A follow-up to what I just wrote. It is this complex variability that makes answers like mine less acceptable to people who think there are simple answers to such questions. A strong prescriptivist orientation tends to demand such simple answers. It's not that we on this list are lax in our standards; it's rather that we know how messy and complicated variation in language is, so that simple answers are rarely satisfying. Herb Edith, The dictionaries I have consulted give them both as options but don't list regions. I was born in Connecticut, but lived long stretches in southern New Jersey, New Hamphsire, and now upstate New York. People sometimes think I'm from the south, maybe because I like to take my time when I talk. I say the first part of "human" the same way I say "you". (To me, you and hue are indistinguishable.) But I'm mainly interested in how you tell someone it isn't evidence of "lazy talk" when we leave out "letters." > Craig Craig, as far as I know, on the West Coast there has been no loss of h > in human, humor, humid. I could almost blow out a candle on all three of > them. On the other hand, I have no h in hour or herb and I don't hear > one on this side of the Rockies. > Edith Wollin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:46 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Civility > > Herb, > I am very glad you sent this post. I have been contemplating > something of the sort since I caught up on mail this morning. > > One reason I enjoyed Eduard's polemic is that it expresses rather > blatantly a perspective not often expressed on this list precisely > because it is politically incorrect. (I suspect that is one reason we > are reacting so strongly to it.) In all the talk about civility, the > substance of his position has gotten lost. I think you're right, that > it's the view of many people out there. I also think it's close to the > views of many on list, but I think we need to slow things down to get > there. > With apologies to Eduard if I'm misrepresenting his views, I think > he is saying that there is an ideal form of the language that people > should aspire to. Because of his background, he is used to having a > national academy to pass judgement on the kinds of questions we deal > with all the time. (Hardly a week goes by in which someone doesn't post > the list for advice about which choice is more "correct" when there are > alternatives. Eduard's not the only one to believe that some forms and > choices are more "correct" than others.) In our country, we > have the handbooks and style manuals. Our progressive position > (politically correct) is that the standard is only better because it's a > standard (not standard because it's better.) In other words, as you > mention in your talks with your class, it opens doors for us. This is > not the way the public sees it, and it's not the vision behind the "no > child Left Behind" movement, which tries to test whether students are > acquiring these better choices. From this perspective, which you label > a kind of elitism, everything Eduard says makes more sense. > Children don't acquire a prestige language just by being alive. They > need to be exposed to it. And, as Eduard sees it, they need to have > their language "corrected" when it falls short. He, and I think many > people, believe that teachers are failing to live up to this important > obligation, telling students (very wrongly) that it's OK to be > themselves, when in fact it's not. They will pay for it and we will pay > for it as a culture. > Part of this point-of-view usually is the notion that people need to > be socialized into language, that left to their own devices, it just > won't happen. > Eduard, especially as a trained linguist, could and should be better > able to distinguish between the grammar in the language and the grammar > in the school books (or academies). I was also deeply surprised that he > would say there are many people in our cities with vocabularies of a few > hundred words. I don't think scientific studies have ever shown people > like that (assuming no brain damage.) His more important point, I think, > doesn't require that kind of questionable statement. Students don't > learn the kind of language they need to be successful without the right > kinds of experiences (exposures, interventions.) > My own reply to Eduard was an attempt to clarify my own position. To > his credit (as I see it), he agreed with much of it. Students need far > more than "correctness" when they use language. Prescriptive rules are > often goofy, often a distraction from more important concerns. We need > far more attention to knowledge about language. Many of us are also in > favor of tougher standards, but standards of a higher order than mere > correctness. > The status quo is almost a standoff from elitist views of the > general public (language should be correct and proper language should be > enforced) and the progressive view, which may disdain the prescriptive > but doesn't have much solid advice to offer in its place. > I think you're right; as long as we keep on talking to each other, we > will never