AAVE stressed BEEN interpretation

[P2052 at AOL.COM]

I think their interpretation may have been influenced by the way they read
the question (or the way the statement was uttered).  Even if students read
or hear that a word is to be stressed (and, personally, I think more than
stress is involved), if they do not hear, or read, the stress, then their
interpretation will be affected.  Additionally, the nature of the lexical
verb can make a difference.  If the verb is stative, as in "She BEEN dead,"
the focus in on that duration of the state: "Her state of being NOT ALIVE
began a long time ago and is ongoing.  "She BEEN died, " however, focuses on
the act of becoming NOT ALIVE, not the state of being that way: "She
transition from being ALIVE to being NOT ALIVE occurred a long time ago."
    The same is true of your example:  "She BEEN [BIN] married," which, by
the way, is ambigous.  If "married" is a lexical verb representing an act,
then the interpretation is the following:  "A long time ago, she exchanged
vows with some other person."  If, however, "married," is stative (as
expressed more explicitly by an utterance such as "I'm very married),  then
the focus is not on the act of exchanging vows (a single episode/act), but on
the duration of the state.  In this case, the interpretation would be,  "Her
state of being NOT SINGLE has existed for a long time."

I'm not sure if I've made a point, but, in essence, what I've attempted to
say is this:
A statement such as, "She BEEN [BIN] married," is ambiguous.  One's
interpretation of whether or not it means that the subject is still married
hinges on whether one interprets "married," as an action or a state (Either
interpretation is valid.)    Thus, your students'  "misinterpretation" of the
utterance is probably due to this inherent ambiguity, rather than to their
lack of understanding of the rules of a different dialect.
                            PAT