Just a quick reply. Yes, in fact I was explicitly taught PG and I'm sure you were, too. You must have been if you attended elementary school, since that's one of the main purposes of elementary school in modern nations. I'll write more on this later. I just wanted to post a related link from one of the major lingusitics sites
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/langua ... 01863.html
and
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... .html#more
and
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01865.html
and
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... .html#more
Why do we teach prescriptive grammar?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Thank you for your most interesting links. The last one reminded me of a couple experiences I have had regarding Linguistics and grammar. (On one of our other threads someone asked about the opinions of the old fogeys--okay, so it wasn't QUITE stated like that 
).
I started in the Linguistics Department at the University of Michigan in 1967. There were no departments of ESL/EFL at that time. "Transformational Grammar" was the "new" way of looking at language. I remember creating a grammar of an African language for a final project in a class on transformational grammar, based on a corpus given to us by the professor. While you may or may not disagree with the approach (I'm sure by now it's been discredited, but frankly, I haven't followed up on my linguistic approaches.), the one thing I remember is that using the theory exercised your mind and made thinking about grammar fun. (Yes, fun!)
Imagine my surprise, then, when I had to take an elective--a course in teaching English grammar in the Education Department. The textbook was a book that was being used in secondary schools. It had taken the new "transformational grammar" and put it in a PRESCRIPTIVE book. Yes. The entire (to me) impact of transformational grammar was lost. No chance for discovery. No chance for thought. Just rote memorization of the transformations....sigh...so much for revolution.
The other incident occurred when I first came to San Francisco (gasp back in 1969) when I was subbing in various ESL classes to help make ends meet. I got a call to teach a night class in the Spanish-speaking area of town. Imagine my surprise when I arrived there and was given a class of native speakers learning grammar. Eep! I taught the class using ESL techniques. (I told the students I didn't know the prescriptive names for the grammar either, but putting two short sentences together to make a longer one was the point of the exercise anyway.) At the bus stop on the way home, the students asked me if I could come back again. I can only think that they had a prescriptive English teacher and were glad for a change.
Heh, well thanks for the opportunity for a trip down memory lane. Hope I didn't talk too much!
).I started in the Linguistics Department at the University of Michigan in 1967. There were no departments of ESL/EFL at that time. "Transformational Grammar" was the "new" way of looking at language. I remember creating a grammar of an African language for a final project in a class on transformational grammar, based on a corpus given to us by the professor. While you may or may not disagree with the approach (I'm sure by now it's been discredited, but frankly, I haven't followed up on my linguistic approaches.), the one thing I remember is that using the theory exercised your mind and made thinking about grammar fun. (Yes, fun!)
Imagine my surprise, then, when I had to take an elective--a course in teaching English grammar in the Education Department. The textbook was a book that was being used in secondary schools. It had taken the new "transformational grammar" and put it in a PRESCRIPTIVE book. Yes. The entire (to me) impact of transformational grammar was lost. No chance for discovery. No chance for thought. Just rote memorization of the transformations....sigh...so much for revolution.
The other incident occurred when I first came to San Francisco (gasp back in 1969) when I was subbing in various ESL classes to help make ends meet. I got a call to teach a night class in the Spanish-speaking area of town. Imagine my surprise when I arrived there and was given a class of native speakers learning grammar. Eep! I taught the class using ESL techniques. (I told the students I didn't know the prescriptive names for the grammar either, but putting two short sentences together to make a longer one was the point of the exercise anyway.) At the bus stop on the way home, the students asked me if I could come back again. I can only think that they had a prescriptive English teacher and were glad for a change.
Heh, well thanks for the opportunity for a trip down memory lane. Hope I didn't talk too much!
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hi again Scott (and Lori!). As you might be aware, I'm from the UK (so I had read the last of the LL links there already). I haven't read the first three yet, just opened them quickly...
All I can say is that in the UK, we don't have tests like the SAT, and at the risk of causing great offence
, I am not sure we need it (are the schools in the US "failing", according to some politicians at least or something? 
I must admit, I am not even sure of how the school-leaving/university entrance system works in America with regard to exams taken, university entrance and acceptance procedures etc ).
By that, I just mean that (as I said in my previous post), learning how to e.g. write history essays comes through reading enough of them and gradually improving your style over time. Tutors don't expect dissertation-level abilities at the start, but nor do they expect to be doing remedial English (and it seems the A Level courses and exams, for all the talk that they are getting easier, still help in providing students with the experience and skills to be capable of doing even "better" at university). Basically, "language" takes a backseat to the subjects from secondary school onwards in the UK, and reading>writing proceeds on the basis of commenting upon or emulating text-types rather than having no apparent functional basis.
At elementary level, I can't really remember what or how I was taught, but if look at the debate over how to best develop literacy, again, there are functional (top-down) approaches (whole-word) as opposed to bottom-up ones (phonics)...but in this instance, I think phonics-type approaches have always won the battle (in my mind at least), and in good schools there therefore is a focus on words and phrases, and doubtless sentences too.
