Good English Grammar Books Or Resources?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Year...-Grammar/25497

Originally Posted by Wudang

Ye gods! That's appalling but explains a lot.

eta: For many years I was a participant on a few English "forums" (actually IBMWORDS fwiw) and heard a lot of bizarre and mixed-up advice from a lot well-educated people (many wrote IBM manuals, many just interested) and it looks like that book, which was referenced a lot, is the source.

Hmmm... looks like I have to take back my recommendation.

In the article there, the authors point out:

Quote:

"Put statements in positive form," [Strunk and White] stipulate, in a section that seeks to prevent "not" from being used as "a means of evasion."

The full advice is:

Quote:

Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, noncommital, hesitating language. Use not as a means of denial or antithesis, never as a means of evasion.

I then opened the book at random and found the entry "People".

Quote:

The word people is best not used with number, in place of persons. If of "six people" five went away, how many people would be left. Answer, one people.

Wow! If I even understand that advice correctly (and I think it is badly written [Oops! Use of the passive there!], as well as it violating the advice on not using negative forms), it seems to be saying that you should always write "three persons" instead of "three people"! This is terrible style advice unless you are writing some very formal set of rules such as "three persons must be present in the control room at all times".

But if you applied the same rules to children then you could also ask, if there were six children and five went away, how many are left. Answer, one children. So what do we replace six children with? Answer, six childs.

[xtifr]

Aw, man, I wanted to post that "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" link!

Yeah, Strunk and White should be on your to-avoid list, though they're far from the worst out there. The world of grammar and writing guides is filled with people peddling utter nonsense. The people who write them take advantage of the gullible and insecure as much as any two-bit psychic. You don't need a degree or experience or knowledge to publish a writing guide; you just need chutzpah and the ability to sound sincere.

I generally recommend Fowler (esp. for British English) or the Chicago Manual of Style (for American). Neither is perfect, though, and both can be a bit prescriptivist on arbitrary matters. But they're good starting places.

If you want to see some linguists (including the G. Pullum who wrote the 50 Years article) tear apart some of the woo-like nonsense associated with English, the Language Log section on "Prescriptivist Poppycock" is a great place to start.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5

(Language Log is a great site to hang out on in general, if you're at all interested in language and linguistics.)

[tomwaits]

I am certainly no linguistics expert, but I've come to the conclusion that unless English is your second language, grammar books are a complete waste of time. They follow the same mistaken ideas of language that medieval writers had about Latin: that there was only ONE WAY to speak and write it, and any deviation from that rigid format is "vulgar." They apparently thought that once Cicero's speeches were written down on parchment, that meant that Latin had reached its absolute apex and would never change.

I see this kind of attitude in action when people complain about a modern translation of a text from antiquity: if it doesn't read like 17th century English, it must be because the text has been "dumbed down for the masses." No, they are not; the English language has changed, much like the culture and technology of those that speak it.

[Wudang]

You're reading the wrong grammar books. See for example Fowler on "superstitions".

[bruto]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I am certainly no linguistics expert, but I've come to the conclusion that unless English is your second language, grammar books are a complete waste of time. They follow the same mistaken ideas of language that medieval writers had about Latin: that there was only ONE WAY to speak and write it, and any deviation from that rigid format is "vulgar." They apparently thought that once Cicero's speeches were written down on parchment, that meant that Latin had reached its absolute apex and would never change.

I see this kind of attitude in action when people complain about a modern translation of a text from antiquity: if it doesn't read like 17th century English, it must be because the text has been "dumbed down for the masses." No, they are not; the English language has changed, much like the culture and technology of those that speak it.

While I'm inclined to agree about some prescriptive books on style, a good guide to grammar and usage won't try to tell you that there's only one way to do things. What it will tell you is the best accepted ways, and identify outright mistakes. Some things are simply mistakes, which can make communication ineffective, promote misunderstanding, or just look bad in print. I don't think dangling modifiers, misplaced apostrophes and such are simply options of style, and people who insist that they are generally come off looking more illiterate than creative. Many people who speak good English do not automatically write it. We could start a whole voluminous thread on how badly reading and writing are taught, but that's another subject. A reference can be useful. You can always break the rules when it suits, but it's good to know what you're doing.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I am certainly no linguistics expert, but I've come to the conclusion that unless English is your second language, grammar books are a complete waste of time. They follow the same mistaken ideas of language that medieval writers had about Latin: that there was only ONE WAY to speak and write it, and any deviation from that rigid format is "vulgar." They apparently thought that once Cicero's speeches were written down on parchment, that meant that Latin had reached its absolute apex and would never change.

I've read plenty of articles and papers arguing that essentially English should be a do-as-you-please language in which there should be none of that dreaded "prescriptivism". These articles tend to be written in flawless grammar and with scrupulously chosen vocabulary. Of course, most of the writers and academics who write such articles know that they would never get published in respectable journals if they followed their own advice and no longer cared about their own writing.

