Eduard,
Thanks for your anecdotal argument against what you call "street
English." Perhaps we could all spend a little time listening to
some slam poetry, or worse still, rap music, for a sense of what
can and can not be expressed in these "base" dialects. We could
even count the words to test your theory that "street English"
has a total vocabulary of 500 words. (I expect, however, that
there are that many taboo words alone.)
Nevertheless, you appear to be comparing apples and oranges when
you invite us to a debate between Vladimir Nabakov and Tupac.
Perhaps a better argument could be built around the gradual
disappearance of RP in the United Kingdom throughout the 80s and
90s and the re-assertion of the authority British regional
dialects, some of which are too annoying to heard abroad.
I believe that RP served its purpose of providing the lower
classes with a point of entry into "polite society," and when
that point of entry was no longer required, it disappeared. This
had nothing at all to do with communicative effectiveness, or
what it is possible to say in this dialect or that, and
everything to do with race and class, with privilege and its
opposite.
Mark
On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM, "Eduard Hanganu"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Jack,
I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language
varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though,
that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not
intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language
varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence.
It is not true that users of different varieties can express
themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New
York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the
"street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon
was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the
speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability
to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor
would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"?
It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread
and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy?
Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post
messages similar to the one to which I replied working to
persuade the members of this forum and their students that
language education is not important? I though that this was a
forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was
wrong.
Eduard
____________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Eduard,
The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s
response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects
does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and
grammar. He writes, “Of course, if one hopes to succeed in
college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal
English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic
repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige
dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or
not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal
instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist,
too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all
sorts of texts is evident.
Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to
ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less
formal register might be preferred for clearer communication?
Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off
the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After
all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home
language; they already know it and operate in it. We might
encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in
contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of
schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their
own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies?
In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not
likely to reach on their own.
Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar
curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason
grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It
has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few
slight turns along the way.
Jack
____________________________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
"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."
So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or
worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then,
the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why
bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own
"variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and
English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically
better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety?
Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the
public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does
not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools
or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive"
English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who
needs it?
From the content of the messages and comments posted in this
forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call
themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to
"The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this
"Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English
Language education in the United States. If those who are
supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against
it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the
opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who
are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the
students?
Sad, very sad!
Eduard
____________________________________________________________
From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
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)
<[1][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:
[2]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at [3]http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web interface at:
[4]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at [5]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/
References
1. mailto:[log in to unmask]
2. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
3. http://ateg.org/
4. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
5. http://ateg.org/
--
[log in to unmask]
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/