Dear Craig:

I don't know why you posted this message. Who is Johanna Rubba? From 
the list of "credentials" at the bottom of her message she appears to 
be a mere instructor of Linguistics. I don't know what makes her 
think that she is an expert in language. Her e-mail is nothing more 
than an uninformed DIATRIBE, which breaks the rules of courtesy and 
decency she talkes about. While she chides me for *insulting* some 
people, her message contains no less than a dozen of offensive and 
gratuitous comments on my behalf. 

She tosses two books around (which, by the way, I have read), to 
*prove* that I don't know what I am talking about. Should I return 
the favor and ask her about the books *she did not read*? I find 
nothing relevant or of value in her message. As I said, it is all a 
diatribe which mixes ignorance with myth and insults. If you call her 
nonsense a "fine articulation" then we belong to different worlds.

Do you know of any forum where people discuss language and grammar in 
an informed, and scholarly manner, free of provincialism and myths? 


Eduard 










On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Craig Hancock wrote...

>---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------
----=
>-
>    I'm forwarding another thoughtful post from Johanna.
>    I think polemical positions are less dangerous when expressed 
(I'm
>thinking of Eduard's post), but that's in part because they provoke
>fine articulations like those I'm relaying. ATEG brings people
>together from different places.  Johanna raises important issues 
about
>mutual respect and collegiality.
>
>Craig
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Language Change
>From:    "Johanna Rubba" <[log in to unmask]>
>Date:    Fri, March 17, 2006 2:35 pm
>To:      "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
>Cc:      [log in to unmask]
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
----=
>-
>
>Hi, Craig,
>
>Although my take on these "polemics" is different from yours, I hope
>you'll post this. I don't find these polemics at all delightful. To
>treat baseless claims about language as legitimate opinions is 
harmful
>and misleading to those listers who haven't had the opportunity to
>study language deeply.
>
>I'd like to ask Eduard Hanganu to please study the situation a little
>more carefully before he starts throwing around offensive claims 
about
>Americans and linguists, etc.  It's just plain rude to call the
>findings (note I do not say "beliefs") of lifelong scholars of 
language
>NONSENSE. Putting the words in caps is not exactly diplomatic.
>
>Eduard's ethnocentrism is obvious, and his claims about language and
>linguistics are spurious. It's about time he realized that he is in
>dialogue with scholars, like Herb Stahlke, whose knowledge of many
>aspects of English and language in general is extraordinary and far
>outstrips my own. Eduard is speaking anecdotally from his own
>experience, as well as drawing in studies that are irrelevant to how
>much speakers _subconsciously_ know about their language. A lot of 
this
>knowledge is laid out in, for example, the Quirk et al. grammar of
>English and the newer Huddleston and Pullum. I'd like to ask Eduard 
how
>many school or college textbooks cover even 1% of that material, and
>yet it is drawn from descriptions of the use of English by English
>speakers (some with a lot of education, some not). I'd also like to 
ask
>him how far he has read into either book. The fact that he appeals to
>institutions like the Academie Fran=E7aise (yes, a few of us know 
about
>it) proves his misunderstanding of sociolinguistics and the history 
of
>how such institutions arise in stratified societies. Those who 
believe
>in such institutions have a serious misunderstanding of how language
>works. It's very practical to cultivate a lingua franca (or dialect
>franca?) to sustain communication across the boundaries of speech
>communities. (I don't like calling it a standard dialect anymore,
>because "standard" is ambiguous between a neutral interpretation, 
such
>as standard measurements, and an evaluative stance, such as "standard
>of excellence".) But there is no need to attach false claims to such 
a
>language variety. It is not superior to other dialects. It may be so 
in
>the sense that it has a large vocabulary, but that is a historical
>accident. Any language's vocabulary can be expanded. One might indeed
>say that English came about most of those words dishonestly -- too
>weak to invent them themselves, English speakers took them from other
>"superior" languages like Latin and Greek. Many languages and 
dialects
>have more subtlety in their grammar than "preferred" English does. 
They
>express distinctions such as remote vs. recent past and temporary vs.
>long-lasting states in the verb system (both characteristics of 
African
>American English), not in separate phrases. English morphology is
>"impoverished" compared to, say Turkish or Inuktitut. Such 
comparisons
>are fruitless. Are the complex verb systems better than the separate
>phrases? Can Inuktitut express a wider range of meanings than 
English?
>There's more than one way to skin a cat.
>
>Every culture, literate or not, has a language that has the full
>potential to express whatever concepts the culture comes up with. 
This
>has been true for many thousands of years, well before Romania spoke
>Romanian and those TWO THOUSAND years of history got started. America
>has a history going back at least TEN THOUSAND years of indigenous
>languages that are as complex and beautiful as a particle 
accelerator.
>Funny how most of them were never written. I wonder how much Eduard
>knows about Navajo verbs or Mikasuki tone systems. The history of
>literacy and scholarship of a culture has nothing to do with the
>quality or expressive potential of its language.
>
>I am in full agreement with Eduard on one thing -- the level of 
general
>and specific world knowledge, not language, is abysmal in far too 
many
>parts of the United States. This can't all be blamed solely on the
>schools, and it has nothing at all to do with language. We have a
>fundamentally anti-intellectual culture (which is ironic, given that
>the country was founded by intellectuals of a high order). People are
>happy with their MacDonald's bread and their NFL circuses (get the
>reference to ancient Rome?) Those who have the resources to improve 
the
>schools (taxpayers, the government, and the hyper-rich corporations 
and
>stockholders) choose to invest that money elsewhere or keep it to
>themselves. They also choose, often for purely political reasons, to
>ignore the wisdom of those who study language for a living. Too many 
of
>them have Eduard's understanding of language. As a result, millions 
of
>children are essentially thrown into the garbage bin -- prison,
>permanent low-wage jobs, low standards of living, poor health care, 
the
>list goes on and on. Back in the late 1970's, an experiment was 
carried
>out in which African American children were taught reading in a 
program
>that transitioned them from books in their native dialect on themes
>familiar to them to the "preferred" English texts used in general
>language arts instruction. Those children made six months' gain in
>reading ability in four months of using the program, and tested just
>fine on a national standardized reading test for their grade level. 
The
>publisher (I believe it was Houghton-Mifflin) decided not to market 
the
>program because of the stigma of African American English. What do we
>say to the many thousands of children who never got to benefit from
>such a program? They become dropouts, gang members, prisoners, teen
>parents, and many of them die at an early age thanks to the violence 
in
>their communities. The public school system teaches middle-class
>children to read and write in their native dialect. Why are they the
>only ones deserving of this treatment? (In telling this story, I am 
not
>acceding to the superiority of "preferred English". The
>socially-determined facts on the ground are that children need to be
>fluent in this dialect to have equal opportunity. The point is that 
it
>is not necessary -- indeed it is harmful -- to endow that dialect 
with
>some kind of intellectual superiority.)
>
>This list is intended for civilized discussion. It is of no benefit 
to
>make baseless claims and insult whole populations. It is not in the
>spirit of the list to be rude. I realize that I may have crossed that
>line myself in this message, but perhaps the same tone is needed to
>bring the point home. Or perhaps Eduard is like far too many people
>engaging in "debate" today under the guise of "fair and balanced"
>public discussion, who simply will never admit that they are wrong
>about something no matter how many facts you throw at them.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>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/