How do you, personally, define Standard English?
The word "personally" is important there.
How do you, personally, define Standard English?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I avoid personal
I'm pretty humble enough to not make PERSONAL determinations. I always look at the experts whose judgement I can rely on, who have studied current and historical usage, and who have been down the road I'm traveling. I am humble enough to know that I have a lot to learn, and that I haven't learned standard English enough, or rather, that I can learn infinitely more English. I am a perfectionist that is never content with just enough. I am still asked grammar questions that I have to look up. I don't just go off spouting off my personal opinions if I don't have to. Put another way, I try to make my personal opinion and those of professionals the same.
When I am asked tricky grammar questions, I consult several resources. If I get two or three authorities that say the same thing, then I am pretty safe in asserting that it is standard English; and I cite the authorities so that they know it isn't just little ole me. An authority that has proven himself to be excellent in this field is Bryan Garner and his Modern American Usage. I think he has a no nonsense approach to usage that assures grammarians without provoking linguists. Perhaps it would be good reading for you and help you see these issues from a different light.
I think a lot of your anxiety may have to do with a misunderstanding of grammarians. There are extreme ones out there that are very few who want to bring the language back to two hundred years ago. Mainstream grammarians, like Bryan Garner, are not of that variety.
I respect dialects. I particularly like southern accents, especially from Virginia and the East Coast. I grew up where the southern accent, though not dominant, wasn't unheard. On occasion, I even revert to pronouncing things that way. Sometimes when I'm slightly irritated and want to talk in a common-sense fashion in a classroom or meeting, I find myself slipping into that because, like you said, it helps me deliver my message and seems to give me an aura or personality that is more "common sense." It is kind of a rhetorical device. But I don't think I would ever revert to ungrammatical structures, especially if I were a teacher of American kids, and definitely being around Chinese speakers all the time, who are always — I'm painfully aware — imitating my speech.
When I am asked tricky grammar questions, I consult several resources. If I get two or three authorities that say the same thing, then I am pretty safe in asserting that it is standard English; and I cite the authorities so that they know it isn't just little ole me. An authority that has proven himself to be excellent in this field is Bryan Garner and his Modern American Usage. I think he has a no nonsense approach to usage that assures grammarians without provoking linguists. Perhaps it would be good reading for you and help you see these issues from a different light.
I think a lot of your anxiety may have to do with a misunderstanding of grammarians. There are extreme ones out there that are very few who want to bring the language back to two hundred years ago. Mainstream grammarians, like Bryan Garner, are not of that variety.
I respect dialects. I particularly like southern accents, especially from Virginia and the East Coast. I grew up where the southern accent, though not dominant, wasn't unheard. On occasion, I even revert to pronouncing things that way. Sometimes when I'm slightly irritated and want to talk in a common-sense fashion in a classroom or meeting, I find myself slipping into that because, like you said, it helps me deliver my message and seems to give me an aura or personality that is more "common sense." It is kind of a rhetorical device. But I don't think I would ever revert to ungrammatical structures, especially if I were a teacher of American kids, and definitely being around Chinese speakers all the time, who are always — I'm painfully aware — imitating my speech.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What do you mean by "common-sense fashion"?Sometimes when I'm slightly irritated and want to talk in a common-sense fashion in a classroom or meeting, I find myself slipping into that because, like you said, it helps me deliver my message and seems to give me an aura or personality that is more "common sense."
------------------------------
Does Garner follow this distinction? And does his use of "usage", in the title of the publication you mentioned, fit with the one defined and highlighted below?
"I would argue that the term usage should be limited to refer to actual use in edited and printed American English, and the term style should be employed to refer to the so-called usage conventions introduced by stylists over the last few centuries. Thus, style is what many writers on the subject think a given construction or word choice should be. Usage is a matter of what the written record shows publication practice actually to be."
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi? ... wachal.pdf
-
Anuradha Chepur
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:33 am
- Location: India
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
That's all patrician carp isn't it: style is how we should write according to stylists, not writers mark you but arbiters of style, and usage is resricted to the edited and printed word. Baloney.
Personally I think Standard English is what is approved by The Royal/American Academy of the English Language.
The fact that we haven't got one shouldn't matter a bit. It's like MI5. It didn't officially exist but everybody knew it did, with an address on Curzon St that taxi drivers could take you to.
By a different token we can more or less agree on what our Academy would regard as Standard English without going to the trouble and expense of in fact having one.
The problem with academies is their sometimes over-hasty proactivity or often over-slow reactivity. Not having one is the solution.
Personally I think Standard English is what is approved by The Royal/American Academy of the English Language.
The fact that we haven't got one shouldn't matter a bit. It's like MI5. It didn't officially exist but everybody knew it did, with an address on Curzon St that taxi drivers could take you to.
By a different token we can more or less agree on what our Academy would regard as Standard English without going to the trouble and expense of in fact having one.
The problem with academies is their sometimes over-hasty proactivity or often over-slow reactivity. Not having one is the solution.
Last edited by JuanTwoThree on Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Anuradha Chepur
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:33 am
- Location: India
No there is no such thing as Standard Indian English.
For us, the standard implies the international standars.
Indian English is actually incorrect English spoken by most of us,
out of ignorance and as a result of language contact.
Maybe we have a standard Indian pronunciation. We would make fools of ourselves if we put on British/American accent, even in the elitest of company.
For us, the standard implies the international standars.
Indian English is actually incorrect English spoken by most of us,
out of ignorance and as a result of language contact.
Maybe we have a standard Indian pronunciation. We would make fools of ourselves if we put on British/American accent, even in the elitest of company.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
"No there is no such thing as Standard American English.
For us, the standard implies the international standards.
American English is actually incorrect English spoken by most of us,
out of ignorance and as a result of language contact.
Maybe we have a standard American pronunciation. We would make fools of ourselves if we put on British accent, even in the elitest of company"
What's the difference?
For us, the standard implies the international standards.
American English is actually incorrect English spoken by most of us,
out of ignorance and as a result of language contact.
Maybe we have a standard American pronunciation. We would make fools of ourselves if we put on British accent, even in the elitest of company"
What's the difference?
I think so, but there have been those here who, in the last few weeks, have stated that it is published works which are still the model for good usage. Such people never seem to mention just which writers they refer to.That's all patrician carp isn't it: style is how we should write according to stylists, not writers mark you but arbiters of style, and usage is resricted to the edited and printed word. Baloney.
What would their definition be if we had such an academy?By a different token we can more or less agree on what our Academy would regard as Standard English without going to the trouble and expense of in fact having one.
How true is that? Were/are Indian speakers of English not intelligent enough to make English their own? Didn't/don't they make conscious choices about what to take from British English and what to alter?Indian English is actually incorrect English spoken by most of us,
out of ignorance and as a result of language contact.
That's what's happened in many countries outside British and American English circles.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
-
Anuradha Chepur
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:33 am
- Location: India