Oxymoron

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:54 am

I didn't say you were condescending for anything you said. I just said I can understand why most linguists can be when their starting point for understanding grammarians is one of ethics.
Ethics? Would you call it ethics if a piano instructor says that the second finger would be better than the third on a trill to make it more clear and even? Is it ethics to say that a certain shade of blue brings out a more somber, or more serene atmosphere than another shade? What does ethics have to do with clarifying that you stand on a podium, but stand behind a lectern to keep a clear distinction and better communicate? I agree with you that it departs from science, but I beg to differ that it enters the ethics realm. The condescension behind that view — and I admit it can be unconscious — would have us believe that the grammarian has a certain religious or moral belief (which are considered to be personal) and tries to make everyone worship or believe that way. Of course forcing religious belief is wrong. But better grammar is like better piano technique. You are free to practice it or not, but if you want to go to a prestigious piano school, you will definitely want to be fluent in piano technique. Likewise if you want to enter the professional world, standard grammar is just one of the basics and the least you can do to assure access. Better education and honed skills (and not just speaking and writing skills) equips you for more mentally challenging jobs.
I guess I could see the point about ethics if it has to do with four-letter words in formal writing or talking to or writing for kids. I can acknowledge ethics in that as I'm sure the linguist would too.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

MrPedantic
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:45 pm

Post by MrPedantic » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:46 am

I'm not sure whether you saw the part about rhetoric, Jotham:
But statements of this kind belong to the realm of ethics – or rhetoric:

3. It is fine/not fine to say X.
4. People should/should not say X.

— "ethics", if the speaker's concern is moral; "rhetoric", if the speaker's concern is stylistic.
"Rhetoric" as in the trivium, of course; not in its pejorative sense.

A statement such as "you should not castigate other people for saying between you and I" would qualify for the ethics badge. Many disagreements on ESL and Linguistics forums are (essentially) of this nature.

MrP

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:17 am

A statement such as "you should not castigate other people for saying between you and I" would qualify for the ethics badge.
I can concede that point. But this isn't said by grammarians; this is a linguist's concern. So it is the linguist that enters the ethical realm talking about political and personal beliefs and justifying it as the scientific realm. The linguists have brought ethics into the debate, no doubt. It's just like saying the rich should be taxed more. It's for a perceived, ethical rationale: it's fair to the poor.
Actually, the above grammar problem you mentioned is overcorrection. People have been so ingrained to say you and I at the beginning of the sentence, that they do it all the time. It isn't an ethical issue concerning poor people's speech or the quiddities of a certain dialect; educated people who strive for good grammar do it. But still, with a better example — like might could — I hear what you're saying. We try to strike a balance between prescription and description.
In a situation in which professionalism and quality is a concern, in which a lot of money is payed and earned — for example, at an expensive, high-class restaurant — we can't discriminate against piano players who have only two years' formal instruction but can nevertheless play really good blue grass by ear, and pick and grin. They're nice people and can provide some form of entertainment — albeit limited, since such a person is probably unable to do requests in other musical genres that require at least some formal musical training, like classical or jazz, etc. And the patrons of that restaurant, without necessarily snubbing their nose at blue grass, may nevertheless prefer those genres requiring training — just as corporate officials may prefer and communicate in standard English, and even better English, which often requires further training as well. If you're playing piano at a certain kind of bar, however, or if you're a factory worker, high qualifications for piano or speaking skills won't be deemed necessary.
I don't know that it has so much to do with ethics as it does surviving, or following your dream. As an educator, I want all my students, rich or poor, to receive the same education in English to level their chances in the real world and to equip them to follow dreams otherwise denied them. If I respected bad grammar in some of my students to the point that I decided it's unnecessary to teach them a better or another way, I might condemn certain of them forever to poverty. It's extreme, but you could say that about math, reading, science, or problem-solving skills.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am

I'm afraid your analogy doesn't wash. In fact if the 'grammarian's' plan for piano technique was followed yoou'd still be banging with your fists, since shifts in meaning are of the essence of language.

'Between you and I' may have started out as a hyper-correction but it is becoming increasingly common. It might irritate me no end because of its perceived prissiness, but appears to be firmly entrenched (186,000 hits to 910,000 for the 'correct' alternative, so neither are going away any time soon). There is also the tendency of many people to use 'I" as the emphatic form where others would use 'me', and the belief that the emphatic form should follow 'and'.

To complain that one is 'good' grammar and the other not, is as stupid as a math teacher claiming that seven is a silly number and students who wish to get on should avoid it. But of course 'grammarians' feel justified in making statements that in any other field would result in their being committed to a mental asylum.

With 'podium' and 'lectern' we have another problem; one word stealing another's space. The only question to be asked is how widespread it is; if 'podium' is more widely used than 'lectern' to describe a 'lectern', then only an idiot, or a 'grammarian', would wish to maintain the distinction.

With 'might could' we come to a question of dialect. It is not part of standard English and thus not suitable for discourse with speakers of those dialects of English where stacked modals don't occur

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:33 pm

if the 'grammarian's' plan for piano technique was followed yoou'd still be banging with your fists, since shifts in meaning are of the essence of language.
You correctly recognize that piano technique evolves. Pianists have to be versatile in the techniques of every era since they play music in all the genres and not just the present. Fortunately, in language, we don't need to be fluent in the old ways of speaking and writing, even though we read them from time to time. We try to understand the principles of communication for the era we're in, utilize them for the best communication, and teach others who live in the same era to do so as well. But grammarians don't really have and never had the power to influence the fundamental character or evolution of language.
Language characteristics — just as in architecture and music — mirror the philosophical movements of the eras. The grammarians have been teaching effective and maximal communication in their respective eras for a long time without stopping the ebb and flow of the times. What is effective communication in 1700 is not effective in 2007.
In the Baroque and Classical (Enlightenment) period, music was aristocratic and intellectual; writing was in very, very long sentences and ornate. In the Romantic period, a reaction took place and music became emotional and nationalistic; writing tended to favor the common people (as opposed to the nobles). It was short and to the point. This style still influences today's writing, at least in American. The grammarian and linguist can influence and involve themselves in the movements of the time just as other academians do, but grammarians can no more hinder these movements than linguists can hasten them. All we can do is live in the times and make the best of them. The only power we have is either to discern the principles and actively embrace them for most effective communication, or discern the principles and fatalistically brush them off on the grounds that they will just change next century, and thus they're futile in this.
When it comes to between you and I, irregardless, and lectern, they are just minor details in this era. Individually, they are neither right nor wrong, but added together, they can create a composite effect that reveal carefulness and attention to detail. On a job interview, if someone says irregardless and wears a tie askew, it isn't a sin and probably won't result in a failure to get a job. But if added to that, a person says ain't a lot for no meaningful reason, and has ketchup on the pocket of their white shirt; and says might could and leaves their fly open; and slips in a between you and I and wears the shirt a little untucked at the side — the composite picture might give the impression that such a person won't value details on the job as well, as opposed to the one who observes these minor, yet important, personal niceties. The person who attends to the details of personal appearance and who speaks clearly, succintly, and intelligently will be deemed more competent to lead and solve problems than the person who arrives 15 minutes late in slippers and night cap, with resume crumpled in pocket, and mumbling simple five-word sentences with glaring grammatical mistakes. The devil's in the details. It's up to you to heed them or not. But science doesn't care one way or other about this — which is not to say they aren't important. And neither should science disdain people who heed them or who teach others who are interested in them.

Post Reply