make headway in the larger world. > I was giving a public talk on grammar a few weeks back, when a person > in the audience asked "whatever happened to the "h" in "human." It was > her position, and I think she expected me to verify it, that we should > pronounce words as they are spelled, and that the loss of the "h" is > evidence of laziness and a falling off of the language. I confessed > that I don't say the "h" in human, hour, humid, humor, that we don't > (any of us) say the D in Wednesday, the k in knight, and so on. Bu this > is the general level of understanding the world brings to these > questions. Somehow, we need to be patient and win people over one at a > time. > (What happened to the h, by the way? I have been meaning to ask. > Does it have something to do with the vowel sounds that follow it?) > I, for one, would hate to lose people like Eduard from the list. > > Craig > > Like many of us, I suspect, I've been giving some thought to our recent >> experience with Eduard Hanganu. While it is unquestionably true that >> he has insulted people on the list and that he has, to a lesser degree > >> than he claims, been treated roughly by some of us, I think there is >> an important side to the entire experience of the last few weeks that >> has been missed. Eduard's presence represents the world that we work >> in breaking in upon our discussions. The findings of linguistic, >> sociolinguistic, and educational research that inform our discussions >> of language variation, dialect, correctness, appropriateness, and >> related issues are not findings that are widely known or accepted >> beyond language specialists. Many of us have lamented the prevalence >> of myth and misinformation about language among the general public and > >> especially in school boards, PTAs, and even Colleges of Education and >> Departments of English. What we haven't come up with is a good >> information strategy to combat this misinformation and to correct the >> ill effects of it. In some of the earlier discussions of the New >> Public Grammar, this need has been discussed, but even there little >> progress has been made. The laudable work on scope and sequence is >> valuable but only builds a common body of pedagogical theory and >> content that we can agree on among ourselves. It doesn't address the >> problems of the audiences we have to present it to and convince. >> >> >> >> Eduard represents that audience: intelligent, articulate, passionate >> about education, but whose views of language have not been affected by > >> the linguistic and sociolinguistic research of the past half century >> and more. It's not that people like Eduard are wrong on a few points. > >> It's rather that Eduard has a coherent view of language, society, and >> education that appeals to a certain elitism in society and that holds >> fast to measures of correctness that serve as gateways to success. In > >> my undergrad Language and Society classes we get to a certain point >> where I ask my students to consider implications of their command of >> standard English, to use a term which I acknowledge to be >> problematical, compared to that of their high school classmates who >> didn't go on to post-secondary education. This leads usually to a >> fairly incisive discussion of the ways in which Standard English and >> beliefs about it serve as a gateway to achievement in American >> society. Certainly, one can achieve career and financial success >> without a good command of it; just watch local ads by car dealers and >> carpet merchants. But it takes remarkable ability to do so. Those >> who succeed at the English standards that are expected have doors open > to them more easily. >> >> >> >> Eduard's presence among us is an opportunity to talk with someone >> whose background, interests, and opinions represent the very audience >> we need to be addressing, and I fear we have shown our lack of >> preparation for this task. We have to expect our ideas to be >> attacked. They threaten dearly held cultural beliefs, as we have all >> seen on many other occasions. And for that very reason we can't >> expect such discussions to proceed without some rough spots. But we >> are the ones trying to change these attitudes, and that places a >> special responsibility on us. The painful lesson of these past few >> weeks is that we haven't risen well to that challenge. >> >> >> >> Our task is much more than an academic and pedagogical one, as crucial > >> as that part of it is; our task has an even more important political >> and social public relations side to it, and that's the kind of >> activity we academics are too ready to neglect, sometimes to the point > of disdain. >> >> >> >> Herb >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger >> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:45 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Civility >> >> >> >> Between a very long self-defense and very short general apology, >> Eduard Hanganu wrote: "It makes me sad to see how biased people can >> be, and how unfair. Is is (sic)possible that out of 250 people on this > >> mail list nobody has seen