Grammar debate- is this true?

[smitcompton]

Hi

I'm in a sort of shock. Jewelfreak, your posts are amazing, so well said. Thank you.

I would like to give another example of an experience I had in England. I met my new sister-in-law for the first time and noticed, what I thought was bad grammar. She kept saying "Me MUM". I couldn't ask her, so I gathered up the courage to ask a grown niece. She told me its correct, but I still inwardly held on to my slight aversion of the phrase.

I worked in a Cockney bar, on one of my visits there. My ear hurt, but that is a dying dialect. Interesting.

Nice discussion here.


Annette

 

[VRBeauty]

Look, I don't particularly care for either of my examples, and in my prior life, which included a lot of editing, they would have been re-written into more acceptable English. But language does change. Style books and dictionaries are updated regularly. We no longer speak Shakespearean English and we no longer speak or write the English used by the founding fathers.

Some word usage makes its way into generally acceptable English, or at least into "acceptable variants," while others are forever held up as examples of poor English, or if you prefer, "dialect" variations, and I'm wondering about the forces that choose whether it's one or the other. And by suggesting that class and power may have something to do with it, I'm not suggesting that it's because these choices are a tool of oppression. It may be as simple as who runs the media, which, like it or not, helps shape what most people consider to be acceptable speech. I don't have statistics, but observation would suggest that minorities are generally under-represented on both the big and small screens, and if they're under-represented on the screen they're probably under-represented in the ownership and decision-making too. Apparently the same is true in the advertising industry. Per the NY Times, a 2011 report issued by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics found that of the 78,000 Americans working as advertising and promotion managers, 9.6 percent were Hispanic, 2.3 percent were Asian and fewer than 1 percent were African-American. Is it PC to postulate that race and class enter into shaping what's considered acceptable language because race and class play a role in what we see and hear and read? Personally, I don't think so. I think it's naive to assume that those forces don't influence what's considered acceptable, which will eventually affect what's considered "proper" English.

 

[mayerling]

I'll reiterate. A language is a "dialect" that is generally accepted as official - for instance, General American in the US (i.e. the variety spoken in the Mid West), or RP (which is pretty much dead) in the UK. It is in no way better or worse than other varieties, other than the fact that people are raised to perceive it as more articulate, or more correct in general. It has a grammar and its grammar does not always correspond to the grammar of other varieties. Nobody said these other varieties (yes, this is the proper scientific term and it's got nothing to do with being PC) should take over and the official variety should be pushed aside. What I'm trying to say is that other varieties are not "lacking" in any way, nor are they "less correct" than the official variety; they just don't match it entirely and they have their own time and place.

 

[AGBF]

I'll reiterate. A language is a "dialect" that is generally accepted as official -

I really don't mean to pick on you, mayerling, but you are not, now, reiterating when you say that a language is a dialect that is accepted as official! I do not believe that either Laurie or I would have had any problem with that. But you did not stop there. In your earlier posts, and in this one, you insisted that it was not "scientific" to use the term "dialect" and therein lay the rub...which, apparently, you still cannot comprehend.

You just used the term "dialect" yourself because it was useful. As Laurie pointed out in an earlier posting, it is a very useful word. It describes something that the word, "language" does not.

AGBF

 

[mayerling]

I'll reiterate. A language is a "dialect" that is generally accepted as official -

I really don't mean to pick on you, mayerling, but you are not, now, reiterating when you say that a language is a dialect that is accepted as official! I do not believe that either Laurie or I would have had any problem with that. But you did not stop there. In your earlier posts, and in this one, you insisted that it was not "scientific" to use the term "dialect" and therein lay the rub...which, apparently, you still cannot comprehend.

You just used the term "dialect" yourself because it was useful. As Laurie pointed out in an earlier posting, it is a very useful word. It describes something that the word, "language" does not.

AGBF

I used the term to "speak your lingo" and to reiterate that General American is no more correct than Black English. It's just official. It's only a useful term for explaining this to what we would call "lay people", i.e. people who do not not study the science of language.

