Few pronunciations in English are as controversial as that of the verb ‘aks.’ The top-rated definition for ‘aks’ on Urbandictionary.com puts it bluntly, summarizing all the critiques I’ve heard: “What retards say when they don’t know how to pronounce the word ask,” citing the hypothetical example, “Yo dogg… I gotta aks you a question.”
Luckily, more refined sources provide other instances of this form’s use, one being the Coverdale Bible (the first complete English translation of the Bible), which pronounces: “Axe and it shall be given,” and also Geoffrey Chaucer, who wrote in “The Canterbury Tales”: “Yow loveres axe I now this question…” But what do they know?
‘Aks’ and ‘ask’ both derive from one verb in Old English that featured the same transposition of sounds and gave rise to two equally-valid pronunciations: ‘ascian’ and ‘acsian.’ In linguistic terminology, this transposition, or swapping of sounds, is called metathesis, and it accounts for the pronunciation of words like ‘iron’ and ‘asterisk.’ These examples also evidence, as we are all wont to acknowledge, that English isn’t necessarily pronounced as it is spelled.
In the development of Modern English, the two forms were equally legitimate (which explains their use above), yet, eventually, ‘ask’ was inadvertently adopted as the “standard” form (notably in Shakespeare and the King James Bible) and the use of ‘aks’ began to mark lower socioeconomic status and fell out of use for many. At any rate, ‘aks’ is not a random or even novel bastardization of the verb ‘ask.’
Fast-forward to our American present, and we know full well that many (among them plenty of self-professed “grammarians”) suffer the ignorance of this fact and are quick to write off any pronunciation or form stemming from Ebonics (‘aks’ being one of the most salient) as “ignorant,” “ungrammatical” or even “not English.”
Their view is ill-informed and profoundly offensive, and as such, we should scrutinize and ultimately dismiss it.
Speakers of nonstandard varieties of language (who generally represent the marginalized within society) are forced to subordinate themselves and their way of being to the dominant culture. As such, black Americans (along with other minority groups in the U.S.) are wholly more subjected to hegemonic White culture than the reverse.
For the entirety of their history, black Americans have been ordered around and spoken down to in so-called “standard (read: Anglo) American English,” and simultaneously expected to adopt this same variety as their own, though it has no authentic role in black culture, history or inter-group communication.
“Subversive” linguistic forms and practices, in this case Ebonics and its phonological system, serve as markers and monuments for those who have resisted the oppressiveness of assimilation and the imposition of a “standard.”
As linguist John McWhorter has so brilliantly expressed, “The simple fact is that because ‘ax’ is blackness, it has survived and will continue to.”
Language is ultimately, and essentially, a communicative endeavor. Insofar as the meaning of “Ima aks you a question” is readily understandable (which it verily is), it is not problematic, and the grammar Nazis among us should not feel any source of power or pride in snickering at ‘aks’ and marking it “(sic).”
I exhort all those who get up in arms about Ebonics and other “non-standard” forms of language to carefully consider the real source of their discontent. I am willing to bet it has a lot more to do with securing/demonstrating power and prestige than any concern for language itself.
After all, language, unlike oppression and human cruelty, is inherently dynamic and, as such, ever-changing. This is one of many reasons for which language affords people a crucial means of defining their identity and, by extension, surmounting injustice.
Jordan MacKenzie is a second-year UF linguistics master’s student. His column appears on Wednesdays.