The fact is that some writing and some grammar simply is bad and best avoided and, for people who are curious to know why that is, a good grammar book is useful. I realize now, of course, that some books such as The Elements of Style [thanks to crimresearch et al.] are pretty bad and that is for various reasons: partly because the advice is not very useful, partly because it doesn't explain its arbitrary instruction and partly because it doesn't even follow its arbitrary instruction which could be confusing for the reader.

I think the point about English being a living language is fine but simply making up your own grammar is not going to be useful if it is not recognized. You may fail to get invited to job interviews if you take a radical free-for-all approach to grammar.

[crimresearch]

It definitely should not be a dead language.

The fact is, that there is no such singular thing as 'correct English'.

There are several distinct forms under the umbrella of English, and the 'rules' for formal American English don't always apply to spoken, or informal, or Globish, or British, and so on.

(And that isn't even taking into account idioms, colloquialisms, and slang).

And bruto's comment about knowing the rules and choosing to break them is something relevant for anyone who is writing or speaking to express themselves.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I've read plenty of articles and papers arguing that essentially English should be a do-as-you-please language in which there should be none of that dreaded "prescriptivism". These articles tend to be written in flawless grammar and with scrupulously chosen vocabulary. Of course, most of the writers and academics who write such articles know that they would never get published in respectable journals if they followed their own advice and no longer cared about their own writing.

I think you've utterly failed to grasp how descriptivism works. It is absolutely not "do-as-you-please". English has strict rules, and it's easy to break those rules, and people break them all the time, but that doesn't bless the practice. To qualify as a rule, to a descriptivist, something needs to be accepted and used by a majority of a given population. And so far, only the descriptivists are doing the proper statistical studies to determine actual usage.

Furthermore, prescriptivists and descriptivists both agree on the existence of things called "dialects" and "registers". Part of learning good English involves learning mainstream dialects and formal registers. That doesn't mean that, say, Irish Slang is not a logical, consistent, and perfectly valid variant of English, but it's not an appropriate version to use in a formal paper. Descriptivists may be more interested in studying slang than in trying to ban it as some sort of "evil", but they'll never argue that you should use slang in a setting where formal speech is more appropriate. And the descriptivists are just as happy to tell you the rules of formal English as the prescriptivists are. The only difference is that the descriptivists have a stronger argument for knowing what those actual rules are!

ETA: if you want a concrete example of a descriptivist (again, Geoffrey Pullum) analysing a particular usage as "a horrible, disastrous writing choice, genuinely leading to syntactic ill-formedness", see http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2658

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Wudang

You're reading the wrong grammar books. See for example Fowler on "superstitions".

Fowler had superstitions of his own though. He even created a new one: which/ that for restrictive/ non-restrictive clauses.
I remember a poster on here claiming that she would never employ anyone who didn't know when to use which and when to use that, despite the whole distinction being something that Fowler dreamed up, seemingly on a whim.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by xtifr

I think you've utterly failed to grasp how descriptivism works.

Do you really? I think you had better learn how to read before you start accusing me of not understanding the difference between "descriptive" and "prescriptive".

Now, would you like to explain how you think I have utterly failed to grasp how "descriptivism" works?

[Psi Baba]

Originally Posted by Rat

Without a doubt. I think Bill Bryson pointed out one of my favourite unfortunate headlines - "Police Rape Claim Woman In Court". What on earth is a claim woman, and why would the police rape her in court?

I saw a headline just the other day apparently indicating that a cop who had been forced to shoot a perp was feeling bad about it later. The headline read "Police officer remorseful after death."

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

[W]ould you like to explain how you think I have utterly failed to grasp how "descriptivism" works?

Sure. Right here, where you said:

Quote:

I've read plenty of articles and papers arguing that essentially English should be a do-as-you-please language in which there should be none of that dreaded "prescriptivism".

"English should be a do-as-you-please language" is generally a claim made of descriptionists by prescriptionists. It is on a par with the Theists who claim that Atheists advocate do-as-you-please morality, and think nothing's wrong with murder. If you have read articles that you thought were making that claim, I suspect you have fallen victim to Poe's law. And if you have read papers making that claim, I would very much appreciate citations, because I have never seen such a thing.

I certainly may be wrong about how well you understand descriptivism--that's why I said, "I think". But so far, you've said nothing to make reconsider my position.

[Wudang]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Sure. Right here, where you said:


"English should be a do-as-you-please language" is generally a claim made of descriptionists by prescriptionists. It is on a par with the Theists who claim that Atheists advocate do-as-you-please morality, and think nothing's wrong with murder. If you have read articles that you thought were making that claim, I suspect you have fallen victim to Poe's law. And if you have read papers making that claim, I would very much appreciate citations, because I have never seen such a thing.

I certainly may be wrong about how well you understand descriptivism--that's why I said, "I think". But so far, you've said nothing to make reconsider my position.

I was hoping that you would substantiate your claim that I don't know what descriptivism is.

