicle of expression for reality as she had experienced it. Other reviewers were more positive, with a reviewer of The Nation writing that ‘Miss Hurston’s forte is the recording and creation of folk speech’ (Brown 1937). As is more recent criticism, with Carby praising its mimesis in dialect, a ‘sign of authentic culture that enabled a people to survive and even triumph spiritually over their oppression’ (1990: 82). Therefore, audience was highly important for the interpretation of authenticity in her work. The Harlem intellectuals reviewed her work from a stance of actively trying to work against racist ideologies, and thus were highly sensitive to anything they perceived to be perpetuating them.

The publication of Wright’s seminal collection was titled Uncle Tom’s Children, a naturalist work narrating experiences of the oppressed. In her own criticisms of his work Hurston wrote:

All the characters in this book are elemental and brutish. In the third story, the hero gets the white man most Negro men rail against – the white man who possesses a Negro woman. […] There is lavish killing here, perhaps enough to satisfy all male black readers. […] Since the author himself is a Negro, his dialect is a puzzling thing. One wonders how he arrived at it. Certainly he does not write by ear unless he is tone-deaf. But aside from the broken speech of his characters, this book contains some beautiful writing’ (1995: 912-913).

Thus, an investigation into the authenticity of Wright’s own writing becomes relevant. In his introductory essay on Wright’s work, Awkward states that Wright believed:

- 1: The primary concern of black artists is to create protest fiction exploring American mistreatment of blacks. - 2: In her private life Hurston was a ‘perfect darkie’, meaning a childlike, humorous and sweet highly coloured Negro that performs for white people. (Awkward 1990: 3)

The primary issue here, then, seems not to arrive from the minstrel form of Hurston, but an essential difference between her ideology and his. As he believed that Hurston performed for a white audience, it is unsurprising that he then went on to accuse her of doing the same with her literary works. Wright was well-regarded in the intellectual community of Harlem while Hurston was somewhat overlooked. However, Watts argued this community was culturally dissociated from the African American public, having little ‘authentic’ expression or authority to speak on race (2001: 182). Wright’s public address to a black crowd encapsulates this dissociation, saying of his reception that ‘my manner of speech had seemed an alien thing to them…”He talks like a book,” one of the Negro comrades had said’. Additionally, Wright refused to take part in certain intra-racial rituals, such as speech (Stepto 1987: 59). Therefore, he likely interpreted Hurston’s representation as a ‘minstrel form’ due to his dislocation from the speech habits of the average African-American.

Despite this, Hurston’s equivalence of Wright’s own dialect representation as inauthentic ‘broken speech’ is rather punitive. Wright used many legitimate features of AAE in his literary dialect, perhaps concerned with making his work more accessible to a national audience rather than the African-American community itself, as Hurston did. Consider the following features in passages 3 and 4 of The Long Black Song, a short-story detailing the rape of protagonist Silas’ wife by a white man and his subsequent rage and killing spree:

- Multiple negation: ‘waznt never comin back’ - Deletion of the word-final consonant: ‘Ain tha the way’ - Assimilation of ‘ng’ into ‘n’: ‘make out till mawnin’ - Monopthongisation of [ai]: ‘Ah’ Passage 4: - Deletion of the copula ‘BE’: ‘The white folks ain never gimme a chance!’ - Enregistered feature ain’t: ‘They ain never give no black man a chance!’ (Wright 1965: 115, 125)

Wright uses less instances of dialect representation than Hurston. The absence of the habitual ‘BE’ in passage 4 is particularly noticeable as the character Silas is describing habitual actions of ‘white folks’. The direct speech ‘they take yo lan! They take yo freedom! They take yo women!’ could easily have been reconstructed in AAE to read ‘they be taking yo lan, yo freedom, yo women!’. There is also no absence of the third person singular ‘s’. An addition not included in Hodson’s list that Wright uses is the appropriation of the third person singular ‘s’ to a first-person subject: ‘Ah gits stabbed in the back’. As this is not a common feature, it is unusual for Wright to have included it. Additionally, Wright overly relies on the feature ‘ain’t’ to convey meaning. Perhaps this led Hurston to evaluate this representation as ‘tone-deaf’, as this is a feature that calls attention itself. While Wright does not utilise as many of the common features of AAE as Hurston does, he still uses the majority. It is likely that Wright limited his inclusion of features in order to avoid the same reader resistance that Hurston experienced. Hurston’s work had a realist focus on the folk. Hodson argues that ‘Literary use of dialect for purposes of ‘realism’ is dependent upon the readership having sufficient familiarity with both the dialect itself and the conventions of its representation to experience it as ‘real’’ (2014: 200). The Harlem elite were dislocated from the average African-American. Naturally they could not experience Hurston’s dialect representation as ‘real’ or authentic due to their own interactions usually being with other educated individuals. Additionally, sentimental narratives rarely succeeded with this black male audience who, as Hurston noted in her criticisms, preferred ‘lavish killing’ – works by Jessie Fauset and Nella Larsen were similarly overlooked. Thus, a naturalist, somewhat existentialist approach to race was preferred where the protagonist ‘knelt in the dust and sobbed’ about racism. However, such an approach to literature was restricted. Jarrett argues that ‘the elitist delusion in the socially transformative ability of literature only exacerbated the class and moral divide between so-called leaders and their constituent’ (2012: 791). Although Wright’s dialect representation did not call too much attention to itself, and was well-received by his peers, his work also divided him from the average African-American. His text may have presented an alternate figure of the African-American to the wider public, but his unrelatable narrative was written for a niche audience, not necessarily the wider African-American community. This figure was not stereotyped, but it was not necessarily relatable. Therefore, his work could have been just as polarising as a stereotyping one to some African-Americans.

