I find the following in my (dated) AHD on 'aint':
 
        'Ain't I' has at least the virtue of agreement between 'am' and 'I'
 
        'Aren't I' (as a variant of the interrogative 'ain't I') is acceptable
        in writing to only 27 percent of the Panel, but approved in speech
        by 60 percent.  Louis Kronenberger has this typical reaction: "A
        genteelism, and MUCH WORSE [emphasis added] than 'ain't I'."
 
For them what thinks "aren't I" is good, why ain't you say (here I am
using "ain't" as the standard AAVE equivalent of SWE do-support in
negative statements) "I aren't" in a declarative form?
 
Again I say, in solidarity with Johanna,
 
Who controls the language?
 
Those of us who teach language arts, whether it is at the primary level,
the middle grades level, the secondary level, or the university level,
need to consider whose agenda we are buying into when we decide what
posture we represent in relation to language 'correctness'.
 
If we buy into the notion of correctness and the need to strive for a
standard language, are we not serving the interests of an oppressive
ruling class, which uses language, among its various capital tools, as a
means of controlling others?
 
And then do we not become what are jargonistically called "running dog
lackeys of the ruling class"?
 
Do we prepare our students for assimilation into the current economy,
which exploits them, or do we attempt a "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"?
 
Teaching language and grammar IS NOT VALUE NEUTRAL with respect to these
issues.
 
 
 
Virtually, Terry
(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)
Terry Lynn Irons        [log in to unmask]
Voice Mail:             (606) 783-5164
Snail Mail:             UPO 604 Morehead, KY 40351
(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)