I don't know if you could say, though, if reading "fun" or "silly" sentences or a fairytale bit by bit was teaching grammar (PG) or teaching the reading skills necssary to read even the most basic language, "speech as writing" etc. I was presuming that by PG you only meant language that was consciously studied for its own sake, at an age when people who were no longer children (i.e. young adults) would be aware of the not immediately functional nature of the tasks, understand it and "appreciate" it. That is, even if young kids are being inculcated in a "PG", if they are not aware that prescription is the aim (i.e. they have no conscious awareness or, therefore, "choice"), is the grammar in the language, therefore, actually "being" prescriptive?
Kids obviously have to be exposed to something, some language if only to fill the classtime, but I wasn't aware that English teachers at elementary level (felt they) were insisting on correctness over socialization, creativity, using language for other, functional purposes (albeit ones necessarily a lot less ambitious than at secondary school), in the process of which it gets acquired.
(Most if not all of) what we say to e.g. kids we say not because some shadowy goverment official says that it should be so, but because stretching back for generations, people have simply said it so. It is a mystery exactly how we have come to possess language, but I think we can be fairly sure that it didn't all stem from one hitherto silent ape being much cleverer than all the rest and suddenly telling every last already full-sized brain adult individual (the babies wouldn't've been around to hear anything, would they) individual on "how to say it". The government official who wants to exercise control is deliberately cutting themselves off everybody else (for some reason).
So, I think the way we "formally" write is ultimately more an extension of and reflection of the social processes and needs of speech; it requires and also allows more careful thought and organization than speech, but builds upon speech. Anybody in a culture who therefore wishes to "write well" only needs to be able to speak, learn how sounds are rendered onto paper, and then build up from reading simple through to more complex thoughts before starting to have a go at it themselves. The exact forms and grammar is quite incidental to the underlying social process of making available and sharing complex, considered thoughts at a a distance greater than speech permits (and who always has the time to stand around all day chatting, or has much to say when they are just chatting).
Not sure if I am actually "saying" anything here, though, so I'd best stop before someone spanks me again for being a naughty, noisy little monkey.
All I can say is that in the UK, we don't have tests like the SAT, and at the risk of causing great offence
, I am not sure we need it (are the schools in the US "failing", according to some politicians at least or something? I must admit, I am not even sure of how the school-leaving/university entrance system works in America with regard to exams taken, university entrance and acceptance procedures etc ).By that, I just mean that (as I said in my previous post), learning how to e.g. write history essays comes through reading enough of them and gradually improving your style over time. Tutors don't expect dissertation-level abilities at the start, but nor do they expect to be doing remedial English (and it seems the A Level courses and exams, for all the talk that they are getting easier, still help in providing students with the experience and skills to be capable of doing even "better" at university). Basically, "language" takes a backseat to the subjects from secondary school onwards in the UK, and reading>writing proceeds on the basis of commenting upon or emulating text-types rather than having no apparent functional basis.
At elementary level, I can't really remember what or how I was taught, but if look at the debate over how to best develop literacy, again, there are functional (top-down) approaches (whole-word) as opposed to bottom-up ones (phonics)...but in this instance, I think phonics-type approaches have always won the battle (in my mind at least), and in good schools there therefore is a focus on words and phrases, and doubtless sentences too.
I don't know if you could say, though, if reading "fun" or "silly" sentences or a fairytale bit by bit was teaching grammar (PG) or teaching the reading skills necssary to read even the most basic language, "speech as writing" etc. I was presuming that by PG you only meant language that was consciously studied for its own sake, at an age when people who were no longer children (i.e. young adults) would be aware of the not immediately functional nature of the tasks, understand it and "appreciate" it. That is, even if young kids are being inculcated in a "PG", if they are not aware that prescription is the aim (i.e. they have no conscious awareness or, therefore, "choice"), is the grammar in the language, therefore, actually "being" prescriptive?
Kids obviously have to be exposed to something, some language if only to fill the classtime, but I wasn't aware that English teachers at elementary level (felt they) were insisting on correctness over socialization, creativity, using language for other, functional purposes (albeit ones necessarily a lot less ambitious than at secondary school), in the process of which it gets acquired.
(Most if not all of) what we say to e.g. kids we say not because some shadowy goverment official says that it should be so, but because stretching back for generations, people have simply said it so. It is a mystery exactly how we have come to possess language, but I think we can be fairly sure that it didn't all stem from one hitherto silent ape being much cleverer than all the rest and suddenly telling every last already full-sized brain adult individual (the babies wouldn't've been around to hear anything, would they) individual on "how to say it". The government official who wants to exercise control is deliberately cutting themselves off everybody else (for some reason).