To conclude, both Wright and Hurston approached authentic African-American expression differently, through naturalism and realism. Authenticity is a quality impossible quality to achieve via literary vehicles. However, both texts appeared to be authentic to the audience they were aimed at, yet criticised by the audience they were not. Evaluations of Wright as ‘tone-deaf’, while harsh, have some truth to them; although he wrote stories for the African-American elite, his exaggerated plots seemed a little out-of-touch with the average community member. Conversely, Hurston’s work, in attempting to touch the lives of most African-Americans, could perhaps have propagated the image of African-Americans as uneducated. However, this image was not stereotyped; while they were not educated these characters were intelligent and complex. Regarding linguistic minstrelsy, neither of these authors were attempting to promote a farcical image of the African-American, so neither executed this. Based on reception from the vast majority of audiences, both novels seemed to be viewed as authentic. Overall, while there may have been a little stereotyping on both sides, neither author promoted a minstrel form and mostly succeeded in being perceived as authentic.

Appendix:

Passage 1:

“Come to yo’ Grandma, honey. Set in her lap lak yo’ use tuh. Yo’ Nanny wouldn’t harm a hair uh yo’ head. She don’t want nobody else to do it neither if she kin help it. Honey, de white man is de ruler of everything as fur as Ah been able tuh find out. Maybe it’s some place way off in de ocean where de black man is in power, but we don’t know nothin’ but what we see. So de white man throw down de load and tell de nigger man tuh pick it up. He pick it up because he have to, but he don’t tote it. He hand it to his womenfolks. De nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see. Ah been prayin’ fuh it tuh be different wid you. Lawd, Lawd, Lawd!”. (Hurston 1986: 19)

Passage 2:

The half-washed bedclothes hurt her pride for Jody. He had always been so clean. ‘Whut you doin’ in heah, Janie?’ ‘Come tuh see bout you and how you wuz makin’ out.’ He gave a dee-growling sound like a hog dying down in the swamp and trying to drive off disturbance. ‘Ah come in heah tuh git shet uh you but look lak ‘tain’t doin’ me no good. G’wan out. Ah needs tuh rest.’ ‘Naw, Jody, Ah come in heah tuh talk widja and Ah’m gointuh do it too. It’s for both of our sakes Ah’m talkin’.’ He gave another ground grumble and eased over on his back. ‘Jody, maybe Ah ain’t been sich uh good wife tuh you, but Jody-‘ (Hurston 1986: 113-114)

Passage 3: “Ah reckon yuh thought Ah waznt never comin back, hunh? Cant yuh wake up? See, Ah got that red cloth yuh wanted…” He laughed again and threw the red cloth on the mantel. “Yuh hungry?” She asked. “Naw, Ah kin make out till mawnin.” Shucks rustled as he sat on the edge of the bed. “Ah got two hundred n fifty fer mah cotton.” “Two hundred n fifty?” “Nothin different! N guess whut Ah done?” “Whut?” “Ah bought ten mo acres o lan. Got em from ol man Burgess. Paid im a hundred n fifty dollahs down. Ahll pay the rest next year ef things go erlong awright. Ahma have t git a man t help me nex spring…”’ “Yuh mean hire somebody?” “Sho, hire somebody! Whut yuh think? Ain tha the way the white folks do?” (Wright 1965: 115)

Passage 4: ‘The white folks ain never gimme a chance! They ain never give no black man a chance! There ain nothin in yo whole life yuh kin keep from em! They take yo lan! They take yo freedom! They take yo women! N they take yo life!’ He turned to her, screaming. ‘N then Ah gits stabbed in the back by mah own blood! When mah eyes is on the white folks to keep em from killin me, mah own blood trips me up! He knelt in the dust again and sobbed; after a bit he looked up to the sky, his face wet with tears. ‘Ahm gonna be hard like they is! So hep me, Gawd, Ah’m gonna be hard!’ (Wright 1965: 125)

