Persuasive Rhetoric in “Ebonics, King, and Oakland"

Instructor Introduction

Our second project of the semester asks students to deconstruct and analyze the linguistic choices of an academic text; it asks them to comment on not only what they notice, but why what they notice matters. In Amatullah's lucid, nuanced writing, we can see the value of such close attention. Amatullah's essay begins with context, placing "Ebonics, King, and Oakland" by scholar and author Geneva Smitherman into a broader conversation about racism and linguistic discrimination. Then, by carefully revealing the architecture of Smitherman's writing, Amatullah argues that Smitherman's choices–her subtle infusion of feelings, her concessions and counters—guide even a potentially resistant reader to see Ebonics as "a deep-rooted, rich language that was born out of struggle." Amatullah's close reading serves to remind us that academic writing can be both passionate and rational; that the arguments we make are as powerful as how we make them.

— Mariya Zilberman

Persuasive Rhetoric in “Ebonics, King, and Oakland”

In modern American society, Black Americans and other marginalized communities frequently face dismissive attitudes when they attempt to address forms of racism they encounter, being characterized as overly sensitive or emotional. People with power employ this tactic in order to maintain their high status. In a roundabout way, this often causes people who have been historically oppressed to be cautious with their words, as there is a pressing need for dispassionate speech to deter dismissive reactions. As a reader interpreting “Ebonics, King, and Oakland,” by Geneva Smitherman, it seems as though she has taken proactive steps in her academic writing to avoid these false claims and contribute to the rationality of her argument. Writers often utilize specific linguistic features to “shape their texts to the expectations of their audience,” a method that Smitherman adeptly embraces in an effort to explain the use of Ebonics by Black Americans and its intersection with civil rights and social justice (Hyland 174). Through the use of conceding and countering and the aid of attitude markers, she presents a rational position to her audience while simultaneously inputting personal opinions, guiding her audience to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Primarily, Geneva Smitherman aims to educate her audience by presenting her argument with an appeal to reason. Through conceding and countering, she is able to lead her audience to a fair conclusion while respectfully dismissing opposing viewpoints. Conceding and countering “supports the habit of writing with civility . . . it balances space for others’ ideas and space for one’s own ideas” (Aull 2). Conceding involves recognizing the worth or validity of an opposing viewpoint, thus allowing room for others' ideas. On the other hand, countering involves presenting the writer's distinct and differing ideas (Aull 2). Smitherman brings in several outside sources to contribute to her argument, and conceding and countering allows her to acknowledge those points while swiftly articulating her opposition to them. This phenomenon appears when she introduces the work of nineteenth-century writer, James A. Harrison. Smitherman first tells her audience that Harrison correctly defined Ebonics as being African derived, but goes on to oppose his point, saying, “. . . as far as Harrison was concerned, the African-ness in the language was pathological” (Smitherman 102). Harrison argued that Ebonics lacked proper linguistic resources, which Smitherman counters by immediately bringing up the research done by another academic, Dr. Lorenzo Dow Turner. Turner’s work draws parallels between the so-called “deficiencies” of Ebonics and popular languages in West Africa, therefore validating those differences (Smitherman 102). The discourse surrounding language origin that Smitherman addresses is very easy for her audience to navigate due to the structure of conceding and countering that she follows. Before expressing her disagreement, she makes sure to respectfully address the opposing viewpoint, which makes her appear more rational and encourages the audience to agree with her stance. In portraying herself as an educated and composed advocate, she is able to enhance her argument. Shortly after, Smitherman is discussing the shift in Ebonics research, first being carried out by a Black woman and later by European and American male scholars. The latter often portrayed Ebonics as being sexist and “associated with ‘thug-life’” (Smitherman 102). Smitherman wants to oppose this point but begins by conceding, “This should not be construed as arguing that hard-core language is not a part of Ebonics . . .” (Smitherman 103). She acknowledges and even begins to agree with the work of the European male scholars, before continuing with, “but such language is only a small part of the whole” (Smitherman 103). By beginning with a concession to the contrasting viewpoint, she reduces the chance that her audience will view her as irrational or overly upset. Conceding and countering allows her to lead her audience to a more comprehensive understanding of Ebonics that has more valid evidence and argument in its favor.