Actually, I do know what descriptivism is. Descriptivism refers, in this context, to language as it is spoken and read rather than language as it is ordained by some form of authority. Some grammar books are highly prescriptive insisting on all kinds of arcane rules that almost nobody cares about such as split infinitives and, I think, using they as a gender-neutral pronoun. If you ran some corpus linguistics check through, say, the Bank of English I expect you would find that split infinitives and "they" as gender-neutral pronoun are quite commonly used. These days more and more dictionaries are compiled on frequency of use, that is to say, they tend towards descriptivism rather than prescriptivism. The situation is quite different in France, I believe, where a bunch of crusty old beardies called the Acadamie Francais decides what is and isn't acceptable in the French language in a Cnutian attempt to stave off the flood of loanwords washing into the language.

Nevertheless, just because some "mistakes" are picked up and become standard or near-standard, it doesn't mean that native English speakers and writers have no need to pay attention to their grammar. I take a middle position between descriptivism and prescriptivism and devised what I thought was my own test for working out whether or not some grammar is worth using or not which I called the "interview situation". Apparently this is not new though and others talk about the "cover letter test", but it could just as easily be an academic paper test etc... Basically, ask yourself if this or that grammar use would be acceptable on a cover letter, in an interview or on an academic paper. If the answer is no then it may be worth avoiding in certain situations. If you are expecting to be in situations like that then maybe a grammar book would be useful.

I was replying to tomwaits who argued that knowing grammar rules is (ETA: grammar books are) only important for non-native learners of English:

Quote:

I am certainly no linguistics expert, but I've come to the conclusion that unless English is your second language, grammar books are a complete waste of time. They follow the same mistaken ideas of language that medieval writers had about Latin: that there was only ONE WAY to speak and write it, and any deviation from that rigid format is "vulgar."

I think you [xtifir] got hold of the wrong end of the stick and attributed a position to me that I was not taking.

But just to recap, I know the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism but I think the strong forms of both are misguided. Saying there is no need for a grammar book if you are a native speaker of English tends towards the strong descriptivist end of the spectrum. If your work requires writing or you are applying for work it is probably not best to take a strong descriptivist stance.

Now, what do you disagree with?

[LibraryLady]

grammar@prattlibrary.org.

Guess who monitors that address.....

[tomwaits]

I have never seen the words "descriptivist" and "prescriptivist" before this thread. I certainly had no idea that there was a big internet flamewar going on between the two camps. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That one will be solved at about the same time we discover if 1 = .9999... or if an airplane can fly on a conveyor belt.

At any rate, my statement is a little too strong. I see the value of basic rules of grammar. After all, it sure would be hard to read a book if the commas and punctuation were all over the place. Maybe I just have nightmares of high school english class. I think historically, education has been far too uh....prescriptivist I guess? I'll need to do more research to determine what these words actually mean...

Case in point: Slate had an interesting article on "logical punctuation," aka the British style. This is a method that is increasingly being used more and more on the internet, whether intended or not, and simply makes far more sense than the American rule. Yet the grammar wonks refuse to accept it because "that's just the way we do things, dammit!"

ETA: I just noticed I was using the American rule in writing this post. bah

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I have never seen the words "descriptivist" and "prescriptivist" before this thread. I certainly had no idea that there was a big internet flamewar going on between the two camps. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. That one will be solved at about the same time we discover if 1 = .9999... or if an airplane can fly on a conveyor belt.

At any rate, my statement is a little too strong. I see the value of basic rules of grammar. After all, it sure would be hard to read a book if the commas and punctuation were all over the place. Maybe I just have nightmares of high school english class. I think historically, education has been far too uh....prescriptivist I guess? I'll need to do more research to determine what these words actually mean...

Case in point: Slate had an interesting article on "logical punctuation," aka the British style. This is a method that is increasingly being used more and more on the internet, whether intended or not, and simply makes far more sense than the American rule. Yet the grammar wonks refuse to accept it because "that's just the way we do things, dammit!"

ETA: I just noticed I was using the American rule in writing this post. bah

No problem, tomwaits, I wasn't trying to get at you.

I think that Slate article is an excellent example of the prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate.

Personally I prefer the use of "logical punctuation", although I don't know if I always apply it. I wouldn't tell a student that one way was better than another but I may tell a student that they should apply punctuation consistently (and yes, I probably break the rules sometimes as I am now going to do by putting this full-stop [period] inside the brackets [parenthesis].) In this case, native and non-native speakers may not know that there is a rule, as you suggested, meaning that consulting a grammar book or another resource may be useful.

In that Slate article I am a little shocked to see that the teacher takes points off students who put periods outside of quotation marks:

Quote:

The punctuation-outside trend jibes with my experience in the classroom, where, for the past several years, my students have found it irresistible, even after innumerable sardonic remarks from me that we are in Delaware, not Liverpool. As a result, I have recently instituted a one-point penalty on every assignment for infractions. The current semester is nearing its end, but I am still taking points away.