So, I think the way we "formally" write is ultimately more an extension of and reflection of the social processes and needs of speech; it requires and also allows more careful thought and organization than speech, but builds upon speech. Anybody in a culture who therefore wishes to "write well" only needs to be able to speak, learn how sounds are rendered onto paper, and then build up from reading simple through to more complex thoughts before starting to have a go at it themselves. The exact forms and grammar is quite incidental to the underlying social process of making available and sharing complex, considered thoughts at a a distance greater than speech permits (and who always has the time to stand around all day chatting, or has much to say when they are just chatting).
Not sure if I am actually "saying" anything here, though, so I'd best stop before someone spanks me again for being a naughty, noisy little monkey.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
If you can keep track of the tests that come and go in modern British schools Fluffy, you are a better man than I am.
It seems to me that you always conjure up some grammar grinding hide-bound demon of your own making, whatever is described to you. I do not mean that western infants are taught (or should be taught) about relative clauses. I mean that when they say, or especially write "he really like it" or "he ain't no good" they are corrected, even though they are only copying their parents. The teacher, knowing such speech is a handicap in life, tells them it is wrong.
That is prescriptive grammar, and pity those who are not taught it.
It seems to me that you always conjure up some grammar grinding hide-bound demon of your own making, whatever is described to you. I do not mean that western infants are taught (or should be taught) about relative clauses. I mean that when they say, or especially write "he really like it" or "he ain't no good" they are corrected, even though they are only copying their parents. The teacher, knowing such speech is a handicap in life, tells them it is wrong.
That is prescriptive grammar, and pity those who are not taught it.
-
Scott.Sommers
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:28 pm
- Contact:
Woody, at least you're honest. But I'm still a bit confused about the prescriptive grammar that you (if you excuse the error of this grammar), "pity those who are not taught it." I say this because, and correct me if you have any solid reasons to believe I'm wrong, you'll find that very few people write or even speak in the manner of your example. And for those who do, there is little reason to believe that telling them they have made a mistake and how it should be spoken or written will actually make any difference in their future patterns of production.
The grammar that I think most of us are supposed to have trouble with more resembles the examples reproduced by Mark Liberman in the links I posted above. These are conventional rules developed by grammar textbooks writers to handle what they perceive as recurrent problems in writing and speech. Dr. Liberman's point is that these have become institutionalized by test and textbook producers, rather than language producers themselves. The grammar-translation fashion in which grammar is frequently taught to second/foreign language learners of English is equally divorced from the manner in which people naturally learn second/foreign languages, and there is little reason to believe that it is a more powerful method than naturally occurring language learning.
Incidentally, I'd like to know how far you'd take this. There may be no SAT in Britain, but surely you can tell us if you think a reasonable person should have command of the type of grammar that's being tested for in Mark Liberman's problem questions. For example, would you pity those who don't refer to collective nouns as singular? Or how about the grammar of comparison? Or how about the ungrammaticality of these examples?
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/langua ... 01816.html
and
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01874.html
The grammar that I think most of us are supposed to have trouble with more resembles the examples reproduced by Mark Liberman in the links I posted above. These are conventional rules developed by grammar textbooks writers to handle what they perceive as recurrent problems in writing and speech. Dr. Liberman's point is that these have become institutionalized by test and textbook producers, rather than language producers themselves. The grammar-translation fashion in which grammar is frequently taught to second/foreign language learners of English is equally divorced from the manner in which people naturally learn second/foreign languages, and there is little reason to believe that it is a more powerful method than naturally occurring language learning.
Incidentally, I'd like to know how far you'd take this. There may be no SAT in Britain, but surely you can tell us if you think a reasonable person should have command of the type of grammar that's being tested for in Mark Liberman's problem questions. For example, would you pity those who don't refer to collective nouns as singular? Or how about the grammar of comparison? Or how about the ungrammaticality of these examples?
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/langua ... 01816.html
and
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01874.html
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Great post, Scott, I can now see whee you were coming from very clearly, and I (think) it's pretty similar to my own opinions. 
I read an LL post by Geoff Pullum after following up the "4" links you posted previously (it's amazing how one can soon get "lost" in the Aladdin's cave that the LL is!), about the "celebrating" example, which also appears to be the focus of at least one of Lieberman's two articles at the further two links you've provided. It seems Woody should read the Pullum article I spotted at least:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01843.html
The ideas (idea?) he presents seem complex but are at heart quite "simple", and relate (I think) to a (usually accurate, descriptively) linguist's vs. a prescriptive non-linguist's understanding of what "correct" means in a grammatical(ly "well formed") sense viz-a-viz any one speaker's "competence" (get yer tape recorder and notebook out and go do some fieldwork is what Pullum does).
This is why, linguistically speaking (woody), 'he really like it' would probably be considered puzzling and could well turn out to be incorrect (according to any person's grammar), whilst 'he ain't no good' is more obviously only "incorrect" in the non-linguistic, prescriptivist's opinion.
