Exactly, Cynthia.
How do you learn to SPEAK "illiterate English" anyway? Seems to me that
that verb phrase conflates apples and oranges.
________________________________________
Linda Di Desidero, Ph.D.
Director, Communication Studies & Professional Writing
University of Maryland University College
School of Undergraduate Studies
3501 University Boulevard East
Adelphi, MD 20783-8083
College English Association-Middle Atlantic Group
http://cea.stevensonuniversity.org/
Maryland Communication Association
http://www.marylandcomm.org/
(240) 684-2830 (Department)
(240) 684-2928 (Office)
(240) 684-2995 (Fax)
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 2:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Wow, Eduard. You are a bit harsh.
I am not sure I can accept your description of "illiterate Appalachian"
English. Having married into an old Appalachian family, I can certainly
say that Appalachians are not illiterate just because they speak a
variety of English that is different from other varieties of English.
My certainty that they are not illiterate is based on the fact that my
husband's people can read fluently the King James Bible--a work that
many "literate" English speakers cannot read much less understand!
________________________________
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Bill,
As you well know, our statements are never complete because we cannot
state everything about something in a statement, and because we often
lack a common background. We can express only partial truth about an
issue. We would need a continuous,progressive dialogue to clarify
statements and points in order to see if our perspectives differ or not.
So far, you have made some assumptions about what you call my
assumptions, but how can you be sure that what I stated in my short
comments is a summary of my perspective on the issue discussed? You
cannot. I believe that you have understood me for the most part because
of the brevity of my statements and lack of continuous, progressive
dialogue in which we would confirm or disprove each other's
understanding on the issue in question.
Yes, you have read me correctly when you "assumed" that I believe that
communication requires a common communicative basis - lexicon, grammar,
socio-cultural and political context, etc. I do not think that some
dialect variation prevents communication, but I believe that too much
dialectal variation could lead to - as you know - the collapse of
communication because of the birth of new languages. I also believe that
in most societies a command of the power and prestige dialect matters
the most for all practical purposes. Have you read "Language and Social
Context" edited by Per Paolo Giglioli? Somewhere in the book,if I am not
mistaken, someone states that a dialect without a state is just that,
while a dialect with a state is a language.
As for the "prescriptive vs. descriptive" dichotomy, well, we know that
all language is prescripted during socialization, and that the contrast
between the above notions could be useful only in a theoretical/didactic
context. What choices did you have when you learned your English in the
early childhood? None! If you were born in a poor and illiterate black
family you would speak illiterate black English, or "Ebonics" (to use
the politically correct term). If you were born in a poor illiterate
Appalachian family you would speak the same illiterate English. We speak
the language of the humans who socialized us, and it takes a lot to
change that language to something else.
I mentioned Chomsky only to make the point that history repeats. Forty
years ago most linguists were worshipping Chomsky and his language
theories until other people came and showed that he was wrong. Most
language theories are proven wrong after some time although in the
beginning linguists believe that those theories are the ultimate answer
to the fundamental questions about language. To accept any theory
without ever questioning it is anti-scientific and shows gullability,
which is not the attitude of a scientist and researcher.
Of course, again, you can pick of my statements because no matter how
hard I try to make my statements complete I will never succeed to do so.
I am sure that I have already left something out in this mesage, too.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: "William C Spruiell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:17:11 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Eduard,
You are, I think, making an argument that starts with a quite valid
observation -- that communication requires a basis that the communicants
can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then overstretch
it. Here are three problems with it:
(1) You seem to be assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and
that dialect variation condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on
comprehension is probably more like an S-curve. *No* two people
completely share conventions, of course, but as some of the conventions
start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual intelligibility. The
"top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope increases rapidly
past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the
"Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard
English (pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand
each other less than two people speaking different dialects, depending
on the situation. An example: I was trying to read a current article on
Minimalism last week; I'm sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't
understand much of it; I think I understood more of "Trainspotting,"
even without the subtitles. A factor that has nothing to do with "+/-
Standard" may affect comprehension far more than does whether the
speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement.
(2) You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence
from you thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute.
The existence of a now-sizable body of research on the social
malleability of grammaticality judgments indicates that a lot of
linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of this kind of boundary, and
I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed well in the absence
of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll try to dig
out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we make
distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending
that they hold as absolutes is simply wrong.
(3) You're assuming that most English language educators agree with
Chomsky about the relation of language to meaning. This, in turn,
assumes that most English language educators know what Chomsky's
theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in
education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this
as someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic
theories. I'd love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about
things that really are his fault (like his conflation of modeling with
explanation).
Bill Spruiell
On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu wrote:
John,
If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we
are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I
don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may
mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own
idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in
your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about
"percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a
detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in
phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the
sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You
need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE.
Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language
"prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you
were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English
lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use
your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You
were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own
language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced
on them by their parents - the society in which they lived.
There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between
"prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in
language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the
very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that
has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few
examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and
circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe
English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have
forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that
what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They
are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle.
As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and
language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well,
too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read
during your education, but most English language educators still live by
the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never
questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great
Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can
separate language from meaning without a sweat.
The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the
light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true.
Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed
the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need
a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some
myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those
myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary.
Eduard
________________________________
From: "John Dews-Alexander"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Eduard,
If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the
views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be?
I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask
because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts
education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or
attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had
the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"?
Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type
of linguistics you describe?
John
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Craig,
I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or
a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have
studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics,
pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics,
etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this
forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction
between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical.
Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of
"prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those
who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate
purpose of language - communication.
The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how
people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language.
The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of
various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for
individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of
individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we
would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and
groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.
Why is the American education paying every year English language
teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in
language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without
socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.
Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language
structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot
communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of
words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to
communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of
words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to
mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are
rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want
to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the
ability to communicate with each other and one another.
Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we
forget its purpose, then we are lost.
Eduard
________________________________
From: "Craig G Hancock"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Eduard,
These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in
what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go
beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard
English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that
are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language
conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar
contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all
troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem
rather arbitrary? One example might be the "due to" versus "because of"
distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground.
How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that
mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should
be expunged from the canon? I'm thinking of books like "Huckleberry
Finn" or "The color Purple", much of the poetry of Robert Burns and
Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for
that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal
of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?
The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread
acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in
that direction? I don't think many of would disagree that knowing
Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as
well, including encouraging fluency?
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Well,
Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you
consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the
English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard
English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use
various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those
idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English
Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but
to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them
"illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that
"Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken
English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians.
What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the
English language? Illiteracy.
Eduard
________________________________
From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of
English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of
many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase
"bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be
appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in
many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing
journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email
to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends
while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your
insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is
what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.
I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to
master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted
conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for
them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate
to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.
When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is
grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing
what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion
doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written
English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the
world is coming to an end.
Dick
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
|