But then again, maybe she is applying the "cover letter test", knowing that students could be penalized by potential employers if they think their grammar is bad.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah, that's a good article. I prefer to use more British English rules in writing because they are just correct . Some dude named Webster decided to make stuff up and we all have to suffer. But I know to be consistent and to go American when necessary.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Actually, I do know what descriptivism is. Descriptivism refers, in this context, to language as it is spoken and read rather than language as it is ordained by some form of authority.

Only in a very loose sense. Descriptivism as it is practiced by modern linguists refers to a scientific, fact-based study of language, done without preconceptions in order to try to determine the actual rules of languages. It's a scientific discipline, not unlike evolutionary biology. And, like evolutionary biology, it is very frequently misrepresented by non-scientists, both for and against, especially on the Internet.

Note that Descriptivists don't consider the Académie française to be wrong--they consider the language it defines to be an artificial construct, but nevertheless, a valid dialect of French, for all that.

Quote:

I take a middle position between descriptivism and prescriptivism and devised what I thought was my own test for working out whether or not some grammar is worth using or not which I called the "interview situation".

That is not a "middle position". That is a more-or-less descriptivist approach. As I mentioned earlier, Descriptivist linguists call what you're talking about the register. And it's universally acknowledged among actual descriptivists that your test for the proper register to use in such contexts is reasonable and appropriate, even if your methodology may be a little less rigorous than a professional linguist would use.

Contrariwise, it may be appropriate to use a completely different register if you find yourself in a biker bar where overly formal English may get your ass kicked.

The definition of "correct English", in other words, may be context dependent. (At least if you value your ass.)

Quote:

I was replying to tomwaits who argued that knowing grammar rules is (ETA: grammar books are) only important for non-native learners of English:

Yes, what tomwaits said was silly, and I mostly agree with your response to him. But I still think you don't quite understand descriptivism, and, in particular, the rigor associated with descriptivism.

What tomwaits said was not a descriptivist position. It bore, at most, the kind of resemblance to descriptivism that saying, "if that dumb guy dies, it'll improve the gene pool" does to actual genetics.

Quote:

I think you [xtifir] got hold of the wrong end of the stick and attributed a position to me that I was not taking.

That may be true as well. In part or in whole, even.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by xtifr

Only in a very loose sense. Descriptivism as it is practiced by modern linguists refers to a scientific, fact-based study of language, done without preconceptions in order to try to determine the actual rules of languages. It's a scientific discipline, not unlike evolutionary biology. And, like evolutionary biology, it is very frequently misrepresented by non-scientists, both for and against, especially on the Internet.

Hark! I hear the sound of an axe being ground. What I said, "Descriptivism refers, in this context, to language as it is spoken and read rather than language as it is ordained by some form of authority" is essentially the same as what you have said.

Quote:

Note that Descriptivists don't consider the Académie française to be wrong--they consider the language it defines to be an artificial construct, but nevertheless, a valid dialect of French, for all that.

I know. I am pointing out that the Academie Francaise is prescriptivist. I was using it as a clarifying definition. You would agree, wouldn't you that the AF is very prescriptivist, wouldn't you?

Quote:

That is not a "middle position". That is a more-or-less descriptivist approach. As I mentioned earlier, Descriptivist linguists call what you're talking about the register. And it's universally acknowledged among actual descriptivists that your test for the proper register to use in such contexts is reasonable and appropriate, even if your methodology may be a little less rigorous than a professional linguist would use.

I know what register is, "Hi mum!" is more common than, "How do you do this fine evening, mother?" and is usually considered more appropriate.

Quote:

Contrariwise, it may be appropriate to use a completely different register if you find yourself in a biker bar where overly formal English may get your ass kicked.

The definition of "correct English", in other words, may be context dependent. (At least if you value your ass.)

I know that.

Quote:

Yes, what tomwaits said was silly, and I mostly agree with your response to him. But I still think you don't quite understand descriptivism, and, in particular, the rigor associated with descriptivism.

Really? Maybe I don't. I haven't yet engaged in any statistical analyses of language use except in a very crude sense by using a Google search engine to determine the most common uses of a particular phrase etc... I understand that massive language corpora are now used to do this kind of thing. Is this something like what you have in mind?

Quote:

What tomwaits said was not a descriptivist position. It bore, at most, the kind of resemblance to descriptivism that saying, "if that dumb guy dies, it'll improve the gene pool" does to actual genetics.

Well, let's call it a folk-descriptivist position, if you like. In some way, a descriptivist cannot refute tomwaits' position. Yet, if he says, "I'm a native speaker and I talk like this" how can a descriptivist argue otherwise or say he should speak differently without going all prescriptivist on him?

That may be true as well. In part or in whole, even.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Hark! I hear the sound of an axe being ground. What I said, "Descriptivism refers, in this context, to language as it is spoken and read rather than language as it is ordained by some form of authority" is essentially the same as what you have said.