 

[AGBF]

I'll reiterate. A language is a "dialect" that is generally accepted as official -

I really don't mean to pick on you, mayerling, but you are not, now, reiterating when you say that a language is a dialect that is accepted as official! I do not believe that either Laurie or I would have had any problem with that. But you did not stop there. In your earlier posts, and in this one, you insisted that it was not "scientific" to use the term "dialect" and therein lay the rub...which, apparently, you still cannot comprehend.

You just used the term "dialect" yourself because it was useful. As Laurie pointed out in an earlier posting, it is a very useful word. It describes something that the word, "language" does not.

I used the term to "speak your lingo" and to reiterate that General American is no more correct than Black English. It's just official. It's only a useful term for explaining this to what we would call "lay people", i.e. people who do not not study the science of language.

I would like to think think that you are pulling my leg with this posting. Since you are an erudite Ph.D who apparently doesn't speak the way I do, perhaps I should point out that "pulling my leg" is part of my "lingo" and means "teasing me".

I suspect, however, that you are completely serious and think that you need to stoop to "speak my lingo" if you wish me to understand you.

Actually, it appears that you believe that I, being a mere "lay person", cannot be expected to understand the complicated "science of language" or perhaps any written or spoken language at all.

AGBF

 

[JewelFreak]

Speaking our lingo, gosh, I'm just so awed at your efforts to be clear to us lower animals. Sigh, isn't Academia something else, Deb? I'm grinning ear to ear, silly monkey that I am.

More tomorrow.

--- Laurie

 

[Circe]

... I don't think that was meant to be condescending: professional jargon can be at odds to common usage (and even sometimes diametrically opposed - see, "critical" as normal people use it vs. how academics use it, or "generic"). I see the point about "dialect" having a pejorative connotation: I think the first time it caught my eye was in Achebe's seminal essay about Conrad and _Heart of Darkness_, and damned if it didn't ring true! I'll see if I can track down the quotation tomorrow.

As for the original question ... context is everything. I say that as an English prof and a lover of language. But here, in this debate, I think the issue has become less about grammar, and more about what we mean when we say "correct" ... do we mean it subjectively, or objectively? I'd like to think there's room for both (depending again, of course, on context - oh, for the ability to bring in the "whacko" emoti when I type on my phone).

 

[mayerling]

... I don't think that was meant to be condescending: professional jargon can be at odds to common usage (and even sometimes diametrically opposed - see, "critical" as normal people use it vs. how academics use it, or "generic"). I see the point about "dialect" having a pejorative connotation: I think the first time it caught my eye was in Achebe's seminal essay about Conrad and _Heart of Darkness_, and damned if it didn't ring true! I'll see if I can track down the quotation tomorrow.

As for the original question ... context is everything. I say that as an English prof and a lover of language. But here, in this debate, I think the issue has become less about grammar, and more about what we mean when we say "correct" ... do we mean it subjectively, or objectively? I'd like to think there's room for both (depending again, of course, on context - oh, for the ability to bring in the "whacko" emoti when I type on my phone).

Exactly.

 

[mayerling]

Deb and Laurie,

I did not mean to pick on you or patronise you. I actually have a lot of respect for the two of you from previous threads. However, it can be frustrating to be paid no attention to when one has spent close to 15 years studying a topic. I gave you the science and you ignored it. People seem to think that just because they speak (a) language, they're experts on language (language, not the grammar of a language). Would you have kept on with your views if we'd been discussing nuclear physics, and a nuclear physicist posted on the thread?

 

[AGBF]

Deb and Laurie,

I did not mean to pick on you or patronise you. I actually have a lot of respect for the two of you from previous threads. However, it can be frustrating to be paid no attention to when one has spent close to 15 years studying a topic. I gave you the science and you ignored it. People seem to think that just because they speak (a) language, they're experts on language (language, not the grammar of a language). Would you have kept on with your views if we'd been discussing nuclear physics, and a nuclear physicist posted on the thread?

So Laurie and I were allowed to post on previous threads, just not on this one. Thank you.

