James Baldwin’s article – “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” – written in July, 1979 grapples with a topical but unresolved argument. Immediately upon reading the article’s title, I knew this article would be thought provoking and dramatic. Could a language have color? And immediately following that thought, the author uses both hyperbaton and anastrophe for effect, placing the reader in the middle of the discussion, by posing the title as a question and changing around the words for effect; throwing the discussion squarely in the lap of the reader. Looking at the article’s title in its entirety, is the author possibly suggesting that Black English represents a unique use of English? His contraction of the words “is not” into “isn’t”; is not normally considered proper English and could point to the way in which he believes there exists a dynamic use of English that should be recognized as “Black Language”. The effect of his use of hyperbaton, (the insertion of other words  “then tell me”) and the anastrophe, or the placing of two out of order for effect (“what is” placed at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning) immediately makes the reader feel the complexity and the magnitude of what will follow. 
Baldwin’s article is passionately written, and the use of language is complex. Quite often, I had to reread sentences, and entire paragraphs, in order to try and comprehend his message. Possibly because the discussions around Black Language have not yet been fruitful in garnering recognition of Black Language, the author presents a case, filled with claims, (not relevant) evidence and no reasoning as to why Black English has not yet been embraced as a language. Many of Baldwin’s sentences evoke strong feelings and emotions, but because I wanted to understand his presentation, quite often I had to read the following sentences to understand the prior ones. In the first paragraph, the first sentence ends with …”has absolutely nothing to do with the question the argument supposes itself to be posing.” I was intrigued by the sentence, simply because I knew it was communicating something profound because of the use of amplification (“the use, the status, the reality”) of black English, and the hyperbole of “absolutely nothing”. Nothing just is nothing, there is no absolute to nothing. It was only after reading the following sentence, that I was half certain that I was possibly understanding the context of the first sentence. Which immediately had me pondering why Baldwin would want to write an article about a topic that has “absolutely nothing to do with the question the argument supposes itself to be posing”. Without any doubt, I knew I had to delve further into the article to understand the presentation. If as the author posits “the argument has nothing to with language itself but with the   role  of language”, is he saying that the role of Black English makes it a Language, or is it that the title is simply meant to peak the readers’ interest, or should the title of the article been more precise? The author continues the use of amplification in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, when he writes, “Language, incontestably, reveals the speaker”.  The incontestably amplifies his belief that language reveals the speaker. I made a mental note of this claim by the author, and will be on the look-out for evidence and his reasoning to arrive at this conclusion, as well as his claim made in the last sentence of the first paragraph, that language is meant to define the other or the listener. Again, I was very intrigued and conflicted by the last sentence of the first paragraph “Language, also, far more dubiously, is meant to define the other – and, in this case, the other is refusing to be defined by a language that has never been able to recognize him”. Is the author saying that Black English is not yet recognized as a language because those who do not speak Black English refuse to be defined by the language (since it does not recognize their existence), and thus their lack of acknowledgement of the language itself makes the language non-existent?  Finally, having finished the first paragraph, it is evident that the author uses several rhetorical devices for thought provoking effect, and he appears to make several claims: 1) Black English is rooted in American history, 2) Language reveals the speaker, 3) Language dubiously defines the other, 4) Black English does not recognize the other and 5) Black English is not recognized as a language because the other is refusing to be defined by Black English. By the end of the first paragraph, James Baldwin makes several claims, which only heightens readers’ interest in seeing how the article will provide evidence and reasoning in support of those claims.  As with the first paragraph, the author begins the second paragraph with another grand claim. Baldwin writes that “People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate”. Could he be referring to different regional accents or the colloquial manner in which groups of people might tweak a language? Or is he claiming that in order to control their circumstances, people have to evolve a language? Would this be because the current language is not specific enough for people to express their circumstances, however unique their circumstances might be? Conversely, if people do not evolve a language, does that mean that they are not in control of their situation? Baldwin then claims that if people cannot articulate their circumstance, then they are submerged by their reality. This is a rather grandly expansive claim that hopefully will be supported by evidence and reasoning in the article. Communication we know, can be subjective in its interpretation by the listener. Is the author saying that people are submerged if they are not fluent and coherent in their expression of their circumstances? This article is very intriguing and has captivated my interest as I feel that I am on the hunt for evidence which surely must come later in the article. Following these two expansive claims, the author provides examples of the spoken French being subtly and crucially different among speakers from Paris, Marseilles and more so from a