Anyway, regardless of what people do or don't say according to their internal grammar, or what we all think of what they said, telling kids in school, who maybe speak differently at home, that what they just said is "wrong" won't ultimately change how they speak at home, will it, but I am sure they will pick up the grammar(s) somehow, and be quite able to work out what is and isn't apporiate in writing (e.g. a job application - 'Sorry but I ain't got no like MA in TESOL, mate') by the time and age when making those applications "properly" (using language appropriately to reflect the nature of the social relationship) has "suddenly" become a real issue (perhaps after a couple of rejection letters
). Not that I wouldn't myself give them a job if I were their potential employer.
That is, if there is a thing called "stupidity" blocking or refusing the acquisition of anything other than the grunt tribe's current grammar, that is ultimately their problem and fault (for not notiicing it), not their potentially long-suffering fellow teachers and then citizens. Turning the debate totally on its head, if speakers with a "standard" grammar can copy and have, therefore, presumably acquired (at least an awareness of) "non-standards", what is preventing the "non-standards" from getting their brain in gear and becoming capable code-switchers themselves?
But of course, almost everyone speaks a non-standard of some type, so the "problem" of acquiring the standard is not actually down to the "quality" of education at all - if even one person of a non-standard can do it why can't they all?
You might start saying that there is a bigger "gap" to make up for some non-standards, but that starts sounding like a suspiciously elitist argument in itself. As I said before and shall say again, I think the problem is stupidty, and a pride almost in that stupidity. I wish there was more we could do to help stupid people, and I for one would try not to be indifferent to them, but do they want our charity? Probably not. "Our" language and social conventions. Not on your life.
PUT SIMPLY, STUPID PEOPLE CAN'T STRING TWO WORDS TOGETHER IN ANY LANGUAGE, EVEN THE ONE THEY AND EVERYONE ELSE "CAN" SPEAK. You can teach them silly prescriptive rules, but do they actually want to write anything at all, even entirely in what would, descriptively speaking, be their own private language?
Actually, I am getting a bit silly again. I didn't mean what I just said. Actually, I think stupid people probably can write and speak as well as everybody - at least, that is, until a silly prescriptive rule pops up into their head and confuses their train of thought again.
By the way, Scott, 'he ain't no good' is "familiar" to many if not most (all?) BrE people at least, although it is considered non-standard and, therefore, "incorrect".
I read an LL post by Geoff Pullum after following up the "4" links you posted previously (it's amazing how one can soon get "lost" in the Aladdin's cave that the LL is!), about the "celebrating" example, which also appears to be the focus of at least one of Lieberman's two articles at the further two links you've provided. It seems Woody should read the Pullum article I spotted at least:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01843.html
The ideas (idea?) he presents seem complex but are at heart quite "simple", and relate (I think) to a (usually accurate, descriptively) linguist's vs. a prescriptive non-linguist's understanding of what "correct" means in a grammatical(ly "well formed") sense viz-a-viz any one speaker's "competence" (get yer tape recorder and notebook out and go do some fieldwork is what Pullum does).
This is why, linguistically speaking (woody), 'he really like it' would probably be considered puzzling and could well turn out to be incorrect (according to any person's grammar), whilst 'he ain't no good' is more obviously only "incorrect" in the non-linguistic, prescriptivist's opinion.
Anyway, regardless of what people do or don't say according to their internal grammar, or what we all think of what they said, telling kids in school, who maybe speak differently at home, that what they just said is "wrong" won't ultimately change how they speak at home, will it, but I am sure they will pick up the grammar(s) somehow, and be quite able to work out what is and isn't apporiate in writing (e.g. a job application - 'Sorry but I ain't got no like MA in TESOL, mate') by the time and age when making those applications "properly" (using language appropriately to reflect the nature of the social relationship) has "suddenly" become a real issue (perhaps after a couple of rejection letters
). Not that I wouldn't myself give them a job if I were their potential employer. That is, if there is a thing called "stupidity" blocking or refusing the acquisition of anything other than the grunt tribe's current grammar, that is ultimately their problem and fault (for not notiicing it), not their potentially long-suffering fellow teachers and then citizens. Turning the debate totally on its head, if speakers with a "standard" grammar can copy and have, therefore, presumably acquired (at least an awareness of) "non-standards", what is preventing the "non-standards" from getting their brain in gear and becoming capable code-switchers themselves?
But of course, almost everyone speaks a non-standard of some type, so the "problem" of acquiring the standard is not actually down to the "quality" of education at all - if even one person of a non-standard can do it why can't they all?
You might start saying that there is a bigger "gap" to make up for some non-standards, but that starts sounding like a suspiciously elitist argument in itself. As I said before and shall say again, I think the problem is stupidty, and a pride almost in that stupidity. I wish there was more we could do to help stupid people, and I for one would try not to be indifferent to them, but do they want our charity? Probably not. "Our" language and social conventions. Not on your life.
PUT SIMPLY, STUPID PEOPLE CAN'T STRING TWO WORDS TOGETHER IN ANY LANGUAGE, EVEN THE ONE THEY AND EVERYONE ELSE "CAN" SPEAK. You can teach them silly prescriptive rules, but do they actually want to write anything at all, even entirely in what would, descriptively speaking, be their own private language?