Would I have dared to have an opinion when speaking with a nuclear physicist? Well, yes. I do know that there are limits to my knowledge about nuclear physics, but, being a fairly reasonable person, I am aware of what those limits are. I do not believe I would have argued with him about things I do not comprehend.

If, for example, a nuclear physicist had said that dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki was a good idea, however, I would have argued with him. That is an area within my sphere of competency. In fact, I happened to know one of the nuclear physicists who worked on the original Manhattan project and built the atom bomb, which is why I chose that subject since you mentioned nuclear physicists.

Your problem all along-and in my opinion it has been a problem-is that you think that as soon as someone with credentials in a certain field enters a debate that everyone else in the debate with him should automatically remain silent.

In my opinion you are not entitled to the reverence you demand simply because you spent 15 years studying a topic. Your arguments should still rise or fall on their merits.

AGBF

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

What in heavens name is this all about? The term variety vs dialect? Or, the fact that Mayerling said that the grammatical structure of a variety language is correct within that language. I never felt Mayerling was talking down to me. In fact I really learned something from her. You and Jewelfreak expressed a position about the validity of accepting the correctness of that premise, but your attack on her is uncalled for IMO. Please, don't continue in that vein.


Mayerling, I like to keep up, and you kept me up. I will probably use the word dialect, except when I want to show off.


Annette

 

[mayerling]

Deb, you posted on this thread. I never said you're not allowed to. I posted on this thread to give you what is scientifically accepted, i.e. that all varieties are equally valid, despite one of them being official. You, and others, went on about how you know better than the science, i.e. linguistics. I tried over and over to explain that perhaps somebody who studies the topic in question knows a bit more than somebody who doesn't, and that continuing with a view that has been shown scientifically to be plain wrong amounts to just spreading misinformation. You, and others, then proceeded to personally attack me, patronise me, and who knows what else. At this point, I don't know how else to explain things or what else to say so I'm going to step away and hope that others, like Annette who's already spoken up about this, have learned something from this discussion.

 

[amc80]

Mayerling- This is sort of off topic, but what does one do with a doctorate degree in Linguistics? Other than teach Linguistics?

ETA- I hope that didn't come off as offensive. I just don't know anyone with that degree and don't know what sort of job market exists in the field.

 

[AGBF]

I posted on this thread to give you what is scientifically accepted, i.e. that all varieties are equally valid, despite one of them being official. You, and others, went on about how you know better than the science, i.e. linguistics.

Where did I do that, mayerling? Where did I say I knew better than science?

Deb/AGBF

 

[VapidLapid]

I cant help but feel that this discussion has lost its way and is chasing phantoms. The scientific study of linguistics, which gives no particular language practice priority or "more correctness" over another is of necessity interdisciplinary, using phonics, develpomental psychology, philosophy, anthropology, socio-economics, chirography, and really a host of other specialized perspectives to document, and analyse languages. It often happens that specialized practices develop their own linguistic shorthand, which, too, is part of the study of linguistics. To those outside of any specialized practice, its language, while using familiar words, can mean, or represent different aspects. I believe that Linguistics fundamentally acknowledges this. The dichotomy of Specialists vs. Lay-people is not the subject, not a criterion for evaluating, or characterizing a language. Regardless of a language's derivation, or the cultural pressures that contributed to its evolution, within that language system, its rules are correct. The rules of one pocket of a morphed language, regardless of the cause(s) of the morphology, will not always agree with the parent language. From the point of view of the parent language, the morphed language is incorrect. The practitioners of the morphed language may not care what the parent language practitioners think. A closed system, even if antecedent from an other system, will still remain "other". What I think has been lost in this thread is the question of "to whom?". To some, the phrase, "I seen it" is acceptable meaningful communication. To others, including speakers of the old guard it is plain wrong. The analysis of the question of why is it right to some, and wrong to others is part of the field of Linguistics. While education, access to education, contemporary culture and socio-economics may all contribute as factors in the evolution of a linguistic form, Linguistics does not make value judgements, but does make note of such cultural stressors on language development.
I feel it would be a shame to mistake the language of one system (formal Linguistics), restated for a less specialized colloquial audience, as talking down (which is a value judgement), but rather only as translation, albeit from an English of a specialized practice, to a more general one. I think this applies both to the OP's question, and to the discussion that followed.