That's accurate as far as it goes, but it's misleading, because it leads to conclusions like the one you suggested earlier: "anything goes". Descriptivists don't believe anything goes. They have a scientific approach to studying and classifying language, but they're perfectly happy to classify things as outright errors.

(They do tend to prefer the term "error"--as in, something's wrong with your internal model of the language--rather than "wrong". But that may be an overly fine distinction.)

Quote:

I know. I am pointing out that the Academie Francaise is prescriptivist. I was using it as a clarifying definition. You would agree, wouldn't you that the AF is very prescriptivist, wouldn't you?

Yes, but the power and influence of the Académie as an arm of the French Government means that the language they define is used in a substantial portion of the corpora, which makes it a proper dialect as defined by descriptivists. It's not valid because it's prescriptivist; it's valid because science. If everyone ignored the Académie, descriptivists would treat it with the scorn they show to Strunk and White. But that's not the case.

If you assume descriptivists are opposed to prescriptivists, you're going to misunderstand descriptivism. Descriptivists are opposed to unscientific nonsense. The fact that prescriptivists often support unscientific nonsense is the only way in which descriptivists oppose them.

Skipping over some points where it's now clear we're on the same page...

Quote:

I understand that massive language corpora are now used to do this kind of thing. Is this something like what you have in mind?

Pretty much, yeah, that, and the fact that descriptivists categorize their findings by register and region and whatnot. Not (again) "anything goes".

Quote:

Yet, if [tomwaits] says, "I'm a native speaker and I talk like this" how can a descriptivist argue otherwise or say he should speak differently without going all prescriptivist on him?

Most obviously, by pointing out that native speakers don't speak that way, and showing evidence to back up that assertion. One isolated aberration does not a trend make.

Alternatively, by showing that native speakers don't speak like that in that register, which is basically what you were doing, which is why I said that your argument was a descriptivist one.

[xterra]

Let me jump in here, please.

As a retired teacher of linguistics, one who holds a PhD in the subject and who for a long time taught a course that the Department of English called "Standard English" but which (or that; my dialect allows either) I preferred to call "Structure of English," I see basic confusions in some of the discussion.

(BTW, how was that for an appeal to authority?)

In reading the thread to this point, I have seen discussion of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammars, of register and maybe even of dialect. These characterizations of linguistic qualities have been conflated.

However, I have not seen a discussion of the difference between grammar and usage. This is vital to the discussion of "what do I say or write so I sound educated, upper class, cultured, or whatever?"

Grammar, to most linguists describes phenomena like word order, so that the large red ball is grammatical English and the red ball large isn't. In fact, it's more like Spanish.

Similarly, to use a famous example, I saw the barn red and I painted the barn red are on the surface identical, but because of the qualities of the verbs see and paint, are grammatically distinct.

Usage, on the other hand, is the preference for which or that, or the tendency to use toward or towards, although this is also a dialect variation.

Usage is what makes a person "educated," that is one who speaks whatever version of Standard English is current in the area in which that person lives. Move to a different area? Maybe you're okay and maybe you're not.

That's the third point: Dialect is not merely pronunciation. Consider the sentence "It is dirty, it needs ___." In some parts of the US, the word that fits there is washing; in other parts, it's washed. Neither is wrong -- unless the judge is basing the judgment on a very narrow standard. That standard is his own dialect, usage pattern and even social prejudice.

I should point out that written English has yet other conventions, such as punctuation and spelling -- and despite the Corn God interpretation, these have changed over time in predictable ways that have nothing to do with any Grand Scheme.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I return to the point.

Think about the use of the apostrophe, for one punctuation example. Another is the dreaded dangling modifier: On entering the store, the can of peas appealed to me. The strict prescriptivist wonders if the can walked into the store or rolled. The descriptivist recognizes that Engish usage has changed.

Please make it clear whether you are discussing grammar, usage, dialect, written or spoken language, and also register, which linguists take to mean the vocabulary choices of a profession or other social group, whether it be machinists or airline pilots -- or linguists.

For a particularly prescriptivist view of English, look for the work of Paul Brians. A Google search on his name and Common Errors in English Usage should do it.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by xtifr

If you assume descriptivists are opposed to prescriptivists, you're going to misunderstand descriptivism. Descriptivists are opposed to unscientific nonsense. The fact that prescriptivists often support unscientific nonsense is the only way in which descriptivists oppose them.

Hmmm... this is a bit which I am not too sure about.

I can understand that certain aspects of linguistics (particularly phonology and the type of neuroscience that investigates what is going on in the brain when people are using language) are scientific but I don't agree that all linguistics, and certainly not applied linguistics, is scientific.

In terms of descriptivism as it relates to how speech communities use language I can see how certain scientific tools can be used but I still think that many people select different kinds of language on non-scientific grounds such as style grounds. In this case I don't know why a somewhat prescriptivist stance is "unscientific nonsense". Surely it could just be considered non-scientific, or ascientific if you like.