Actually, I am getting a bit silly again. I didn't mean what I just said. Actually, I think stupid people probably can write and speak as well as everybody - at least, that is, until a silly prescriptive rule pops up into their head and confuses their train of thought again.
By the way, Scott, 'he ain't no good' is "familiar" to many if not most (all?) BrE people at least, although it is considered non-standard and, therefore, "incorrect".
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Here are some questions that I wish had occured to me before:
Do speakers/producers of "non-standard" language actually have exactly the same grammar (that is, all the same functioning hansomely, plus that little bit "extra") as people who consistently produce "standard" language? Or, is there something about the grammar they possess that actually prevents the "non-standard" speaker from producing the "standard" forms at all (and perhaps from ever being "taught" otherwise, even though mutual intelligibility is not the issue)?
If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', why then do the "non-standard" speakers speak as they do? As for the second question, it is, I "suspect", probably a trick one, unless some regional groups really are so different from any of the many other groups and individuals within those groups that can always effect, and in fact have effected, the "switch".
If it would make these smaller groups feel any better, I suppose the majority could switch (some of them, back) to using the minority form, but what would be the good or purpose of that, other than to totally replace "one" perfectly acceptable and functional manifestation of the grammar with another? (I'm trying to speak as a linguist, but I must admit I still sound like a non-linguist). The majority "language" may unfairly be top dog due to politics, but is in itself just another "language". A gun is just a tool and all that.
Ultimately "the one" variety of the language has the same advantages as "the other", and why can't "everybody" see that and just accept "it" (presuming they all, at a deeper level, have the same grammar and can therefore understand the "same" forms receptively, and could always make/make use of the same forms productively). It's not like anyone is being asked to give up their birthright, or that there is a danger that they'll get shafted and end up with nothing. They'll end up with "two for the price of one" (that is, the apple they originally had, split into two neat and tasty halves, one for breakfeast and one for business lunches).
I'm not a good or knowledgeable enough linguist to answer these (potentially very silly) questions, so I hope I haven't been talking totally through my hat here.
Do speakers/producers of "non-standard" language actually have exactly the same grammar (that is, all the same functioning hansomely, plus that little bit "extra") as people who consistently produce "standard" language? Or, is there something about the grammar they possess that actually prevents the "non-standard" speaker from producing the "standard" forms at all (and perhaps from ever being "taught" otherwise, even though mutual intelligibility is not the issue)?
If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', why then do the "non-standard" speakers speak as they do? As for the second question, it is, I "suspect", probably a trick one, unless some regional groups really are so different from any of the many other groups and individuals within those groups that can always effect, and in fact have effected, the "switch".
If it would make these smaller groups feel any better, I suppose the majority could switch (some of them, back) to using the minority form, but what would be the good or purpose of that, other than to totally replace "one" perfectly acceptable and functional manifestation of the grammar with another? (I'm trying to speak as a linguist, but I must admit I still sound like a non-linguist). The majority "language" may unfairly be top dog due to politics, but is in itself just another "language". A gun is just a tool and all that.
Ultimately "the one" variety of the language has the same advantages as "the other", and why can't "everybody" see that and just accept "it" (presuming they all, at a deeper level, have the same grammar and can therefore understand the "same" forms receptively, and could always make/make use of the same forms productively). It's not like anyone is being asked to give up their birthright, or that there is a danger that they'll get shafted and end up with nothing. They'll end up with "two for the price of one" (that is, the apple they originally had, split into two neat and tasty halves, one for breakfeast and one for business lunches).
I'm not a good or knowledgeable enough linguist to answer these (potentially very silly) questions, so I hope I haven't been talking totally through my hat here.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The problem with the SATS questions is not that they are prescriptive, it's that the prescription is wrong.
As you are keen to quote from the Language Log may I refer you to this article by Pullum, which garnered the support of most of the contributors
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01843.html
The title of the passage is "Everything is correct" versus "nothing is relevant" and Pullum clearly states that he, like most linguists, believes in a Hayekian middle way.
When we are dealing with a non-native learners of English we obviously must be prescriptive. How else are they to know what constructions are acceptable or not. - after all the majority of possible phrases are nonsense.
You seem to be confusing prescriptivism for native speakers (which strangely enough is often labelling as ungrammatical constructions selected precisely because they are all too commonly produced and thus by definition grammatical) with setting rules for non-native speakers learning English as a second language.
At best the first kind of prescriptivism is a correction in register (that is to say it is culling constructions unsuitable for all but informal discourse, such as double negatives) ; at worst it is simply an expression of personal prejudice, or the glorification of one regional variant over another. The prescriptivism of EFL teachers is different, as it is aimed at preventing non-native constructions that will only be understood by speakers of the same L1 as the student, if even by them.
And seeing this comment
As you are keen to quote from the Language Log may I refer you to this article by Pullum, which garnered the support of most of the contributors
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01843.html
The title of the passage is "Everything is correct" versus "nothing is relevant" and Pullum clearly states that he, like most linguists, believes in a Hayekian middle way.
