From: Eduard Hanganu
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:55
AM
Subject: Re: The
"Anti-Grammar Forum"
Bill,
As you well know, our statements
are never complete because we cannot state everything about something in a
statement, and because we often lack a common background. We can express only
partial truth about an issue. We would need a continuous,progressive dialogue to
clarify statements and points in order to see if our perspectives differ or not.
So far, you have made some assumptions about what you call my
assumptions, but how can you be sure that what I stated in my short comments is
a summary of my perspective on the issue discussed? You cannot. I believe that
you have understood me for the most part because of the brevity of my statements
and lack of continuous, progressive dialogue in which we would confirm or
disprove each other's understanding on the issue in question.
Yes, you
have read me correctly when you "assumed" that I believe that communication
requires a common communicative basis - lexicon, grammar, socio-cultural and
political context, etc. I do not think that some dialect variation prevents
communication, but I believe that too much dialectal variation could lead to -
as you know - the collapse of communication because of the birth of new
languages. I also believe that in most societies a command of the power and
prestige dialect matters the most for all practical purposes. Have you read
"Language and Social Context" edited by Per Paolo Giglioli? Somewhere in the
book,if I am not mistaken, someone states that a dialect without a state is just
that, while a dialect with a state is a language.
As for the
"prescriptive vs. descriptive" dichotomy, well, we know that all language is
prescripted during socialization, and that the contrast between the above
notions could be useful only in a theoretical/didactic context. What choices did
you have when you learned your English in the early childhood? None! If you were
born in a poor and illiterate black family you would speak illiterate black
English, or "Ebonics" (to use the politically correct term). If you were born in
a poor illiterate Appalachian family you would speak the same illiterate
English. We speak the language of the humans who socialized us, and it takes a
lot to change that language to something else.
I mentioned Chomsky only
to make the point that history repeats. Forty years ago most linguists were
worshipping Chomsky and his language theories until other people came and showed
that he was wrong. Most language theories are proven wrong after some time
although in the beginning linguists believe that those theories are the ultimate
answer to the fundamental questions about language. To accept any theory without
ever questioning it is anti-scientific and shows gullability, which is not the
attitude of a scientist and researcher.
Of course, again, you can pick
of my statements because no matter how hard I try to make my statements complete
I will never succeed to do so. I am sure that I have already left something out
in this mesage, too.
Eduard
----- Original Message
-----
From: "William C Spruiell" <
[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]Sent:
Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:17:11 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar
Forum"
Eduard,
You are, I think, making an argument that starts
with a quite valid observation -- that communication requires a basis that the
communicants can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then
overstretch it. Here are three problems with it:
(1) You seem to be
assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and that dialect variation
condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on comprehension is probably more like
an S-curve. *No* two people completely share conventions, of course, but as some
of the conventions start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual
intelligibility. The "top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope
increases rapidly past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the
"Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard English
(pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand each other less
than two people speaking different dialects, depending on the situation. An
example: I was trying to read a current article on Minimalism last week; I'm
sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't understand much of it; I think I
understood more of "Trainspotting," even without the subtitles. A factor that
has nothing to do with "+/- Standard" may affect comprehension far more than
does whether the speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement.
(2)
You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you
thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute. The existence of a
now-sizable body of research on the social malleability of grammaticality
judgments indicates that a lot of linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of
this kind of boundary, and I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed
well in the absence of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll
try to dig out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we
make distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending that
they hold as absolutes is simply wrong.
(3) You're assuming that most
English language educators agree with Chomsky about the relation of language to
meaning. This, in turn, assumes that most English language educators know what
Chomsky's theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in
education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this as
someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic theories. I'd
love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about things that really are
his fault (like his conflation of modeling with explanation).
Bill
Spruiell
On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu
wrote:
John,
If you are not speaking and writing a
"prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what
your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them.
Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your
own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in
your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How
about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules
you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need
to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language
communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE.
Most if not
all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when
they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your
parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You
had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language
in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and
their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced
on them by their parents - the society in which they lived.
There
is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and
"descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the
profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction
speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in
which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often
mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but
describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have
forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they
are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and
working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle.
As for your
thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education
conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were
your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most
English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their
educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for
decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning,
and that we can separate language from meaning without a
sweat.
The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers
can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not
true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the
light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a
reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and
some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all
evidence that points to the
contrary.
Eduard
________________________________
From:
"John Dews-Alexander" <
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>>
To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>
Sent:
Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar
Forum"
Eduard,
If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists
worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would
that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously
interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and
language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not
faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and
had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who
are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of
linguistics you describe?
John
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM,
Eduard Hanganu <
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
Craig,
I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a
grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and
graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax,
semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and
psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as
discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the
distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical.
Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of
"prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who
insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of
language - communication.
The whole purpose of English language
education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to
produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for
groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a
meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of
individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon
loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would
witness a modern Tower of Babel.
Why is the American education
paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to
"prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called
"socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not
become human.
Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather
speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we
cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of
words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to
communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words
mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same
thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing
personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we
did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other
and one another.
Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose:
TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are
lost.
Eduard
________________________________
From:
"Craig G Hancock" <
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>>
To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>
Sent:
Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar
Forum"
Eduard,
These leaves me with some questions.
1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your
interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined
as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar
that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language
conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar
contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by
the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary?
One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a
recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine
whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that
use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m
thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the
poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many
of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact
that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the
vernacular?
The final question, I guess, might be how we
stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a
necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that
knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as
well, including encouraging fluency?
Craig
From: Assembly
for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>] On
Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
Well,
Maybe the difference in
perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that
govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE
GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects,
and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those
idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar
I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree
to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English."
Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does
not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak
in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two
"varieties" of the English language?
Illiteracy.
Eduard
________________________________
From:
"Dick Veit" <
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>>
To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:
[log in to unmask]>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar
Forum"
The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety
of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many
registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell
out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum,
just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference.
You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different
from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in
conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the
phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments.
That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.
I
taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master
the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that
educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different
registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And
yes, students can master that too.
When someone in this forum observes
that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect,
they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment.
Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching
formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or
(3) the world is coming to an end.
Dick
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.htmland 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.htmland select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/