Crystal's Applied Cultural Linguistics

[woodcutter]

I'm not sure what you mean by "dividing by register" - do you mean that they make an arbitrary binary decision for each text and the problem is thus solved?. That would be very crude, and however they do it there must be problems making the judgements. And then it is almost as difficult to find English in the general sense as well. The google searches we are all so fond of, for example, include non-native speech, outer-circle English and even creole. Problematic?

(and by the way we have a habit here of speaking as if there were only two English speaking nations. That is a prescriptivist habit)

People do not ape the elite by walking with a book on their heads and imitating Prince Charles. They put big effort into acquiring the kind of English which will allow them to write and speak in any context and be regarded as sounding highly educated - in full control of the formal English language. (i.e much like SJ or FH are). The former is very difficult and most English speaking internet users are not really at that level. That is one reason why they come and pick brains here. People put effort into expanding their vocabulary and using and saying those words correctly as well. They do these things because it is a very practical skill to possess.

For this reason and others, all linguists spend a good deal of their time dealing with which kind of English sounds like solid gold educated English. The arbitrary division they make that interests most people is the one between "correct" and "?". People want to know why they are making "mistakes". Even if 60% of users write "alright" rather than "all right" they may wish to use the latter if it looks more educated and will get the thumbs up from the right people. To explain why something is "correct" we are forced to come out with a "rule". The problem with prescriptivism is that some rules have never made any sense, and that some rules become outdated, so that people are not advocating standard formal English, but something odd or archaic. Rules need to be weighed and reviewed. The problem isn't the stating of rules per se.

Pullum and other such bigwigs state such rules all the time. What they seem to fail to realize is that any such rules, coming from such an august pen, have reference power - the power to shape formal English usage, the power to affect what a lesser mortal judges a "mistake". Not as much power as a rule in the OED, but some. Which is not to mention that linguists themselves are also one of the most popular formal language role-models, one reason being that they are usually very careful to include no "?" moments in their own chatter. (The modelling may be subconcious to some degree).

[fluffyhamster]

Wow, your above post just got longer and longer, woody (I hereby pass you the title of Forum Windbag!). Maybe SJ can reply again now to all that?

[woodcutter]

By the way, there is now a good way to get grammar queries answered. Do a Google search, and ask, or read the thoughts of, forum rats like us. Collectively, we have become a powerful influence on English. And we are in turn influenced by Pullum etc.

[Stephen Jones]

one reason being that they are usually very careful to include no "?" moments in their own chatter. (The modelling may be subconcious to some degree).

You're putting the cart before the horse here. ? means I wouldn't use it but I can't definitely say its incorrect.

Descriptivists make judgment calls all the time. The point though is that these judgments are falsifiable. If I say the spelling 'alright' is sub-standard and then find it used all over the place in Newsweek, the Times, and academic papers I revise my judgment. I've maintained at length on another thread that 'gonna' is only correct as a spelling of 'going to' when you're trying to give an idea of how somebody speaks. If I come across it used normally in the pages of Hansard or the Texas Law Review I will change my mind.

[woodcutter]

I submit that you will find "alright" in formal publications, but not very frequently. Informally, it is frequent. So, therefore, what desicion do you make. In or out? Question mark or fine? Say "this is best avoided" or say "people who dislike this are dinosaurs"? If you are Pullum, then the desicion you make will affect other people's desicions. Informally and formally, in that whether he uses it in his own writing is a factor too. David Crystal may be super-liberal, but will you catch him using a "greengrocer's apostrophe"? In what context does he think it is OK? Only on public signs? Would he write it if he sold fruit?

If I only have to find one example of "gonna" in a very formal context I suspect I can get that accepted as formal English, certainly if we take tongue-in-cheek, and quotes etc. I bet the Texas Law Review would see an example or two.

Anyway, as I said, choosing the texts for your corpus is a problem. Hansard plus the Texas Law Review is a very poor corpus indeed.

Here's a snippet of one though:"Whether we put it down to climate change, peak oil or economic collapse, that ain’t gonna happen any more. We need to relocalise our presumptions about food ..."
Part of
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 7-0010.htm

[Stephen Jones]

The quote from Hansard is a clear example of informal language being used deliberately for effect. Actually the reason I chose the Texas Law Review is that Brian Garner is the editor.

I agree lots of decisions to be made, and not necessarily by the same person; somebody chooses the corpus, somebody else classifies it, and somebody else adjudges the results.

Let's be careful about decisions though. First of all as far as spelling goes it's fairly clearcut. It's one thing dictionaries do fine. For punctuation arbitrary rules can be laid down and you'll certainly find it hard to get agreement on semi-colons and commas.

For the language itself the * and ? signs are only used to describe what is permissible in the language according to usage. And of course they are used before explanatory examples, not real world examples. Deciding what register, social dialect or regional dialect something belongs to is a judgment call.

As for the movers of language change it is the female aspirational lower middle-class (the Hyacinth Buckets of this world) who determine its direction. Of course as British English has had Estuary English as the language adopted by the upper class to show their populist credentials the situation at present will be rather fluid.

[woodcutter]

You are simply assuming (rightly perhaps) that the "ain't gonna" is being used for effect because you think it couldn't possibly be otherwise. The example is itself not clear cut, nor is the effect intended really.

The borderline examples are few, the obvious mistakes are many. However language change is all about the growth of those borderline "mistakes", and other things which fall out of use. The few usages which are contentious are key. If the linguistic community tends to state that "alright" is all right, that will be a big factor in it becoming so. When you state that you like "himself" as a reflexive pronoun for "someone" you influence your own small readership. I say that you are being odd. We usually strive for the most neutral path in formal English, and in that case "himself" is not it. That is why even in the globalizing environment, formal English is actually converging, narrowing down. That is why only the difference between OK and not OK counts.

Where people are made aware they are not occupying centre
ground as perceived by the elite, they will immediately alter their linguistic behaviour in formal contexts. In spelling it is dead easy to check that and lecture others about it, because the elite publishes books which are easy to use. Spelling thus remains rather static. However, any greengrocer that gets an earwigging from someone like Lynne Truss about punctuation will also change his ways. If no earwiggings are ever dealt because David Crystal thinks that apostrophe is OK, then its usage will probably grow until it becomes common in all contexts.

To sum up - only one way is safest and best most of the time, people are prepared to listen to which way is best, and people who claim to know best change usage.

[Stephen Jones]

The 'ain't' is what tells us it's used for effect which is presumably why the Hansard transcriber chose to use 'gonna' for the spelling. Remember Hansard is a transcript of speeches and it is quite common for us to say 'gonna', even though the correct spelling is 'going to'.

[woodcutter]

Generally, of course, if an "ain't" is stuck in formal English it is being used for effect. However, there is nothing there to prove that this example is not an exception to that, to show that this particular individual does not fairly habitually use "ain't" in formal English. If any example I find can be dismissed like that then it is impossible to find one.

As you say "gonna" and "going to" are often the same thing and in fact the spelling "gonna" is only chosen to highlight informality, so it isn't a very fair thing to pick. The real issues revolve around usage which is "correct" but somewhat counter-intuitive.

[Stephen Jones]

'ain't' as standard usage is an American rather than a British phenomenon.