When we are dealing with a non-native learners of English we obviously must be prescriptive. How else are they to know what constructions are acceptable or not. - after all the majority of possible phrases are nonsense.
You seem to be confusing prescriptivism for native speakers (which strangely enough is often labelling as ungrammatical constructions selected precisely because they are all too commonly produced and thus by definition grammatical) with setting rules for non-native speakers learning English as a second language.
At best the first kind of prescriptivism is a correction in register (that is to say it is culling constructions unsuitable for all but informal discourse, such as double negatives) ; at worst it is simply an expression of personal prejudice, or the glorification of one regional variant over another. The prescriptivism of EFL teachers is different, as it is aimed at preventing non-native constructions that will only be understood by speakers of the same L1 as the student, if even by them.
And seeing this comment
I have to ask why you think that learning a second language is a 'natural' activity.equally divorced from the manner in which people naturally learn second/foreign languages, and there is little reason to believe that it is a more powerful method than naturally occurring language learning.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
"Denying people the full use of their regional variety of English denies them their linguistics, social identity and therefore their very being, reducing them almost to dogs, whimpering and cowering before their linguistic masters."
Objections:
1) Nobody is denying them the full use of their regioanal variety regionally.
2) This assumes that people (can) only have one social identity., when they may well have and fully embrace two or more.
3) Following on from 1) and 2), it is being suggested that all those who are "collaborating" with some imaginary evil overlord are making an absolutely political statement rather than a linguistic choice.
Sorry to be going on about this, but it seems the discussion on the other thread below didn't quite do justice to certain aspects of the topic of PG.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1875
I am not necessarily expecting the discussion to reach any forgone conclusion, by the way. I just find it an interesting topic too.
Objections:
1) Nobody is denying them the full use of their regioanal variety regionally.
2) This assumes that people (can) only have one social identity., when they may well have and fully embrace two or more.
3) Following on from 1) and 2), it is being suggested that all those who are "collaborating" with some imaginary evil overlord are making an absolutely political statement rather than a linguistic choice.
Sorry to be going on about this, but it seems the discussion on the other thread below didn't quite do justice to certain aspects of the topic of PG.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1875
I am not necessarily expecting the discussion to reach any forgone conclusion, by the way. I just find it an interesting topic too.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Excellent post, Stephen. You have answered my "silly" questions very well (even if by posting the same LL link as I, you appear not to have closely read my posts themselves - but then, I can't blame you.Stephen Jones wrote:The problem with the SATS questions is not that they are prescriptive, it's that the prescription is wrong.
As you are keen to quote from the Language Log may I refer you to this article by Pullum, which garnered the support of most of the contributors
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01843.html
The title of the passage is "Everything is correct" versus "nothing is relevant" and Pullum clearly states that he, like most linguists, believes in a Hayekian middle way.
When we are dealing with a non-native learners of English we obviously must be prescriptive. How else are they to know what constructions are acceptable or not. - after all the majority of possible phrases are nonsense.
You seem to be confusing prescriptivism for native speakers (which strangely enough is often labelling as ungrammatical constructions selected precisely because they are all too commonly produced and thus by definition grammatical) with setting rules for non-native speakers learning English as a second language.
At best the first kind of prescriptivism is a correction in register (that is to say it is culling constructions unsuitable for all but informal discourse, such as double negatives) ; at worst it is simply an expression of personal prejudice, or the glorification of one regional variant over another. The prescriptivism of EFL teachers is different, as it is aimed at preventing non-native constructions that will only be understood by speakers of the same L1 as the student, if even by them.
And seeing this commentI have to ask why you think that learning a second language is a 'natural' activity.equally divorced from the manner in which people naturally learn second/foreign languages, and there is little reason to believe that it is a more powerful method than naturally occurring language learning.
).I was happy to discuss PG for native speakers, but I too was wondering if and when PG for ESL students was going to be mentioned (if it wasn't being implicitly mentioned somehow somewhere in the other posts).
There's one thing you said that's maybe just a little too pat, though:
This assumes that native-speaker norms (which native speakers?) will automatically guarantee intelligibility, IF they are closely followed. Unfortunately, native-like pronunciation - the very basis of contructions - is seldom achieved. Researchers like Jenkins have investigated why this should be, and have also determined what features do in fact end up being actually used.The prescriptivism of EFL teachers is different, as it is aimed at preventing non-native constructions that will only be understood by speakers of the same L1 as the student, if even by them.
The purpose of research like this is not to dispense with a standard entirely, but to try to identify those things which stand a chance of being acquired and that then seem to make a difference in conversations between differing L2 English learners (with implications for establishing a "core" of English features necessary for successful international communication), in contrast to which there are those things that seem very resistant to teaching, and which might also seem ultimately to make little difference in terms of mutual intelligibility for such international users.