speaker from Quebec. The coup de gras  occurs when Baldwin states that the aforementioned speakers would have an extreme difficulty understanding the speaker from Guadeloupe or Martinique, and even more so from Senegal. The author presents evidence of spoken differences among nations and the more subtle inter-nation differences, but his reasoning that “they are not saying, and cannot be saying the same thing…..because they each have very different realities to articulate or control”  does not acknowledge that regardless of the colloquial way all of these peoples pronounce and create and use vocabulary, they are all required to use formal French in education, media and on legal documents. Baldwin starts the third paragraph with another grand claim wrapped in an antithesis, that languages are joined by the necessity to confront life, “in order, not inconceivable, to outwit death”. He provides evidence of places which are determined to not allow their languages to be destroyed; the ProvenAal language of southern France, and the languages of Wales, and Ireland. The evidence presented does not support the claim as all these places were one independent regions and are unified with other countries – Southern France with France, and Wales and Ireland with United Kingdom. Each of these cases, the primary language of the unified region is the formal language that each of the former independent regions (Southern France, Wales and Ireland) has adopted, although because of heritage and pride, all are trying to keep their indigenous language alive. Much as in the prior three paragraphs, Baldwin starts the fourth by utilizing another rhetorical device (an apophasis – a form of irony relating to denying something while still saying it) to make another expansive claim “It goes without saying, then, that language is also a political instrument, means, and proof of power”. Does Baldwin mean variations of a formal language or colloquialisms specific to a region or groups of people? In support of his claim, Baldwin writes that language reveals private identity and language can be used to be inclusionary or exclusionary. He also states that merely speaking a specific language can be dangerous or fatal, and accents can be used to identify where people are from. Alas, the author states, in England, when you speak, you confess your future. As with his prior claims, the author does not provide evidence to support his claim that language is a political instrument and proof of power. No evidence is presented, instead additional claims are made by the author, without the provision of evidence. To state that a person’s use of language predicts their future, is a broad and scary statements. This statement does not support any of the previous claims, and is itself yet another claim. The author’s claim of language being the confessor of one’s future, gives zero credence to the belief of so many people that hard work and diligent effort can allow most people to overcome adversities. The author continues his discourse, utilizing rhetorical language for effect, including proverbs “No one can eat his cake and have it too”, amplification “if this passion, this skill, thi sheer intelligence, this incredible music, the mighty achievement….”, personification of ideas “I say that the present skirmish”. His tone is serious, fast paced, opinionated, but with little reference to published material in support of his numerous claims. Baldwin references the experience of Africans torn from their continent and forced to work on plantations in America. Certainly, families were often separated in America, and because these stolen African on the plantations did not speak a common they spoke no common language, they were forced to create a language with which to communicate. Because they were in America, and the main language was English, the language that the African Americans created used English as the foundation. Certainly, as Baldwin states in italicized letters, Black English is ” a language that comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey”. In support of his claim that Black English is a language, Baldwin uses an emotional racial juxtapose of a white man, a danger standing right behind himself (a black kid, in spite of possibly being  together with his family members). Baldwin employs effective metaphors to elicit stirring images of the white man, who does not want to recognize Black English, as a man “frozen for so long” who does not want to understand Black English as it would reveal too much about himself. In conclusion, this article was a great read. I enjoyed Baldwin’s use of rhetorical devices to evoke stark emotions. Baldwin did not present evidence to support his claims, and when he did present evidence, such evidence did not support the claims being made. There was little reasoning presented in the article. I enjoyed the article because I felt that the very first sentence of each paragraph, was a thunderous in its delivery and set the expectation for a great discussion within the paragraph. Instead, Baldwin mostly presented additional claims with no evidence and certainly, no reference to any published evidence. When “evidence” was presented, it invariably did not support the claim being made. There was no reasoning linking evidence to claims, as evidence was not presented in support of claims. It is possible that the author might have been able to better support his claims had he looked at whether additional languages are recognized when used in communities and nations which already have a main languages. He could also have looked at whether any colloquial use of a main language has ever been considered a separate language. Many groups of individuals speak languages or use vocabulary unique to their region or local, but that does not necessarily mean that such language should be officially recognized as a language. The author could have relied on published articles to support and validate much of his claims. The lack of ethos in the article simply made for a very interesting reading, one that was filled with anticipation and awe at how the author relied on rhetorical devices to evoke stark reactions and intense emotions.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.