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/