Brett:
Thanks for that language-log link -- it looks like a great class
discussion-starter. I have to admit that I tend to try to dodge the
whole issue by starting with the question, "What will the effects of
this wording be on your audience?" I have the same reaction most
linguists do to arrant prescriptivism (other than mine), but that
reaction has its origins in a rebellion against the notion that
statements about correctness in language are equivalent to statements
about correctness in, say, measurements of physical objects. The real
difficulty lies in recognizing social reactions in such a way that the
recognition itself doesn't get used later, by others, as a kind of
justification for mistreatment of anyone speaking another dialect, etc.
Judging by my students (and I think, probably others' as well), a lot of
people *want* to believe in the "language rule = physical law" analogy,
and it's tempting to adopt a kind of unexamined relativist posture as a
Newtonian equal-and-opposite reaction to that (to further muddle my
metaphors). But then, most linguists mark major grammar glitches in
their students' papers.
Of course, there are a couple of problems I can't dodge with my own
'audience-grounded-ish' approach: it doesn't recognize the potential for
the writer or speaker to *change* the audience's perceptions, and it
presupposes that someone's (usually my) judgments of the audience are on
target. I haven't figure out a way around those yet, especially the
second one. After all, the kind of person who can judge an audience
intuitively...usually doesn't become a social scientist.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: My French God-daughter
Importance: Low
On 1-Jul-09, at 2:55 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
wrote:
> The argument that anything is correct if it does not create
> misunderstanding is preposterous.
It certainly is. This argument is taken up engagingly in this post on
Language Log classic:
<http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html>
> Heck, it don't matter to me none.
>
> Do you know what I mean when I say that? Of course you do.
>
> Do we teach it that way in our schools? Of course we don't.
But simply because there are constructions that are not grammatical
for any English speaker, doesn't mean that there is only one kind of
correct English. "It don't matter to me none is clearly dialectal,
but that doesn't mean it's incorrect in that dialect.
Also, part of the construction arrived at by the girl "explain
you" (meaning "explain something to you") is incorrect now, but may
represent a future English construction. These things change, you
know. Historically, schools graduated students. Then students began
to graduate from schools. Most recently, students have begun to
graduate schools.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
