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) <[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/

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/