Wow!
Since the "poke", as Facebook would put it, is at me, I will reply later when I have my wits thoroughly about me but for now, I just want to say ... Wow!
.brad.1905h.mon.18feb08.
Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Brad and other "correctionists" worry about "bad grammar," but
we
need to keep in mind that language changes, and tense/aspect
systems
change. It is very hard to stop linguistic change. Some changes
may
lessen the communicative effectiveness of the language, but
context
usually resolves this. We have to remember that human
communities
have invented their languages and will not allow them to decline
to
the point of nonfunctionality -- communication is too vital to
human
society. As I always insist, language is a reflection of
thinking; if
language degenerates, it is because thinking degenerates. A
society
will have a language that satisfies its needs and desires, and
reflects its thinking habits.
People sometimes claim that grammar improves thinking, but I
think
this is not so much because grammar introduces "better" thought
patterns, but because, as a pursuit, it cultivates analytical
habits
of mind, and that is what improves thinking. Also, like other
analytical pursuits, it reveals to the student the complexities
of
world phenomena that we take for granted, thus enriching the
student's knowledge base and encouraging analytical thinking
about
other topics. Those of my students who don't mind linguistics
often
make remarks reflecting the latter effect.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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/
|