Wow!
   
  Since the "poke", as Facebook would put it, is at me, I will reply later when I have my wits thoroughly about me but for now, I just want to say ... Wow!
   
  .brad.1905h.mon.18feb08.
   
  
Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
   
  Brad and other "correctionists" worry about "bad grammar," but
 we  
need to keep in mind that language changes, and tense/aspect
 systems  
change. It is very hard to stop linguistic change. Some changes
 may  
lessen the communicative effectiveness of the language, but
 context  
usually resolves this. We have to remember that human
 communities  
have invented their languages and will not allow them to decline
 to  
the point of nonfunctionality -- communication is too vital to
 human  
society. As I always insist, language is a reflection of
 thinking; if  
language degenerates, it is because thinking degenerates. A
 society  
will have a language that satisfies its needs and desires, and  
reflects its thinking habits.

People sometimes claim that grammar improves thinking, but I
 think  
this is not so much because grammar introduces "better" thought
  
patterns, but because, as a pursuit, it cultivates analytical
 habits  
of mind, and that is what improves thinking. Also, like other  
analytical pursuits, it reveals to the student the complexities
 of  
world phenomena that we take for granted, thus enriching the  
student's knowledge base and encouraging analytical thinking
 about  
other topics. Those of my students who don't mind linguistics
 often  
make remarks reflecting the latter effect.

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407


       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

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/