References Adamson, S. (1998) The Cambridge History of the English Language Volume 4 1776-1997, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press <https://doi-org.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264778> [accessed 26/01/20] Awkward, M. (1990) ‘Introduction’ New Essays on Their Eyes Were Watching God, 1-28, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brown, S. (1937) Their Eyes Are Watching Their Eyes Were Watching God < http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam854/summer/hurston.html> [accessed 20/01/20] Bucholtz, M. (2011) ‘Race and the Re-embodied Voice in Hollywood Film’ Language and Communication, 31: 255-65 <https://doi-org.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2011.02.004> [accessed 26/01/20] Carby, H. (1990) ‘The Politics of Fiction, Anthropology and the Folk: Zora Neale Hurston’ New Essays on Their Eyes Were Watching God, 71- 90, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Chrisman, R. (2013) ‘Black studies, the talented tenth, and the organic intellectual’ The Black Scholar, 43: 64-70 <https://doi.org/10.5816/blackscholar.43.3.0064> [accessed 27/01/20] Coupland, N. (2007) Style: Language Variation and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Dudley, J. (2011) ‘African American Writers and Naturalism’ The Oxford Handbook of American Literary Naturalism, 1-17 <10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195368932.013.0015> [accessed 20/01/20] Ferguson, O. (1937) Zora Neale Hurston’s Most Famous Novel Wasn’t Bad, But it Could Have Been Better, You Can’t Hear Their Voices: The New Republic <https://newrepublic.com/article/116116/zora-neale-hurstons-their-eyes-were-watching-god-wasnt-great> [accessed 07/01/20] Garner, L.A. (2000) ‘Representations of Speech in the WPA Slave Narratives of Florida and the Writings of Zora Neale Hurston’ Western States Folklore Society, 59: 215-231 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/1500233> [accessed 06/01/20] Hodson, J. (2014) Dialect in Film and Literature, London: Palgrave Macmillan Hodson, J. (2019) Some Common Features of African American English (Word Document, week 6) Huggins, N.R. (1971) Harlem Renaissance, New York: Oxford University Press Hurston, Z.N. (1986) Their Eyes Were Watching God, This Edition Published by Arrangement With Harper & Row Publishers Inc., London: Virago Press Jaffe, A. & Walton, S. (2002) ‘The Voices people Read: Orthography and the Representation of Non-Standard Speech’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4: 561-87 <10.1111/1467-9481.00130> [accessed 26/01/20] Jarrett, G. A. ‘Review: The Harlem Renaissance and its Indignant Aftermath: Rethinking Literary History and Political Action After Black Studies’ American Literary History, 24: 775-795 < https://www.jstor.org/stable/23358456> [accessed 26/01/20] Lemons, J. S. (1977) ‘Black Stereotypes as Reflected in Popular Culture 1880-1920’ American Quarterly, 29: 102-116 < https://www.jstor.org/stable/2712263> [accessed 26/01/20] Locke, A. (1997) The New Negro, First Touchstone Edition, New York: Simon and Schuster Lopez, Q. (2017) ‘Minstrelsy Speaking: Metaparodic Representations of Blackface and Linguistic Minstrelsy in Hollywood Films’ Discourse, Context & Media, 23: 16-24 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.011> [accessed 07/01/20] Martinez, I. M . P. (2003) Multiple Negation in Modern English. A Preliminary Corpus-Based Study’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 104: 477-498 < https://www.jstor.org/stable/43343991> [accessed 20/01/20] Morris, W. (2019) Cultural Appropriation, Minstrels & Stealing of black music, New York Times: The New York Times Website <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/music-black-culture-appropriation.html> [accessed 21/01/20] Mufwene, S. S. & Others (1998) African-American English, London: Routledge Newlin-Lukowicz, L. (2013) ‘TH-stopping in New York City: Substrate Effect Turned Ethnic Marker?’ Univerity of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 19: 150-160 <https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol19/iss2/17> [accessed 06/01/20] Rawick, G.P. (1972) Florida Narratives. The American Slaves: A Composite Autobiography in Garner, L.A. (2000) ‘Representations of Speech in the WPA Slave Narratives of Florida and the Writings of Zora Neale Hurston’ Western States Folklore Society, 59: 215-231 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1500233 Rickford, J. R. (1999) African American Vernacular English, London: Blackwell Publishers Stepto, R. B. (1987) ‘Literacy and Ascent: Black Boy’ Modern Critical Views: Richard Wright, 75-108, New York: Chelsea House Publishers Stevens, G. (1937) Their Eyes Are Watching Their Eyes Were Watching God < http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam854/summer/hurston.html> [accessed 20/01/20] Vechten, C. V. (1926) ‘The Negro in Art: How shall he be portrayed, a Symposium’ The Crisis, 31 Wall, C. (1995) Zora Neale Hurston: Folklore, Memoirs, and Other Writings, New York: The Library of America Watts, E. K. (2001) ‘Cultivating a Black Public Voice: W.E.B. Dubois and the “Criteria of Negro Art” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 4: 181-201 <doi.org/10.1353/rap.2001.0033> {accessed 21/01/20] Wright, R. (1937) Between Laughter and Tears New Masses: Relations of Race <http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam358/wrightrev.html> [accessed 06/01/20] Wright, R. (1965) Uncle Tom’s Children, First Perennial Library Edition, London: Harper & Row Publishers

#essay #prose #dialect #2020

0 notes