|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: Official English Grammar |
 |
|
| Does anyone know the name of the board that decides what grammar is considered correct and what is not? Does the U.S. and England have one? Germany and France have a board of academics that meet to discuss changes to the language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
meangradin
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ther si no such body for the English language. Hence the reason for so many English grammars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe not spanning every English speaking country but I think that there is a board for American English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
There most certainly is not.
In fact, John Adams (yeah, 200 years ago give or take) tried to start an English Purity law of some kind, and someone smart and funny said, "trying to keep English pure would be like putting a chastity belt on a hooker." (para. from memory). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corky
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The MLA (Modern Language Association) may be the group you're looking for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samantha
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Location: Jinan-dong Hwaseong
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only boards for standardized anything in English that I know of is for manuscripts and publications. There's the Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA) and the Chicago Style publication.
These boards don't regulate grammar but how essays and other written documents are formatted for publishing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
A number of dictionaries have 'usage boards' that determine various usage comments on words (e.g., 'informal', 'colloquial', 'vulgar', etc.) The most famous is the board of the American Heritage Dictionary, which was established in response to the perceived permissive of the edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary in 1961.
| wikipedia wrote: |
Webster's Third was heavily criticized for its "permissiveness" and its refusal to take a position on what was "good" English, critics comparing it unfavorably with the Second Edition. As Herbert Morton put it, "Webster's Second was more than respected. It was accepted as the ultimate authority on meaning and usage and its preeminence was virtually unchallenged in the United States. It did not provoke controversies, it settled them." Critics charged that the dictionary was reluctant to defend standard English, for example entirely eliminating the labels "colloquial", "correct", "incorrect", "proper", "improper", "erroneous", "humorous", "jocular", "poetic", and "contemptuous", among others.
Gove's stance was an exemplar of descriptivist linguistics, aiming to represent the English language as it is actually spoken and written by most users rather than attempting to prescribe its use. David M. Glixon in the Saturday Review described the new approach: "Having descended from God's throne of supreme authority, the Merriam folks are now seated around the city desk, recording like mad."[citation needed] Jacques Barzun said this stance made Webster's Third "the longest political pamphlet ever put together by a party," done with "a dogma that far transcends the limits of lexicography".[citation needed] The dictionary's treatment of "ain't" was subject to particular scorn, the word receiving no more severe comment from Webster's Third than: "though disapproved by many and more common in less educated speech, used orally in most parts of the U.S. by many cultivated speakers esp. in the phrase ain't I."
The Globe and Mail of Toronto editorialized: "a dictionary's embrace of the word 'ain't' will comfort the ignorant, confer approval upon the mediocre, and subtly imply that proper English is the tool of only the snob".[citation needed] The New York Times editorialized that "Webster's has, it is apparent, surrendered to the permissive school that has been busily extending its beachhead in English instruction in the schools . . . reinforced the notion that good English is whatever is popular" and "can only accelerate the deterioration" of the English language[citation needed]. The Times' widely respected Theodore Bernstein, its in-house style maven and a professor of journalism at Columbia University, ordered that The Times' dictionary-of-record would continue to be the Webster's Second[citation needed]. (It today uses the Webster's New World Dictionary published by John Wiley.) Garry Wills in the National Review opined that the new dictionary "has all the modern virtues. It is big, expensive, and ugly. It should be a great success".Template:National Review, 2/13/1962, page 98
Criticism of the dictionary spurred the creation of the American Heritage Dictionary, where usage notes were determined by a panel of expert writers, commentators, and speakers. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Dictionary
The linguist Geoffrey Nunberg is now head of the usage panel for AHD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
