And what makes anyone think that linguistics is only about dialect and slang?
Linguistics is about language acquisition too, besides a host of other aspects.
Ridding ourselves of the term "descriptivist".
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I didn't mean to imply that linguists only study dialect and slang. I'm not sure how you got that. On the contrary, linguists' scope of study is very wide and all-encompassing. Linguists often criticize grammarians for being too narrowly focused on usage.
Most regular people are more likely to seek advice on and ask questions concerning grammar and usage than they are about the science of etymology or all the different areas linguists specialize in. But don't get me wrong — I admire linguists for their work and I do appreciate it, even if not wholly familiar with it. If I'm making any invidious comparisons, it's more likely by putting down the prescriptionist's trade when comparing it to the descriptionist, built on science and being so encompassing as it is. Yes, linguists do study grammar — in a dispassionate scientific way, not as likely in an advisory way. I also think there are linguists who venture into giving advice about usage, just as some musicologists take up piano or teach piano on the side; and I think that's great. My intention isn't to create an us-versus-them mentality, but rather a "can't we all just get along."
I see your point with the surgeon, who needs skill as an "art," but who can't be completely divorced from the field of science as you point out. But neither is other artisans' training (if you're inclined to call a surgeon an artisan) bereft of science: musicians study theory, which is a mixture of math and science, to enhance or better understand the art. Grammarians also use logic and study historical and current usage to underpin their judgements.
Garner, quoting Atlanta editor Barbara Wallraff, makes other comparisons, such as anthropology and cooking ethnic food, or the history of art and art restoration, sociologists and ethicists. One doesn't have to be well-versed in anthropology to cook ethnic food well.
Also, there may be a tendency to exaggerate or mischaracterize the prescriptionists. They are sometimes made to sound like they never want prepositions at the end of sentences, and a host of other ridiculous myths. That was true of extreme grammarians maybe a hundred years ago, but it certainly is nowhere near reality for mainstream grammarians today, most of whom criticize such views just as vehemently as linguists.
If a grammarians makes an "objective" or "subjective" standard— however you view it — why should it matter to you, if you aren't interested in writing well? No one forces you to accept it as fact. You can just ignore it and tend to the scientific aspects instead. But those who are interested in writing more effectively will probably want to know standards and seek the guidance, standards, and judgement of people who can write well, so they themselves can write well, or better. It doesn't make sense to be offended at someone's standards or the mere existence of them when one doesn't care about careful writing. After all, anyone can write and get their point across — with average skill or even crassly if need be — without needing to do it really well. But there are always people who seek to do things well because they are perfectionists, or they want to make a favorable impression, or they want to better persuade people, or for a host of legitimate (or illegitimate) reasons; and the grammarian fits the bill for those people.
[/i]
Most regular people are more likely to seek advice on and ask questions concerning grammar and usage than they are about the science of etymology or all the different areas linguists specialize in. But don't get me wrong — I admire linguists for their work and I do appreciate it, even if not wholly familiar with it. If I'm making any invidious comparisons, it's more likely by putting down the prescriptionist's trade when comparing it to the descriptionist, built on science and being so encompassing as it is. Yes, linguists do study grammar — in a dispassionate scientific way, not as likely in an advisory way. I also think there are linguists who venture into giving advice about usage, just as some musicologists take up piano or teach piano on the side; and I think that's great. My intention isn't to create an us-versus-them mentality, but rather a "can't we all just get along."
I see your point with the surgeon, who needs skill as an "art," but who can't be completely divorced from the field of science as you point out. But neither is other artisans' training (if you're inclined to call a surgeon an artisan) bereft of science: musicians study theory, which is a mixture of math and science, to enhance or better understand the art. Grammarians also use logic and study historical and current usage to underpin their judgements.
Garner, quoting Atlanta editor Barbara Wallraff, makes other comparisons, such as anthropology and cooking ethnic food, or the history of art and art restoration, sociologists and ethicists. One doesn't have to be well-versed in anthropology to cook ethnic food well.
Also, there may be a tendency to exaggerate or mischaracterize the prescriptionists. They are sometimes made to sound like they never want prepositions at the end of sentences, and a host of other ridiculous myths. That was true of extreme grammarians maybe a hundred years ago, but it certainly is nowhere near reality for mainstream grammarians today, most of whom criticize such views just as vehemently as linguists.
If a grammarians makes an "objective" or "subjective" standard— however you view it — why should it matter to you, if you aren't interested in writing well? No one forces you to accept it as fact. You can just ignore it and tend to the scientific aspects instead. But those who are interested in writing more effectively will probably want to know standards and seek the guidance, standards, and judgement of people who can write well, so they themselves can write well, or better. It doesn't make sense to be offended at someone's standards or the mere existence of them when one doesn't care about careful writing. After all, anyone can write and get their point across — with average skill or even crassly if need be — without needing to do it really well. But there are always people who seek to do things well because they are perfectionists, or they want to make a favorable impression, or they want to better persuade people, or for a host of legitimate (or illegitimate) reasons; and the grammarian fits the bill for those people.
[/i]
Last edited by jotham on Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:18 pm, edited 9 times in total.
-
Anuradha Chepur
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:33 am
- Location: India