Paul,

Forgive me, but your perspective (and Craig's also) reflects the 
provincial attitude so common in this country among the English 
teachers and linguistists, that is, the idea that language is self-
regulating and self-regulated. Probably you don't know too much about 
the L'Academie Francaise, the Romanian Academy on Language, and other 
academic forums in Europe which have been regulating language 
(structure and use) for centuries. The United States has practically 
no history compared with Europe. My country goes back TWO THOUSAND 
years, and most contries in Europe have as much history also. 

The idea that the "native speaker knows more grammar than has ever 
been printed in any grammar books" is PURE NONSENSE. As I said 
before, a human being allowed to grow in complete isolation from 
other human beings doesn't speak any language at all. Language is a 
social phenomenon, not a reflex. Language IS NOT NATIVE. The 
Chomskian theory of INNATE GRAMMAR (UG)has never been supported by 
evidence, and is already obsolete. There is now compelling evidence 
that language is LEARNED through the interaction of multiple factors, 
and due to the amazing ability of the brain to acquire information. A 
COGNITIVE theory of language makes much more sense than the 
Chomskian "wiring" of the brain, which, again, has never been proven.

And the truth is that the "descriptivists" are as prescriptivist as 
anybody. If the native speaker is the reference, then everything that 
he or she says should go. I want to know how many teachers approach 
student writing in public school or college in this manner, and 
treats that student as an authority on language grammar and language 
use.

I believe that a less provincial perspective, a better understanding 
about how other languages function will protect us from a narrow and 
much too confident notion that the way language is handled in the 
United States is the best way. Evidence indicates that the contrary 
is the fact.

Eduard 




On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Paul E. Doniger wrote...

>
>Craig,
>   
>  I love what you wrote: "I don't have much sympathy for those who 
believe that the language itself is going downhill and that we need 
to enforce our judgements on other people. Language can't be 
controlled by the dictionary makers, and the good dictionary makers 
know that." It reminds me that, as much as I love the writings of 
those brilliant Restoration authors, Swift and Defoe, I find their 
attempts to "fix" the language (fix as in, set for all time, not as 
in repair!) misguided at best. They would have been better off 
writing more meaningful fiction and satire as they were wont to do. 
>   
>  For the record, and because I fear that I may have been 
misunderstood and considered too prescriptive, I often talk my 
students about the inevitability of language change; but I also talk 
to them about using the right language for any given situation and 
the value of having enough skill in language to be able to switch 
gears when necessary. Sometimes the message gets through, I suspect. 
>   
>  Paul D.
>
>
>"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an 
improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>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/