Sunday, September 21, 2008

The following is an effort to summarize "The Scandal of Prescriptivism" by David Mulroy.

Currently, there are negative stereotypes associated with those who use grammar incorrectly, and those concerned with correct usage. Most of the grammatical mistakes made today are found within the groups of children, the poor, and minorities. This strengthens the negative stereotypes associated with incorrect grammar usage. Also, those who are preoccupied with correctness are often seen as old, stuck up, and arbitrary. Despite these negative associations, the continuation of a solid, correct dialect is still useful.

Having one accepted appropriate broadens the numbers of people one can effectively communicate with. To understand how that is so, consider what Caxton wrote in the preface to his Eneydos translation, within which a fellow travels not-so-far from home and eventually asks a lady for eggs. The women replies to him that she can not speak French, when in reality, neither of the two could, the lack of understanding spawned from the differences in the English dialects at the time.

The need for a common dialect was and is apparent. In the past, it was difficult attempting to unite everyone under one dialect, until the popularity of dictionaries allowed everyone to study one grammatical dialect.

[Insert quote from Pinker's piece which we have just read for class, then insert a subsequent quote from an Illinois professor by the name of Hook, and finally insert the debilitating counter-points that both writers do not directly cite those whom they attack, but instead use pop-culture references to prove their points, as opposed to the more tasteful use of Bible versus and such.]

Some points that Pinker brought up in opposition to prescriptivist ideas are correct, and some are wrong or inappropriate for the point being made. His idea that we all communicate effectively and grammatically through natural and unlearned methods is denied by the fact that while writing the piece to prove the point, Pinker exhibits appropriate use of punctuation and grammatical features not possibly known with having been taught. The idea that grammar is entirely instinctual is unlikely.

Resulting from the popular fad of bashing grammatical correctness and its being taught, teachers are trained to be nice, and avoid possibly offending children by not correcting their grammatical mistakes.

This is greatly ineffective in continuing a solid central dialect. There is, however, a popular reason for learning our current standard dialect (SWE). It is said that if one wants to make it in the business or academic world, one must understand the language or dialect used by those parties. This is actually a cynical way to look at it, because it assumes that understanding the central dialect has no uses other than to gain popularity with groups (when in fact, there are greater reasons to understand SWE, or whatever the standard is for your language).

18 comments:

Steve said...

What do you make of Mulroy's attempts to defend Lowth against Pinker's description of him?

katie beth said...

that was an intense summary. so who wins in the lowth, pinker, mulroy squabble?

brandonmichael5 said...

Steve,

I think he did a great job (and used more credible means than Pinker would.) But, I actually think Pinker's way of using current-day pop references hits people in a more understandable way.

Katie,

No one. I think no one can really win in this debate.

kasey mckinzie said...

I agree Brandon. Arguing about this almost seems futile.

A.R.B. said...

What other means are there to use SWE besides getting ahead in the world? Is that why you used SWE in your post, wanting a good grade?

Anonymous said...

Think about the world we live in for a moment--what else is there to do but 'get ahead?' Sure, some folks get by without SWE...but the majority? Just a thought.

brandonmichael5 said...

I used SWE!? haha

I guess I did, but maybe with some mistakes here and there. I think I used it, above all else, because it is what I'm accustomed to using. And close behind is the fact that everyone reading it understands it. That's usually my goal when writing, to make it understandable while expressing an idea of mine.
I guess those could be alternative ways of getting ahead in themselves (while still using SWE). You won't get anywhere if you aren't understood.

Well, if you step back and take in the entire world - you'd be forced to allow in more default written languages other than SWE. There are different spoken languages, and if they are doing it right, they should all also have a central written language. That idea alone tells me that a bunch of folks get ahead without using SWE. Of course, they use their versions of SWE. And actually, most importantly, even within different languages and dialects, your skills needed to get ahead differ greatly on what profession you are under. Farmers don't have much need for SWE for example. I bet reclusive video game designers don't have much need for it either (they are more fluent in the language of programming, and are most likely ordered to do things with spoken language).

Thank you for agreeing Kasey. I don't know how I'd back up that conclusion entirely, but it was the first thing to come to mind really. I guess you could say that it is all a matter of opinion - which would render all arguments unable to "win".

Anonymous said...

Its funny... i had the same debate with someone in the working world. Whats funny is that they say the same thing about proper gammar, how it affects their view of people and intelligence. But I guarentee there grammar isn't so proper to a learned, college English student. The working world is a joke.

brandonmichael5 said...

Well, it wouldn't matter who you are talking or writing to. Bad grammar makes you look bad no matter what. Even without being taught, we can hear when something just doesn't sound right.

Tommy said...

Good article review. Beside's the academic and business world, where else would one find SWE superior over one's particular dialect. Just for the sake of argument, haven't there been a lot of people succeed without SWE?

Holly Fipps said...

I also feel that some teachers are too afraid to point out the grammatical flaws their students make in composition. I think there should be a common dialect everyone can use and follow and that teachers should not worry about offending their students when correcting them. That's what we have teachers for; to teach us.

Steve said...

To point out that some people succeed without knowing SWE (or SW Spanish or SW Chinese, etc.) is not the same as saying that SWE does not help people succeed.

There is a question, though, about what "success" is, and our tendency to think of it in terms of money and power.

Steve said...

One of my (unrealistic?) hopes for this class is that students will think twice before using the phrase "bad grammar" to describe the language use of someone who uses a dialect other than SWE.

brandonmichael5 said...

Tommy,

Steve answered before I could. But, yes, think about the Jeffersons. They got to move on up, to the east side, and eventually into a deluxe apartment in the sky - and I'm quite sure they didn't employ a perfect spoken verson of Standard Written English. (Not a serious response, I know).

Holly,

Well, I'm not entirely sure they are afraid of correcting mistakes grammar-wise. But, I do notice how students can get through Comp. 1 and 2 and still not know grammar (in general) as well as they should. I would be willing to bet that more than one hard-to-understand paper has been turned in as a final draft. That might be a chance to point out how wrong a student is. Fill their paper with red ink. It wouldn't hit as hard as bringing it up in class though.

Steve,

I think it is like I.Q. (or just intelligence). It is a measure of one's problem solving potential. An Alaskan goat farmer can solve plenty of problems, and is therefore intelligent. The head of a business, likewise, solves plenty of problems, and is just as intelligent. Both just specialize in different problem solving techniques and are confronted with different problems to begin with.

The same can be said about one's ability to "succeed". But, I think that is what you were already getting at.

Steve said...

Is filling a paper with red ink comparable to making a student stand on the kind of wall of shame that Adam described in his autogrammography?

Steve said...

What I meant when I raised the question about "success" is that we tend to assume that everyone wants to be rich and powerful when there may be other ways to experience success. This is something worth considering when you are advocating instruction in SWE.

Michaela said...

So, basically, this fight is over who is smarter (more intelligent)?
Great.

brandonmichael5 said...

Steve,

I don't see red ink as a wall of shame at all. I see it as, "Well crap, I'm not as good as I thought." After that, I try and learn and fix things.

Yep Yep, agreed. One can definitely experience success without using SWE, or without experiencing today's popular view of success.

Michaela,

I dunno. Maybe.