| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | An interesting and polemic article 投稿者: Lesley Clarke
|
|---|
Ty Kendall wrote:
When armed with the full picture it's quite hard for others to use prescriptive grammar to discriminate or to stigmatize i.e.
A: You're using double negatives...How barbaric!
B: Well, maybe that's because I don't believe that rules of formal logic or maths apply to languages. Even if the long dead Bishop Robert Lowth decreed it so.
I simply can't not agree 
| | | | | I ♥ this quote | Mar 3, 2012 |
Russell Jones wrote: I've been looking for a suitable opportunity to share this (by Oliver Kamm, The Times, 6 September 2011). Understanding how words fit together to form sentences enriches the life of the mind.
Grammar is not a science. It is a body of agreements, like law or the rules of chess, about the meaning of words and the forms they take when combined. Writers broadly adhere to these conventions to understand each other better. If those agreements did not exist, there would necessarily be others in their place.
Language of course evolves. Over the very long term, Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification to explain the origin of species is fascinatingly apt in explaining also the origin of languages. Even in a short time, a convention about language may become so disregarded that it no longer applies. But in general, it’s a good thing if the pace of change is not so rapid that the literature of previous generations becomes obscure. Modern readers are fortunate in being able easily to make sense of Shakespeare, because our conventions have enough in common with his.
Understanding grammar is not about rote learning. Grammar is a tool that, once grasped, is empowering. It enables you to talk to any audience without being dismissed or patronised because of the way you write or speak.
Grammar gains a hearing for your ideas, allowing them to be judged on their merits. When you learn a foreign language, you can’t do it merely by memorising a list of words. You need to know how the words combine and how their relation to each other alters their form. It’s no different with your native tongue.
My philosophy of grammar is far from original. As Kingsley Amis once put it, in a review of a book on English usage: “This book is founded on a principle taken for granted by most writers and readers since time immemorial: that there is a right way of using words and constructing sentences and plenty of wrong ways.”
I completely agree, having a national standardized language requires a standardised grammar (which should be open to change)....if for no other reason to facilitate communication between millions of people across a nation with a multitude of dialects. Whilst some may argue it stifles creativity or marginalizes dialects, it is also a very useful and necessary (in a modern literate society) tool of empowerment.
Grammar suffers from the unfortunate collocation with "rules", but once grasped, nobody holds a gun to your head insisting you abide by them. There's a lot of linguistic creativity and diversity that can be generated by playing with and breaking the rules.
When it comes to grammar, ignorance isn't always bliss.
| | | | | Re article quoted by Russell | Mar 4, 2012 |
Russell Jones wrote:
Grammar is not a science. It is a body of agreements, like law or the rules of chess, about the meaning of words and the forms they take when combined. Writers broadly adhere to these conventions to understand each other better. If those agreements did not exist, there would necessarily be others in their place.
Well, grammar *can* be a science if you choose to study it in such a way. However, taking it as the author means here to be a set of rules *not* intended to be scientific (so presumably, not intended to be descriptively sufficient and satisfactory, but rather arbitrarily invented, but not with a logical basis)... well, there's little actual evidence for what the author supposes-- that writers would cease to be able to understand one another without such rules. This is precisely the "perceived-doom-and-gloom" scenario that I mentioned above which there's little evidence for.
Russell Jones wrote:
Language of course evolves. Over the very long term, Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification to explain the origin of species is fascinatingly apt in explaining also the origin of languages. Even in a short time, a convention about language may become so disregarded that it no longer applies. But in general, it’s a good thing if the pace of change is not so rapid that the literature of previous generations becomes obscure.
OK, here the writer appears to completely confuse the natural evolution of language-- which indeed can be seen as largely Darwinian-- with the adoption of non-natural, arbitrarily invented rules. The two are not the same thing.
You may decide that it would be nice if language evolved slowly enough to allow you to understand the literature of previous cultures. But unfortunately, language is a complex system and doesn't owe you such a promise.
If you think about it, the logic of the author's argument doesn't quite follow, in any case. He's saying "language evolves in a Darwinian way". Now, that's almost certainly true, but what that inherently means is that it naturally evolves in a way that takes into account the overall "needs" of the language, both in terms of how it internally 'hangs together' as a system, and also in order to meet the needs of speakers. (Or put another way, features that aren't actually used by a large enough percentage of speakers are liable to "die out".) So if conserving intelligibility of literature over generations was actually such a pressing need, then it would probably be preserved "naturally" by the evolution of language. The fact that language actually evolves in a way that disregards such a need means that that need is not so pressing in the grand scheme of things.
Russell Jones wrote:
You need to know how the words combine and how their relation to each other alters their form. It’s no different with your native tongue.
Of course it is different! It's an entirely different situation. On the one hand you are continuously exposed to the language to the extent that you can 'naturally' acquire the syntax of the language. On the other, as a foreign language learner, you are attempting to artificially make up for the lack of such exposure by using explicit learning of rules as a kind of shortcut.
Is this man seriously suggesting that without prescriptive grammar rules, children would be unable to acquire the syntax of their language? That's simply nonsense.
| | | | | Kamm seems confused to me | Mar 4, 2012 |
To start with, he appears in this quote to be completely ignoring the distinction between spoken and written that Ty suggested.