eta, a comma

 

[Circe]

I cant help but feel that this discussion has lost its way and is chasing phantoms. The scientific study of linguistics, which gives no particular language practice priority or "more correctness" over another is of necessity interdisciplinary, using phonics, develpomental psychology, philosophy, anthropology, socio-economics, chirography, and really a host of other specialized perspectives to document, and analyse languages. It often happens that specialized practices develop their own linguistic shorthand, which, too, is part of the study of linguistics. To those outside of any specialized practice, its language, while using familiar words, can mean, or represent different aspects. I believe that Linguistics fundamentally acknowledges this. The dichotomy of Specialists vs. Lay-people is not the subject, not a criterion for evaluating, or characterizing a language. Regardless of a language's derivation, or the cultural pressures that contributed to its evolution, within that language system, its rules are correct. The rules of one pocket of a morphed language, regardless of the cause(s) of the morphology, will not always agree with the parent language. From the point of view of the parent language, the morphed language is incorrect. The practitioners of the morphed language may not care what the parent language practitioners think. A closed system, even if antecedent from an other system, will still remain "other". What I think has been lost in this thread is the question of "to whom?". To some, the phrase, "I seen it" is acceptable meaningful communication. To others, including speakers of the old guard it is plain wrong. The analysis of the question of why is it right to some, and wrong to others is part of the field of Linguistics. While education, access to education, contemporary culture and socio-economics may all contribute as factors in the evolution of a linguistic form, Linguistics does not make value judgements, but does make note of such cultural stressors on language development.
I feel it would be a shame to mistake the language of one system (formal Linguistics), restated for a less specialized colloquial audience, as talking down (which is a value judgement), but rather only as translation, albeit from an English of a specialized practice, to a more general one. I think this applies both to the OP's question, and to the discussion that followed.

eta, a comma

Beautifully put.

 

[Circe]

Here, btw, is a link to the essay I mentioned: written in the 1970s, it is primarily concerned with literary & cultural criticism, but the final paragraphs seemed pertinent, particularly this:

The Christian Science Monitor, a paper more enlightened than most, once carried an interesting article written by its Education Editor on the serious psychological and learning problems faced by little children who speak one language at home and then go to school where something else is spoken. It was a wide-ranging article taking in Spanish-speaking children in America, the children of migrant Italian workers in Germany, the quadrilingual phenomenon in Malaysia, and so on. And all this while the article speaks unequivocally about language. But then out of the blue sky comes this:

In London there is an enormous immigration of children who speak Indian or Nigerian dialects, or some other native language.

I believe that the introduction of dialects which is technically erroneous in the context is almost a reflex action caused by an instinctive desire of the writer to downgrade the discussion to the level of Africa and India. And this is quite comparable to Conrad's withholding of language from his rudimentary souls. Language is too grand for these chaps; let's give them dialects!

In all this business a lot of violence is inevitably done not only to the image of despised peoples but even to words, the very tools of possible redress. Look at the phrase native language in the Science Monitor excerpt. Surely the only native language possible in London is Cockney English. But our writer means something else -- something appropriate to the sounds Indians and Africans make!

- http://kirbyk.net/hod/image.of.africa.html

 

[AGBF]

I cant help but feel that this discussion has lost its way and is chasing phantoms. The scientific study of linguistics, which gives no particular language practice priority or "more correctness" over another is of necessity interdisciplinary, using phonics, develpomental psychology, philosophy, anthropology, socio-economics, chirography, and really a host of other specialized perspectives to document, and analyse languages. It often happens that specialized practices develop their own linguistic shorthand, which, too, is part of the study of linguistics. To those outside of any specialized practice, its language, while using familiar words, can mean, or represent different aspects. I believe that Linguistics fundamentally acknowledges this. The dichotomy of Specialists vs. Lay-people is not the subject, not a criterion for evaluating, or characterizing a language. Regardless of a language's derivation, or the cultural pressures that contributed to its evolution, within that language system, its rules are correct. The rules of one pocket of a morphed language, regardless of the cause(s) of the morphology, will not always agree with the parent language. From the point of view of the parent language, the morphed language is incorrect. The practitioners of the morphed language may not care what the parent language practitioners think. A closed system, even if antecedent from an other system, will still remain "other". What I think has been lost in this thread is the question of "to whom?". To some, the phrase, "I seen it" is acceptable meaningful communication. To others, including speakers of the old guard it is plain wrong.