If I understand what you are saying about descriptivism then what bothers me somewhat is its quietist nature, i.e you cannot condemn someone for using language the way it is used by people in that speech community. That seems like an argumentum ad populum.

Perhaps George Orwell expresses this better than I could:

Quote:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Now, is George Orwell being a prescriptivist for saying that "the English language is in a bad way"? Does descriptivism even allow for such an idea? I know, of course, that Orwell probably had some rather funny and old-fashioned ideas about language and yet he also wrote a pretty good reductio ad absurdum in which the citizens of Airstrip One are being taught to use Newspeak. Orwell's concern in the 1940's was with how political language is deliberately designed to obscure real meaning and yet this political language would seep down into the language of ordinary citizens so that they would end up parrotting politician-speak such as "shoulder to shoulder", "collateral damage", "misspeak" etc...

Orwell's advice was that this type of thing should be avoided and he offered a set of guiding principles for people who write such as:

Quote:

i.Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii.Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii.If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv.Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v.Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi.Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I realize that this is a bit off-topic. I should try to start another thread to take these ideas elsewhere.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Case in point: Slate had an interesting article on "logical punctuation," aka the British style. This is a method that is increasingly being used more and more on the internet, whether intended or not, and simply makes far more sense than the American rule. Yet the grammar wonks refuse to accept it because "that's just the way we do things, dammit!"

Pleonasm! Tautology! Redundancy!

Unless you mean that the increase itself is accelerating.

[LibraryLady]

Originally Posted by xterra

Let me jump in here, please. *snip*

For a particularly prescriptivist view of English, look for the work of Paul Brians. A Google search on his name and Common Errors in English Usage should do it.

One of my very favorite Web sites in the whole wide world!

Come here often?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

One of my very favorite Web sites in the whole wide world!

Come here often?

Ha ha! I quite like it already:

Quote:

What is an error in English?
The concept of language errors is a fuzzy one. I’ll leave to linguists the technical definitions. Here we’re concerned only with deviations from the standard use of English as judged by sophisticated users such as professional writers, editors, teachers, and literate executives and personnel officers. The aim of this site is to help you avoid low grades, lost employment opportunities, lost business, and titters of amusement at the way you write or speak.

But isn’t one person’s mistake another’s standard usage?
Often enough, but if your standard usage causes other people to consider you stupid or ignorant, you may want to consider changing it. You have the right to express yourself in any manner you please, but if you wish to communicate effectively, you should use nonstandard English only when you intend to, rather than fall into it because you don’t know any better.

I suppose this is also a very unfashionable view but I also think that an "error" occurs when useful distinctions are blurred.

Some pet peeves of mine are:
a) "Everything is not my fault."
b) "I could care less."

and a teacher of mine pointed out that this was an imprecise use:

c) "I can not go to school."

All of them are probably used by language communities very commonly but I think they create ambiguities which can be eradicated by more careful writing. I am no longer sure if this is prescriptivist on my part.

[xterra]

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

Come here often?

Actually, his is most emphatically not one of my favorite sites. He is entirely too aristocratically pedantic and arrogantly sure of his own inerrancy. Ironically on occasion, he is guilty of some of the same solecisms for which he blames others. But of course, like most linguists, I am a descriptivist.

If any of you want to know more about what linguists do and investigate, check out the Linguist List, which is hosted at Eastern Michigan University.

To answer your question, LibraryLady, I've been reading the forum for almost 10 years, but teaching and various other things kept me from joining until several weeks ago.

I'll be in and out of various fora.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Ha ha! I quite like it already:



I suppose this is also a very unfashionable view but I also think that an "error" occurs when useful distinctions are blurred.

Some pet peeves of mine are:
a) "Everything is not my fault."
b) "I could care less."

and a teacher of mine pointed out that this was an imprecise use:

c) "I can not go to school."

All of them are probably used by language communities very commonly but I think they create ambiguities which can be eradicated by more careful writing. I am no longer sure if this is prescriptivist on my part.

'Could care less' is just fine when used for what it is, an idiom.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

'Could care less' is just fine when used for what it is, an idiom.

More precisely, it's an American idiom. If you use it in BrE, you'll have a hard time getting even the most rabid descriptionist to fully bless your usage. (At least for now.)

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

'Could care less' is just fine when used for what it is, an idiom.

Well, this is why I consider myself somewhere between prescriptivist and descriptivist. I really can't abide the use of "care less" irregardless* of how commonly it is used in English.

Originally Posted by xtifr

More precisely, it's an American idiom. If you use it in BrE, you'll have a hard time getting even the most rabid descriptionist to fully bless your usage. (At least for now.)

Yes, but this is because language communities in the UK tend to claim, erroneously, that they have ownership of the language despite the fact that American English-speakers are far more numerous and probably influence more and larger non-native English-language communities.

I tend to think there is a place for pointing out that leaving out the "not" should change its meaning. Unfortunately, English has a lot of examples which are perfectly standard in which the same thing happens: "flammable/inflammable" both mean the same thing and "You know jack" and "You don't know jack" have the same meaning.





