More ugly, for me, is this section:
"Grammar gains a hearing for your ideas, allowing them to be judged on their merits."
Or, put the other way around: If you don't talk like I talk (or like I tell you to talk), I will just ignore you and your arguments.
Ty: "Whilst some may argue it stifles creativity or marginalizes... See more To start with, he appears in this quote to be completely ignoring the distinction between spoken and written that Ty suggested.
More ugly, for me, is this section:
"Grammar gains a hearing for your ideas, allowing them to be judged on their merits."
Or, put the other way around: If you don't talk like I talk (or like I tell you to talk), I will just ignore you and your arguments.
Ty: "Whilst some may argue it stifles creativity or marginalizes dialects..."
It's not the dialects I'm worried about. It's the people who speak them. Where I live, people are literally kept out of senior jobs for speaking the wrong dialect. In the UK it was never quite so open, just a gentle cold shoulder for those who spoke with the wrong accent or used non-U constructions. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Nothing's changed then.... | Mar 4, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
In the UK it was never quite so open, just a gentle cold shoulder for those who spoke with the wrong accent or used non-U constructions.
Despite Welsh news readers, Brummie presenters and countless shows about Geordies I fear accent/dialect prejudice is alive and well even in Britain 2012.
Very recently a friend of mine told me about a job interview she went to where it was very clear that her very generic West Midlands accent (she hardly has a hardcore Brummie or a Black Country accent/dialect) provided a definite obstacle for her getting the position in a private school near to where I live in Shrewsbury, despite the fact she has a 1st class honours degree in teaching and linguistics and years of experience.
A very sorry state of affairs.
The way I interpreted (part of) the article quoted by Russell is that if everyone wrote in their dialects as well as spoke in them, then this prejudice would pervade both speech and writing...
It enables you to talk to any audience without being dismissed or patronised because of the way you write or speak.
Grammar gains a hearing for your ideas, allowing them to be judged on their merits.
Although prejudice does exist even in writing now when people fail to follow conventions of spelling and grammar and are labelled 'illiterate' or ignorant.
[Edited at 2012-03-04 08:11 GMT]
| | | | | I don't think speech and writing are separate enough... | Mar 4, 2012 |
to make the distinction you're aiming for there. Not even in Chinese, and certainly not in English. You can't say, it's alright (or it should be alright) to speak in accent/dialect, but everyone should learn the same writing conventions so that there will be no prejudice.
1) People generally write as they talk; and the standard writing conventions are based on one particular dialect of British English, so this approach would still impose a writing threshold that is higher for some (... See more to make the distinction you're aiming for there. Not even in Chinese, and certainly not in English. You can't say, it's alright (or it should be alright) to speak in accent/dialect, but everyone should learn the same writing conventions so that there will be no prejudice.
1) People generally write as they talk; and the standard writing conventions are based on one particular dialect of British English, so this approach would still impose a writing threshold that is higher for some (northerners) than for others (middle/upper class southerners).
2) Why not put the effort into getting rid of the prejudice rather than attempting to impose conformity? They're both big tasks, but to me, one seems obviously more worthy than the other.
I went to a private school near Shrewsbury. There were definitely no non-U speakers on the teaching staff. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Necessary grammar | Mar 4, 2012 |
How do you learn comma placement if you don't know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses in English? (Danish translators of Danish into English, please learn this!)
Some explicit grammar knowledge is necessary to write standard written English.
| | | | | "Necessity" for comma placement... | Mar 4, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
How do you learn comma placement if you don't know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses in English?
I'm not sure that comma placement is a particularly compelling example of a need for prescriptive rules. As far as I can see, in this case it doesn't essentially represent an exception to the basic principle of "a comma represents a pause inside a sentence".
If you do invent an arbitrary rule dictating that comma placement deviates from "first principles", then you're essentially just setting up a circular argument: essentially, you're saying "I've invented an arbitrary rule which relies on some arbitrary grammatical framework, so teaching of that arbitrary framework is necessary in order to teach the arbitrary rule that I've invented" but that doesn't prove that your rule per se actually serves any purpose.
Michele Fauble wrote:
Some explicit grammar knowledge is necessary to write standard written English.
I still say: this is a common assumption but I wonder if there's actually much evidence to back it up.
| | |
|
|
|
| The "need" for grammar | Mar 4, 2012 |
I think there might be more substantial arguments to be made for the necessity of grammar. Some might think of it as a useful framework (arbitrary or not) to analyse, view, review, deconstruct and reconstruct language (and literature), or for cross-comparison of languages.
Some might argue grammar is necessary to talk about language (in addition to meta-language).
I have no doubt there will be counterarguments against these too...
...but can we agree that i... See more I think there might be more substantial arguments to be made for the necessity of grammar. Some might think of it as a useful framework (arbitrary or not) to analyse, view, review, deconstruct and reconstruct language (and literature), or for cross-comparison of languages.
Some might argue grammar is necessary to talk about language (in addition to meta-language).
I have no doubt there will be counterarguments against these too...
