I find myself nodding approval to what Stephen is saying-including the observation that formal English is somewhat limited in its contexts, though we are better off for having access to it when the context calls for it.
I wonder, though, about a definition for "rhetorical." As it's used here, it seems focused on "language variety in response to context," which is appropriate to the thread. That certainly seems part of it. But it seems to me, as a writer especially, that when I'm looking for the right word or the best wording in a sentence or sequence of sentences, whether something is "formal" or "correct" seems rather tangential to the larger purposes I would think of as rhetorical. Is it convincing? Interesting? Clear? Coherent?
In an above sentence, for example, I replaced "combination of words" with "wording." Both are OK and both, it seems to me, are equally acceptable in this register, but I felt, rightly or wrongly, that "wording" was a more accessible expression of my intentions. I chose to leave single adjectives as sentences, clearly breaking a prescriptive rule, but not by accident.
I guess I'm also wondering how we get away from the notion that grammar is all about etiquette and not about meaning or effectiveness.
I'm about to walk into a classroom where we'll talk about Tim O'Brien's "The Things they Carried" and I'll ask this class to think about the kinds of language O'Brien is using to tell what he describes in another context as "a true war story."
If none of the language he uses is "wrong" (inappropriate to its context), as my classes have decided in the past, has that used up grammar as a topic? Can and should our rhetorical grammar move past that observation?
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen King
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.
The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.
This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):
"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."
I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.
I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)
John
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.
Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal
written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."
And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this
I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?
Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"
I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Eastern Mennonite University
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/