By maintaining this stance of rationality, Smitherman can subtly infuse her own opinions into her discourse through the strategic use of attitude markers, further leading her audience to agree with her viewpoint. These markers “indicate the writer's . . . attitude to propositions, conveying surprise, agreement, importance, frustration, and so on . . .” (Hyland 180). They are pivotal in helping readers navigate the unfamiliar topic of Ebonics, which may be a foreign concept even to an informed audience. When first introducing the social context of Ebonics in contemporary society, Smitherman writes that there is a “serious lack of knowledge about the scientific approach to language as well as galling ignorance about what Ebonics is and . . . an appalling rejection of the language of everyday Black people” (Smitherman 99). The audience can clearly tell how Smitherman feels about the reception of Ebonics in the larger American society, frustrated with the arbitrary lines that white people have drawn to marginalize Black people based on their language. These carefully placed attitude markers work in tandem with the previously mentioned conceding/countering to construct an argument that balances reason and personal conviction based on her lived experience. By inserting these words, Smitherman allows the reader to understand the significance of Ebonics in Black culture the way that she does. In the example mentioned earlier regarding the study of Ebonics by white, male linguists, Smitherman writes that they, “unfortunately, presented only the sensational, street-culture aspects of the language” (Smitherman 103). The use of the word “unfortunately” immediately alters the audience's perception of the point that is being introduced and encourages the audience to pay more attention to the work of Black Americans when discussing Ebonics, as opposed to those of European descent. Smitherman adeptly guides her readers toward the stance she advocates for by incorporating subtle expressions of her opinions. Later in her essay, Smitherman addresses the controversy of Ebonics within communities of Black Americans and how some older, assimilated, middle-class Black people would publicly reject the language. Smitherman criticizes this group, calling them “know-nothings,” and claiming they should have “read up on the subject before speaking out publicly with such ignorance” (Smitherman 102). It is important to note that this is one of the only times in the essay where Smitherman employs harsh language towards a group of people, the group being those of her own race. Smitherman meticulously chooses where and to what extent she inputs her personal emotions. She refrains from using such offensive language when speaking about white individuals, which may have been an intentional choice in order to maintain a broader audience. Throughout the piece, the attitude markers serve as precise markers that steer the opinions of the audience, and the measured severity of her attitude contributes to the rationality of her argument.

In her essay “Ebonics, King, and Oakland,” Geneva Smitherman employs attitude markers and conceding/countering to skillfully guide the perceptions of her audience. Smitherman strives to present her argument in a rational and civil manner, allowing it to have a more profound impact on her readers, who are thereby encouraged to follow the logical framework she lays out. Furthermore, the use of conceding/countering contributes to the discussion of Ebonics as a deep-rooted, rich language that was born out of struggle. By consistently bringing up ideas and then opposing them, Smitherman displays the nuance of the language and encourages the audience to consider all sides of an argument before developing an opinion, perhaps even leading them to reconsider their own biases. The attitude markers also helpfully guide the reader through a text that may be discussing a new or unfamiliar topic. They provide personal context and lead the reader to developing a stronger understanding of Ebonics on a broad scale. These features, in conjunction with several others present in this text, serve to make the writing more persuasive and easy to navigate. Smitherman’s paper not only encourages readers to consider their experience and response to Ebonics but also raises the question of other groups that are discriminated against due to differences in language. Her demonstration of policy change and action taken towards a more inclusive environment for Ebonics-speakers offers a glimmer of hope for other communities who may be experiencing similar marginalization. Smitherman’s audience is prompted to reflect on the broader implications of language-based discrimination, challenging us to consider the transformative power of inclusivity in the ever-evolving narrative of social change.

Works Cited

Aull, Laura. "Conceding and Countering." 2020. University of Michigan. Accessed 25 Oct. 2023.

Hyland, Ken. "Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse." Discourse Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2005, pp. 173-192.

Smitherman, Geneva. "Ebonics, King, and Oakland." Journal of English Linguistics, vol. 26, no.2, 1998, pp. 97-107.