Beautifully put.

I will tell you why I am frustrated. It is because I understood and agreed with everything that VapidLapid wrote that I quoted the entire time that I participated in this thread. This is not a new topic to me.

I have participated in many, many discussions in which one group takes the position that language should not change, that grammar as it exists at one moment in time is sacrosanct (the grammarians of that era) and the other group, the followers of linguistics, take the position that language is ever-changing, that, "it is what it is".

I never placed a higher value on "standard English" than on another variety of English except to say that one must know standard English to do well on the SATs, which is acknowledging the current political reality.

I do not feel I "lost my way or chased phantoms". I feel that I posted intelligently and sanely throughout the entire discussion and I am not responsible for anyone else who posted to the thread.

Deb/AGBF

 

[JewelFreak]

an interesting article written by its Education Editor on the serious psychological and learning problems faced by little children who speak one language at home and then go to school where something else is spoken. I

This is so profoundly ignorant, wrong, and plain stupid, I will stew for ages if I don't object to its being paid any attention at all. Serious problems from speaking 2 languages per day???? Millions and millions of children around the globe grow up bi- and even trilingual, for heaven's sake. The only serious psychological damage is done by idiots like this, full of psychobabble jargon, trying to justify their employment, telling kids & parents something is wrong with them. So the "experts" can then fix it. This piece of garbage was written in 1977 -- almost 40 years ago. Bury it as it deserves. Children are hardwired to learn language -- they soak it up like little sponges. It is much easier to learn more than one language in childhood than to wait till high school or whatever silly recommendation this nitwit & colleagues made.

Its language is a window on how a culture thinks. Language offers a wider horizon, greater wisdom, understanding of other peoples, and just plain fun. It offers culture in the original -- literature, movies, whatever else, not through an interpreter's eyes, but through one's own.

I was not offended by what you wrote, Mayerling. I do, however, object to being expected to swallow wholesale anyone's pronouncements on language, no matter what degree he or she has. Linguistics, I'm sorry, is not a science. At most it is a "soft" science, like economics, psychology, etc. It is not a discipline where research will find immutable conditions or facts that are endlessly repeatable, as hard science does. Today's theory is tomorrow's forgotten fad, like the above CSM article. Saying the accepted mainstream form of a language is one dialect, ahem...I mean variation...and others equally correct is not a firm, provable scientific statement. It is your opinion. One that risks persuading people who speak a dialect that their country's culture is wrong for requiring they also learn the accepted language -- and thereby depriving them of wondrous opportunities for growth in life. That is immoral, in my learned opinion.

--- Laurie

P.S. And yes, if I knew as much about nuclear science as I do language, I would argue with a nuclear physicist. If you went to grade school after 1970, I'll put my knowledge of grammar against yours. Grammar, syntax, composition, spelling, vocabulary were exhaustively taught when I was in school (and 2nd languages too, which I started studying very very young). Drummed into our little brains without the slightest hint of mental illness coming on, lol. Since I went on to study 7 more languages & do business & give scientific lectures in 3 of them, it must have worked.

 

[Circe]

Heh, as someone who grew up bilingual herself ... I can testify that the Christian Science Monitor of the 1970s was talking guff. But I would guess Achebe quoted it not for its intrinsic value (or lack thereof), but to demonstrate the attitude he'd been addressing throughout. And to be fair ... as a white girl from a Slavic nation, nobody ever asked me which dialect I spoke. Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc, are all considered separate languages despite their many commonalities in a way that the languages of India and Africa are sometimes not.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

My mother has begun to say, "I says" when she's telling me a story about a conversation she had with someone else. It's usually when she's riled up. Out of respect for her, I've never said anything, but GOSH!!! it drives me crazy. She's from a small town but never used that phrase while I was growing up, so I'm not sure why she has developed this habit!

