Eduard,

I understand "not intrinsically better or worse"  as a refusal to
make a value jugement on this or that variety of English,
although Steven King knows best what it means.

If this is the case, I expect many would be compelled to agree
with him: there is no language variety that is all around better
than another. Some are better at some things than others, but
since language emerges from human needs, differences should
balance out.

This does not negate the fact that if one wants to become
accepted into certain communities, they should speak the language
of those communities. This includes higher education, which is
merely a gate keeper of sorts, denying access to resouces to
these or those categories of people, and granting access to
others.

Of course, no one could deny the usefullness of having a common
language, but there are limits to standardization that all
reasonable people recognize. We need to distinguish between what
is useful in terms of communication and what is useful in terms
of shibboleth.  Say /shebolet/ and you are one of us: say
/sebolet/ and you lie eviscerated on the river bank.

Mark




On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:20 AM, "Eduard Hanganu"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a
variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other,
although actually less useful than many since the situations that
require it are relatively few."


So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or
worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then,
the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why
bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own
"variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and
English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically
better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety?
Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the
public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does
not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools
or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive"
English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who
needs it?


From the content of the messages and comments posted in this
forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call
themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to
"The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this
"Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English
Language education in the United States. If those who are
supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against
it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the
opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who
are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the
students?


Sad, very sad!


Eduard


  ____________________________________________________________


From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the
appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the
variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and
speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to
discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others,
a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other,
although actually less useful than many since the situations that
require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed
in college and do well  in a number of professions, it is a
dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I
have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the
several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community
college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the
rhetorical situation in which it's used.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

  Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are
  well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have
  some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought
  that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However,
  we all forget from time to time that language and identity are
  inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be
  insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk
  about language standards objectively and even clinically;
  however, the average person might even hear "standard" as
  carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our
  words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and
  sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is
  threatened.
  This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English,
  and the Language Arts (1970):
  "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants
  of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we
  encounter in life, and according to changing motivations,
  self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated
  prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is
  'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the
  point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the
  non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon
  Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of
  the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference
  is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very
  ancient, and as hateful as Cain."
  I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in
  the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth"
  in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us
  "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's
  intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often
  though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to
  our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that
  others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of
  dissonance.
  I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about
  grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a
  judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the
  conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the
  variant formed, how it functions differently from the
  standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements
  that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last
  acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles,
  can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the
  classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your
  anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)
  John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck)
<[1][log in to unmask]> wrote:

  I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's
  main point.
  Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to
  formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already
"normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when
heard in
a conversation."


  And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common,
  and I have
  even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations.  I
  think the
  appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound
  object
  construction like this
  I take special exception to the example presented by Erin
  Karl:
  "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?
  Old woman:  'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had
  I went, I
  couldn'tna et nuthin'.  But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to
  came, I
  woulda went anyhow.'"
  I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the
  speaker.  It
  is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as
  I do? It is
  not the language of formal written English prose, but it is
  perfectly
  acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to
  their own
  language.  They are the owners of their mother tongue--the
  language in
  which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe.
  What I don't
  accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving
  examples like
  these.  English teachers have practiced this form of bullying
  for too
  long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of
  people for
  being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why
  do we still
  think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for
  the regional
  or social variety of language that they speak?
  R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
  Professor of English
  Eastern Mennonite University


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
    [2]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at [3]http://ateg.org/

  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
  web interface at:
  [4]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
  "Join or leave the list"

  Visit ATEG's web site at [5]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/

  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/

References

1. mailto:[log in to unmask]
2. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
3. http://ateg.org/
4. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
5. http://ateg.org/
--
[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/