...but can we agree that in today's society, the way it stands now - a society in which in order to succeed it is beneficial to be able to obey certain abitrary and abstract language "rules", especially in writing, regardless of how we feel about their validity or worth? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Neil, it looks like you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. | Mar 4, 2012 |
The proper use of commas is vital when writing long complex sentences. And not just to show that you know the rules, but because the meaning can easily be lost otherwise. Forget about complex sentences, Lynn Truss gives a perfect example as the title of her book, "eats shoots and leaves" of how a misplaced comma can turn a panda into a cowboy.
| | | | | Need for "grammar"... depending on how "grammar" is defined | Mar 5, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I think there might be more substantial arguments to be made for the necessity of grammar. Some might think of it as a useful framework (arbitrary or not) to analyse, view, review, deconstruct and reconstruct language (and literature), or for cross-comparison of languages.
Yes! Grammar as a descriptive framework for analysing language can be very important and useful. Absolutely!
Ty Kendall wrote:
...but can we agree that in today's society, the way it stands now - a society in which in order to succeed it is beneficial to be able to obey certain abitrary and abstract language "rules", especially in writing, regardless of how we feel about their validity or worth?
Interestingly, there is research that suggests otherwise. (Sorry -- don't have reference to hand but will try and dig one out when I get chance!) The ironic situation is that there is a perception among less literate students that learning to obey prescriptive grammar rules is very important because they will be judged by their obeyance of those rules. Whereas more literate writers don't tend to worry about That Kind Of Thing.
| | | | | Maybe he should run the article through Google Translate first | Mar 5, 2012 |
The author's point would have been better made if he had written it in "poor" grammar. If you make the argument for not learning to write "properly" and yet you choose to write it using correct English grammar and syntax, you're not exactly convincing anyone.
[Edited at 2012-03-05 00:50 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Language Log suggests otherwise... | Mar 5, 2012 |
Ty: Surely you've read their ongoing series of posts about examples in the media - professional writers! - of getting hopelessly muddled over what voice is, what the passive is, what tense is. I agree with Neil on this one, I don't see much empirical evidence that systematic understanding of language is significantly correlated with success.
And even if I did, I wouldn't see that as something to be celebrated here. I've benefited enormously from being a straight, white man, but I do... See more Ty: Surely you've read their ongoing series of posts about examples in the media - professional writers! - of getting hopelessly muddled over what voice is, what the passive is, what tense is. I agree with Neil on this one, I don't see much empirical evidence that systematic understanding of language is significantly correlated with success.
And even if I did, I wouldn't see that as something to be celebrated here. I've benefited enormously from being a straight, white man, but I don't see that as a good reason to tell people they should all be straight, white and male. It's a good reason for working to end prejudice and support those who don't share my privilege.
Ultimately, the nerds win. We all know this, geekery of all kinds will inherit the earth, because we know more stuff than anyone else, and we'll use it to get money, power and women. But it's kind of a long-run project. Not sure that it's going to come to fruition in my lifetime ▲ Collapse
| | | | John Fossey 
カナダ
Local time: 01:39
2008に入会
フランス語 から 英語
+ ...
| For Safety Sake | Mar 5, 2012 |
If you are ever driving through the state of Massachusetts, you may or may not be annoyed by the frequent roadsigns "Take a break, Stay Awake for Safety Sake". Does the grammar error - the missing apostrophe "s" - matter? It certainly helps linguists and others stay awake while driving, noticing the grammar error every few miles. The missing "s" is inaudible when speaking but very noticeable when written.
Somehow I have a feeling that if it were a Highway Code rule being broken ra... See more If you are ever driving through the state of Massachusetts, you may or may not be annoyed by the frequent roadsigns "Take a break, Stay Awake for Safety Sake". Does the grammar error - the missing apostrophe "s" - matter? It certainly helps linguists and others stay awake while driving, noticing the grammar error every few miles. The missing "s" is inaudible when speaking but very noticeable when written.
Somehow I have a feeling that if it were a Highway Code rule being broken rather than a Grammer rule, the friendly roadside State Trooper would care. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Grammar is essential | Mar 5, 2012 |
Mmm, Just consulted my dictionary on the word "Grammar" and, of course, it means both the thing (the internal structure of a language" and the study thereof.
Every language and dialect of a language has an internal structure that cannot be ignored. And for us, as linguists, the study of that should be particularly interesting.
I think a lot of the discussion here seems to centre on absurd grammatical quibbles that resulted from an imperfect 18th century idea of Englis... See more Mmm, Just consulted my dictionary on the word "Grammar" and, of course, it means both the thing (the internal structure of a language" and the study thereof.
Every language and dialect of a language has an internal structure that cannot be ignored. And for us, as linguists, the study of that should be particularly interesting.
I think a lot of the discussion here seems to centre on absurd grammatical quibbles that resulted from an imperfect 18th century idea of English grammar, such as the prohibition on split infinitives, but I don't think it is valid to take an anti-intellectual stance.
I think a good grounding in grammar and its terminology is extremely useful, my quarrel is with the denigration of people who speak regional variations of a language because of certain grammatical differences in their speech. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » An interesting and polemic article | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
