Johanna, I agree 100%. You covered it all! -- Christine Reintjes Martin [log in to unmask] >From: Jo Rubba <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Charrow's article >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:45:12 -0800 > >Charrow deserves to be stripped of her linguist's credentials for her >article. She has done a great deal to perpetuate public misunderstanding >of both language and linguistics. > >First of all, she uncritically supports old-style prescriptivism, a tool >which I suspect has long had more to do with excluding "undesriables" >from elite social circles and elite professions than with standards of >effective communication. In so doing, she also perpetuates the >stereotype of linguists as slippery-slope liberals who support "anything >goes" education ("As a result of linguists' >refusal to be prescriptive, non-standard usages have crept into areas >where they would not have been allowed 30 years ago, and have become >accepted"). While she pretty correctly characterizes linguists' >descriptive stance towards language, she seems to want to undermine it >rather than defend it. She does not mention prescriptive intolerance of >natural change in language (such as loss of irregular singular-plural >marking in 'criterion, criteria'). She acknowledges the artificiality of >the prohibition on splitting infiinitives, but decries the use of >"their" as a singular generic, a common and natural usage before the >18th-century grammarians got around to making their fussy (and sexist) >prescriptions about epicene (generic) pronouns. Instead of condemning >the linguistic insecurity that language snobbism causes in those who use >"whom" hypercorrectivey, she furthers it. > >She doesn't address the numerous factors that make today's educational >landscape different from that of the past. Our culture in general is >anti-intellectual (thanks in no small measure to the political party >that the Washington Times leans towards); corporations are far more >interested in an ignorant, compliant, consuming populace than a >well-educated one that might question their ethics. Visual media are >taking over every aspect of communication and entertainment, except for >the islands of text messaging and e-chat (soon, I'm sure, to be replaced >by direct video-to-video communications). There is far less segregation >in education. Back in the day, no one expected African-Americans or >Hispanic migrant workers or American Indians to go much beyond eighth >grade if they went to school at all, and the school facilities provided >for minorities were inferior to those provided the middle class (though, >sadly, the schools most inner-city kids go to today are far worse). For >minority students (or, heaven forbid, women) to mix with the white male >elite in the best colleges was highly controversial, if not downright >unthinkable. Now, we are trying to offer educational opportunity to all, >but at too high a level: We continue to condemn most minority students >to inferior schools, then complain when we have to relax standards to >get them into and out of college. > >Worst of all, she bases her article on tired populary myths rather than >actual scientific observation of past and present teaching and usage. >How many students in the past actually did master "good grammar"? Only >those who went on to college, I suspect, or found employment in >middle-class occupations. And how much of a role did language prejudice >play in those two outcomes? If you grow up in a middle-class home, your >language is much more likely to be like that of the school than if you >grow up in a different class. As true back then as it is today, >middle-class children have an automatic language advantage in school. >This is eroding somewhat, due to change in the middle-class dialect >(e.g., loss of 'whom' and pronoun-case changes) and to the decline of >reading and intellectual pursuits in all social classes. But many of the >grammar points today's pedagogical grammars harp on are still dialect >differences: multiple negation, differences in reflexive pronouns, verb >paradigms, "sit" vs. "set", and so on. A laundry list of changes in >middle-class English and formal/informal differences also shows up >(who/whom; "between you and I", loss of adjective/adverb distinctions; >"lie" vs. "lay", etc.), evening the terrain somewhat, but not enough to >erase the class advantage. > >Why doesn't Charrow follow standard scientific practice by studying the >facts of the situation before writing her piece? I suspect it is because >she finds it to her advantage to ride the current wave of nostalgic >appeal to "the good ole days" rather than address real problems. >Language does not cause, but reflects the intellectual interests of a >culture. Charrow's professional publications address clarity in legal >language. The Washington Times identifies her as working for the >government. Perhaps she could better use her time cleaning up the >propagandist Newspeak the current administration is mass-producing. > >*************************************************** >Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics >English Department, Cal Poly State University >San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596 >Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~ E-mail: [log in to unmask] >URL: 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/ 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/