Obviously, those things essential but still somewhat difficult do still need to be taught to whichever learners, and there are doubtless many teachers who would say that the full native inventory is not so impossible anyway, besides which it is a clear and "obviously" universally established target for teaching. However, to ignore such research is to assume that teaching automatically equals successful learning, and risk not improving either (the "obvious" target never actually gets universally learned and mastered, no matter how hard "we" try).
But then you knew all that already, you clever sod,
and Jenkins' "Lingua Fraca Core" is not perhaps quite the priority for all English teachers or even learners that she would like it to be. Lastly:
Of course, you're "absolutely" right, and I'm sure Scott will answer for himself, but are you saying it can be made as unnatural as we like without any negative effect on acquisition (or learning, if you prefer to not make the distinction and see no psychologically or sociolinguistically convincing reason to do so)?I have to ask why you think that learning a second language is a 'natural' activity.
-
Scott.Sommers
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:28 pm
- Contact:
Of course second languages are learned naturally. How else could they be learned? Although it is common practice to distinguish between learning under pedagogical facilitation and learning outside the influence of the classroom. For example, many people learn to play particular sports under the tutorage of a coach or sports teacher. Others learn just by picking up the ball and playing. I am a rather avid amateur athlete and it is my experience that many games have rules so complex (for example, rugby off-side rule) or particular to that sport (for example, icing in ice hockey) that if you are not told these rules you could watch or play the game for a very long time without ever understanding what's happening. Other sports (for example judo or boxing) have techniques that only the most gifted individuals could master without special instruction. So there are many human activities that need explicit instruction, coaching, pedagogical facilitation, or what ever term you choose for this 'unnatural' instruction if you ever hope to participate meaningfully.
It would appear that second language learning is not one of these activities. Second (or third, etc) language learning has been occurring naturally for centuries. In fact, prior to the invention of the modern nation state and modern state schooling, there was no way to have a 'national language' or even a ‘standard language’. In the terms we are using here, prior to this time, deviation from a 'standard grammar' would have been the norm. I prefer to say that polylingualism was the norm prior to the advent of the nation state and universal schooling.
My point is that language diversity is the natural state of existence. Other ways of speaking (and writing, although I am less certain of this) have been learned as a part of life and growth since humans first evolved. The language homogeneity and standardization that many language teachers strive for as aesthetically more pleasing needs intervention to occur.
And if you are willing to accept this, then the next question is what kind of intervention is best?
It would appear that second language learning is not one of these activities. Second (or third, etc) language learning has been occurring naturally for centuries. In fact, prior to the invention of the modern nation state and modern state schooling, there was no way to have a 'national language' or even a ‘standard language’. In the terms we are using here, prior to this time, deviation from a 'standard grammar' would have been the norm. I prefer to say that polylingualism was the norm prior to the advent of the nation state and universal schooling.
My point is that language diversity is the natural state of existence. Other ways of speaking (and writing, although I am less certain of this) have been learned as a part of life and growth since humans first evolved. The language homogeneity and standardization that many language teachers strive for as aesthetically more pleasing needs intervention to occur.
And if you are willing to accept this, then the next question is what kind of intervention is best?
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
I doubt if foreign language teachers strive for homogeneity and standardization because it is 'aesthetically more pleasing'. We merely wish foreign students to speak a version of English that will be understood by other English speakers, both native and non-native. Our objection to Chinglish and Spanglish and Inglabiya is that on communicative, not aesthetic grounds.. The language homogeneity and standardization that many language teachers strive for as aesthetically more pleasing needs intervention to occur.
Chinese speakers did not learn English naturally before. You seem to be confusing dialectical variety, where speakers of a language would understand the adjoining dialects, with bilingualisim. Where you get two language communities in contact, such as Tamil and Sinhala speakers on the west coast of Sri Lanka, then you would get bilingualism, but the tendency would be for the two languages to coalesce.
Certainly in ports or cities with a large migrant population you would get people who became bilingual to some extent, and there is the phenemonum of pidgins, but speakers in a language community sheltered from other language communities would be basically monolingual, though with certain dialectical variety, and that would apply to around 90% of the population.
Second languages have always been learnt artificially, whether the second language learnt was the Latin in the monastery or Arabic in a madrassa, or Sanskrit in a temple.
Moreover learning a second language in the same way one learnt a first language, in the highly unlikely situation that it would be possible after puberty, would be an extraordinary inefficient way of doing so. Are you really suggesting that your students should spend the next ten to fifteen years of their life doing nothing else but acquiring English through a process of osmosis, as they acquired their first language?
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hey, don't mind me, guys! (=even if nothing of what I have written "agrees" with anything you have, it would be nice to know if you are disagreeing only with Scott, Stephen=would it be possible for you to ever consider acknowledging anyone else's presence besides Larry's, or perhaps even to occassionally entertain the ridiculous notion that somebody else might have made even a tiny contribution to these forums, Stephen?=typing a name isn't difficult, and there is always the quote function if that is too much to expect or ask. 