how *rude* and *offensive* Johanna Rubba has > >> been towards me under the false pretense of promoting fairness, >> decency, and civilized dialogue on this forum?" >> >> >> >> It seems to me that Mr. Hanganu is unaware of how biased and unfair he > >> appears to be in many of his own comments on this list. Perhaps a few >> examples might help him understand why we are all rushing to Johanna's > >> well-deserved defense (and sometimes as well to our own defenses). As >> one who has felt personally insulted by Mr. Hanganu, perhaps I have a >> stake in presenting some of these examples, and perhaps I could begin >> by offering him the benefit that I suspect he is unaware of the >> insults! we feel and that he did not intend them to be insulting. >> >> >> >> Here are a few: >> >> * "Forgive me, but your perspective (and Craig's also) reflects >> the provincial attitude so common in this country among the English >> teachers and linguistists (sic)." >> >> I've already responded personally (and I might add with good humor) to > >> this. I still doubt the accuracy of calling me provincial; after all, >> Mr. Hanganu does not know me from Adam. I don't know, by the way, that > >> there is any statistical evidence to support the claim that such >> provincialism is common among my colleagues or among American >> linguists generally. Also, I might point out that my previous response > >> did not point out his constant misspelling of the word "linguists." >> >> * "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." >> >> My last response should have proven this hasty assumption to be a >> fallacy. I have some knowledge of the history of language, and I am >> well aware of the academies. My opinion of such academies, I admit, is > >> not as high as Mr. Hanangu's opinion, but that is beside the point. >> The comment would have not been so insulting had the word 'probably' >> been replaced with 'perhaps', for he does not know what my education > consists of. >> There's not enough space here to fill in that lack of information. >> >> * "The United States has practically no history compared with >> Europe. My country goes back TWO THOUSAND years, and most contries >> (sic) in Europe have as much history also." >> >> Now this is a curious statement. I'm not sure what "no history" is >> intended to mean, but the chauvinism is so obvious in this statement >> (emphasized by the all capitals) that I'm surprised it did not jump >> out of the screen and smack Mr. Hanangu in the face. Doe! s he really >> think that he is better than me because his continent has an older >> history than my country? My ancestors go back to Europe and the Middle > >> East. We have a history that's over four thousand years and spoke, in >> different eras of our history, English, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, >> Spanish, and Hebrew (and perhaps other languages, too). Does that mean > >> I am better than he is? I would never make such a rude assumption. >> >> * "The idea that the 'native speaker knows more grammar than has >> ever >> been printed in any grammar books' is PURE NONSENSE." >> >> The capitals again provide the insult. One can disagree with the >> concept, but here Mr. Hanangu clearly calls the holders of this idea >> (like perhaps Johanna Rubba, Herb Stahlke, Craig Hancock, [I'd add >> 'me', but I'm not in their linguistic league], ... ) nonsensical. >> Argue the merits of the idea, not the intelligence of the people who >> hold it. This is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. It's al! so insulting. >> >> * "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." >> >> Although the words "I believe" help to soften this insult, there are >> three problems with this comment. first it suggest that the rest of >> have little understanding of the functions of languages; then that we >> are narrow minded and cocky. Finally, it assumes that we all believe >> that only citizens of the USA know how to "handle" language (whatever >> that means). Perhaps there are some of us who do think that way, but I > >> would be hard pressed to know who they are from my near decade long >> involvement with the members of this assembly. Certainly, I am sure >> that I don't think that way. I never looked on linguistics as a >> nationalistic study. Who does? I would like to know. >> >> T! here are five example here from only a single posting by Mr. > Hanangu. >> I would not be so rude as to try to match his 13 misrepresentations of > >> Johanna's postings in his recent "apology." I'm sure I could find >> more, but I don't have the time or the interest right now. >> >> >> >> My one hope is that he see this not in the apparently paranoid fashion > >> that I have inferred from his last posting, but in the spirit that it >> was intended: That is to return to thoughtful and civil discussion of >> the issues that we are all interested in. Remember the Greek origin of > >> the term argument is clarification, not diatribe. >> >> >> >> Let's return to argument. >> >> >> >> 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/ >> > > 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/