Herb asks,
"Is anyone incorporating this concept, that meaning is a function of
usage, into their vocabulary lessons? I think its just as important as
building knowledge of dialect differences into grammar lessons."
Yes, I agree, and yes, I do. It starts early, when I do tests for part
of speech. I deliberately include "party" and "fun" on the exercise so
that we are forced to discuss whether or not the first is "acceptable"
as a verb and the second as an adjective. This leads to a discussion of
who determines what's acceptable, of relative acceptability according to
social context, and so on. But my first answer to "is it a verb?" is "If
a lot of people are using it as a verb, it's a verb." We go on from
there to discuss why it might nevertheless not be classified as a verb
in "the dictionary" (as if there were only one).
Craig writes,
" If I'm not mistaken, cognitive grammar doesn't believe there are
"wrong" uses of a word, only uses that are less central."
There have to be wrong uses of a word, or language would not function at
all. We can't be like -- was it the Queen of Hearts in Alice in
Wonderland? -- and decide that a word means what we want it to mean.
Word usage is communal, consensual. Change of meaning can't be too
radical in any given generation, or language would fail. Change happens,
of course, but even slight changes have to "catch on" among a relatively
large population to work communicatively. Then beyond that, there is the
issue of how long it takes for a new usage to become acceptable to
authorities like teachers and usage-guide writers. Right now, for
instance, "infer" is being used to mean "imply" by large numbers of my
students. I do believe that the infer/imply difference might be headed
for the "dustbin of history". (I don't know how widespread the usage
is.) To me, it's wrong; on the other hand, I am aware of what is going
on, and I understand what my students mean when they use it. But I
understand it that way only because so many of them do it -- a consensus
is emerging on what the word now means. As a language authority, I
resist it: I cross it out on their papers and write in "imply". I don't
do this to try, genuinely, to stop the change. I do it because other
judges of my students' performance may not accept the change. I have no
doubt that, if I am still correcting papers 30 years from now (goddess
forbid!), I will no longer be crossing it out.
Should we lament the loss of the distinction? Aesthetically, I lament
it. Realistically, I do not. Language must remain functional in order
for human society to continue. No society will allow so many
distinctions to be lost that communication is no longer possible. Also,
new refinements or distinctions emerge to balance losses: as irritating
as the new uses of "like" may be to us oldsters, at least one of them is
quite functional: it marks the new information in the clause (as opposed
to information already known by the listener). Another is similarly
functional in introducing quotations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 Dept. Phone. 756-2596
E-mail: [log in to unmask] Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/
|
