|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 18, 2008 14:12:07 GMT
I'm not even sure that I have expressed here what my immediate reaction to goofy's link was. My immediate reaction was that I was caught in the fallout of the never-ending rant of descriptivists about what they suppose to be the malicious influence of prescriptivists. The descripivists' bible is the MWDEU and their blog is the Language Log, both of which are a good read, but I find I can't get as enraged as they do. I tend towards descriptivism myself, but I can see a purpose for grammar guides and stylebooks, and can't get myself into the laissez-faire fury that some seem to manage. As Geoff says, rather than getting in a lather about whether a rule (or any rule) is justified or not, I'd rather worry about whether my writing is clear. Goofy presumably doesn't know, but some time ago a few of us waged a reluctant war against someone who insisted, with great dogmatism, that the rules he was taught at school were obviously correct and formed the basis of a disciplined society, and that our casual approach to language and language teaching was responsible for the end of civilisation as we know it. Now I find myself wearying of the descriptivists fighting a fight that no-one else wants to have. Call me a pragmatist and stick me somewhere in the middle, I suppose. That's where the cross-fire is, though.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 18, 2008 15:24:22 GMT
Descriptivism and prescriptivism are not opposites. The opposite of prescriptivism would be an "anything goes" attitude, which descriptivism is not. I have nothing against usage advice - I just like my usage advice to be informed and motivated. If you prescribe a usage, you should have really good evidence or argumentation to back it up. This is why I don't like the that/which rule. But it doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have any rules at all.
I have never said anything was malicious. I'm interested in the histories of usages and rules. Just because I mention the facts of a certain usage or rule doesn't necessarily mean I like it or don't like it.
If no one wants to fight, that's good because I don't want to fight with anyone either.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 18, 2008 15:58:14 GMT
I wasn't getting at you, goofy; sorry if it seemed as if I was.
My complaint against the more rabid descriptivists is that they tend (in my view) to see every usage guide or style sheet as an attack on people's right to use the language how they like. The "18th century grammarians" are inevitably demonised, as if they are evil capitalists and industrialists trying to grind the honest working man into the strait-jacket of latin-based grammar, no doubt so as to better control him.
But the 18th century saw the rise of formalised education for the great mass of the population, rather than for the favoured (male) few. Inevitably there was a demand for textbooks and guides for learners, and usually teachers find that children bore rapidly if given only vague guidance hedged around with a million ifs and buts. The best learner's textbooks present a summary of the key points and present them simply. If foolish people (and no doubt there are some foolish teachers) mistake such a guide for an inflexible bible of moral excellence, and condemn all who depart from the "rules" for their moral turpitude, look to the nature of Victorian society, rather than the authors of grammar books.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 18, 2008 16:05:03 GMT
more rabid descriptivists While such people probably exist, I don't know any - and as far as I know, none of them have written books about language use like some rabid prescriptivists have.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 18, 2008 16:23:23 GMT
Arnold Zwicky can get fairly rabid: Next time I notice "18th century grammarians" being demonised, I'll post a note here.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 18, 2008 16:48:08 GMT
You could argue that Zwicky is rabid (I don't think he is) but I don't believe he sees every usage guide as an attack on people's right to use the language how they like. I think that some people mistake a usage guide for an inflexible bible of moral excellence because many usage books present themselves as such. I'm talking about books aimed at a general audience, like those by John Humphrys and Robert Fiske. Of course it's debatable whether these are actually usage guides. As I see it, these modern books are a continuation of the 18th century attitude that the language should be refined and fixed. It didn't have to be this way. For instance Fowler presented reasonable arguments to questions of usage (at least, going by Nunberg). But some books present the issues as matter of inflexible prescriptions, with no or little evidence or argumentation. Perhaps this means that we're still Victorian.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 19, 2008 1:48:44 GMT
I've corrected the spelling of the title. Mea culpa!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 19, 2008 7:54:09 GMT
I've corrected the spelling of the title. Mea culpa! Since you can't smite yourself, perhaps you'll have to slum it with a session of self-flagellation!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 19, 2008 7:58:28 GMT
On the current theme, I am always very interested in goofy's views, because they are often different from (or 'to' or 'than' - cross-threading a bit ) those of the rest of you/us. My criticisms would be that they are almost always from the same source and that he often puts out bald facts without taking the time to explain the point he is making in sufficient detail, until he is challenged. I also do not understand why goofy's Karma is -19, so I shall exalt him to make a small dent in what I see as excessive negativity. So there!
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Jul 19, 2008 11:01:21 GMT
We're just a nest of serpents on here, Pete
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 19, 2008 13:21:22 GMT
(at least, going by Nunberg). But some books present the issues as matter of inflexible prescriptions, with no or little evidence or argumentation. That Nunberg article is excellent, thank you for that. It sums up (well, it's a long article, so perhaps sums up is not the right word) very well exactly what I was trying to say. I'm starting to wonder whether there is a transatlantic difference on this: I seem to have missed all these right-wing grammar guides. Perhaps they are not popular over here. There is certainly a right-wing agenda in amateur language-bemoaning (one sees it in "letters to the editor" in broadsheets and in the occasional visitor to the APS) but our books seem to have avoided the worst excesses. I shall check my Truss and Humphrys again, but I remember them as being well-argued and not especially rabid. I remember being struck by how rule-bound some American academic institutions are; from the very prescriptive rules for citation formats (Turabian and all that) to the obsessive fear of the "comma splice", they seem to have codified things that British institutions take pretty much as they come. Perhaps the British gift for fudge and muddle has some virtue if it has enabled us follow the spirit of grammatical rules rather than the letter of prescriptivist dogma.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jul 19, 2008 15:04:38 GMT
I think perhaps the classic example of American prescriptive writing is William Strunk's Elements of Style.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 19, 2008 15:19:45 GMT
We're just a nest of serpents on here, Pete A Freudian slip, perhaps? Now corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 19, 2008 15:22:59 GMT
I also do not understand why goofy's Karma is -19, so I shall exalt him to make a small dent in what I see as excessive negativity. So there! And now it's -23! This isn't fair at all on goofy.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 19, 2008 15:48:41 GMT
I suspect that very high or low karmas are largely the work of one person; maybe the same person. I have never smited anyone.
Karma is supposed to be vaguely amusing; if I feel it is being abused as a form of bullying, I shall turn it off.
|
|