).
So, again, Stevie, good post generally (note the reduced amount of praise, relative to the reception your last post got ), although not all of us would agree that "aesthetic" (i.e. social factors involved in real context) are not one of the most important factors in choosing the "correct" forms, and then recontextualizing them appropriately for learners to practice, even in the light of what you said in your final paragraph:
But of course, in practice, well-chosen example sentences resolve this silly dichotomy (get rid of the 'potentiallys' above for a start), because such sentences have enough context withint them to supply/conjure an imaginable context, without it needing to be made explicitly obvious (although there is then still the interesting option of seeing what an extended discourse would bring in terms of cohesion, or not (if the topic "were" dropped)).
This "well-chosen" is what I believe Scott is referring to when he mentions 'homogeneity', 'standardization' and 'aesthetically more pleasing' all in the one sentence; non-PG examples are standard, exhibit homogeneity (of users in a community or derived corpus), and are pleasing to boot for, it seems, not only learners seeking to understand the language i.e. how it is usually formed, used and expressed (I am trying to express the idea of the often typical {form=certain but FREQUENT meaning-use pairings}, even for supposedly "autonomous" grammar and grammatical structures - in reality lexicogrammar/phrases of one kind or another; all this in no way denies creativity to the student, it just gives them a surer basis from which to work), but also teachers stuck for activity ideas.
But perhaps I have misunderstood the pair oops I mean both of you I mean you AND Scott. If so, it would be nice to be told, nicely.
).So, again, Stevie, good post generally (note the reduced amount of praise, relative to the reception your last post got
), although not all of us would agree that "aesthetic" (i.e. social factors involved in real context) are not one of the most important factors in choosing the "correct" forms, and then recontextualizing them appropriately for learners to practice, even in the light of what you said in your final paragraph:Nobody is saying that a second language (every last item of it) can ever be entirely (again, every last item of it) learnt as well as the first once puberty is over, but what is being intimated is that "every little snippet" of the L2 is probably learnt more easily when there is a context beyond that provided by e.g. a drill of potentially totally decontextualized form. The challenge in teaching efficiently is obviously to strike the right balance between learning (and then possibly forgetting) a form with potentially no immediate or obvious reference or relevance, and contextualizing an item so exhaustively that no time is left to move onto the next item.Moreover learning a second language in the same way one learnt a first language, in the highly unlikely situation that it would be possible after puberty, would be an extraordinary inefficient way of doing so. Are you really suggesting that your students should spend the next ten to fifteen years of their life doing nothing else but acquiring English through a process of osmosis, as they acquired their first language?
But of course, in practice, well-chosen example sentences resolve this silly dichotomy (get rid of the 'potentiallys' above for a start), because such sentences have enough context withint them to supply/conjure an imaginable context, without it needing to be made explicitly obvious (although there is then still the interesting option of seeing what an extended discourse would bring in terms of cohesion, or not (if the topic "were" dropped)).
This "well-chosen" is what I believe Scott is referring to when he mentions 'homogeneity', 'standardization' and 'aesthetically more pleasing' all in the one sentence; non-PG examples are standard, exhibit homogeneity (of users in a community or derived corpus), and are pleasing to boot for, it seems, not only learners seeking to understand the language i.e. how it is usually formed, used and expressed (I am trying to express the idea of the often typical {form=certain but FREQUENT meaning-use pairings}, even for supposedly "autonomous" grammar and grammatical structures - in reality lexicogrammar/phrases of one kind or another; all this in no way denies creativity to the student, it just gives them a surer basis from which to work), but also teachers stuck for activity ideas.
But perhaps I have misunderstood the pair oops I mean both of you I mean you AND Scott.
If so, it would be nice to be told, nicely.
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
"Naturally", when referring to second language learning, would appear to mean "free of teaching techniques".
I agree with Stephen that people do not very learn fast in a "natural" setting. The official figure seems to be 1 word per 2 hours. Oooh. Aaaah. What talented little language hoovers. So if we get "Hello" down in the first lesson we are racing ahead.
"He like it" is a common part of numerous dialects, including the East Anglian one I grew up around. Many dialects have their own grammar, which sounds "wrong" in formal contexts. I do not see how standard English is maintained without teaching people who have parents who use dialect english (which is most people) explicitly not to use those forms in such contexts. Do we actually have to say "that is wrong!". Maybe not. But that's what we do.
I agree with Stephen that people do not very learn fast in a "natural" setting. The official figure seems to be 1 word per 2 hours. Oooh. Aaaah. What talented little language hoovers. So if we get "Hello" down in the first lesson we are racing ahead.
"He like it" is a common part of numerous dialects, including the East Anglian one I grew up around. Many dialects have their own grammar, which sounds "wrong" in formal contexts. I do not see how standard English is maintained without teaching people who have parents who use dialect english (which is most people) explicitly not to use those forms in such contexts. Do we actually have to say "that is wrong!". Maybe not. But that's what we do.