prescriptivist statement or as a descriptivist one

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:09 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:The principles unearthed by generativists are of aid to computational linguists in machine processing of language, developing sms packages in different languages, machine parsing, etc.

I must admit that I do sense the potential of generativist approaches for those fields, but from the little I've read, I rather gathered that empirical approaches have proven to be of greater practicality and immediate help - it seems easier to have a computer act according to probabilities rather than trying to painstakingly formulate rules and algorithms for it to ((also) mindlessly) follow.

Jotham, people like Fowler may have been "educated", but that doesn't mean the man wasn't fallible, when feeling opinionated enough about something. The only book bearing his name that I would consider buying is the more recent usage manual edited (that is, substantially edited and rewritten) by Robert Burchfield. Probably Fowler's greater contribution was compiling the Concise Oxford Dictionary (with the aid of his brother).

The problem with "better" education is that it often leads to questionable stuff like this:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 1180#21180

I guess we'll continue to disagree about how much of our linguistic ability stems from "universal principles", if by that you insist on meaning that there really is a little black nodulely modulely box somewhere in our head marked LAD/UG/CHOMSKY-NOENTRY

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:15 am

jotham wrote:
But generativists are linguists studying why it is as it is and not grammarians who tell us how it should be.
Yes, that's right. I was making the distinction between generativist linguists and functional linguists. Prescriptivists don't usually butt heads with generativists, but rather the functionalists.

Could that be because precriptivists and generativists share a lot of the same mindset? 'I'm the king of the castle, get down you dirty rascals!' (Chomsky would doubtless continue that with, '...and WORSHIP me!' LOL).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:32 am

fluffyhamster wrote:
That sounds a bit "Austinian"!

When a doctor says 'Take this' (or words to that effect) there is no need to add more to the (implicit or otherwise) bare imperative - there's not usually much doubt (assuming the doctor's diagnosis is correct) that failing to follow the course of treatment is not really an option.

And yet doctors do make statements such as "I'm going to recommend/I recommend a course of treatment".

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 am

This is an amazing essay I was not aware of. She apparently was in the same school as C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. She hits on a lot of the topics I was referring to. What do you find questionable about her main point, which is that children should learn how to learn, and not just learn? She mentions theology, because at the time of the essay, perhaps that was part of the curriculum of the time. Do you think that her point means that education will necessarily become Christian just because she mentions it?
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:37 am

But perhaps the more people who are, the better our society will attain greater ideals, inventions, lifestyles, etc.

It's normally the case that those who are educated by prescriptive grammars are more limited when it comes to using the language as a whole. Those educated by descriptive grammars are usually more able to deal with language in context, various registers, etc. Such people are normally more expert in using the language.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:39 am

metal56 wrote:
fluffyhamster wrote:
That sounds a bit "Austinian"!

When a doctor says 'Take this' (or words to that effect) there is no need to add more to the (implicit or otherwise) bare imperative - there's not usually much doubt (assuming the doctor's diagnosis is correct) that failing to follow the course of treatment is not really an option.

And yet doctors do make statements such as "I'm going to recommend/I recommend a course of treatment".

Indeed. Especially when it is too little, too late, and the patient then quickly shuffles off this mortal coil from their now inoperable/untreatable cancer or similarly nasty disease.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:40 am

No, I didn't say or infer that.

??

Do you mean "imply"?

Neither did grammarians invent Standard English.

I think you'll find that they did.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:40 am

jotham wrote:This is an amazing essay I was not aware of. She apparently was in the same school as C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. She hits on a lot of the topics I was referring to. What do you find questionable about her points?
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

Scroll down a post or two in the thread I linked to above, and you'll find my comments there. Seeing as Andrew Patterson didn't leap to her defence, I'm assuming that my criticisms of Sayers weren't too far off the mark (then again, AP wasn't exactly unapologetic about mentioning her in the first place!).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:45 am

They don't frown at established usages that are hundreds of years old, though they be illogical.

They actually ignore many established usages that are hundreds of years old.

Please, Jotham, get your facts straight.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:51 am

metal56 wrote:
They don't frown at established usages that are hundreds of years old, though they be illogical.
They actually ignore many established usages that are hundreds of years old.

Please, Jotham, get your facts straight.

That, and ironing out the discrepancy between 'don't frown at established usages' yet somehow 'find them illogical'.

All that is illogical (well, silly) about this is finding fault where there is none. Sure, some language may be difficult to formally analyze, but that never stopped anyone from understanding what is meant perfectly well (especially where the usage is appropriate to the potentially non-standard context - people can switch styles, y'know!

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:52 am

Indeed. Especially when it is too little, too late, and the patient then quickly shuffles off this mortal coil from their now inoperable/untreatable cancer or similarly nasty disease.

Mebbe. So, do you think the word "prescribe" has a different meaning in medicine to that used in linguistics/grammar?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:55 am

people can switch styles, y'know!

Indeed they can. If only more language forumites would admit that they also do that.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:56 am

I've played around a bit with 'prescribe' (and 'proscribe' etc) somewhere on the AL forum before - if I find it (whilst searching for something that I wrote that might be of interest to Jotham), and it seems relevant, I'll post it and/or reformulate or expand on my old thoughts (if I have time still...gotta dash in a sec or so).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am

Aha! A search (for 'ratchet' - don't ask!) produced the following thread:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=2703

On its first page, my first post might be of interest to you, metal (dealing as it does in drugs etc

), whilst my post right at the bottom of that page might get Jotham ticking...

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:05 am

Scroll down a post or two in the thread I linked to above, and you'll find my comments there. Seeing as Andrew Patterson didn't leap to her defence, I'm assuming that my criticisms of Sayers weren't too far off the mark (then again, AP wasn't exactly unapologetic about mentioning her in the first place!).

Well, you seemed to be arguing about minutiae of what she was saying instead of her main thrust. I'll take a closer look later.