Initial Response to "Tense Present"

I can understand how in class it was discussed that David Foster Wallace is good at going in and out of different dialects. However, it seemed to me that within this piece his primary dialect is the same he would use when talking to friends. It was witty, sometimes sarcastic, and a little quirky for most of the article. Rarely, I sensed a tinge of self-given superiority, especially when he was referring to the opposing viewpoints on the methods that should be used when defining words and setting grammatical rules.

It seemed to me that a good bulk of the article addressed his ideal method and state of mind for use in setting those rules and definitions. He called the necessary factor a "Democratic Spirit." In his words , "A democratic spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."

In other words, those in the position to change and define our accepted English language (and write books that will do such things, such as dictionaries) should be someone without bias, with a great respect and love for the English language, and without a need or want to further themselves. (One such person he points out is a fellow by the name of Garner). This is a very logical statement, which I happen to agree with.

He also points out the flaws in the ideas of two groups which he calls "descriptivists" and "prescriptivists."

The way I read it:

Descriptivist: Work under the idea that expression is the most important thing about language. They also apparently back up letting the definitions and rules flow with the population's use of language. Descriptivism apparently took over the U.S. school system around the 1970's.

Prescrptivists: The kind of guys that Wallace refers to as SNOOTS. They are the rule setters. They are the ones with the final word on the language - to hell with the way commoners talk. They do, after all, have actual knowledge of the traditional language and its uses. Why let mis-use turn into the right thing?

I personally lean a little more towards descriptivist. But I can see why we would need prescriptivists. We need one good solid rule-set and dialect so we can effectively communicate to a wider population. Not everyone speaks valley girl, for example.

And as Wallace writes, our one solid rule-set and dialect is SWE, or Standard Written English. In the part where he quotes his speech to his class, he admits that it is upheld and used mainly by old white guys. And as racist as that might sound, it makes sense. Old white guys started this country and this dialect - this spin off of Old British English. And of course it has mutated over the years. It has to, because the way we use the language DOES change.

So in my opinion, the best way to handle all of this, all of the rules and definitions, and those in charge - the best way is to merge the two. Have a solid foundation and universal language with set rules. But acknowledge that uses will change within different dialects and that expression is indeed very important (as well as being understood). Of course, this goes along with the idea of "Democratic Spirit." To be democratic, you have to allow all possibilities. Hmm. Of course, you also end up voting and doing away with the other possibilities. Maybe we should all pick our favorite viewpoint and fight for its life?