Teacher Discussion Forums

Would you see this as a prescriptivist statement or as a descriptivist one?

"I'd like to can swim" is ungrammatical. In English, modal auxiliaries like can and must are disallowed in infinitival clauses."

It's the use of the word disallowed that makes it sound prescriptivist. Someone has to do the disallowing; I imagine a teacher at the front of the class, dressed in black, blowing a whistle on hearing the sentence and holding up a yellow card

Personally I'd say are not used or don't fit rather than are disallowed.

It's an accurate statement about English syntax.

Stephen Jones wrote:It's an accurate statement about English syntax.

I feel the same. No need for prescriptivism there. It is what it is.

The statement is accurate, but the problem with using words like disallow is that it encourages students to treat grammar like law. I've seen too many students who argue the (un)grammaticality of a sentence like lawyers prosecuting a case, which misses the point.

metal56 wrote:

Stephen Jones wrote:It's an accurate statement about English syntax.

I feel the same. No need for prescriptivism there. It is what it is.

Is prescriptive grammar usually inaccurate? Quite the contrary, but what was the original question?

lolwhites wrote:The statement is accurate, but the problem with using words like disallow is that it encourages students to treat grammar like law. I've seen too many students who argue the (un)grammaticality of a sentence like lawyers prosecuting a case, which misses the point.

So the problem is lack of understanding of the word "disallow" when related to a system, right?

Miss Elenious wrote:

Is prescriptive grammar usually inaccurate?

Quite often, in fact.

The statement is accurate, but the problem with using words like disallow is that it encourages students to treat grammar like law. I've seen too many students who argue the (un)grammaticality of a sentence like lawyers prosecuting a case, which misses the point.

What's wrong with accuracy? Are we more concerned about the attitude of our students than we are about whether something is correct? Do students not only have to learn the language, but also view it from a certain politically correct perspective as well? And what point is being missed? What's terribly wrong with students, like lawyers, figuring out whether something fits the norms of a language? After such an exercise, might they remember it better whether or not it fits and whether or not they correctly categorized it?
I don't think prescriptionism and descriptionism can be ascertained in this sentence, since both camps would agree. Descriptionists may rely solely on data about what a majority of people in the language speak and discern patterns of the language to determine that the statement departs from the syntax, and thus call it "ungrammatical." Prescriptionists certainly aren't unconcerned with that. The two groups agree 95% of the time.
On other issues, prescriptionists may disagree based on subjective standards of what is the clearest communication or best use of rhetoric or logic, while the descriptionists are saying, "Look, 25% of people say it this way and it's growing: it's been decided — communicative efficiency can be thrown out...let's not stop this portentous event." Sometimes prescriptionists succeed at stanching inefficacious tides (they welcome tides that contribute to better communication); at other times, they eventually have to accept the tide.

The two groups agree 95% of the time.

Really? Where did you get that figure from?

It's not a figure, it's a figure of speech. I meant they mostly agree with each other. It's probably closer to 99.5% when considering all the words and usage in the Engish language. When they do disagree (such as between that and which or the usage of irregardless), it can be violent and those few issues get bandied about over and over, which is why people might think they disagree 95% of the time.

jotham wrote:It's not a figure, it's a figure of speech. I meant they mostly agree with each other. It's probably closer to 99.5% when considering all the words and usage in the Engish language. When they do disagree (such as between that and which or the usage of irregardless), it can be violent and those few issues get bandied about over and over, which is why people might think they disagree 95% of the time.

But the difference/s between the two tribes is not only based on items of use, it is also based on approach. If we consider approach, they differ enormously.

What's wrong with accuracy? Are we more concerned about the attitude of our students than we are about whether something is correct? Do students not only have to learn the language, but also view it from a certain politically correct perspective as well? And what point is being missed? What's terribly wrong with students, like lawyers, figuring out whether something fits the norms of a language? After such an exercise, might they remember it better whether or not it fits and whether or not they correctly categorized it?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with accuracy!! The problem with turning students into "grammar lawyers" is that it discourages them from developing a feel for the language. When I first learned about the subjunctive in Spanish, my teacher said "here's a list of rules, but don't get too hung up on them because eventually you will reach the point where it'll feel right". However, whenever I've had a student who had been taught rules as gospel i.e taught what was "allowed" and "disallowed", that attitude was probably the biggest barrier to progress beyond around FCE level. It led to plenty of "correct" language that people don't actually use, yet the students couldn't understand what was wrong with it because it fitted the "rules".

I want students to produce language that fits the norms just as much as you do, but you appear to be confusing "norms" with the rules in grammar books. They aren't always the same thing!

By the way, I resent your attempt to write off my views as "politically correct". Don't attach a label to what I say, then object to the label.

But the difference/s between the two tribes is not only based on items of use, it is also based on approach. If we consider approach, they differ enormously.

Yes, I can agree with that, but the sentence doesn't have to do with approach. A grammarian and linguist can agree that the sentence doesn't fit normal syntax and is ungrammatical in Standard English (not a dialect).

I have a suggestion: why don't we assume that halfway-decent ESL teachers do actually bother to check the facts of at least native usage sometimes, and balance that against what appears to work for everyone locally wherever they happen to be teaching; such a teacher thus goes from description to recommendation (when pressed), and prescription doesn't enter the picture.