* I did that on purpose.

[xtifr]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I can understand that certain aspects of linguistics (particularly phonology and the type of neuroscience that investigates what is going on in the brain when people are using language) are scientific but I don't agree that all linguistics, and certainly not applied linguistics, is scientific.

Without knowing more about why you consider applied linguistics to be unscientific, it's hard for me to address this, but I suspect I disagree. In any case, xterra might be more qualified to comment on this point than I.

Quote:

In terms of descriptivism as it relates to how speech communities use language I can see how certain scientific tools can be used but I still think that many people select different kinds of language on non-scientific grounds such as style grounds.

Preferences and style are fine. That's not prescriptivism or descriptivism. If you decide to avoid splitting infinitives, that's a personal choice, not a rule of English. It's when you start telling people that they must not split infinitives that you fall into prescriptivism. (And note that many prescriptivists admit that there is no rule against splitting infinitives--the prescriptivists don't even agree with each other, which makes it very hard to say, "well, I'll just follow the prescriptivists' guides, since it can't hurt".)

Quote:

In this case I don't know why a somewhat prescriptivist stance is "unscientific nonsense".

It's not unscientific or prescriptivist to prefer a certain style. It only becomes unscientific when you declare "these are the rules of English, given from on high, and any who dare disobey shall be cast into the outer darkness". Even if you're right about a particular rule, that's still unscientific.

Less objectionable--but still unscientific and wrong--is the argument: "this is logical, so it must be the rule". Prescriptivist advice on "that" vs. "which" and "less" vs. "fewer" often fits into this category.

Quote:

If I understand what you are saying about descriptivism then what bothers me somewhat is its quietist nature, i.e you cannot condemn someone for using language the way it is used by people in that speech community. That seems like an argumentum ad populum.

There's a big difference between condemning someone, and telling someone that their non-standard usage is likely to impact their ability to succeed in life. Descriptivists will not hesitate to do the latter. As for argument ad populum, that's not a fallacy if you're trying to describe the behavior of people in large.

A good book on grammar written by a descriptionist (e.g. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which I would recommend if it didn't cost 300 USD), will tell you that splitting infinitives is fine, and that no reputable guide has ever condemned them.* But it will also warn you that some people have the mistaken belief that there's something wrong with the split infinitive, so you might want to be cautious with them unless you know your audience. That's advice which is both useful and correct.

* not even Strunk and White, though their advice on the topic is quite muddled.

Quote:

Now, is George Orwell being a prescriptivist for saying that "the English language is in a bad way"?

He's not a prescriptivist for saying that. There's not sign of a "thou shalt" or "thou shall not" there. He's merely wrong.

As James Nicoll once said: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."

Orwell was somewhat of a prescriptivist, but like many prescriptivists, he would routinely break many of the nonsensical rules he prescribed. Which could lead one to call him a hypocrite as well. On the other hand, his insight into the political use of language was excellent, but that's outside the domain of prescriptivism or descriptivism. You can lie or mislead using proper/standard grammar or improper/non-standard.

[LibraryLady]

Originally Posted by xterra

Actually, his is most emphatically not one of my favorite sites. He is entirely too aristocratically pedantic and arrogantly sure of his own inerrancy. Ironically on occasion, he is guilty of some of the same solecisms for which he blames others. But of course, like most linguists, I am a descriptivist.

If any of you want to know more about what linguists do and investigate, check out the Linguist List, which is hosted at Eastern Michigan University.

To answer your question, LibraryLady, I've been reading the forum for almost 10 years, but teaching and various other things kept me from joining until several weeks ago.

I'll be in and out of various fora.

Actually, I'm just speaking from a reference point of view. He makes it very easy to explain basic errors to people.

[Wudang]

Linky to the Linguist List as it looks promising http://linguistlist.org/

Tenuously a propos of Orwell's description of the politicization of language: I enjoyed Boren's "When in doubt, mumble" on the bureaucratization of language.

[xterra]

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

Actually, I'm just speaking from a reference point of view. He makes it very easy to explain basic errors to people.

But therein lies the problem: "Error" has different meanings in different contexts.

Grammar:

As a complete sentence,

The boy the ball hit.

is wrong grammatically because the verb is at the end of the sentence. In certain situations, even in English, it would be grammatically correct. The phrase order violates the constraints of English, whether that's Standard American English or Standard British English or Jamaican English.

However, as the subject of a sentence the same construction is fine:

The boy the ball hit cried.

In this case, we linguists would say that the subject contains a reduced relative clause, from

The boy that the ball hit cried. or

The boy whom the ball hit cried.


