(Inappropriate opinion-based response)
I really liked the chances this Pinker fellow took. He made bold statements about the proper-usage of English, and took a couple of stabs at conservative elitist views on grammar (take that SNOOTS).
The first example to come to mind, in regards to proper-usage, involved a parent-child dispute. "I could care less," the child says. Pinker believes the parent might point out how that is an incorrect way to get that point across. If you COULD care less, you do. You are trying to say that you care the least amount you can, which should be said, "I couldn't care less," (or, "I don't care.") Pinker pokes the parent in the eye with the idea that the angst-filled child is employing sarcasm. Oh, the greatness that is sarcasm. The children are saying they could care less, but meaning the opposite. Pinker believes this is because we all have an innate and natural grasp of correctness, as far as language.
As much as I like that idea, and as much as it might be true, I don't think it's true here. I think the parent doesn't see it as sarcasm. This is not a common sarcastic phrase. Not even the child sees it as sarcasm. I have personally never heard either version of the phrase spoken sarcastically. This mistake really is a mistake.
The eye-poke I was most fond of in this article? The poke in the face of British aristocrats, and consequently, current day SNOOTS. Pinker pointed out that the current-day elitist view on grammar and language dates back to the 18th century. Back in old London, all the old fogies wanted to distinguish themselves from the fodder through use of their great language: English. At the time, Latin was regarded as divine and enlightened, so they decided then to incorporate aspects of Latin into English. Unfortunately for us, the languages are greatly different, grammatically.
This is the root of all the grammatical problems we have today, according to Pinker. I believe that, for the most part, it makes sense. Pinker gives multiple examples of "improper usage" and explains how correct it actually is logically. Usually you can see a line drawn directly back to these early days of elitist SNOOTism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
When I did my interview with Grasso, he was talking about the "gatekeeper" approach to teaching, where teachers are the holders of knowledge and they can choose who to let in and what should be taught. this is the way I think of Snoots and prescriptivists. It seems like they like grammar for the sake of being knowledgeable. But then again, someone like Beason proves that the Snoots have it. At least in the business world.
Well, that's a pretty poop way to describe teaching in a way. It almost seems like holding back.
I once heard it said that teachers are merely aids in learning. They help us teach ourselves. I thought that was a pretty optimistic way to look at it. It isn't entirely true though. I don't think I'm teaching myself when Professor Grasso explains the background and different meanings of writings that I didn't know or think of.
It seems that all of us find something we do not like about Pinker. Why do you suppose this is?
Because a good majority of humans are the glass-half-empty kind of people.
Post a Comment