 

[Gem Queen]

Just another opinion.
I am a court reporter. When people mispronounce words when they are in the witness box, I have to write what they say verbatim.
It drives my crazy. I had a witness on the stand that said, "I axed him." This is an educated person. I had to leave it in the way they said it. I would like to have said, can you repeat that last word without saying did you mean ask.
I also thought that we are eating more healthful. I could be wrong

 

[Gem Queen]

Guilty Pleasure.
My mom is from Chicago and she says that all the time.

 

[VapidLapid]

Just another opinion.
I am a court reporter. When people mispronounce words when they are in the witness box, I have to write what they say verbatim.
It drives my crazy. I had a witness on the stand that said, "I axed him." This is an educated person. I had to leave it in the way they said it. I would like to have said, can you repeat that last word without saying did you mean ask.
I also thought that we are eating more healthful. I could be wrong

Presumably a murder trial?

 

[Gem Queen]

Vapid Lapid, Actually a dependency trial. It was a senior social worker.

 

[AGBF]

I had a witness on the stand that said, "I axed him."

Presumably a murder trial?

You do provide comic relief in times of stress, my friend.

 

[Gem Queen]

If you're referring to me, I'm much funnier in real life. I even had Dennis Rodman on the stand. Need I say more!

 

[JewelFreak]

Holy cow, that must have been an experience! Did you have to keep a straight face?

I'm always a little suspicious of the true educational background of people who ax questions, no matter what they claim. For about 3 months when I saw my company's distributors in Europe, I seemed to coincide with an American guy selling what he said was a new company's fancy blades for scalpels, said they had Wilkinson blades. Charming really fun guy. Kept dropping that his father was a NY state supreme court judge -- didn't seem to realize that in NY the supreme court is the lowest state court. Anyway -- he had to ax people about things, which gave me doubts about him right away. Turned out that people who had ordered these wonders from him never got them & he disappeared -- we axed everybody & nobody seen him after he got a few orders.

 

[missy]

Holy cow, that must have been an experience! Did you have to keep a straight face?

I'm always a little suspicious of the true educational background of people who ax questions, no matter what they claim. For about 3 months when I saw my company's distributors in Europe, I seemed to coincide with an American guy selling what he said was a new company's fancy blades for scalpels, said they had Wilkinson blades. Charming really fun guy. Kept dropping that his father was a NY state supreme court judge -- didn't seem to realize that in NY the supreme court is the lowest state court. Anyway -- he had to ax people about things, which gave me doubts about him right away. Turned out that people who had ordered these wonders from him never got them & he disappeared -- we axed everybody & nobody seen him after he got a few orders.

Laurie, unfortunately it is very common here to mispronounce and misuse words. I think it can be cultural and not always indicative of education level.

I work(ed) with doctors who use "axed" instead of asked and add S's to the end of words where there are no S's. For example instead of Costco I know a fair number of people who say Costcos and even more people who say "axe". And one of them is a close friend who is a doctor.

Not that being a doctor means you are an expert at language. In fact in many cases far from it. I am often challenged by proper grammar usage etc and know my limitations (!) but still. I have corrected her very nicely as she is a friend after all and I don't want her to continue making the same (ignorant) mistake. Now I have stopped correcting her as she continues to revert back to the same mistakes. It's not like she doesn't try but she keeps forgetting.

Anyway, my point is that I know educated people who make very common mistakes. It's not always an indication of education level. Though perhaps English grammar was not a strong point for them in school. I think it can be so ingrained into a culture that it can be difficult to break free of grammatical errors.

And I am quite sure I made many grammatical errors in my post LOL. Just remember I am not claiming to be good at using the English language. In fact my dh often marvels that English is my first language hahaha.