Usage and dialect:

Here is Paul Brians on different than:

“Americans say “Scuba-diving is different from snorkeling,” the British often say “different to” (though most UK style guides disapprove), and those who don’t know any better say “different than.” However, though conservatives object, you can usually get away with “different than” if a full clause follows: “Your pashmina shawl looks different than it used to since the cat slept on it.”” (my emphasis both times)

This is condescending and arrogant. The three options are merely dialect differences. So this kind of “error” is an error only for Brians and others who have been called “language gurus.” If you want to know how at least one linguist reacted to such self-appointed tsars, read William Safire's's I Stand Corrected, a collection of Safire's's correspondence with James McCawley, a linguist who disputed many of Safire's's pronouncements in Safire's column on language.

By the way, try the sentence Brians says you can “get away with” using the other prepositions:

“Your pashmina shawl looks different from it used to since the cat slept on it.”

“Your pashmina shawl looks different to it used to since the cat slept on it.”

To me, at least these are very strange.


I hope this helps you all to understand some of what linguists do, whether they are “scientific” linguists or “applied linguists.”


Wudang, thank you for posting the link. I'm almost at the number of postings that will let me do that myself.

[xtifr]

Xterra: thank for the ref to the Linguist's List. I took a look around, and it definitely looks like a great resource for linguists, but I found it a bit intimidating. TMI, and it wasn't easy for me to drill down to topics of interest. I'll definitely go back to explore more, but for an accessible, entertaining, and casual site where I can watch PhDs in action, I'll probably stick with Language Log for now.

Angrysoba: it's perfectly fine to dislike a usage. That doesn't make you a prescriptivist; it makes you human. Many people dislike the word that starts with "m" and ends with "oist", but none of them try to claim it's not English. Even fierce descriptionists will admit there are things that bug them. Still, if things bug you purely on the basis of being illogical, I have to wonder what you think of the word "terrific", which has a modern meaning completely at odds with its root, "terror".

Getting back a little closer to the main topic, I should take a second to plug the Firefox Dictionary Tooltip add-on. It's not a book, and it doesn't cover grammar, but it does allow you to get dictionary definitions with just a simple double-click, and it checks several online resources for you.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...onary-tooltip/

[xterra]

Xtifr, one reason I pointed people to the Linguist List is precisely so that they would get a sense of the range of topics that linguists discuss and the complexity of many of the topics. Look at

http://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-4631.html

for an example of the kind of issues that many researchers are discussing. I frankly admit that I'm on the verge of not understanding some of what Pullum is saying; it isn't where my own interests were.

As for your comment to Angrysoba, I agree that not liking a particular word or expression or whatever doesn't automatically make one a prescriptivist. But to say that language is logical or illogical is to miss the point. It is neither. It just is without qualification.

I had a friend, now long dead (or do you prefer "deceased"?) from the UK. She always complained that Americans had uncouth table manners, because we Americans would use the same hand for knife and fork and because we would not pick up a morsel from the plate with the tines of the fork pointed downward.

My rejoinder was that Brits were the barbarians: They always had a knife in their hands. I didn't bother with the discussion about fork tine orientation.

In reality, of course, neither method is intrinsically better or more correct, just as it's neither better nor worse to drive on the left or right of the roadway -- as long as you're not driving against traffic!

This gets us back to usage. Do what works for the situation in which you find yourself. If that means saying "irregardless" or "inflammable," so be it. If you want to show yourself as superior, adopt the accent of the higher class. For the Brits, this means RP. For Americans ... it probably means any English (country of) accent except Cockney, Yorkshire, or Liverpudlian.

Angrysoba, my rejoinder to "I could care less" is that I could indeed care less, but I'd have to work really, really hard to do so.

(I required my students to write papers in Standard English; that was the equivalent of requring them to drive with traffic, not against it.)

[Rat]

Originally Posted by xterra

This gets us back to usage. Do what works for the situation in which you find yourself. If that means saying "irregardless" or "inflammable," so be it. If you want to show yourself as superior, adopt the accent of the higher class. For the Brits, this means RP. For Americans ... it probably means any English (country of) accent except Cockney, Yorkshire, or Liverpudlian.

So a Geordie accent sounds "superior" to Americans?

For the record, I did not pick Geordie because it's 'inferior', but because it's the first 'strong' accent that popped into my head. Norfolk or Cornish or Black Country or several others would have served equally.

[xterra]

Rat, most Americans can't tell the difference between among British accents, with the exception of those stereotyped in films and TV shows.

What is the situation in England with regard to American accents? Can you tell the difference between the speech of a person from Iowa and one from Pennsylvania?

[Rat]

Between Iowa and Penn? No. I can generally tell East Coast from West Coast from Southern from Texan, and that's about it, and even then not always reliably. I can generally distinguish New York and Boston.

But I picked Geordie because it's can be a very strong accent to the point that I, from a couple of hundred miles south, cannot understand half of what they're saying. I'm pretty sure that there are at least half a dozen other accents that I would have the same trouble with. Of course, there's also the Geordie dialect, meaning I couldn't understand a lot of things even if I could distinguish the words, because the words aren't meaningful to me in themselves.

[Rat]

Incidentally, I went searching for an example of Geordie accents, and it turns out that in not understanding them, I have something in common with Alan Partridge.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE