Ridding ourselves of the term "descriptivist".

[lolwhites]

I was hoping you'd say that, abu. My point was that what is often presented as a rules system is IMO better seen as a semantic system, where the meanings carried by the structures and lexical items have to be coherent for the utterance to be considered "grammatical". I once saw a book of grammar exercises that said, almost as a footnote, that teachers should make students aware that structure sometimes carries meaning; surely structure always carries meaning.

BTW I'm aware that this doesn't answer Metal's original question, and I'm not sure which of the two grammarians is "descriptivist" in Lawler's book. I originally came into contact with the term as opposed to "prescriptivist" - the latter laying down rules regarding what was or wasn't allowed (Don't say "ain't", Don't use a preposition to end a sentence with....) while the former tried to infer rules from what people actually say and write them down. Perhaps if we knew why Lawler was accused of being a descriptivist I'd be able to comment further.

[abufletcher]

Looking for a "semantic" understanding of "grammar" is a great FIRST STEP towards looking for an emic perspective. But its only the first step that eventually leads to pragmatics and then ultimately out of (mainstream) linguistics into other approaches to human interaction.

Almost 15 years ago I published a small paper describing a "semantic approach" to the teaching of voice -- an approach that did away with all the metagrammatical nonsense that typically goes along with the standard transformation-based "passive" lesson (e.g. subject, object, transitive, intransitive, doer, etc.). The heart of the lesson was to help students see the semantic relationship (and particularly the "directionality") between their chosen "topic" (as opposed to "subject") and its related action.

Scientists --> Discover
Scientists <-- Discover

All these years later, I still think it's a great improvement over the Active --> Passive method but today I'm more likely to deal with passives as situated chunks related to discourse/genre issues. And I've replaced my interest with "semantics" with a clearer understanding of the deeply interactive nature of language-in-the-world. But placing "meaning" before grammar was that all important first step for me.

It's a step that many language teachers around the world seem never to take.

[metal56]

But placing "meaning" before grammar was that all important first step for me.

It's a step that many language teachers around the world seem never to take.

To our loss.

[metal56]

Perhaps if we knew why Lawler was accused of being a descriptivist I'd be able to comment further.

My apologies for not including the link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/ ... ining.html

[fluffyhamster]

Just the other day I was sorely tempted to tell a JTE to use (abu's? ) "directionality arrows" (TM). The context was he hadn't explained the difference between 'afraid of' and 'scary' (for some reason the book doesn't have 'scared (of)') and was letting the students come up with their own explanation (which they of course couldn't and didn't).

SCARY--> / (-->) SCARED (of)

(N/A) / (-->) AFRAID (of)


The arrows obviously denote the direction of the "force" (that can engender said emotion).

(There's also 'frightened' etc, and let's not forget the "in-between" -ing forms e.g. 'Stop it! You're scaring the baby!').

Al Pacino says he's scary in 'Heat'...he ain't seen me spank a JTE.

[jotham]

I read an interesting note from Bryan Garner, who describes himself as a descriptive prescriptionist. He says the difference is parallel to the difference between musicologists and musicians. Musicians, like the grammarians, teach people how to trill or how not to vibrato, according to the accepted standards of the field. The musicologists, scientifically bound, just observe and record musical phenomena for history. Musicologists don't interfere with musicians as they teach others how to vibrato, or other musical skills. Unfortunately, the scientific linguists tell grammarians to stop teaching people how to speak or write more fluently, thoughtfully, or more educated. (To the linguists, speech is spontaneous and a native speaker can never make a mistake or be wrong, just as a whale in nature can never utter a wrong whale cry.) Garner points out that things work much more smoothly, as in the music scenario, if grammarians were free to guide people into good usage while the linguists scientifically record the success or failure of such guidance in the language around them.
Bryan Garner is the author of Garner's Modern American Usage in an article entitled "Making Peace in the Language Wars."

[metal56]

He says the difference is parallel to the difference between musicologists and musicians. Musicians, like the grammarians, teach people how to trill or how not to vibrato, according to the accepted standards of the field.

Problem is, there is no universally accepted standard in the field of English usage, so Mr Garner's comparison is of no use.

[jotham]

That's right, there isn't a standard, nor can there be, as far as science is concerned, because science is about observable facts. Good usage relies on judgement, which is opinion. And so, if a musician performs well, brings tears to people's eyes, and moves people's hearts; such a skill is related to art, and not science. We can't deny that there are musicians much more skilled than others. We have to rely on our subjective feelings more than our logic to understand what is skilled and what makes a performance beautiful. So it is with writing and speaking: there are people who write very well, have good word choice, and put their point across effectively, and even entertainingly; and they are good because they have learned and they exercise good judgement. We can't deny that there is such a thing as good and bad writers; this has to do with judgement concerning word choice and structure. Science usually can't tell us the why of these things or somehow replace good judgement when it comes to the skill or art in anything; it just observes the phenomena and records it for posterity. Let the artists, who are purported to be skilled in a given era, decide what is skilled; and let the unskilled learn. Art and science can work hand in hand. Each has its place, and shouldn't try to usurp the other's domain. Linguists generally don't try to discover good usage or declare standards, and for good reason: because it isn't a scientific endeavor. But neither should they stanch those (like the skilled artist) who do. Let the artist produce and teach others to produce, and let the scientist observe and note.

[Stephen Jones]

Prescriptivists such as Garner or Louis Menand are not skilled artists so much as tone deaf critics trying to tell the musicians they don't know how to play.

[jotham]

But you treat everybody as if they were untrained, nevertheless expert, musicians. If musicians are trained, with years of instruction, correction, and experience, then you are right: they probably need little further training. Then they are probably qualified to be a teacher themselves and can turn their attention to training other budding musicians. The mistake I fear you are making is in assuming that people are naturally born musicians. I suppose it is possible of very few musical geniuses, such as Mozart, who was composing symphonies at 5, or some ridiculously early age. When it comes to most musicians, they go through many years of training and correction to become expert. Likewise, no one would assume that people can write well naturally. Writing is a difficult process and requires training and practice to do it well. Those who write (or speak) well are qualified to teach others who don't. It's education, not arrogance. One important distinction might help: prescriptionists are primarily concerned about writing and descriptionists don't pretend to be. Descriptionists mostly record speech patterns of populations whether they be standard or dialect, usually without making subjective judgements about what patterns are more effective communication vehicles, or sometimes, even when they might be inappropriate in certain situations. Generally, they just dispassionately keep tabs of all words ever spoken by natives. They make a legitimate contribution to our society— but so do prescriptionists. If you want guidance about how to better communicate, you wouldn't go to a linguist; you would go to a grammarian. If you wanted a historical record of dialects, or wanted to track speech-pattern changes, you would visit the linguist. They have different points of interest and focus. They should recognize each other's contribution.

[metal56]

If you want guidance about how to better communicate, you wouldn't go to a linguist; you would go to a grammarian.

Why?

[lolwhites]

Students who've been trained in grammar to the detriment of other skills can have a lot of trouble communicating in real life, and I've known students who could get their message across even though their grammar was awful.

[jotham]

If you want guidance about how to better communicate, you wouldn't go to a linguist; you would go to a grammarian.

Why?

Because linguists, in the capacity of linguist, are scientists who observe the language scientifically, which means they probably loathe advising anyone on subjective opinions as to what words or expressions are best suited in a particularly situation (they may limit themselves to identifying words as standard, dialect, or slang — but not much else). That would be outside the scientific field and beneath the profession. It is possible, however, that a person could be good at both art and science in the field, just like a musicologist could also be a concert pianist. Such a musicologist could also give guidance on piano technique, and a linguist who writes very well and clearly (which I hear is generally not the case) would love to guide others in good usage and wouldn't shy away from acknowledging and encouraging subjective standards. I suppose it is rare for grammarians to be interested in the linguists' work and vice versa, but they should at least respect and appreciate it.
Lol, anyone can communicate, even if not speaking the same language, using a lot of help from gestures, body language, facial expressions, intonation, eye contact, and the like. But the skill I'm talking about is that of using words alone, on their own strength, to home in the message. Many people who rely on gestures and other visual cues, or even oral cues, ("Do as I mean, and not as I say") to aid their verbal communication because their words aren't clear on their own are probably at a loss when writing: writing forces them to forsake such mechanisms and focus solely on words.

[Stephen Jones]

All this musicologist/musician metaphor is merely clouding the issue.

We have 'artists' who tell people how to write effectively. The universities are full of teachers of composition or creative writing.

But the grammar nudniks, as Pinker calls them, do not concern themselves with giving advice on how to write. Rather they wish to pass off their half-formed personal prejudice as objective rules, instead of being a personal collection of the flotsam and jetsam of 250 years of ignorant pedantry.

Would you accept a surgeon who declined to study anatomy because that was the prerogative of the scientists and he was an artist, and people would often refer him to scientists who spend so much of their time in the lab looking at dead corpses?

[Anuradha Chepur]

If you want guidance about how to better communicate, you wouldn't go to a linguist; you would go to a grammarian.

But grammar is a branch of linguistics.
Knowing grammar is like knowing the mechanism of a car, speaking a language is like driving a car.
A grammarian can teach you the mechanism of a language.